"Birth Of A Nation" **** (out of ****)Well, I haven't been looking forward to this. I've reviewed the work of D.W. Griffith before. I first discussed his "Broken Blossoms" (1919) then "Way Down East" (1920). I thought about reviewing a few others such as "Intolerance" (1916) or "Orphans of the Storm" (1921), the only Griffith film I have seen I don't like. But "Birth Of A Nation" (1915) just seemed too controversial. It was a debate I didn't feel like getting involved in. My opinion of the film and the thoughts I have watching it don't quite match up with society's views.
So, why now? Why have I decided to review this incredibly controversial film? A film which still, to this very day, is able to cause debate. Well, besides goulash, one of my favorite things is to upset people. It is a strange quirk I have and I'm currently seeking treatment for it. But, in the meantime, you're just going to have to deal with me reviewing "Birth Of A Nation".
As I have mentioned in the past D.W. Griffith is seen as the father of American cinema. He is the man whom is most often credited with inventing such film techniques as the "close-up", "cross-cutting", the "flashback" and the "iris" shot. His "Birth Of A Nation" is believed to have signaled the birth of modern American cinema. So why all the hate for this film?
First lets start with what do most people know about this film? I have a hunch, and maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect more people have heard of this film rather than have actually seen it. Through my four years of college, where I studied film for the final two, the film would come up repeatedly in my various classes but not one teacher would ever show the film in class. Not even clips of it! Too controversial! Racist! Disgusting! These were the words people would use to describe the film. People whom haven't even seen the film will tell you how controversial it is. When you ask them if they have seen it they will say no. And they say they have no intention of ever seeing it. My question is, why not? How do you know it is racist if you haven't seen it? Why not give it a chance? At the very least, I hope my review will make some think twice and decide to watch it. I'm not saying you're going to like it, I can't predict that. But, at least see it and be in a better position to debate it, no matter which side you take.
The basic plot of "Birth Of A Nation" takes place during the Civil War. The North and the South are divided over the issue of slaves and state rights. The film focuses on the South and the effects of President Lincoln's (played by Joseph Henebery) assassination and the Reconstruction period. According to this film, total anarchy ensued as blacks became drunk with power and new found freedom. Whites were now being mistreated. All of this mistreatment however gave rise to the KKK which was set to restore order to the South.
Now a lot of this has been perceived as racist to many, many people. Historians will claim no such events happened during or after Reconstructing concerning black power. That blacks were still badly mistreated.
As far as history is concerned my view is pretty lenient. I'm never bothered if a film plays around with historical facts. I don't see movies to learn about history. I go for entertainment value. If I want to learn about history I will read a history book. I won't turn to D.W. Griffith or Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese or King Vidor.
But as far as racism is concerned I think people need to ask themselves is "Birth Of A Nation" showing racism or supporting it? There is a difference. We do see acts of racism on-screen. But in order for a film to be racist I feel a film must support those ideas. It must try to make the audience agree. I don't think "Birth Of A Nation" does that.
Here are some examples. There is one scene, after the Reconstruction, where we see a bunch of black soldiers as they try to dominate the sidewalk by knocking over white people. In this instance, perhaps your sympathy goes to the white people, whom are presented as defenseless. Okay, now try this scene. When we do see the emergence of the KKK as they beat black people, our emotions now side with them, because they are helpless.
Other moments include the new congress meeting. More than 100 blacks sit in power while only a few white people have power. The blacks are pushing through laws such as all white people must now bow and greet black soldiers. We see the black army terrorizing neighborhoods. And then we see white resentment.
But I don't think Griffith is taking sides. I honestly don't. The film seems subjective to me. The camerawork, done by Griffith's long time collaborator, G.W. Bitzer is able to make us care about both sides. The black army becomes abusive because they are drunk with power. The whites create the KKK and kill the blacks. It seems to me Griffith is showing how both races use violence to address racial issues. In the end, the viewer ends up not agreeing with either side. We don't want to join the KKK after watching this film. The viewer doesn't condone their actions.
We see a white family on trial while a black judge and a black jury convict the family. We see all the black lawmakers. Instead of provoking racism, couldn't Griffith have been smarter than we give him credit for? Couldn't he have been making a sharp social commentary? Now the blacks are in control and are going to treat the whites the same way they have been treated. I was reminded of the film "White Man's Burden" (1995) with John Travolta and Harry Belafonte where the races have been switched. The black man in now in the majority while the white man is suppressed. Couldn't Griffith have been ahead of his time? Couldn't that be the message behind these scenes?
There are some offensive events in the film, I admit. The term "mulatto" is used to describe a character, Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis). The political correct term used today is "mixed". One scene has Flora Cameron (Mae Marsh) kill herself as a black man tries to rape her. The idea is she would have rathered died than have the black man touch her. The movie presents her act as "noble" since she protected her virtue.
At the end of the day however, the bottom-line is, if someone finds the film offensive, not me or anyone else can tell that person it isn't. If you are offended by the film I'm sure you have your reasons. But I feel it has simply become too convenient for people to merely call the film racist and avoid seeing it. It becomes an excuse. All I'm saying is watch the film and lets have the debate.
Some interesting facts I left out are, spot director Raoul Walsh in a small cameo as John Wilkes Booth. The film was based on a novel written by Thomas F. Dixon entitled "The Clansman". Dixon also directed the sequel to this film, "Fall Of A Nation" (1916), which is now considered lost. And supposedly, President Woodrow Wilson, described the film as "like writing history with lightning."
"Birth Of A Nation" isn't a perfect film. I hate the first hour of the film, the total running time is a little more than three hours. The first hour does a poor job of establishing characters and making us care about them. I also didn't pay much attention to the film techniques. They didn't shout out at me the way they have in other Griffith films. But at the end of the day I still believe it is a film worth seeing. Like it or not it is a movie which will be around for a long time, still stirring up debates. It is one of the masterpieces of cinema.
Posts
