Is God the law? When Russian PR specialist Anton Vuyma launched a campaign with St. Petersburg schoolgirl Maria Schreiber, who was allegedly outraged by the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in school and ignoring the Christian point of view on the origin of life and sued the Ministry of Education – it seemed resonant, fresh and unusual for a country that has long embarked on the path of positivist progress. There was really nothing new in the process. Something similar already happened in the 20s of the last century in the United States, where individual states through the courts set the boundaries of secularity, which was reflected in the social play of Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee about how a school teacher was tried in Tennessee who dared to talk about the origin of species. In 1960, Stanley Kramer translated this brilliant text into the language of cinema, making a classic film, rated at the Berlin Film Festival as the best film for children.
Cramer’s film intertwines two Hollywood traditions: procedural cinema, which is based on the debate of the parties during the trial, and public discussion of complex social contradictions. Like the “monkey trial”, many landmark cases were filmed, fixing a turning point in the development of society, or celebrating a civic victory, because such films are always made by winners. Kramer’s picture is perhaps one of the best examples of such a cinema, in which the intrigue is built on a deep analysis of faith and religion as a social and personal phenomenon.
Two layers of popular consciousness, represented by the religious prosecutor Matthew Brady (typical Republican) and the cynical lawyer Henry Drummond (typical Democrat), clash in an irreconcilable struggle for freedom or the condemnation of conscience amid the mass hysteria that engulfs the city. Hillsborough residents, shaken by the process, are ready to burn all Darwinists who corrupt children's souls. America clung to radio dots to see and hear the true example of obscurantism on live television. Blind faith becomes the fuel for intolerance and hatred, and here the assessment of the filmmakers is unequivocal.
However, this obvious conclusion leads to sharp dialogue in the courtroom and beyond. Remarks of the parties are almost textbook. Drummond, like Don Quixote, fights the burning faith of the judge, the prosecutor, the plaintiff. Their bias is unquestionable, their eyes refuse to notice that this is not about breaking the law, but about its criminality, this is another essential aspect of the picture. The law can be criminal and this is what all such social and legal works are devoted to. For example, recently in California, a play was staged about the trial of the banning of the amendment legalizing same-sex marriage. This is another turning point in the development of civilization, which attracts close attention, because what was previously considered immoral and criminal, gradually entered our daily life, society has become more lenient, and law and retrogrades have not yet left the scene.
In a post-secular society, Carmer's film is becoming relevant again. Questions of faith and freedom, as it turned out, are not exhausted and still occupy the minds of citizens. Kramer’s talented painting, which, by the way, is not at all atheistic, could help contemporaries understand what God is and what is the law for all of us and for each of us individually.
10 out of 10