‘Inherit the Wind’ portrays satisfying triumph of logic over superstition

“Inherit the Wind,” running at Michigan State University’s Arena Theatre through Sunday (Oct. 13), is a fictionalized account of the very real Scopes trial, which argued the relative merits of teaching the scientific theory of evolution, as opposed to Bible-based interpretations of creation, to public school students.

A teacher is fired and brought on trial for teaching evolutionary science. Teaching evolution is resisted by many in the Southern, religiously conservative community of Hillsboro during the muggy, pre-airconditioned summer of 1925. Two famous big-city lawyers arrive to argue the case before a judge who’s secretly not at all impartial. The hero argues against censorship and appeals to reason, while the villain argues for faith over all. The stern bailiff keeps most of the ruckus to a minimum when a chorus of townsfolk emerges to comment and testify.

“Inherit the Wind” uses folksy trappings and a dramatic trial to delve into the controversy surrounding the appropriateness of teaching evolution, which, though long accepted as scientifically factual, was then construed by many to be in direct contradiction to what they believed they were taught in the Bible. At the time of the show’s inception, 1955, it was intended to be a dramatization of and reflection upon the political and social strife this country endured during the McCarthy era of communist witch hunts and politically weaponized governmental investigations that were, for the most part, based on maliciously fraudulent claims meant to advance some careers at the cost of destroying others.

The play draws parallels between both controversial eras and calls upon the audience to reflect on our current political atmosphere by illustrating the common social instinct of resistance to change and how it’s manipulated by those in power to dominate the masses, especially in the case of religion. We’re shown how blindly clinging to primitive superstitions can limit us and yet how negatively people can respond when they’re confronted by facts based on science when they were used to thinking only based on faith. 

Today, our society faces similar strife, where a small percentage of people seek to censor and control what can and cannot be thought, taught, said and read. To older generations, the show’s backstory is superfluous, and yet many members of the younger generations, several of whom I spoke to at intermission, remain ignorant of the past importance and current reflections of both these watershed moments in U.S. history.

The play is a satisfying triumph of logic and reason over superstition and ignorance to those who appreciate its significance. But if today’s general audience lacks enough knowledge of the historical events and conflicts presented in the production, won’t they fail to recognize how the play resonates today? If so, why produce this play at all?

I’ll tell you why. This show offers meaty scenes and juicy monologues to the capable actors in the lead roles, all of whom acquit themselves well. Nick Torres (Drummond) is energetic and relentless as the defense attorney. Chamang Yang (Hornbeck) brings a debonair air of coolness and detachment to his role as the cynical reporter. While the entire ensemble is committed and energetic, Lilly Knight brings welcome clarity and specificity to her choices and has good variety in her characterizations.

It also offers dual casts, so a good number of students can share the best teacher of all time, onstage acting. Director Rob Roznowski does some interesting things with gender-fluid casting that update the play to current times.

Finally, it offers the designers a chance to transform the humble Arena Theatre in the basement of the MSU Auditorium Building into a stage in the round, with a fantastic turntable at the center; gorgeously stained woodwork that successfully evokes a gazebo, a witness stand and a library; and a courtroom tastefully accented with leafy breakups and window-framed lighting. The costumes are functional, with interesting and appropriate nods to modern times as well as the era of the play.