"Birth of a Nation" Topic

Historian Richard F Snow has written that he detests Birth of a Nation, which he says:

…reflects at its ugliest the tacit, Mephistophelean deal in which the North made amends to the postwar South by pretending that both sides has been defending causes of equal virtue…

Yet he also acknowledges the film as one of the greatest historical movies ever made, and that the battle scenes "…give one the eerie sense of watching Civil War newsreels."

As an ACW gamer, would you watch Birth of a Nation? Or have you already seen it?

Are we going to do this for every film which fails to meet modern political demands? I may not live that long, and politics will certainly change before you can finish.

That said, yes, I've seen it. Griffith spend a ton of money, but you can see where it went. JUDGED AS A MOVIE, very good. Startlingly so for the period, and it's hard to imagine a lot of modern Hollywood without it. Every time you see a small band of imperiled people intercut with scenes of people riding to the rescue, you're seeing a "trope" first filmed with the KKK as the cavalry.

My critique would be on length and focus. If Griffith had chopped everything not bearing on his plot--to include a brief glimpse of the Second Coming and the end of days!--he'd have produced a film maybe 15 to 30 minutes shorter, much cheaper and probably as good a film of that type as period tech would allow.

Nothing to do with "as an ACW gamer" by the way. There are battle scenes, and well-filmed ones. But the plot is clearly a post-ACW RPG/skirmish game.

I regrettably have not seen it, but would like to as a fan of early film.
That doesn't mean I agree with any of the attitudes I know it expresses, any more than I agree with the blatant Nazi propaganda in Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl, which I have seen— the cinematography and editing are astonishing. Every student of film should watch it. It's stunning.

There are plenty of things in movies I don't agree with (particularly mind-numbingly stupid politics), but that doesn't stop the films from being good films. And ditto for filmmakers and actors. I can't stand Alec Baldwin or Jim Carey or their personal opinions, but I have The Hunt for Red October, The Shadow and The Mask in my personal film collection because I like these films.

Might as well condemn Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel because God is painted as an old naked white guy. (And I'm sure there's some academic twit out there who does just that.)

Presentismists are annoying fools. Nobody thinks you agree with some dude from a hundred years ago just because you appreciate his artistic talent. It's nonsense.

I have the DVD

Politically incorrect by modern standards.

A very ambitious film for the era.

An excellent film for when it was made.

Kim

Most people do not realize what a massive hit it was at the time. It changed the movie business.

It's funny, but I thought about "Birth of a Nation" when reading your post re: "Gone with the Wind." I then mentally compared the historical accuracy of the two and decided Birth was more accurate due to the battle scenes at the start. However, both movies were generally inaccurate, but well represented common beliefs about the contemporary (to each movie) post ACW Era.

Yes I've watched it and, yes, it's an important movie in the development of movie techniques, plotting, and editing.

It was in many ways a first for motion pictures and deserves recognition as a historic milestone even though the idea of glorifying the Klan was abhorrent even then among many citizens. Noteworthy as a historical milestone, yes, but unlike Gone with the Wind, it wasn't a particularly accomplished cast, any great technical achievement in film and certainly nothing special in the script writing.

Ha, when I went into this topic I thought 'Birth of a Nation' would have been about the American Revolution! (I know, the tag said ACW!)

Seen it. It's vile. The Civil War scenes don't make up for the fact it's blatant KKK propaganda (The book it's adapted from is The Klansman), and its depiction of blacks as near sub human primates and the primary villain is mixed race – somehow even more despicable than a black person if you go by the movies message, which is ultimately that the Klan is the only thing standing between whites and the rampaging negro and papist hordes coming to murder us all in our beds.

Is this an important film? Yes, for both it's contribution to American Cinema and a reflection of attitudes of its time. Should it be seen? Yes, for the reasons I mentioned above. Just be ready for it. The first time I saw the movie, I was like, "day-um…"

You guys who are claiming the film is only now problematic don't know your history. It was widely regarded as racist, divisive, and mendacious even at the time. The film was widely protested when it was released and in fact not permitted to be shown in many US cities including Chicago, Ohio, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.

The film isn't reviled because of modern, "PC", sensibilities. It was reviled at the time, and deservedly so.

It was created by a deeply, unashamedly, and unrepentant racist, blatantly attempting to proselytize his racist views.

I think you're missing the point. Triumph of the Will was equally and deservedly condemned at the time of its release. Its propaganda was never seen as anything other than it was, by anyone. And yet it can be appreciated as a work of art.

So, too for any work of art. We can access the artistry separate from the message, and vice versa.

I have no problem acknowledging that BoaN puts forth a despicable, racist view (even for its era) which deserved then and deserves now to be reviled. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be viewed and understood both within its cultural and historical context and as an examination of the development or artistry and technique in film. I think that's what we're arguing here.

I admit I am reacting in some extent to the rise of "cancel culture" and the idiots who wish to destroy works of art or artifacts of history out of some misplaced desire to assert their own virtuousness in the public square; perhaps that is an overreaction in this instance. But my view is that the good and the bad have to be examined together, and by this examination we can learn to maintain the one and reject the other— a thing which seems to be dangerously slipping away.

There is no such thing as "cancel culture" there is only folks who are suffering the natural consequences of their own behavior.

No one is being muzzled, or cancelled, or having their rights taken away. But if your platform, voice, or livelihood are financed by others on the basis of you helping them sell product, and you no longer help them sell their product, they aren't going to continue to finance your platform, voice, or livelihood.

The movie was based on a novel published in 1905 entitled "The Clansman" by Thomas Dixon. In fact, that was the original title of the film.

The KKK was much (much) more popular then, and at its peak in the 1920's, boasted over 4,000,000 members, including Congressmen, Senators, and reputedly, Supreme Court Justices. Many historians credit the film for this surge in popularity.

President Wilson watched it in the White House and was very high on his praise of the film. One of the reasons he is no longer seen as a great president anymore.

I am reluctant to join the discussion, because I expect most of the readers already have entrenched opinions and nothing which is said here will change anything. What I will do however is add a bit of whimsical light relief. I do own a DVD of the film, but first saw it some 40 years ago in England at an art-house cinema event. It was a memorable occasion because they employed a very old pianist to supply accompanying sound track to the film. The pianist, a lady, had the distinction of having in her distant youth been employed in that role in the age of silent cinema. Talking to other participants afterwards it, I realised that I seemed to be the only one who had noticed that during the epic battle scenes she had chosen to play "Dixie" and "Bonnie Blue Flag" whenever the Unionist forces were on screen quickly changing to "Marching through Georgia" and "Battle Cry of Freedom" when the Confederates appeared. (Well it made me smile, anyway)
For the record, I think that the film, like "Triumph of the Will", is landmark cinema and it did not induce my interest in the ACW. It took a tour of the Manassas battlefield to do that