OT: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Michael Elliott	OT: The Birth of a Nation (1915)	Lead	[-]
(06/26/08 5:45 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Tags : None I watched this D.W. Griffith film again last night, which made my second viewing plus another viewing of the 1930 sound version. What are the opinions of this film? I personally think it takes way too much heat but some of it is rightfully deserved of course. However, I somewhat get sick to my stomach that Griffith name has become just as bad as saying f&ck on live TV or raping someone. I know we live in a politically correct time but does anyone else find it rather sad that because of one film this great artist, the pioneer artist, has to be deleted from any discussion? United Artists have been in the news a lot lately and I noticed that when the articles talk about the original owners that they leave Griffith's name out of it yet that studio would have gone under within a year if it weren't for Griffith making some films that he didn't want to just to keep the studio up and running while Fairbanks and Pickford were off working for other studios and it was taking Chaplin years to finish THE KID.
killer meteor		#1	[-]
(06/26/08 6:05 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I like the first half, dealing with the Civil War. The second part is rather hard to stomach and at the same time take seriously. I mean, Silus Lynch? I do agree though, that Griffith is unfairly malinged
Scoundrel		#2	[-]
(06/26/08 7:43 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I think BIRTH is an important film. A very important milestone in the history of cinema. It does make me sick that it has become a sort of litmus test and it has been saddled with a "scarlet letter" as it were. Are there parts in the film that are made to inflame and incite,...? Of course but I can't stomach the PC attempt to judge something of a historic era with the sensibilities and mores of the modern era. The recent trend to add a disclaimer to films and cartoons such as the WB Looney Tunes sets and the Popeye series is helpful but I wouldn't support anyone who would try to keep BIRTH OF A NATION out of sight due to political correctness. ( Insert lame and annoying legal CYA statement HERE.)
Wich2		#3	[-]
(06/26/08 9:13 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	The man really was one of the inventors of Cinema as we know it. For the most part his contemporaries, and a large portion of the next generation of filmmakers (many of whom started on his sets !), never even contested the point. His politics? I'm squarely in the Lonely Middle, and NOT PC, and I'd say they're basically naive. When you read his views, or watch him speak himself in the sound re-issue intro, you just think, "well, yes, you were a child raised at the knee of a Rebel officer, so, that's about that." He's not malicious in the least; it's almost impossible to be a great artist if your heart is pinched. But as far as the social issues of his time, he's definitely arrogant, not critically-minded, and patronizing. But that film... And even moreso, INTOLERANCE! A failure, but a textbook example of a reaching, noble failure. Best, -Craig W.
Michael Elliott		#4	[-]
(06/26/08 9:21 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	That's my main problem Scoundrel. BIRTH has been taken out of the public's hands. We have DVDs thankfully because it is public domain. The NAACP isn't going to gain too much if they try going after Kino, Alpha or Image. On the other hand, they will and can get something (media) out of going after Disney and their held-up release of SONG OF THE SOUTH. To make matters even worse IMO is the fact that Griffith made over 450 films yet because of this one film his name is being left out as if he had never existed and his other films can't be talked about without him being called a racist for this one film. I've seen 120 Griffith films so far and from the top of my head only one features blacks as the villains. Griffith always told moral tales and quite often his attacks were against the rich. A lot of times he went after white people, Indians, Irish, British and in BIRTH blacks were the target. His movies attacked everyone at one time or another and HIS TRUST and HIS TRUST FULFILLED, two Civil War shorts, have the white people on both sides of the war shown as the bad guys with the blacks being th good guys. Yet, no one ever mentions this when they discuss Griffith. I'm just curious who makes the rules when it comes to films and how they should or shouldn't be viewed. The WW2 films put down Asians, Japanese and German people but these movies can still be shown at theaters. How many films from the 1930s put gays down yet they still get shown? How racist are the blaxplitation films we all watch? All of these can be shown yet people still want BIRTH to never be shown in public. I'm sure everyone remembers a couple years ago when a theater in L.A. wanted to show BIRTH but (apparently) members from the NAACP threatened to blow the theater up, kill the 92-year-old man who was doing the music and threatened to beat anyone who went near the theater. The owner canceled the performance because of fear for his life and the fear of the viewers. What happens when the media picks up on the threats? They bash Griffith yet don't say a thing about the people calling and threatening to blow the theater up. I think BIRTH is too important to just stop talking about it but at the same time I wish the other 450+ films could be discussed without having to go back to one film in his career.
MisterBeaumont		#5	[-]
(06/26/08 9:23 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	"Of course but I can't stomach the PC attempt to judge something of a historic era with the sensibilities and mores of the modern era." I agree, but I'm always irked a little when people say or imply that Birth reflects the historical consensus of 1915. Many contemporary historians condemned Birth for it's account of reconstruction, which I don't think was ever widely accepted outside the South. Griffith defended his film by invoking the adage "history is written by the winners," but clearly the losers can have agendas of their own. I do think that given its content, Birth deserves that scarlet letter, much more than certain cartoons or the work of Stepin Fetchit. But I don't feel the need for self flagellation or to write a check to the NAACP every time I watch it. It is an important, and yes, great film that should always be available. There is so much in it that can be profitably discussed by rational adults that if you are at all interested in American history or culture, or cinema history, you owe it to yourself to see, and grapple with it. Dave
MisterBeaumont		#6	[-]
(06/26/08 9:33 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Michael, We crossed posts. I think it's unavoidable that Birth dominates modern discussion of Griffith. After all, it wasn't just another two reeler, like His Trust, or A Corner in Wheat, but rather his most influential, most controversial, and most successful film. It was also probably his most personal. I remember reading about the abortive screening a few years ago. A damn shame. Dave
Michael Elliott		#7	[-]
(06/26/08 9:42 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Dave, what's weird about the original popularity of BIRTH is that it seems that the film made more money and played longer in the North. Again, from what I've read, the film played from 1915-1918. In 1916 it actually made more money than Griffith's INTOLERANCE did. When the film was re-released in 1919 and 1921, it did so in Northern states and especially NY where it was very popular. Then, again, in 1930, the sound version was released and it didn't do too well anywhere except in Northern cities like NY and Boston. The sound version is rather interesting because cuts had to be made to it and it was sped up to 24fps making it run around 102 minutes. The film had to be cut in 1919 and 1921 but the cuts never involved anything people find objectable today. Most of the cuts were very minor things that no one would even discuss considering some of the other images in the film. Also, again from what I've read, Griffith's 1918 film THE GREAT LOVE featured the first time a white woman (Gish) kissed a black man (not sure of the actor). Apparently this film, with that kiss, played longer and made more money in the South.
Wich2		#8	[-]
(06/26/08 9:53 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	"even worse IMO is the fact that Griffith made over 450 films yet because of this one film his name is being left out as if he had never existed" Michael, I have to admit - I've never seen that to really be the case. Is he hit for his politics? Sure. But his name is not buried; anyone who knows anything about film history knows his place; and if they know even a little more, they've seen some of his films. (BROKEN BLOSSOMS fan, myself.) Best, -Craig W.
MisterBeaumont		#9	[-]
(09/07/26 4:14 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Michael, I've heard about The Great Love, and that kiss. I've always wanted to see the 1930 reissue of Birth. My intention in my previous post was not to suggest that Northerners were somehow "too enlightened" for Birth, or that Southern attitudes were responsible for its success. I was rather making the point that there was no nationwide consensus about the war and it's aftermath at that time. (Actually, there isn't today!) Like Korea, or Vietnam, different people had very different ideas just 50 years after the fact. Dave
Wich2		#10	[-]
(06/26/08 10:23 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	MB, keep your eyes out for the old Kartes vhs (I think, with the standard grey sleeve?) I've always heard that they had a great print of the '30 cut. Best, -Craig W.
MisterBeaumont		#11	[-]
(06/26/08 10:28 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	"Dave, what's weird about the original popularity of BIRTH is that it seems that the film made more money and played longer in the North. Again, from what I've read, the film played from 1915-1918. In 1916 it actually made more money than Griffith's INTOLERANCE did. When the film was re-released in 1919 and 1921, it did so in Northern states and especially NY where it was very popular." Michael, Good point. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case. I wonder how many theaters there were in the South as compared to the North. It may be that there were more venues in the North for a film that had been out for a year, or was in it's second or third run, than in the South, where fewer screens would have meant it was more quickly replaced by newer films. That's nothing more than a guess. Also, the states rights basis on which Birth was released was not conductive to the accurate reporting of box office figures. No question, though, Birth was as big a hit with the yankees as with anyone else. Dave Edited to remove an emoticon. It was the first time I tried using one, and it's just not my style. Last Edited By: MisterBeaumont 06/26/08 10:31 PM. Edited 1 times.
Michael Elliott		#12	[-]
(06/26/08 10:57 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Another reason I started this thread is if people should say sorry for liking a film like this. Roger Ebert did a great review for the movie but he kept on talking about how sorry he was and how evil it was. On his blog this week Ebert is already saying sorry for TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, which he is going to be reviewing in the next couple of days. http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Nation-Spottiswoode-Aitken/dp/B0001EFTRE/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1214534895&sr=1-7 Above is a link to the 1930 sound version on DVD. Looking at the price, it must be out of print now but it shouldn't be too hard to find at various other places that sell DVDs. Just keep the cover in mind when you're looking for this edit. The Alpha version of WAY DOWN EAST is the 1928 re-issue, which I think edits out 30 minutes but I haven't watched this version yet. Wich, I'm trying to track down every Griffith film I can and from what I've gathered, there are only around 110-120 shorts available. Apparently only five are lost and two features are lost but we've only got a select few on DVD. I was able to track down some of the 1920's stuff through Kino VHSs, Grapevine has a great collection of his shorts as well as a few features but the later day Paramount titles are still in the vault with the exception of SORROWS OF SATAN, which I bought as a bootleg. Hopefully the Melies set will get a studio to start releasing the Biograph shorts in yearly sets. Griffith is buried about thirty-miles from my house in Louisville so I keep meaning to go and visit his grave just to see the tombstone that "Hollywood" got him years after his death. I was lucky enough to go to a Griffith celebration that they have each year in LaGrange where I got to see an original 1-sheet for AMERICA. They also had Griffith's cigarette case, which was given to him when he got his Lifetime Oscar in 1935 (or was it 34?). The best thing they had was one of his famous hats that he wore and yes, I tried it on.
MisterBeaumont		#13	[-]
(06/27/08 2:04 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Ebert has a large readership that he doesn't want to alienate, and it only takes a handful of people to orchestrate an incident. Yes, it is kind of sickening, but he's playing it safe. The fact that I find Stepin Fetchit funny might not be the first thing I would tell a new acquaintance about myself. Some people will get the wrong idea. As for apologizing if called on it, no I wouldn't. I would explain what I find funny about him and let the chips fall where they may. Likewise if you explain what you admire in Griffith's work, including Birth, I think most reasonable people would get it, even if they might not agree with you. I went to college at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, and one weekend about six or seven years ago, my roommate and I drove down there and visited his grave. It took us a whole day of driving around because his grave is not, as we thought, actually in La Grange but in nearby Crestwood. The cemetery is fairly small, and is dominated by a very large monument to Roaring Jake. All the other Griffiths are gathered around it, except DW's which is at the opposite end, against an outer fence. Is this Griffith celebration they have in La Grange a recent phenomenon? We called ahead to the public library and even the historical society, and I swear nobody seemed to know who he was, nor did any of the people we asked while driving around. Dave
Scoundrel		#14	[-]
(06/27/08 12:16 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Michael Elliot wrote: "That's my main problem Scoundrel. BIRTH has been taken out of the public's hands. We have DVDs thankfully because it is public domain. The NAACP isn't going to gain too much if they try going after Kino, Alpha or Image. On the other hand, they will and can get something (media) out of going after Disney and their held-up release of SONG OF THE SOUTH..." To make matters even worse IMO is the fact that Griffith made over 450 films yet because of this one film his name is being left out as if he had never existed and his other films can't be talked about without him being called a racist for this one film. I've seen 120 Griffith films so far and from the top of my head only one features blacks as the villains. Griffith always told moral tales and quite often his attacks were against the rich. A lot of times he went after white people, Indians, Irish, British and in BIRTH blacks were the target. His movies attacked everyone at one time or another and HIS TRUST and HIS TRUST FULFILLED, two Civil War shorts, have the white people on both sides of the war shown as the bad guys with the blacks being th good guys. Yet, no one ever mentions this when they discuss Griffith. I'm just curious who makes the rules when it comes to films and how they should or shouldn't be viewed. The WW2 films put down Asians, Japanese and German people but these movies can still be shown at theaters. How many films from the 1930s put gays down yet they still get shown? How racist are the blaxplitation films we all watch? All of these can be shown yet people still want BIRTH to never be shown in public. I'm sure everyone remembers a couple years ago when a theater in L.A. wanted to show BIRTH but (apparently) members from the NAACP threatened to blow the theater up, kill the 92-year-old man who was doing the music and threatened to beat anyone who went near the theater. The owner canceled the performance because of fear for his life and the fear of the viewers. What happens when the media picks up on the threats? They bash Griffith yet don't say a thing about the people calling and threatening to blow the theater up. I think BIRTH is too important to just stop talking about it but at the same time I wish the other 450+ films could be discussed without having to go back to one film in his career." Wow...An excellent post. Where do I begin..? Besides the thought that the NAACP gains more by attacking Disney rather than a smaller outfit..(Follow the money), It really upsets me that a whole generation of young interested minds will be indoctrinated against Griffith due to the hot button status of BIRTH OF A NATION. My enjoyment and respect for Griffith doesn't make me a racist any more than my love for Wagner makes me an anti Semite. The need for the beautiful people in Hollywood to conform to a preconceived 'standard' of what's in and out is really short sighted and corrosive IMHO. Your point about the WW2 era is important. I remember how 'amazed" fans were when Sony finally chose to release some of the wartime shorts from The Three Stooges even though there were some blatant stereotypes against the Japanese. There are still eleven shorts from Warner Brothers that collectors continually ask for that WB will not touch due to their content. Blaxploitation is another problem. Some of the hottest celebrities today will poor mouth Mantan Moreland and the like but will just as quickly fall back on the same mugging and "offensive" traits they rail against...Chris Rock is just one example. Offense is really a matter of perception. It just breaks my heart that future film students are being fed a highly slanted version of film history due to what is politically correct. Hollywood and it's current crop of stars seem to believe that it's fashionable to dump on this country and the war because it's the PC thing to do. I wonder how many of these idiots know about the Hollywood Canteen...? I am humbled to see the level headed and honest assessment of BOAN on this board. Gives me hope that there are still some folks who can honestly assess a film on its merits and not by whats fashionable.
cjh5801		#15	[-]
(06/28/08 12:13 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Though it made a good deal of money when released, the backlash against BOAN isn't a recent development. Griffith took enough heat about it at the time that he reportedly filmed INTOLERANCE in response to the criticism. I've seen the film a number of times, and can enjoy it's technical aspects (though many of the things attributed to Griffith as innovations had already been done by 1915), but the second half is pretty much reprehensible--IMHO. It's a film that should be seen, just as TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is a film that should be seen, but that doesn't mean that one need admire the message. - Clark hollowaypages.com
Rick		#16	[-]
(06/28/08 5:55 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm with you, Clark. It's a brilliant filmmaking achievement. The battle scenes are terrific as is much of the small personal stuff. But the second half is indeed reprehensible, at least. It's also mortifying, disgusting, and, for me, almost unwatchable. Yes, I know it was a different time, and I know Griffith grew up with southern influences. That makes for a passable alibi, but it doesn't soften the despicable attitude of the film as it exists in modern days and appears to modern eyes. I still consider Griffith one of the true giants of the movies, but this is one classic I could never possibly watch again.
Cadaverino		#17	[-]
(07/01/08 4:06 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Scoundrel wrote: To make matters even worse IMO is the fact that Griffith made over 450 films yet because of this one film his name is being left out as if he had never existed Left out of where? Virtually every history of American cinema acknowledges his great contributions. In 1998, Birth of a Nation was voted #44 in AFI's top 100 American movies of all time, and Intolerance was ranked #49 in the 2008 poll. Richard Schickel wrote a major biography of Griffith in 1996. Twenty-one of his features are currently in print on home video. A Corner in Wheat, The Birth of a Nation, Intolerance, and Broken Blossoms are included in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry. Broken Blossoms was shown on TCM in June. Last Edited By: Cadaverino 07/01/08 4:16 AM. Edited 3 times.
zogstar67		#18	[-]
(07/01/08 11:06 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I agree. Griffith certainly gets his due as one of the greatest, if not THE greatest silent director of all time by practically everyone who knows or cares about silent film or the history of cinema. BIRTH OF A NATION is easy to find and watch. I know there was an incident a few years ago with a boycotted/protested screening, but I'd like to see more evidence of an active "NAACP" campaign against the film. The film is brilliantly made but has major portions that are loathsome and inexcusable. These portions cannot be ignored and should, correctly, be addressed and "apologized for" with every screening and video version. Every effort should be made to put these elements in historical and social context, but they should not be presented without comment. "Synthetic Flesh!" Chris Herzog zogstar67@yahoo.com
killer meteor		#19	[-]
(07/01/08 11:40 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Forgive me but exactly what nation is born in this film? The film was called The Clansman on its premiere in LA but the title was changed by the time of the New York release a month later
Wich2		#20	[-]
(07/01/08 12:15 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	That's an old Rebel conceit, KM. The idea being: "No matter how most folks in the North, and even many in the South, saw it, we weren't REALLY a "nation" after the Revolution and Founding - just a group of states. So therefore, Secession was actually a perfectly fine thing to do." How they reasoned that a hellish, unneccessary War of their own provocation, which they fairly lost, then resulted in the positive result of "One Nation," they never rationally explained... Best, -Craig W.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

OT: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

OT: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Quick Reply