Comments on: Film Chronology – The Birth of a Nation (1915) http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/ movie reviews, news and discussion Thu, 17 May 2012 20:53:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Nir Shalev http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-8645 Nir Shalev Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:01:05 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-8645 It definitely would be if it was to be similar in every way to the original version. Everyone that considers the film to be a classic and a masterpiece sees it as a landmark film not for its story but for the filmmaking itself, mostly, and for the fact that it's terribly racist. Every fan of the film also acknowledges that it hugely racist, has accepted that it's hugely racist, and sees it as a masterpiece of American history specifically because it depicts the KKK as the heroes of the tale. It can be viewed side by side with Spike Lee's "Malcolm X" and some people would say that "The Birth of a Nation" is a more power film because it came out 1915 and knows that it's racist. Nowadays, everyone says, "You have to see it to believe it." It's true. Even Griffith himself has acknowledged that it's overtly racist and that's the whole point. I find that when a story centers around racism of any kind, it's better to show more than to show less. I find that "The Birth of a Nation" does exactly that but without intending to be anti-racism. That's why, ironically, it's a masterpiece. It definitely would be if it was to be similar in every way to the original version. Everyone that considers the film to be a classic and a masterpiece sees it as a landmark film not for its story but for the filmmaking itself, mostly, and for the fact that it’s terribly racist. Every fan of the film also acknowledges that it hugely racist, has accepted that it’s hugely racist, and sees it as a masterpiece of American history specifically because it depicts the KKK as the heroes of the tale. It can be viewed side by side with Spike Lee’s “Malcolm X” and some people would say that “The Birth of a Nation” is a more power film because it came out 1915 and knows that it’s racist.

Nowadays, everyone says, “You have to see it to believe it.” It’s true. Even Griffith himself has acknowledged that it’s overtly racist and that’s the whole point. I find that when a story centers around racism of any kind, it’s better to show more than to show less. I find that “The Birth of a Nation” does exactly that but without intending to be anti-racism. That’s why, ironically, it’s a masterpiece.

]]> By: CK http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-8644 CK Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:42:14 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-8644 As a black man, I am absolutley disgusted that there are individuals who find this film to be a masterpiece. This was a film that brought back the KKK, I try to imagine if this film was not made if the KKK would have reinstated themselves. The acceptance and preserverance of this film by Hollywood only further demonstrates the systemic racism that is within Hollywood. For those who feel that my viewpoint is unwarranted I simply ask, if the roles in this film were reversed and the white characters were made to look like vicsous sex crazy idiots and the black characters were made to look like brave victorious people, lynching the white people, would this film be considered a cinematic masterpiece? I highly doubt As a black man, I am absolutley disgusted that there are individuals who find this film to be a masterpiece. This was a film that brought back the KKK, I try to imagine if this film was not made if the KKK would have reinstated themselves. The acceptance and preserverance of this film by Hollywood only further demonstrates the systemic racism that is within Hollywood. For those who feel that my viewpoint is unwarranted I simply ask, if the roles in this film were reversed and the white characters were made to look like vicsous sex crazy idiots and the black characters were made to look like brave victorious people, lynching the white people, would this film be considered a cinematic masterpiece? I highly doubt

]]> By: Kathy http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-162 Kathy Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:49:37 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-162 What are some themes present in this novel? and examples of them? What are some themes present in this novel? and examples of them?

]]> By: kathleen http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-161 kathleen Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:12:58 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-161 Also, when will Billy Bitzer get the credit he deserves for the many innovations in cinematography that are so often attributed to Griffith? Also, when will Billy Bitzer get the credit he deserves for the many innovations in cinematography that are so often attributed to Griffith?

]]> By: kathleen http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-160 kathleen Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:32:17 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-160 This film presents the interesting question of whether art should be considered separately from its content. As I watched it, I considered it as one would consider an historical artifact and gleaned its significance from its technical achievements and historical context. As a film, however, it is both an achievement and a failure. It fails in that it creates charicatures rather than characters and slips frequently into quaint sentimentality. Its humor is pedestrian, and its distortion of history is purposeful and repugnant. It should also be remembered that many condemned this film even in 1915, so that, while it is easy and convenient to say "well, it is a product of its times," this is an oversimplification. In many ways it is a product of the early twentieth century, when many alive could still remember the events of Reconstruction, but it also influenced its times. It is mawkish, unhistorical, chauvinistic, paternalistic and vehemently racist. It was made by a Southern man whose family was adversely affected by the Civil War and Reconstruction, and he brought to the story a great pantheon of prejudices and mythology. As a product of its times, it is a melodrama chalk-full of the pitfalls that make silent films unwatchable to many modern audiences -- strange, overacting performances, antiquated sentimentality, idealized, virginal women and chivalrous yet square, Anglo-Saxon male heroes. A truly "great" film would have been able to transcend its times and innovate in these areas as well (the areas of acting, plot and ideas), just as Citizen Kane did, instead of confining most of its inovations to the technical realm. It is unfortunate that this is often cited as the greatest silent film, when many, many, like "City Lights" and "Sunrise" and "The General" are much more entertaining and, in many ways, more "great." I can appreciate Birth of a Nation for its technical and filmaking achievements, respect its place in the history of cinema and its role in raising films to an art form when movies were still regarded as disreputable novelties, but I still recognize its shortcomings as a work of art and a vehicle for entertainment. All in all, I believe The Birth of a Nation was both a technical achievement and a mediocre film. This film presents the interesting question of whether art should be considered separately from its content. As I watched it, I considered it as one would consider an historical artifact and gleaned its significance from its technical achievements and historical context. As a film, however, it is both an achievement and a failure. It fails in that it creates charicatures rather than characters and slips frequently into quaint sentimentality. Its humor is pedestrian, and its distortion of history is purposeful and repugnant. It should also be remembered that many condemned this film even in 1915, so that, while it is easy and convenient to say “well, it is a product of its times,” this is an oversimplification. In many ways it is a product of the early twentieth century, when many alive could still remember the events of Reconstruction, but it also influenced its times. It is mawkish, unhistorical, chauvinistic, paternalistic and vehemently racist. It was made by a Southern man whose family was adversely affected by the Civil War and Reconstruction, and he brought to the story a great pantheon of prejudices and mythology. As a product of its times, it is a melodrama chalk-full of the pitfalls that make silent films unwatchable to many modern audiences — strange, overacting performances, antiquated sentimentality, idealized, virginal women and chivalrous yet square, Anglo-Saxon male heroes. A truly “great” film would have been able to transcend its times and innovate in these areas as well (the areas of acting, plot and ideas), just as Citizen Kane did, instead of confining most of its inovations to the technical realm. It is unfortunate that this is often cited as the greatest silent film, when many, many, like “City Lights” and “Sunrise” and “The General” are much more entertaining and, in many ways, more “great.” I can appreciate Birth of a Nation for its technical and filmaking achievements, respect its place in the history of cinema and its role in raising films to an art form when movies were still regarded as disreputable novelties, but I still recognize its shortcomings as a work of art and a vehicle for entertainment. All in all, I believe The Birth of a Nation was both a technical achievement and a mediocre film.

]]> By: Allan http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-159 Allan Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:02:02 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-159 Excelent film Excelent film

]]> By: Helen http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-158 Helen Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:51:20 +0000 http://commentarytrack.com/2007/03/24/film-chronology-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915/#comment-158 I find The Birth nearly unwatchable. The intolerable racial bigotry infects the entire story. As if that wasn't enough to struggle through, the movie foregrounds all the worst hallmarks of Griffith's work: mawkish sentimentality; leaden comic relief; over-directed performances; verbose and too frequent title cards; his propensity to use his films as a podium. The Birth is the poster child for what I think of as the methodology problem with "best of" lists. Is the best of cinema the best-made and most enjoyable films, what we would normally consider the "best" of something? Or, is the best the most innovative or the most influential films? The problem becomes acute when lists that reflect different methodologies are combined. The Birth is obviously on best of lists for its historical significance rather than its intellectual or dramatic merit. There are many, many better silent films, but few more influential in American film history. My verdict on whether to watch The Birth is that you should do so only if you are a serious student of film history and feel you need to see it for its historical value. If you are curious about Griffith's work and its influence, I strongly recommend watching Way Down East instead. Way Down East exemplifies the good and bad elements of Griffith's style, with enough of the good that the movie is still entertaining and without the racism. Plus, the penultimate ice floe rescue stands as one of the most exciting action sequences in movies. I find The Birth nearly unwatchable. The intolerable racial bigotry infects the entire story. As if that wasn’t enough to struggle through, the movie foregrounds all the worst hallmarks of Griffith’s work: mawkish sentimentality; leaden comic relief; over-directed performances; verbose and too frequent title cards; his propensity to use his films as a podium. The Birth is the poster child for what I think of as the methodology problem with “best of” lists. Is the best of cinema the best-made and most enjoyable films, what we would normally consider the “best” of something? Or, is the best the most innovative or the most influential films? The problem becomes acute when lists that reflect different methodologies are combined. The Birth is obviously on best of lists for its historical significance rather than its intellectual or dramatic merit. There are many, many better silent films, but few more influential in American film history.

My verdict on whether to watch The Birth is that you should do so only if you are a serious student of film history and feel you need to see it for its historical value. If you are curious about Griffith’s work and its influence, I strongly recommend watching Way Down East instead. Way Down East exemplifies the good and bad elements of Griffith’s style, with enough of the good that the movie is still entertaining and without the racism. Plus, the penultimate ice floe rescue stands as one of the most exciting action sequences in movies.

]]>