The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Important turths presented

The movie brings to the fore important truths for people to consider. I 100% agree with the premise of the movie, "Do not start a war if you cannot finish it".

The end of state sovereignty I believe was the victim of the Civil war while it brought blatant racial discrimination to an end. The first 2 hours of the movie I felt was balanced apart from the denigrating caricature of Americans of African descent (minority). The unfortunate truth presented in the 3rd hour of the movie, where, the minority community en masse have since been targeted rather than identifying those among minority community who colluded with machiavellian politicians and unscupulous profiteers (carpet-baggers) from the north with a single-minded objective of taking advantage of the impoverished southern community after the war.

If President Lincoln had the opportunity, I would like to imagine a reconciliation not different from what took place in South Africa at the end of Apartheid would be in vogue in United States. Unfortunately that was not to be.

I believe Mr. Griffith's heart was in the right place when portraying:
(a) President Lincoln as a true friend of southern community in toto irrespective of colour.
(b) Machiavellian politicians manipulating the southern minority community to meet selfish ends.

It is however unfortunate Mr. Griffith did not recognize the nature in people (to this day remain unpunished) who wreaked havoc on the southern majority community by manipulating the minority. June 29, 2008

Birth of a Nation-the birth of cinema

This film will be of great use in teaching the evolution and development of cinema in my Media Studies classes. D.W.Griffith's pioneering techniques were used in Peter Jackson's "Forgotten Silver" mockmentary on the birth of film in New Zealand. The two films will be useful as examples of film history. January 3, 2008

To say that I have mixed feelings on this one would be an understatement.....

This film has the unique distinction of being one of the most technically innovative films ever made, and also one of the most disgustingly racist pictures ever made.

Techincally, the film is astounding. The film runs 3 hours (in some early versions, it reportedly ran 3 1/2 hours), and most silent films during that time were 2 reelers (running 20 minutes or so, as a reel of film was roughly 10 minutes). D.W. Griffith pushed the envelope in encompassing more and more in film, treating it with respect and saying, quite rightly, that it was an art form in itself and that it would replace books as history (the latter part of that statement is debatable, but not the first). The cutting here of wide shots to close ups, pretty standard editing nowadays, was considered revolutionary when D.W. started it. The film was a true epic. It played in many huge theaters, and was treated like a night at the opera. It made people sit up and notice that film was a true art form. I think people were so moved by it because it was a spectactular film, filled with great battle scenes and epic scope, which had never been attempted before. As a historical document, it's incalcuable.

As for the thematic elements, the stories you've heard about this films unbridled racism are all true. Blacks (played by whites in black face, which is offensive enough) are portrayed in the most unflattering, disgusting stereotypes that they've been subjected to. One of the slaves, Gus, lusts after one of the Cameron daughters (Gus is portrayed as someone who can't control himself with the white women, which is reprehensible). She ends up killing herself than being with a black man. After blacks receive their emancipation, they start harassing whites, and the KKK comes in to "save" white civilization. This film is the only film that I know of that portrays the KKK in a positive light. Some of the intertitles are so outrageous that you are really shocked to see them (one reads "people come together in defense of their Aryan birthright"). People were naturally offended by this, and it can't be dismissed as political correctness (this was 1917, where there was no term for political correctness). The NAACP despised this film back when it was made, and protested it vigorously. Griffith defended his film, even saying in an interview that the Klan was needed in those days (I saw this interview on an early VHS copy of the film). If Griffith was trying to convince people to be nicer to him, saying that about the Klan wasn't helpful. Considering the Klan is one of the most heinous organizations in American history, it was historically incorrect and from a human standpoint, outrageous.

It is difficult to seperate the sheer scope and innovations of this film from its disgusting and incredibly false portrayal of black people. So, do I think people should see this film? Yes, but keep in mind that you will be infuriated by the end. I can't seriously expect anyone to sit through a film like this and not be outraged by the stereotypical, ugly, and racist way blacks are depicted. It's just impossible to do. But if you can somehow appreciate the epic story and the great camerawork, editing, and the like, you may get something out of it.

Griffith's next film was Intolerance, perhaps an atonement for his portrayal of blacks here. It's another technical marvel, but one that ended up bankrupting Griffith. December 7, 2007

A brilliant, albeit revisionist, romp

The conversations about this movie have been ongoing for a century, so there is little for me to add. "Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith's 1915 revisionist film masterpiece, mangles history, excuses slavery and plays into every self-serving racial myth imaginable. The film is also exciting, often poignant and occasionally funny. For modern film buffs, it offers a fascinating glimpse into the conventions of silent movie acting and visual communication. Margaret Cameron's mad forest flight from the lascivious Gus -- complete with almost-cartoonish erratic changes in directions, punctuated with throwing her arms into the air -- was a lesson in how to communicate terror and despair without the use of words or sound.

The film would need a thick companion guide to point out its errors, misrepresentations and biases. It would also need someone to discuss how such a Union-unfriendly, "Negro"-bashing testimony could find acceptance on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Over 140 years after the end of hostilities, I found some scenes infuriating. At Appomattox, I can accept that Lee was stoic and noble, but cannot believe the leering, cigar-chomping caricature of Grant portrayed here. Nor can I believe that newly-freed, armed blacks roamed the South, keeping poor, helpless whites away from the polling stations. And on and on. Don't get me started.

There is a "making of" feature on the DVD. It is much too short to provide in-depth analysis of my questions, which lost it a star, but it does provide some context about America's ambivalence to the slaughter just 50 years in the past. Blaming the fratricidal war on the slaves and meddling, hypocritical abolitionists is one approach, I suppose. Through outtakes and test material previously unseen in public, the feature provides insights into Griffith's filmmaking history and techniques.

"Birth of a Nation" is a movie that, like the period it portrays so badly, has its moments of lightness and dark. It belongs in the American film pantheon, no doubt. But it's place there owes as much to its testimony of film's power to delude, divide and redefine as to its technical innovations and daring. October 24, 2007

False, Hateful, Shameful!

I can no more watch this film as a masterpiece of cinema than I can read Hitler's Mein Kampf as a mere classic of German prose. The art of movie making would have made its inevitable progress with this blatantly racist and propagandistic farce. It's said that Griffith was merely naive and didn't intend to stir up a fuss, but in fact this movie was a major stimulant to the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, which by the way was as aggressive toward Catholics in its second reincarnation as against African-Americans. The portrayal of Reconstruction in Birth of a Nation is either nonsense or else deliberate falsehood; read any solid historical study of the events and you'll soon see that The Birth of a Nation is hardly a simple depiction of any reality. The myth of the Lost Cause and the invaded South! Smug hypocricy and self-serving self-delusion! And to argue that Birth of a Nation is merely a product of its era, not to be judged by later standards of civilization, is a degrading insult to America and its heritage of justice for all! There WERE people of compassion and fairness in the USA in the second decade of the 20th Century, but you'd never know it from watching The BIRTH of a Nation. I despise this film. The only reason I'm reviewing it now is that my daughter was compelled to watch it in a college class. October 20, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...