Tuesday [5]

 The Slog, in one of his regular columns, wrote:

On the Easter Monday just gone, one had to plough through several pages of Google links about bunnies, chocolate eggs, special offers, cakes and a hundred other nonsenses that had nothing whatsoever to do with what is essentially a celebration of the route towards eternal life...before reaching the image to the left [Calvary]. 

Although not wedded to any particular religion myself (in the wrong hands, it's just another form of ideology) I could not help wanting to fight Godless nonsense with spiritual surrealism.

 Today, the Daily Sceptic mailing has this:

Some of Britain’s greatest authors have been snubbed by the BBC as both J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings have been left out of the BBC’s list of books from the Queen’s 70-year reign.

The BBC’s Big Jubilee Read has been compiled following a five-month search that has involved librarians from towns and villages across the UK – along with readers in 54 countries.

It aims to offer 70 pieces of “brilliant, beautiful and thrilling writing” produced by authors from all over the Commonwealth over the last 70 years, 14 of whom are from the UK.

Yet two of Britain’s most prestigious novelists have been omitted from the list, the Times reports. 

JK Rowling’s Harry Potter, almost certainly the U.K.’s largest literary export over the period, has been left out alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings – beloved since its publication in 1954.

You'll notice, perhaps, that both those were about pagan worlds, substitutes for a Christian world, the moves in the media are constant, as The Slog pointed out and moves on those of faith have a long, long history, as in Hollywood's propaganda piece Inherit the Wind [1960].

# Director Kramer clearly places his sympathies in the former camp [cabalist Scientism], although he does not bludgeon the audience with preconceptions. In fact as a filmmaker he had a reputation for making movies that held opinions and took stands, with a particular weakness for courtroom scenarios.

Doesn't bludgeon? Yes, it's all done oh so subtly, cleverly ... all the calm, reasoned people being cabalist Scientistic, with the best lines, a great sense of humanity and goodnatured humour ... whilst the raving bigots, of course, natch, are those of faith, just as with McCarthy and the commies. Pure Hollywood, now known as Hollywood paedo cult. Remember, we're still with the pro-cabal reviews here, the detractors come later: 

# People like to comment on this film's "overacting". Try watching any of Joan Crawford's movies from this period and then get back to me.

# There is irony in the fact that the movie is about faith when in fact the hidden text here is the faith of Hollywood in itself. 

The year was 1960. According to many, the Golden Age of Hollywood had ended some 10 years earlier, and the 50s brought some of the strangest products ever to issue from the large studios and even the new indies. 

The late 50s catered mainly to teenagers and produced little that was memorable. 

# While I am not even close to being a Christian of any kind, I am haunted by the speech given by Matthew Harrison Brady that says how our children will turn into a godless mob with no direction without the teachings of the Bible (paraphrasing). But, isn't that what has happened some 80+ years after the story takes place?

In one. Remember, I'm quoting from those who mainly gave 10/10 or 9/10, not detractors.

# two great reasons for watching it. Spencer Tracy and Fredric March

And that is the whole point. The casting, the subtext, the sympathetic lines for one side, the engaging of our sympathy ... pure Hollywood tour de force. No one's knocking the filmmaking itself when Hollywood pulls out all stops ... it's the political subtext which stinks.

#  The story line depicts how ignorance and blind faith can generate a mob mentality.

That cuts both ways, does it not?  Look at the myrmidons and karens today upon purebloods, the new pariahs of society.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen narrowminded bigots, supposedly 'of faith', but I've also known many calm, goodnatured Christians who try to live modestly and bring up their families.  One never sees those, they're not allowed a say.  They're not sought out by the media.

Another pro-film review:

#  O.K. -- maybe the Scopes trial was simplified, and maybe Kramer and the scriptwriters are a little too careful to tell you what to think at every minute. The Bible-thumpers are caricatures, Tracy practically wears a halo, and an overacting March keeps making monkey faces, as if to undercut his own anti-Darwin argument. The Kelly character, based on H.L. Mencken, is strictly a device; and even if Mencken did speak in constant epigrams in real life (which I doubt), the actor oversells the character's cleverness.

Do the detractors get any say all? Here's one:

# When I was a kid, I loved "Inherit the Wind" so much that I had much of the dialogue memorized. Viewing it as an adult, I am horrified. This movie oh so heavy-handedly brainwashed me and countless other viewers into bigotry and lies. 

"Inherit the Wind" hates. It wants you to hate. In that, it is in the same category as, though less toxic than, propaganda films like "The Eternal Jew." 

To be clear: I'm a Northern liberal, I learned evolution in Catholic school, and I never had any reason to doubt Darwin's theory. I love old movies, and have eagerly followed Frederic March from "Death Takes a Holiday" to "Best Years of Our Lives" to this. In short, I might have continued to love this movie. There's a lot in "Inherit the Wind" to love -- or, rather, to seduce.

Spencer Tracy is monumental; he took a break from posing as the fifth face on Mount Rushmore (and getting drunk and cheating on his wife) to pontificate as Henry Drummond, a character based on Clarence Darrow. Tracy's Drummond is integrity's last, best hope against a world of small-town, Southern, Christian, ignorance and malice.

Frederic March as Matthew Harrison Brady, based on William Jennings Bryan, depicts Tracy's opponent as a fat, befuddled, self-deluded old man.

Well of course. Now he gets down to a core dividing point in the States, even today:

# Overall, "Inherit the Wind" depicts the battle of light -- Northerners, atheists, and white collar types -- against the forces of darkness -- Southerners, Christians, and too many blue collars or rednecks.

There are two problems here: the movie is a pack of twisted lies. There is a very good site devoted to debunking this movie; it's called "The Monkey Trial." Point by point, and with quotes and citations, the site goes through the film's many lies, and history's truths.

HL Mencken was a bigot; his real comments about the South, not to mention African Americans and Jews, are atrocious. William Jennings Bryan was one of America's greatest orators, not the befuddled dunce Frederick March portrays in this film.

The entire plot of the movie is nonsense; the Monkey Trial was a publicity stunt hosted by the town itself.

Naturally, that site is not accessible via ggl. There is a similar site hidden behind a paywall. There's another review saying similar, adding:

# Lies, well told, become the truth ... an agenda film.

 There was another:

# Okay, okay I get the point that suppressing free thought in defense of orthodoxy is bad, just stop beating me over the head with it.

 Bludgeoning, eh.  And lastly:

This movie is supposed to be a retelling of the 1925 Scopes Trial (aka The Scopes Monkey Trial) in Dayton, TN. The names of people and places have been altered slightly. 

Nevertheless, the movie (and play) hardly resemble what really took place in Dayton that summer. It was illegal to teach evolution in the classroom in Dayton at that time. John Scopes (Bert in the movie), who happened to be a substitute biology teacher - normally the PE teacher, was on trial for allegedly teaching that man evolved from the apes. 

The ACLU defended Scopes with well-known defense attorney Clarence Darrow. The prosecution was headed by William Jennings Bryan, a popular politician and self-proclaimed theologian. 

The townsfolk in the movie are portrayed as cruel and intolerant and in one scene want to lynch Scopes. 

In real life, Clarence Darrow remarked that the people of Dayton, TN were some of the nicest people on earth and had treated him and his client with great respect. This is just one of the many misrepresentations of what really happened. 

The actual transcript of the trial has recently been made available. I would encourage anyone who is interested in the truth of this event to read that. 

Unfortunately, this movie (and play) are nothing more than an attack on the Christian faith, especially concerning the Genesis account of creation. While Bryan had great intentions, he did a poor job of defending Christianity yet still won the case. 

This movie could have been very good if it accurately portrayed what happened and it still would have succeeded in making Christians look bad because Bryan performed poorly when he took the witness stand. 

Don't waste your time with this propaganda piece unless you have read the transcript or watched Dr. David Menton's video entitled "Inherently Wind" which compares and contrasts the movie with the facts of the case.

For those still with me here, sorry it was so long but shoddy propaganda always annoys me. I'm not entering the radiocarbon dating argument, I've many quotes from the science journals pointing out flaws, many defending accuracy. There are more important things to post on just now.

As for 'creationism', I never had much truck with it and the exponents seem to me like controlled opposition, placemen of ignorance, just as with the rest of the agenda.