Inherit the Wind (1988 TV Movie) User Reviews

An interesting misfire on the Lawrence - Lee play

[theowinthrop · 7/10 · 20 February 2006]

This 1988 version of INHERIT THE WIND tried a slightly different approach to the story than the film or the 1965 versions. Apparently there was a deeper delving into the historical material (and - unlike the period of the film and the first dramatic version on television - the resurgence of anti - evolutionary voters in the country) to make the story fairer.

Jason Robards played Drummond/Darrow very well - in the tradition of Muni, Tracy, and Melvyn Douglas. But it was the performance of Kirk Douglas as Brady/Bryan that was unique. As I have mentioned elsewhere in these reviews, Bryan did have valid reasons to dislike Darwinism aside from religious feelings. The issue of Social Darwinism, created by an English elitist snob named Herbert Spencer, had been grabbed by various people in power positions in big business and politics that suggested that the best people were the top of the evolutionary tree - and that big business had the right to destroy small competitors due to "survival of the fittest". Bryan hated this idea, as opposite to Jeffersonian Democracy. He actually intended, after his own humiliation on the witness stand by Darrow to put Darrow on the stand to explain his acceptance of Social Darwinism. Judge Raulston, the trial judge, refused to allow this.

If that had been brought out in this production, it would have set it apart and given a more balanced view of the two parties who clashed in Dayton. Instead, Douglas played Brady like a revivalist (similar to Begley, without Begley's physical resemblance to Bryan). But he also kept trying to keep up the friendly feelings that Darrow and Bryan had when both were fighting on the same side on political issues from 1893 to 1908. While all the productions include those moments of nostalgia between them, this attempted to suggest that Douglas/Brady hoped to "save" the soul of Robards/Drummond. It was a curious idea, but it just did not seem realistic (given their diametrically opposite views on evolution and the Tennessee law). I give this a 7 for the production but the approach was a misfire.

See one of the other two versions instead.

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 2 July 2004]

Weakest of the three versions of the story of the Scopes Trial this version suffers from shortening, rewriting and worst of all commercials.

This isn't to say its bad, its not. The problem is that compared to the original Spencer Tracy film this film comes off as a good summer stock to the originals Broadway show case.

The cast is game. Kirk Douglas is perhaps a bit odd at first as the William Jennings Bryan character, but after a few minutes he slips into the groove and all is fine. Jason Robards' is excellent, unfortunately there is something about the way this was put together for TV that kills his momentum in the home stretch.

Seeing this with out commercials doesn't help since the pauses still are there.

If its on try it, but if you must see some version of this go for one of the other two.

Well, they tried!!

[standardmetal · 6/10 · 11 October 2003]

I thought Jason Robards was good as Darrow even if he didn't erase the memory of Spencer Tracy from my mind but I thought the usually fine Kirk Douglas was miscast as William Jennings Bryan (who was a glutton, not a movie star!) and didn't come close to Frederic March who even looked like Bryan. (Admittedly, Spencer always looked like Spencer.) He was reduced to playing the part as if it was Elmer Gantry and when Jason said that "a giant once lived in that body!" I didn't believe him for one second.

And where the old black and white version suggested the oppressive heat and humidity of Dayton, Tennessee, this one didn't even come close. Darren McGavin who played H. L. Mencken was quite good though and easily erased the memory of Gene Kelly in the original. And I've always adored Jean Simmons in most of what she did. Kyle Secor was the Scopes character (I mistook him for Matthew Broderick) and was very adequate.

I'd be interested to see (again?) the 1965 TV version with Melvyn Douglas and Ed Begley but I don't remember it at all if I did see it.

The Right To Think, Still On Trial

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 25 January 2009]

My thoughts on this remake of Inherit The Wind and the slant that it was given arise from one thing only, the possibility in early 1988 that Pat Robertson would be a presidential candidate. The main difference between the classic 1960 version and this television one is that Matthew Harrison Brady is considering yet a fourth run for the presidency. To bring the country back to God, or at least his version of God. Listening to Kirk Douglas as Brady and remembering the times that this television film was made, the context is essential to understand what was going on.

In real life of course William Jennings Bryan was thoroughly cured of the presidential bug by 1925. He was still very much an influence in the party, especially in rural areas such as Eastern Tennessee where the Scopes Trial took place. In real life Bryan would have been 68 in 1928 had he lived and I'm willing to bet he'd have fought mightily against the nomination of the Roman Catholic Alfred E. Smith.

In this version a lot of business is eliminated including the contempt citation that defense lawyer Henry Drummond is given and a favorite scene of mine where Brady is holding court for the press in the hotel restaurant, enjoying heaping helpfuls of roast beef and mashed potatoes while Drummond sits in the foreground with a tuna sandwich and a glass or milk.

The confrontation climax with Brady and Drummond is still basically the same with the added dialog about Brady maybe running for president again to bring the USA back to God. Again written for the 1988 television audience.

Jason Robards, Jr. is far closer to the truth of Clarence Darrow in his Henry Drummond than Spencer Tracy. Darrow was not as noble a creature as Tracy makes him out, but his performance did get him an Academy Award nomination. Robards is a lot more sneaky, still for me the best interpretation of Clarence Darrow is Orson Welles as Jonathan Wilk in Compulsion.

Kirk Douglas gets reunited with his Spartacus co-star Jean Simmons playing Mrs. Brady. By all accounts the real Mrs. Bryan was a very wise woman capable of a brake on her high flying husband when needed.

When I wrote a review for the 1960 Inherit the Wind which I did see in theaters back in the day, I said that the film was done from a quaint nostalgia point of view about what silly things we believed and fought over and how America had grown up in the interim. In 1960 who would have believed that fundamentalist Christianity would have a stranglehold on one of our major parties. This version of Inherit The Wind sadly takes that into account.

Worth seeing Jason Robards as Clarence Darrow

[Hythlodaeus · 7/10 · 1 September 2014]

I'm a little unusual as far as movies and books go. I will love a horrible story or movie for one good idea, one good scene or one good actor.

This was that film. I saw it when it was first aired when I was 14 and it made an impression on me. We had read the play a year earlier in 7th grade but it was Jason Robard's portrayal of the playfully witty grumpy grandpa who made the movie.

If you like Robards this movie cannot be missed. His portrayal of an ideal Atheist is good, even if it the reality of Clarence Darrow's personality. The way he gives sage advise to Cates about "Golden Dancer" - "Bert, whenever you see something bright, shining, perfect-seeming—all gold, with purple spots—look behind the paint! And if it's a lie—show it up for what it really is!" - cannot be beat. Robard's perfect rendition of this epic metaphor for a young man to follow in his hard and often lonely search for truth is what makes this film.

As an adult now, I have seen the classic version of this but there are benefits to this old made for TV movie - if you can find it, see it - and also drop me a line about where I can find it - I had my old VHS for years but can't find it!

Inherit the Wind and the Golden Age of Movie Trivia

[malvernp · 7/10 · 14 August 2020]

This made for TV film version of the famous Lawrence and Lee Broadway success is a very enjoyable presentation, and captures two splendid veteran actors doing exceptional work in the twilight of their careers. During the years since its original theatrical release, there have been two more made for TV film versions of Inherit the Wind (IW). Each of the four performances has champions and critics. All of them are interesting and worth seeing. None is dull and to be avoided. That in itself is rather remarkable. The four versions are:

(1) 1960 theatrical film starring Fredric March and Spencer Tracy.

(2) 1965 made for TV film starring Ed Begley and Melvyn Douglas.

(3) 1988 made for TV film starring Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards.

(4) 1999 made for TV film starring George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.

Something very interesting happens when these four versions are considered as one body of work. Let me explain. For simplicity, I'll refer to each version by its indicated number.

Item: Three of the eight actors who played leading roles in the four versions of IW also played the identical leading roles in either a theatrical or TV film version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They are Fredric March (1), Spencer Tracy (1) and Kirk Douglas (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared in Days of Wine and Roses. The man starred in the theatrical movie version, and the woman originated the female leading role in the earlier TV version. They are Jack Lemmon (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film Spartacus. They are Kirk Douglas (3) and Jean Simmons (3).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in one version of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Piper Laurie (4).

Item: Two actors who had principal roles in two different versions of IW also appeared as co-stars in the film The Hustler. They are George C. Scott (4) and Murray Hamilton (2).

Coincidence? Of course. But interesting? You bet!

My Fave!

[rgraber-1 · 7 February 2007]

I consider this the most entertaining of the three versions. Though I am a bigger fan of George C. Scott than of Kirk Douglas, I think that Douglas, supported consummately by Jason Robards, makes a far better Matthew Brady. I do like the original play, but I find that fidelity to an old original in many cases does not work well in making an entertaining movie. Now I hope someone will make a movie of the Intelligent-Design case in Pennsylvania recently. Inherit the Wind is based only very loosely on the actual Scopes Trial, which was "set up" as a test case by the ACLU (to which I gladly belong, nonetheless); the Pennsylvania case appears to have been a genuine spontaneous phenomenon, complete with elements of deceit, comedy, and sex!

unsatisfactory version of the classic tale

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 23 May 2009]

As a standalone TV movie, this version of 'Inherit The Wind' has some value, and has interesting leads (Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas). The trouble is it doesn't quite work, and was preceded by perhaps the greatest version (with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March) and followed by a superior television production (with Jack Lemmon and George C Scott).

This version seems slow and, because it was made with commercial breaks in mind, doesn't flow that well even if you watch it with the breaks omitted. For a script and film which relies on some quite deep dialogue which requires some concentration to keep the interest and the mood, having the breaks was a major mistake.

Not the best of the three versions by any means, but interesting to see. It just isn't the version I'll be going back to the most. Robards is OK, Douglas less so (he feels miscast), but the film is a bit of a turkey.

Religion is supposed to comfort people. It is not supposed to scare them to death.

[mark.waltz · 10/10 · 22 December 2021]

The play "Inherit the Wind" is not a support of atheism or agnostic beliefs, but the freedom of thinking and the questioning of facts in the Bible as written when compared to science. This is the third of four versions of the play, a bit shorter than the original movie and the last TV version made a decade later, yet equally as powerful as the original play and the filmed versions. It is based on a real-life incident from decades before, and was an analogy of real life incidents going on in the turbulence 1950's and 60's. The original film came out the same here as the powerful religious drama "Elmer Gantry" based on the Sinclair Lewis novel which also questioned the power and influence of organized religion. Ironically Jean Simmons who played the evangelist in that movie plays the wife of the prosecuting attorney, a bible-thumping former preacher now politician.

This is about the power of the brain to reason according to the character Clarence Drummond played by Jason Robards here, loosely based on Clarence Darrow. Kirk Douglas plays prosecuting attorney Matthew Harrison Brady, a fictional version of politician and preacher William Jennings Bryan, accusing Drummond of being both atheist and agnostic without having proof. The "monkey trial" is certainly an excellent metaphor for free thinking in a society house that often manipulates through people in power. Kyle Secor is the grade school teacher arrested for this "blasphemy" in a science class in a conservative religious town where the courthouse demands that the local residents read their Bible everyday. It's obvious that judge John Harkins is being manipulated by outside Powers as well, and as the trial becomes more of a circus, that point is hammered home.

I wish there was more footage of Darren McGavin as the hysterically cynical reporter covering the case, as every moment fee makes an observation is wry and witty and ironic. Douglas and Robards are terrific foes, old rivals who obviously admire each other even if they don't agree with their tactics. When Robards gets Douglas on the stand, it's the key to a great breakdown for Douglas who shows his inability to see past the words of God and corolate science may have had a play in what is written in Genesis.

While Douglas gives an emotional performance (and made to look up rather clownish), Robards gives a sly and funny performance, subtle and it's manipulation of the ridiculousness of the proceedings as a whole. He wins the case as far as I'm concerned at least through his acting, and if this play does prove everything, it is that a closed mind is not a healthy mind, and for that purpose, the play remains relevant in many ways. There is a sense through the witty irony in it that the audience will be able to compare this too many other incidents throughout the various times history where free-thinking was objected to. But even with that wit, there is also a sense of tragedy, especially for Douglas's character who is branded a fool through his constant breakdowns that shows his real character and his inability to become a public official.

Best of the bunch

[rvannieff · 7/10 · 26 November 2023]

I recently watched both this 1988 version and the 1999 version and I can't understand why this version is rated lower than the other two. Sure, there are good and bad points, as there are with both movies. The 1999 version has better production values, but not enough to lift it above TV movie fare. Some of the characters are a bit wooden and the acting is like reading lines, which are to be expected for a movie made for television.

But, the guts of this story is the courtroom battle between Brady and Drummond and any attempt at telling this story hinges on the characterizations of the two, their courtroom banter, and their clashing of ideals. Most of the lines in each movie are word for word so it's they way that they are delivered that sets them apart. Kirk Douglas and Jason Robards absolutely nail it. Both actors bring all their experience to their characters and the courtroom duel plays out with a fervour that the other versions just don't have. Small things like timing and pauses, and emphasis on particular words and sentences bring a sense of drama that raises the scene above the others. These two fine actors really make the movie worth watching and make it the definitive version. It's just a pity that it's so hard to find.

Not as good as the original

[HotToastyRag · 5/10 · 25 July 2017]

I loved the original Inherit the Wind. Fredric March gave one of the best film performances of all time, as the evangelical lawyer Matthew Harrison Brady in 1960. I knew going into it that the remake probably wouldn't be as good as the original, but I wanted to give it a chance, for Kirk Douglas's sake. He tried very hard, and had he not been following Fredric March, he would have given a great performance. But if you've seen the original, no one else can play Matthew Harrison Brady.

In case you haven't seen the original, the story is an adapted version of the famous Scopes Monkey trial in the 1920s. A teacher in America's Deep South, teaches his students about Charles Darwin, and he's arrested. The majority of the film takes place in the courtroom, as two legendary lawyers battle the issue. So, if you don't like one of the two lead actors, it will greatly affect your enjoyment of the film. I'm not a Spencer Tracy fan, but with Jason Robards taking his place in the remake, I began to appreciate Spence's performance better. I know there are some people out there who are Jason Robards fans, but I'm not one of them. He's just not likable, and he always seems tired, bored, slightly angry, and wishing he was anywhere but on a film set.

If you really like Kirk Douglas, you'll probably want to see this movie, but it's not nearly as good as the original. Jean Simmons plays Kirk's wife, and even though she gives a good performance, there was nothing really wrong with her predecessor, Florence Eldridge. Watch the original, and if you really enjoy the story and like Kirk Douglas, then you can rent this one.

The fight between creationist and evolutionist in schools

[sgomezv · 10/10 · 19 March 2002]

I'm a Spanish speaker, to tell the truth I don't know how to write in English. About the picture, its contents are specially interesting for whom, like me, are teachers, and have to fight with all kind of fanaticism that slave the minds of our students and their families. On the other hand, the performances of Kirk Douglas and Jason Robard, are really remarkable. The edition of the film is just great, its film rhythm is smooth and easy and the production is outstanding too. I wish we could get this picture in DVD. Sorry for my english.

Not bad, but...

[koth2 · 5/10 · 26 September 2018]

This version suffers compared to the Tracy/March and Lemmon/Scott versions. I believe that most of the budget was spent on hiring Darren McGavin, Jason Robards and Kirk Douglas. Several Characters have reduced roles. The character of Rev. Brown is essentially pointles.

Robards performance stands out.

[yenlo · 27 July 1999]

Not nearly as good as the 1960 original. Jason Robards performance as Henry Drummond stands out clearly as the highlight of the picture. If your going to watch this version include Stanley Kramers 1960 classic and make it a double feature.

Quality Performances, Quality Film

[CheshireCatsGrin · 10/10 · 24 April 2000]

Although it was not as good as the first, Inherit the Wind was as enjoyable. The performances changed the characters without changing the script much, and the acting was strong enough to pull it off. I did like both leads and have seen this version 5+ times. I have rented them both back to back, and enjoyed both versions as if they were totally different movies-believing this one can stand on it's own.

I have gone back and forth on which is better.

Sickening

[tomronning50 · 3/10 · 8 January 2020]

This may be the worst-produced TV movie ever. The actors seemed embarrassed. Spencer Tracy is spinning in his grave.

Better than expected

[SteveHoweTG · 8/10 · 1 May 2007]

I know, I know: The Kramer & Tracy original has become a true classic, but...I prefer THIS little masterpiece. There is a lot of little great points that makes this TV release much more than that: a) The characters performance. Not only Kirk Douglas (he really fit his character), not only Robards (so often a secondary actor), but also Jean Simmons, Darren McGavin and the Judge, even the little Rachel Brown or Kyle Secor. We can guess a master hand behind all these. b) The characters are very very well developed: Mathew Brady has much more power than Fredric March in 60s version (even we can intimate a little with him in moments as his speech at church), Robards owes nothing to the great Tracy. The journalist is here more interesting (more heavy, more cynical, more aged-atheist) than Gene Kelly. It's a good point the youthfulness and artlessness of both the teacher and fiancée c) The director, thought obviously more limited by budget, is capable to offer an equilibrated narration and some great moments (such as the confronted reception of Brady and Drummond)

Sometimes we were more impressed by the version the first saw, if this is good. Maybe this is also the case (I saw first the Green film).

Very Good

[Michael_Elliott · 20 June 2008]

Inherit the Wind (1988)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

The second of three remakes of the 1960 Spencer Tracy/Frederic March film once again takes a look at the infamous Scopes trial. The film centers on a teacher who is arrested for teaching the theory of evolution. A religious prosecutor (Kirk Douglas) takes on the defender (Jason Robards) in a case about the right to think. I personally think that the 1960 film is one of the greatest movies ever made and it contains some of the most powerful actor of any movie ever made. It would be rather silly to go into the remake expecting anything as powerful but this film actually comes pretty close. The film has been slightly rewritten and it takes a look at the case from a different side but the movie remains quite powerful and contains some very good acting. The only real problem here is that the movie only runs around 96-minutes, which means we lose some character development. The actual real case has pretty much been proved as a fraud but it certainly makes for an interesting debate, which carries over very well to film. I think, like the original film, this one is a bit too one sided and shows the religious aspect unfairly but while saying this there's no doubt that the original trial showed evolution in an unfair way. As I said earlier, I think both Tracy and March delivered two of the most powerful performances in the history of film but Robards and Douglas do great work here. Douglas really gets into his character so much that you feel as if you're watching the real guy and not Douglas giving a performance. His speech in the church early on is among some of the best preaching I've seen from any actor or any real preacher. Robards was an excellent choice to go up against Douglas and he too delivers a strong performance and the two men together, during the final courtrooms scene, contain enough fireworks to really get your blood pumping. Darren McGavin, John Harkins, Megan Follows and Gene Simmons all add great supporting in their performances. In the end, this film is far from the 1960 version but it's still a very good little gem with great performances and an always interesting story.

Can Watch it over and over!

[AP-3 · 9/10 · 9 September 1998]

Jason Robards, and Kirk Douglas, make this film STAND out, it is much better than the original and has the cast to back it up. We all know of the trial, and we all know that is was more or less a publicity stunt for the town of Dayton.

The teacher who was supposed to teach evolution was really just a wayward man, traveling and he was a good choice for all this to happen. Again Great TV Movie, rent it or watch it when it comes on!!!

Inherit the Wind

[Coxer99 · 1 April 1999]

Robards steals the picture and won an Emmy as a wonderful Henry Drummond, while Kirk Douglas feels too uncomfortable as Matthew Harrison Brady. The version runs at an okay pace, but doesn't have the luster of Stanley Kramer's 1960 version. With the exception of Robards, many of the other performances are either passable or mediocre.