Birth of a Controversy
D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark American film that ushered in many of the hallmarks of classic Hollywood cinema. It is preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the AFI (American Film Institute). Yet it is also a film which advocates white supremacy and lionizes the Klu Klux Klan. Can such a film truly be great? Why or why not? What about other films such the Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will a film that trumpets Nazi ideology and celebrates Adolph Hitler? Do political and moral statements matter in an artwork? Or is it enough to be technically and artistically brilliant? Can an artwork's message trump its style?
When considering "The Birth of a Nation" as a whole, I believe it is irresponsible in this day and age to call it a great film. Not only does it tell history from a biased and almost bitter perspective, but it also glorifies the KKK and demonizes African Americans in truly horrific ways. The context of the film outweighs the technical artistry with disgusting portrayals of a historically marginalized group by using blackface, extremely hurtful stereotypes, and even segregation on the set. However, if all of the story is removed from the conversation, then it can be argued that "The Birth of a Nation" deserves to be on those lists. When thinking about the time it was made (1915), the filming, editing, and acting techniques become rather groundbreaking. This was one of the very first times a filmmaker chose to incorporate different shots (such as the close-up, medium shot, long-shot, extreme long-shot, etc.) into their work. D. W. Griffith started the process of refining cinematic elements and techniques, which ended up resembling modern day film more than the film of his day (like actualités or "A Trip to the Moon"). His talent for portraying a dramatic plot in ways in which the viewer becomes invested in the emotions, personalities, and actions of characters was revolutionary for the time. Film was no longer framed similar to the theater, but rather to get into the minds of the characters to make the audience feel real emotions. In addition, the painstaking consideration of each shot brings a whole new level of meaning of the big screen. For instance, in the shot where the captain is intently watching the girl on the log, the dark, obscuring lighting and twisted branches are placed to make him appear as a villain with twisted objectives.
ReplyDeleteIn these ways, "The Birth of a Nation" simultaneously is a great and horrible film that will be preserved in history forever.
As mentioned in the Norton Reader, it can be difficult to dissociate the artistry of a film in terms of film technique from the context in which the movie was produced and the storyline it follows. In "The Birth of a Nation", the purposefully derogatory portrayal of African Americans is abhorrent to today’s viewers, but when it premiered in 1915 it was viewed favorably by notable American figures such as Woodrow Wilson and much of the white population. "The Birth of a Nation" emphasizes the potential for controversy in a film, as does much of D. W. Griffith’s collective works, but its significant to the advancement of film technique and typical Hollywood directing is undeniable. I believe that due to the broader impact of "The Birth of a Nation" on the industry, it’s legacy lies beyond the context of the story line. There is much to be learned from D. W. Griffith even today, and the movie has the potential to be a powerful teaching tool. However, due to the extreme racism in the film, the question remains of the benefits of showing the film in its entirety within a classroom setting. Will the film provide a valuable history of film technique and a stronger understanding of these techniques to students, or will the movie’s significance begin to move beyond this and serve once again as racist propaganda and promote overt racism in America? Movies like "The Birth of a Nation" can be considered unique pieces of history that contribute to the narrative of historical events. Due to this important historical context, we must view movies like this with the same cautiousness we view historical texts such as Mein Kampf if we wish to truly learn about the impact "The Birth of a Nation" had on the film industry, as well as the historical significance.
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes, racist and anti-Semitic films such as D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation and Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will should not be considered pieces of cinematic art due to the things that they represent. Although, they may be considered “some of the greatest films of all time,” strictly due to their revolutionary film techniques and impressive lengths for their times, they are still large pieces of propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler. It is impossible to ignore the fact that these films are pieces of hate despite how revolutionary they were in the world of filmmaking. What these films stand for will never be acceptable. The Birth of a Nation is even widely regarded as one of the single greatest pieces of propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. Although The Birth of a Nation was not direct propaganda for the KKK the depiction of African-American men as barbaric and dangerous along with the depiction of members of the KKK as heroes, is enough for it to be considered propaganda even if it was not made by anyone involved in the Ku Klux Klan. Calling KKK propaganda, “art” should never be okay. Posters for the KKK and Hitler are not admired for anything and neither should films such as Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will. Some pieces of “political art” can be admired despite the viewpoint of the viewer. However, due to the hate filled messages of these films, I would not consider these films art as much as I would propaganda.
ReplyDeleteIn the light of how white supremacy has affected race relations over the past two centuries, it is not possible for a pro-white supremacy film to be truly great. Not only were the intentions and theme bad with making this movie, but also the executions Griffith did in the process of producing this film. For example, instead of hiring black actors to play black characters, “with few exceptions, European American actors play African American characters in blackface, making the film more about the way in which whiteness imagines blackness” (Bernardi 60). Additionally, Griffith “went so far as to segregate the cast, refusing the black actors to touch white actresses” (Bernardi 60). Even though The Birth of a Nation was one of the first films to feature editing, character development, and fully developed theme, the idea that it propagated white supremacy during a time of abysmal race relations trumps its pioneering in film. For example, following the release of The Birth of a Nation, acts of white supremacy had gone up significantly. In fact, “[s]everal scholars report race rioting in major cities after screenings of the film…. Other scholars have reported a rise in the number of lynchings of blacks by white vigilantes due to the film’s depiction of African American men as rapists” (Bernardi 69). Moreover, The Ku Klux Klan were portrayed as heroes in the movie; therefore, the Klan used this film to recruit potential members after its screenings. Because of these intentions and executions, it further emphasizes that political and moral statements matter in artwork. Therefore, other films, such as Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, which holds Nazi ideology to a pedestal, should not be considered great films, due to their controversial themes and glamorizing an ideology in hopes of popularizing it. In short, central to an artwork is its theme, and as long as an art piece has a bad message attached to it, critics should never consider it one of the greatest of all time
ReplyDeleteI do not think this film can be truly great because the negatives in "The Birth of a Nation" and other “revolutionary” films simply outweigh the positives. While D. W. Griffith may have successfully introduced several ideas to modern day filmmaking, he also promoted ideas that supported and popularized white superiority, the Ku Klux Klan, and horrible stereotypes of African-American people. Though Griffith may have progressed Hollywood filmmaking, he also made a great contribution to dividing the country and making white people across the country (reaching as far as the president) look down at African-Americans in disgust. The use of blackface foreshadows the racism found in the film, and scenes like the “chase scenes” paint black males as creeps who want to sexually assault women and though people nowadays can see through that and identify the propaganda, many people back when this film was first screened in 1915 were brainwashed by "The Birth of a Nation". This can be attributed to how new movies were at the time as well as being screened just 50 years after the end of slavery. To anyone who may argue that it is “just a movie” and should not be taken so seriously, the film had clear racist intentions. Griffith even segregated the cast, “refusing the black actors to touch white actresses” (Bernardi 60). When evaluating artwork, technical and artistic brilliance are very important, but it is my personal belief that a film cannot truly be great if it is sending across a bad message. I think that the message of any artwork is more important than its style, and in the case of "The Birth of a Nation", the clear racism and racial propaganda portray the film in a negative light.
ReplyDeleteIt is without question that The Birth of a Nation is a landmark American film and an artistic masterpiece for its time; however, the nature of judging a film and considering it “great” comes from a significant bias by the judgers. Because of this, I believe The Birth of a Nation’s blatant support of white supremacy invalidates the film’s possible greatness. People are the judges, and as we see in politics, they are driven almost entirely by their own ideals and bias. Thus, by making the Klu Klux Klan the heroes and promoting their methods and violence, D. W. Griffith loses the vote of much of the modern audiences that are so driven by their ideals and appalled by the racist message in the film. Celebrating the impressive style and technique Griffith used in the film is extremely difficult considering he promotes a message of which so many Americans are ashamed to have associated with our nation.
ReplyDeleteWhile technique and style in a film can both be brilliant, the overall message a film sends is truly the most important aspect. The message captivates an audience. Like how we mentioned in class, a lot of people got tired of the Jurrassic Park films after the first few; all the special effects were no longer new, and the storyline got stale. People enjoy the technical aspects of film, but when it comes to the storyline and message a film sends, The Birth of a Nation’s clearly racist ideals make it very difficult for people in today’s climate to consider the film “great”.
I think that political messages in films are very important and can be used to tell an insightful and compelling story. But, I think there are certain topics that when done incorrectly, can take away from the overall greatness of a movie. For example, if a movie about the mistreatment of African Americans told a story that showed black people being treated badly to make a point and show that it is bad, that's still a good message. But in a film like Birth of a Nation where black people are painted badly because that is what they believe is right, it's not a good message. That being said, Birth of a Nation is a technically and artistically great film and is obviously revolutionary in the field of film. In the time period that the film was made, the general view of African Americans was like it is shown in the movie, so at the time, most people probably thought it was overall an amazing film. If it had been made today, it would be considered awful and disgusting, despite the technical achievements. I believe that the intention and message behind a piece is a huge factor in deciding whether or not a movie is good. I can appreciate the stylistic and technical aspects of a film while hating it for the message it sends. In regards to The Birth of a Nation, I believe it to be a revolutionary achievement in the field of film, as well as being technically sound, but I strongly disagree with the message it sends. Therefore, in my eyes, it is a technically good movie, but not an overall great film.
ReplyDeleteEven though there is detailed artistic and creative edits in The Birth of a Nation, the film should never be describe as brilliant because the film portrayed the African American race as a less important race (even dehumanizes them in some aspects) than the white race on an extreme level. What is very depressing is it seemed most people around the time the movie was made agreed with the bias the movie was promoting. For example, Woodrow “Wilson was an open and persistent supporter of segregation” (Bernardi 62). Because this kind of “discrimination was widespread and widely accepted” (Bernardi, 61), African Americans had a difficult time sticking up for themselves and expressing their feelings for wanting to be treated equally. Every human is the same species and should be treated as the same species. As shown in the chase scene in The Birth of a Nation, the African American man, who is really a white man with paint on his face because Griffith “went so far as to segregate the cast, refusing black actors to touch white actresses” (Bernardi 60), was chasing a white girl like a dog would a human who was scared of them. The man was eager to have her, or looked hungry like a dog. The girl was terrified of him by the frozen look on her face the same way she would be if she had a face to face encounter with a bear. If he was a white man, she would have a different reaction to him at first sight. Her brother, who was helping chase down the bad guy (African American man), would have treated the white man differently too. This movie clip shows that this movie was highly racist and all people were not treated properly due to their skin color. Humans have developed a lot, for the better, from then to now in terms of racism. We have learned to have conversations about these topics and from those conversations have gotten better at how we treat others.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to consider the time period in which something was created and the political standing of the environment in which it was created in order for its judgement to be determined. Would I consider this film great today? absolutely not. The themes of the film and the organizations it promotes does not have a place in today's society. However, I would consider this to be a film that was great when it was released, but as time passed and political/ social beliefs changed, the film lost the value it once held. As we discussed, the film was still able to be influential stylistically; specifically in the use of its chase scene and how it is was utilized in films after its release. thematically however, the film promotes the dehumanization of the African American ethnicity and the promotion of the Klu Klux Klan, a religious organization that endorsed the killing of said African American ethnicity. This theme was popular during the time period in which the film was released, which could have played a large role in its popularity. The film also used technical and artistic skills/effects that were next to revolutionary at the time, also helping its popularity. Yet as time went on and views changed, the theme of the movie was the very thing that stops it from being the 'masterpiece' it was viewed as when it came out, and is now widely viewed as propaganda and racist. Artistically however, it still holds the right to be considered great.
ReplyDelete