"I didn't come here to make Hillsboro different. I came here to defend the right to be different. And that's the point." Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution. Starring Dick York, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly.
The people of Hillsboro were caught between (in their view) defending the Lord and saving face as the country ridiculed them. Popular opinion is a strong thing, but if you have a conviction, you should stand up for it. So I can understand both sides of the issue in that light.
The film makes it seem as though the whole world accepts evolution aside from this small community, which is just not the case. Over fifty years later, a considerable percentage of the country accepts some version of creation. A newspaper making the bold pro-evolution claims that we see in this film, even if done today, would get some concerned letters. The Catholic Church may accept evolution as of the 1950s, but this does not mean the people in the pews do.
Today we see some parallels with intelligent design. A pro-Darwin argument could be that all ideas should be presented, whether right or wrong, to let the students decide. Today, this is much the point of the intelligent design group. The difference is that Darwin is backed by science, of course. (I hesitate to go further for fear of offending anyone.) What a wonder about films with political messages is whether all the actors support the messages or simply accept the role as part of their job. It would certainly seem that to be part of a film means you endorse it, but I am unsure. Gary Cooper starred in "High Noon" while remaining anti-communist, so it is hard to say for certain where a job ends and a conviction begins.
I do have to say the judge in the film is remarkably fair. One might expect him to naturally side with the people of Hillsboro, but he is pretty even-handed. He sustains objections that a more biased judge might let slide. I am impressed. The argument against the literal interpretation of the Bible is very well stated, and the judge probably should have stepped in at some point during this... it is quite the badgering of a witness, and of questionable relevancy. (Although, the prosecution at no time objected, so they are at fault, too.)
The people of Hillsboro were caught between (in their view) defending the Lord and saving face as the country ridiculed them. Popular opinion is a strong thing, but if you have a conviction, you should stand up for it. So I can understand both sides of the issue in that light.
The film makes it seem as though the whole world accepts evolution aside from this small community, which is just not the case. Over fifty years later, a considerable percentage of the country accepts some version of creation. A newspaper making the bold pro-evolution claims that we see in this film, even if done today, would get some concerned letters. The Catholic Church may accept evolution as of the 1950s, but this does not mean the people in the pews do.
Today we see some parallels with intelligent design. A pro-Darwin argument could be that all ideas should be presented, whether right or wrong, to let the students decide. Today, this is much the point of the intelligent design group. The difference is that Darwin is backed by science, of course. (I hesitate to go further for fear of offending anyone.) What a wonder about films with political messages is whether all the actors support the messages or simply accept the role as part of their job. It would certainly seem that to be part of a film means you endorse it, but I am unsure. Gary Cooper starred in "High Noon" while remaining anti-communist, so it is hard to say for certain where a job ends and a conviction begins.
I do have to say the judge in the film is remarkably fair. One might expect him to naturally side with the people of Hillsboro, but he is pretty even-handed. He sustains objections that a more biased judge might let slide. I am impressed. The argument against the literal interpretation of the Bible is very well stated, and the judge probably should have stepped in at some point during this... it is quite the badgering of a witness, and of questionable relevancy. (Although, the prosecution at no time objected, so they are at fault, too.)