A year and a half ago, I walked into a video store, trying to find a new DVD to add to my collection. The choice I made caused a few people to question my intentions. There I was, trying to defend my taste in film while trying to be sure the person questioning me didn't get the wrong idea. It wouldn't have been such an issue if the movie I was purchasing had not been director D.W. Griffith's bigoted view of American history, "The Birth of a Nation." For a piece of such landmark cinema, the dissension against it seems unwarranted in this day and age. It's a film that can easily be used to teach against racism, and it should be cherished instead of frowned upon.
A fan of this film is quickly judged as either a racist or a hardcore film buff who is ignoring the movie's controversial nature. The controversy over the film has spanned nearly 90 years, including attempts to censor or completely do away with the film. The fact that it is used as a recruitment tape for the Ku Klux Klan only complicates matters.
Based on Thomas Dixon's novel "The Clansman," the film is a three-hour epic showcasing the horrors of the Civil War and the plight of Southerners after the war. It concentrates on two families – The Union Stonemans and the Confederate Carmerons – and we see lives and loves torn apart.
Griffith strives for remarkable realism with battle sequences that set the bar high for future cinema artists. Pulitzer Prize winning critic James Agee wrote in The Nation on Sept. 4, 1948, "There is not a man in movies, or a man who cares for them, who does not owe Griffith more than he owes anybody else." Even if Griffith had questionable beliefs, there was no denying his talent.
"Birth of a Nation" was the first feature-length film and the first blockbuster, believed to have brought in upwards of $50 million. It played to standing-room-only audiences who sometimes had to struggle past protesters outside.
If you lived in Ohio, you had to leave the state to see it. In New York, the film was called "Three Miles of Filth in Vile Picture Film." During the heat of World War I, the McDowell County Auxiliary of Defense Council, made up of black advocates, got the film banned. In the June 29, 1918, issue of the Cleveland Advocate, the State Auxiliary Council stated that the film was "calculated to arouse hatred and prejudice to hinder and retard the proper co-operation in creating the greatest efficiency."
Still, it was the top moneymaker of all time until 1937's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." Audiences marveled at the new techniques Griffith used. It was the "Star Wars" of the early 20th century.
We've seen massive change in racial relations, but there's still a long way to go. The film's racism seems more outrageous than controversial now. It's difficult to comprehend such blatant bigotry, although bigotry still exists today.
Much of this country's dark history with race relations has been more ignored than acknowledged. Go back just 50 years ago and you would see a whole different society. To concentrate on this plight on one Martin Luther King Day isn't going to teach tolerance.
Would people today be offended by the images in "Birth of a Nation?" Without question they would. This is a film where blacks are made out to be evil, trying to take over the country after they have earned their freedom. They tamper with the voting box, disenfranchising the white vote. The white Southerners are called the "helpless white minority."
The film even points out Woodrow Wilson's "History of the American People" as it states that the freeing of the slaves and reconstruction is "a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South ... in their determination to put the white South under the heel of the Black South." Also insulting is that many of the black characters are white men in black face. That was as common a practice as racism; even Bing Crosby did it in the holiday classic "Holiday Inn."
You can tell that the film's strong point is not complete accuracy. Reconstruction was more of a failure than a victory. The slaves were freed and given land, yet they had no clue about how to manage the land or their free lives. It would take years for them to gain the status they desired. The film feels more realistic when commenting on class and regional struggles.
The fact that the film is still used by the KKK is proof of how sick and delusional these people are. For the film to be beneficial it needs to be watched and discussed. In my opinion, it should be shown in high school history courses, if for nothing else than to view how racial politics worked until the middle of the 20th century. Instead, even some historians have demanded that the film never be shown.
This confuses me. Do we hide Nazi propaganda because it's too painful to watch? We'd never think of doing that since the sins committed during that time should never be forgotten. Why should the sins our own country committed be any different?
There's already a movement to get the film back into the limelight. Recently, a hip-hop DJ named Paul Miller enthralled San Francisco audiences with a show called "Re-Birth Of A Nation." He put a new music mix to the film and had the audience question history. Although I do not agree with Miller's idea of using the show to shed light on the Bush administration's untruths, at least he's able to make a statement with something that is undeservedly frowned upon.
In order for Martin Luther King's vision of equality to work, we need to move forward. There's no moving forward unless there is reference from the past to look back upon.
========== X-RAMR-ID: 34950 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1150034 X-RT-TitleID: 1002454 X-RT-AuthorID: 5858
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews