Tuesday, September 4, 2018
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although D. W. Griffith’s "The Birth of a Nation" has a highly problematic message, this work is also essential to history for advancing film techniques and forcing America to respond to its racist history. The outright racism exemplified in Griffith’s film cannot be mistaken as otherwise. For example, the plot enforces the overall message that African Americans are all savages unable to control their sexual desires through a scene of an actor in blackface attempting to kidnap and violate a young, innocent, white woman. However, this chase scene employs several cinematic techniques far advanced for its time to tell a story (albeit a very problematic one). Griffith uses parallel editing to weave together the scene to emphasize the plight of the young woman so the audience sympathize with her and recognize the “savage” in black men. The editing and the use of reoccurring settings in this scene is very important to cinema today as many huge Hollywood films still use the same method to increase the tension of a chase scene. In this way, ignoring the racist content, "The Birth of a Nation" has contributed an important cinematic technique that obviously is impactful to film today. However, we cannot ignore the racist content. In fact, we must respond and this is exactly what Oscar Micheaux did in a similar artistic way with his film "The Homesteader." Michaeux shoots a distortion of the chase scene in Birth of a Nation where instead a white man attempts to rape a young, mixed-race woman whose family is to be lynched. Micheaux’s response highlights another positive outcome of "The Birth of a Nation": Griffith’s film was so incredibly wrong and racist that it sparked a response of similar caliber, but accurately representative of the African American experience. The fact that Micheaux engages with Griffith in a similar platform and artistry allows us to compare the content and recognize the differences of both sides of race relations. When looking at "The Birth of a Nation," not only are the cinematic advancements brilliant but its ability to incite equally interesting and passionate art deems this Griffith film as one to be remembered.
ReplyDelete**Note: like Samia, I also cannot figure out how to italicize so all film titles are in quotes.
There is no doubt that "The Birth of a Nation" by D.W. Griffith was a groundbreaking film for its time, but due to it's theme of white supremacy and racism it should not be celebrated in the same fashion that it was over 100 years ago. Times were much different in 1915…Being a racist was normal and tolerated and white supremacy was a looked upon with approval. When a film such as a “The Birth of a Nation” was released people were much more taken aback by the advancements in film than the vulgar plot. Here we stand 103 years later and I would like to believe that such a movie would never be tolerated. We must recognize Griffith’s headway in film production but that does that not mean we have to overlook the disgusting nature of his actual film. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for this film to be included lists such as the top 100 films of all time by AMC. It is not a film that should be celebrated and viewed during film festivals or other events alike. One must recognize the advancements in film but one does not need to condone the film while doing so. Just because it was created ages ago does make it okay disregard the meaning behind the piece. How can this film be one of the best ever created when the plot is one of the worst ever created? The film as a whole is not a piece of film history to be proud of, but the advancements in editing and plot creation are. One can give credit where it is due without giving credit to a pro-white supremacy film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fair assessment to say that the "The Birth of a Nation" perpetuates the racist ideology commonly held in the 20th century, but the film's contribution to the Hollywood Style of film is undeniable and cannot be ignored. Previous to "The Birth of a Nation" films produced by dominant film makers such as the Lumiere Brothers or George Melies were a cinematic experience where the content was not as important as the visual stimuli or the shocking new technology. With the creation of "The Birth of a Nation," David Griffith set the stage for a new style of film making: "The Hollywood Style." This technique of film-making includes the development of characters, plot, and moral endings in comparison to previous films that emphasized editing or visual tricks. "The Hollywood Style" is a reoccurring technique that has lasted through this past century. "The Birth of a Nation" introduced this to the world, and that is one reason why the film has had the lasting successful impressions that it has had. Following with what Michelle said, it is imperative to not ignore the overtly racist messages that are held within the film. Not only are members of the KKK cast as heroes, African Americans are depicted as animals who are threats to the safety of white people and superiority. When thinking about if a film is good it is necessary to separate the consideration of the message and its film techniques. Not only did "The Birth of a Nation" introduce a new style of film-making, it developed the new technique called parallel editing. He would use this in chase and rescue scenes where African Americans were always the chaser, a damsel in distress white woman was the one being chased, and the hero was always a white male. Although this depiction perpetuates stereotypes, the parallel editing style has been used ever since the movie's release, and is crucial to modern movies. While there have been other movies to include segregation and racist ideals, "The Birth of a Nation" had recognizable effects on the cinematic world, and that is the reason it can be considered a good film. What is important is to think about is in what way do we define a film as good. While the message of the film is horrendous, the overall technical advances the film has cannot be looked over. I am torn between considering the racist ideology when calling the film good or not, but what I think makes the difference is if one considers the message or not. Without the racist messages, the film is good but considering the ideology it is not. "The Birth of a Nation's" troubling ideology can make the decision of whether or not the film is great hard, but it is important to recognize all that the film has done for the cinema since its release despite its racist messages, so solely looking at the impact of the film, it can be considered good.
ReplyDeleteIn the film “The Birth of a Nation” director D.W. Griffith displays some obvious signs of racism and whit supremacy. While it may have not been as sensitive at the time, it now can easily be viewed as quite controversial due to its content. I do not believe this film should be considered great, rather greatly significant. I say that because when we consider something “great” we associate it with positive messages and stories. However, I think this movie should be considered significant because while it has highly negative messages and images within it, the film was the first of its kind in many ways and broke many barriers. This movie should stay preserved throughout time so people can look back, learn from our history, and not make the same mistakes again. In the far future, there may be some films today that we look back on and re-think if they should have been shown to the public. While there will not be any extreme examples like birth of a nation, I think it is fair to say that not every single movie today is politically correct and could be sensitive to some audiences. I believe it should be preserved in the National Film Registry, yet I think it should not be in the top 100 films of all time. Yes this movie is significant and make a huge impact, but put it in its own category rather than calling it on the greatest movies ever. Overall, “The Birth of a Nation” displays racist and politically unjust images and messages looking at it now, but people must understand the historical context when that it was being filmed.
ReplyDeleteI believe the film The Birth of a Nation by D. W. Griffith can be seen has a great but horrifying film. If one is looking at the production of the film for its time, it is very well put together and the acting is very well done. The cross cut editing that Griffith uses was very new for its time and provided a more intense chase feel to the movie. It allows the viewer to focus on the emotions of each individual rather than trying to see both of their expressions at once. However, the message behind the movie can distract from these works of art. The theme of white supremacy is clearly evident throughout the film and is quite appalling. The fact that Griffith did not even use black actors definitely says something about the state of our country at the time. On the contrary, there can be a learning moment for us as a country when we study this film in the twenty first century. This film allows us to get into the minds of white supremacists and evaluate how terribly they thought of other races. The Birth of a Nation can be an example for what not to act like now and in the future. For this reason, the film can be seen as great in terms of production and what we can learn from it now, but the film should not be seen as great for the morals and message that it sends to the viewer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe complex notion that D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is an artistic masterpiece ought to be simplified, as its storytelling provided a significant platform for political representation in films, which is separate of its blatant intent to promote a white supremacist agenda.
ReplyDeleteGriffith’s estimation of what the public wants is highly indicative of the historical context this film was created within. Based on the fact that The Birth of Nation was ultimately screened at the White House, the movie clearly built up a positive reception among the American people for an extended period of time. Especially early in the history of films, such a reception to movie screenings seems necessary to propel the craft of moviemaking forward. As a result of this, movies would evolve the perspective of society more readily. Thus, movies are a reflection of the society and background they are created in, so a successful movie in the early 1900s depicts an artistic mind to captivate those around them.
However, the backlash received for the film by prominent groups such as the NAACP were valid criticisms of Griffith’s work. The film features a predominant theme of white supremacy while placing African-Americans and non-whites as villainous characters. Often times, the black characters would be lustful brutes, portrayed by white actors in blackface makeup to perpetuate negative stereotypes. This use of filmmaking to create a piece of art that puts others down would seemingly not be considered art. While it is clearly unjust to promote racism, what quantifies art should not discredit moral differences amongst progressing societies. Instead, to preserve moral values such as tolerance, evaluating the time period and context of the movie’s creation along with the entire facts behind it is the most wholesome approach. It is hard to deny that this movie required a great deal of effort to somewhat set the stage for how Hollywood-style films operate today. In that sense, creation of any film in that style with such strong attachment to its audience so early on is commendable by itself. With that in mind, it is important for viewers to freely criticize racist and systemic issues that allow exceedingly offensive forms of art. Being able to understand The Birth of a Nation’s positive impact is crucial to addressing its negative impact.
Art garners its worth in its ability to evoke emotion in the one viewing it. These emotions, whether good or bad, are what drive one to contemplate a piece deeper than what is essentially boiled down to paint on canvas. This is why I believe D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation to be a work of art. It is not despite, but instead possibly because, its racist ideology it evokes such powerful emotions. To me, it might be inherently wrong, and I would wager most people would share that viewpoint, but the cultural effect it had on both cinema and the period is undeniable. It pioneered the way for films following deeper plot, having richer characters, having a true purpose other than to entertain, and film becoming a true avenue for artistic expression. The vehicle by which it operated might have been grotesque racism, but its effects and development is what influenced others to act either against or for it. It is a usage of freedom of speech that, while racist, is incredibly effective in its purpose and perfectly captures the director’s vision. The films ability to allow us to see the lens through which the director views the world is something that had never been done before in pieces common during the time. I believe that despite its vile content, it is by all definitions of the word a piece of art in both the way it shook the film industry and in the way it shook those who watched it.
ReplyDeleteGriffith’s The Birth of a Nation is a massive achievement in cinema that is unfortunately, in a modern context, overshadowed by its bigoted and dated message. However, despite the appalling message that the film espouses, the sheer number of its accomplishments in technique, narrative style, and its influence on cinema as a whole deserve to be recognized as great in its own right. While it is greatly unfortunate that Griffith’s creative innovations were used to promote an inherently hostile, bigoted, and one-sided message, modern audience need to understand that this way of thinking is an accurate reflection of much of America at the time. Every good film has a message, but that does not mean the film’s message needs to be good. Ironically enough, Griffith’s passion about his film’s message played a major role in the honing and application of his style. For example, his use of parallel editing to create tension and suspense is a technical achievement that served the narrative and his message. The use of panning shots and cuts in another of his films with a similarly racist message, The Girls and Daddy, were rare feats at the time that helped to portray the antagonist (a “black brute”) in a more threatening aura. Though style and message may seem inextricably linked, modern audiences need to understand that American history, (and the products of its time), are complicated and by no means black and white. Overall, it is no wonder why The Birth of a Nation has garnered the praise it has. Although it is an extremely antiquated relic of its time, its innovations and influence make it deserving of its status as a classic.
ReplyDeleteTo begin I would like to say that anyone responding to this blog post prompt is acknowledging the significance that D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation holds in the present day. Although the overall message and plot of the film gets in the way of its milestone markings in cinematic advancement, it still deserves to be analyzed. Films such as these are hard to unpack due to the contrast of ugly racist scenes and the film’s style for the time. D. W. Griffith pioneered filming through the use of parallel editing, character development, and match cutting. These features of filmed hadn’t been perfected to the same degree as Griffith at this point in time. The word great wouldn’t be the exact term that I would use to describe the film, rather the film is interpretive and a milestone in cinema. Most of the time a political or moral statement in a film is imperative for understanding the film within the context in which it was written. The Birth of a Nation, however isn’t great for its message and therefore shouldn’t be in the top 100 movies of all time. The extent to which D. W. Griffith’s film should be recognized, is through a purely technical and artistic lens, and nothing more. The Birth of a Nation should be recognized for the particular style of editing and plot development it utilized. These qualities outweigh the harshness of the plot and character portrayal.
ReplyDelete