The Birth of a Nation

[bhryun]

I wonder why Turner Classic Movies won't show Griffith's classic yet still controversal film The Birth of a Nation. I have it on DVD but why won't Turner show it? Sure the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes in this film but I think it's a piece of American Film history. Any feedback would be nice.

[nickdimeo]

Don't quote me on this but I heard something to the effect that around 6 years ago (before I had TCM) TCM was ready to air TBOAN but they pulled it at the last minute because there was an outrage with the NAACP or something. I do remember that the NAACP called for a protest at a Los Angles Silent Theater that was gonna show it and that was around the same time.

[johnnyweekes70]

I so thoroughly disagree with censoring the past. When Huckleberry Finn was pulled off the list of books studied in high-schools or English 100, I just shook my head. How can we learn about the past propery, and how we've come to the present, if we disallow screenings of important films like The Birth of a Nation? It is absolutely crucial to any understanding of cinema to see Griffith's film, no matter its controversial content. There are elements to that film which are tender, remarkable and engaging as much as there are the elements we may find unappealing, such as the character of Gus (among others). I don't think any other film has garnered so much notoriety since (and before) its release as Griffith's film and it's important to know why. If TCM bowed to pressure from the NAACP why, then, does it still air The Jazz Singer or any other film wherein characters appear in blackface or contain otherwise racist elements?

 

The pinnacle of this ridiculous train-of-thought-came when FMC banned Chan and Moto films, but we all know about that. Strange, but Conrad's Heart of Darkness is still studied in schools.

[bollywood101]

They haven't run this in several years, but the movie has aired on TCM. I couldn't spot Jack Ford among the **** riders, however.

[bhryun]

My sentiments exactly. Why censor anything that is still considered art. Yes I know that Griffith's film started one war between the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan. Furthermore, both the Klan and the NAACP members grew to large members during the 1920s. I even think - and I may be wrong - that Griffith's film went all the way to the Supreme Court on it's content and found it only art. What is sad is that it was changed from The Klansman to The Birth of a Nation and some parts were cut out forever.

 

I want to add that I am not, never been nor will NEVER be in any ****/White Supremist/Neo-Nazi cult. My biased opinion is that these people are racist. However, if I was an African-American, I would NEVER be a part of the NAACP simply because they boycott Civil War reenactments and cry that the Confederacy represents Slavery when the National Archives say that 94% of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy DID NOT own a slave.

 

In conclusion, I think Griffith's film is art, not racist. It is a piece of something American and I think all people should see this work of art.

[Guest]

THE BIRTH OF A NATION is "not racist," tejanodiablo!? Oh, brother.....I won't deny that D.W. Griffith was an innovative filmmaker and that THE BIRTH OF A NATION is an amazing spectacle from a cinematic point of view, sure. But the film is literally ruined by it's horrendous racist viewpoint. There are probably klansmen out in the sticks somewhere who watch the film, and go, "Wow! I think that Director went too far!" You say that all people should see it, but I can't imagine an African-American's viewing this film and then not being completely enraged by the depictions of white actors in blackface, trying to rape white women, and then to top it off, getting obliterated by the Ku Klux Klan!

 

Look, you state in the original post of this thread that you wanted feedback, so there's my two cents. I am an open-minded film fan and have a large threshold for what I will tolerate on the screen, but there are scenes in THE BIRTH OF A NATION, that are as blatantly offensive as anything I've ever witnessed in a movie. Again, I appreciate much of Griffith's work, but simply cannot defend THE BIRTH OF A NATION as a "work of art." Like you, I am totally anti-censorship, but if THE BIRTH OF A NATION is shown in public, it should be as a lesson for what NOT to do in a film.......

 

[johnnyweekes70]

I think it's tempting to say BOAN is racist but that's a pretty murky issue. Griffith had the unconscious attitude shared by a lot of his fellow Southerners and, as Richard Schickel pointed out, it's far more accurate to describe BOAN as a sexist and condescending (regarding race) film than a purely racist one. The original book was much more scathing than Griffith's film and it's interesting to note that the early part, or first half of the film, virtually ignores the book and retains a racial attitude towards African-Americans common at the time. Griffith should've known better when it came to the Klan and rape sequence (which is an entirely different matter on its own and a fascinating one) but I don't think this film needs to be avoided purely based on a charge of racism. It is definitely a work of art, however much its content is upsetting to the stomach, and it is the American cinema's first groundbreaking, though sickly sentimental, epic. If people of whatever race want to know what all the trouble is about, then Griffith's film is a pretty fair place to garner a turn-of-the-century, heavily Victorian attitude towards its subject matter. I really don't think it even occured to Griffith that glorifying the **** was an issue; he just thought it was good filmmaking. It's idiotic, to be sure, but I don't think it's racist. I like Sally of the Sawdust better anyway.

[johnnyweekes70]

Sorry, I meant I don't think it's intentionally racist, which doesn't excuse the film in any way, but does separate the differences between Griffith setting out to make a racist epic or simply film what he thought was a grand spectacle, which is what I believe he intended. This really is something that could be discussed at great length and in entire books or dissertations, especially at having a fairly obviously white actor in blackface play Gus rather than have an African-American do it, when the difference surely would have been recognizable. If BOAN is racist than so is Gone with the Wind, Too Hot to Handle and many other films made much later than BOAN.

[markfp2]

Of course, "Birth of a Nation" was racist. Back then the country on a whole was. So it was reflected in the films that were made then. African-Americans were almost always played by white actors in blackface. That continued for many years. Remember the original Amos and Andy? Because it was racist doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown today. The only way we can learn from our past is by knowing it.

 

I belong to a film society and a number of years ago we showed "Birth". We had about a hundred people from the African-American community outside picketing. Our president went out and asked how many had seen it. Not one had. He invited them in as his guests and about 75 took him up on it. After the movie, most of the people said they thought it would be a good learning tool for their children and asked if we could schedule another showing for them.

[Guest]

I agree that to censor the past is STUPID. The Birth of a Nation is the most important film in American cinema history. For TCM to NOT show it is just plain ridiculous. If there are racist elements, it's unfair to judge them by today's standards. But it seems to be part of our "narrow" culture now that we must sanitize everything and filter all through out current sensibilities.

 

Of course the Director's Guild of America took it a step further 7 or 8 years ago and took D.W. Griffith's name off its "lifetime achievement" award because some folk might object to his "racist views." Total BULL. At that time I wrote a long article for my film column about the hypocrisy of judging Griffith through 1990's PC standards.

 

I'm surprised TCM--if they are going to be consistent in their attitude toward this alleged RACISM--shows films in which white performers appear in black face. Al Jolson, Eddie Cantor, Judy Garland, Fred Astaire, Irene Dunne, Betty Grable, Marion Davies, Flora Robson all jump to mind.

 

I vote for TCM to show The Birth of a Nation and to show it proudly as a landmark film and a true American masterpiece.

[bansi4]

 

Good post dredagain. I'll vote along with you that TCM should show the movie.

 

Mongo

[allycat1920]

My feelings are that it is incredibly racist, and whether it is intentional or not is more or less irrelevant, but that's all the more reason to show it. Personally I am not a big fan of the movie but its historically important and its always a bad idea to rewrite history and ignore the dirty laundry. That's how people get the idea that the world is just getting worse, when in reality things aren't really that linear. We can't ignore or disregard the ugly parts of our history just because it makes us feel bad or uncomfortable.

 

Obviously this post had nothing to do with the movies cinematic importance which I am well aware of and appreciate.

[Guest]

thanks, BANSI4... I get very upset when people try to rewrite history to suit their own comfort zone. Griffith is one of the most important figures in film history. And to dismiss him as a racist is totally unfair. The Birth of a Nation is an important film (possibly the biggest box office succes EVER) that should not be shunted aside for any reason. If TCM ever shows it again it can certainly add a proviso or set it in its proper historical perspective. Let the film speak for itself.

[johnnyweekes70]

Yeah, to dismiss Griffith as a racist is unfair. I think it's entirely relevant whether racism is intentional in a film or not and, as I posted, Griffith's film reflects certain ideologies shared by many of his contemporaries. As I've already stated, and elaborated on by you, dredagain, it's entirely wrong to rewrite or, worse, ban history to suit our overzealous modern attitude towards PC. I've got the Image DVD of the film, not I watch it much, but I really can't believe TCM won't show it when I saw Go Into Your Dance on TCM a few years back and couldn't believe my eyes. Will they show Mammy or Big Boy and still avoid BOAN?

[alix1929]

Censorship is not cool, especially in movies this old. Editing classic movies to make them "acceptable" for 2005 audiences is not cool either.

 

I always feel, a viewer should know what's being shown, and avoid it like the plague if it offends you.

 

 

[deborahwakid11]

Hi, Alix1929:

 

I agree with you totally on censorship. I think some films are not appropriate for certain age groups to see, but that is far as I would go. Standards were different back then, and right or wrong, this is how life was back then. I've have been trying forever to find the DVD of this movie. I loved the performances of the Gish sisters, number one, whom I absolutely adore. I also think it's an important part of movie history and was the first big epic. To be an ostrich and pretend that this never happened is to endanger history repeating himself.

 

I am avid reade and have a read a lot of the classics, as well as quite a few contemporary authors. I have never read this novel and have no desire to read it because I have a lot of other novels I would much rather read. I do not know D.W. Griffith and cannot guess what motives he had in making the movie, whether he desired to make an epic or a racist movie. The movie does show racism, that is true. I don't deny it. However, I do not believe that every person in the South back then is a racist, anymore than I believe no one in the North was, either. I recently read "Intruder in the Dust," a fine novel and a fine film, where the boy in the movie says that the South will have to solve it's own problems regarding race and make amends for the past, which they seem to have done. Since we do not live in a perfect world or a perfect society, racism, sexism, or whatever ism is always going to exist.

 

I can understand why people would be upset by those scenes of rape and lynching. I was upset, too. In regards to the lynching, I was so affected by what I saw on the screen, I realized both how prevalent and how wrong racism was. Perhaps other people will have a different reaction. All I know is I really want to have this film in my library.

 

I had an accident when I was a child of around two and one-half years old, when I fell out of a second story window. I have no memory of the accident. All I know is what I was told, that some lady saw me sitting on a screen window, apparently unhurt, pulling the grass, and talking about Alladin and flying on his magic carpet. My mother had gone into the other room because my baby brother was crying and somehow I managed to climb out of my crib and push against the screen so hard that I went "flying with Alladin," as I put it. The neighbor lady took me upstairs to my apartment, and my mother went nuts for awhile, although she was glad I was okay. But, from then on, she made it clear to me the difference between make believe and real life so I would not try a stunt like that again. So, I knew from a young age that the cartoons I saw were strictly fantasy and not real life, no matter what they were, but it was still fun to play make believe.

 

I guess the point I'm making is different people are going to have different reactions to different things, including movies like "Song of the South" and Birth of a Nation." Someone mentioned "Amos and Andy." I remember several years back actor Charles Dutton was trying to purchase the television series of "Amos and Andy" and got into hot water with NAACP because of it. I think Dutton, who was a fan of the show, wanted to see it on TV, but the NAACP wanted it censored, for obvious reasons. Dutton told Tom Snyder it reminded him of the "Honeymooners" a lot. He said, "Some people might find Ralph's behavior to Alice sexist," but it's funny. So is Amos and Andy."

 

Of course, one man's meat is another man's poison. That is why I'm so grateful we live in a free society where people are free to say their opinions. People can read or not read a novel or see or not see a movie.

 

As for racism and stereotypes, they are still abounding in the movies today, although under the guise of comedy. Teens are pictured as brainless, one-digit IQ human beings with a three-word vocabulary (especially the males), who can only say, dude, male, awesome. Th teenage girls are portrayed as mindless, **** bimbos who are only interested in cute guys and getting laid as many times as possible. The parents of these teens are permissive dunderheads who wouldn't know what their kids are doing if someone placed a screen in front of them telling them what they are doing. These stereotypes are free of race stereotypes, as most everyone as portrayed as an idiot. In other words, everything is down to the lowest common denominator, with car chases, loose women and men, and as many explosions as is humanly possible coming up on the screen.

 

As for the black-face featured in the movies of the 1930's and 1940's, I can understand why some people will be offended by it. From what I understand of the history of Blackface is the minsterels during the 19th Century used that as part of their makeup while appearing in minstrel shows. Should they have used African-American actors back then? Yes. Unfortunately, that was a diffent time, and they didn't. This year there was movie out called "White Chicks," about two African-American cops disgusing themselves in White face as White Chicks. If it's wrong to have black-face in a movie, shouldn't the other be true as well? To me, the film was another stupid, mindless comedy in an endless stream of the stream of them. You could also use as examples the American Pie films, with their stereotypes of **** teenagers.

 

Then there was this other movie my mother I went to, mainly because Roger Ebert thought the gentleman in the film might get an Oscar nomination. Big mistake! We had also seen the actor in question in another film in which he was quite good; so, we went to see this one. Well, the movie started one-half hour late. When it finally started, we were sorely disappointed. After fifteen minutes of the "MF" word, as well as other disgusting language, we were both gone. This movie is portraying African Americans as pimps, who their only way out of their lifestyle is to become a rap star. I didn't Roger Ebert calling that film racist. Another film we had already seen had not started yet; so, we went into that film, a little gem of a documentary called "March of the Penguins," narrated by the wonderful Morgan Freeman. I never thought I would see the day when

 

In a way, though, I can't blame the stars too much for appearing in this trash. I blame the studios and the so-called screen-writers they have out there now. I mean, the actors have to make a living; so, they have to take what they are given or not work. Some of them have been around long enough that they can pick and choose. However, a lot of others of them can't.

 

Take Jamie Foxx, a good action film, who had two great performances last year, in "Ray" and "Collateral." He costars in a stupid action movie this year. But then, most of the stars today have made actions films. And, when some of these actions stars make. I've liked Matt Damon in a few films, but then he does an idiotic movie like the "Brothers Grimm," which, judging by the trailer, is a ripoff cross between "Lord Of the Rings" and "Exorcist." He and Heath Ledger play Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm, but you can call the Jake and Bill, just like their neighbors did in whatever century Germany they were from. Yes, right, as my nephew would say.

 

I think people have a right to pick and choose certain movies. Everything is a matter of personal taste. People can choose or not choose to buy, rent, or view a film, for whatever reason it is. There are certain films I would not recommend to certain people, that's all, if I think they will be offended by something. I think the preservation of film history is important. I also think if we don't study and learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it.

 

Take care, everyone.

 

Deborah

 

[bhryun]

On a similar note, I have heard that the phones ring off the hook and nasty e-mails hit TCM whenever they show any film with characters with blackface makeup. In particular, the minstrel number near the end of Babes On Broadway, with a blackface Mickey and Judy dancing really upsets some people. Busby Berkeley did the choreography and I believe it to be an outstanding cinematic sequence, blackface or not.

[daddysprimadonna]

dredagain,I agree with your whole post,and I don't see how singling out BOAN for censorship,and as you say,filtering it through today's social mores,instead of on its film merits,is any different than doing the same to contemporary movies-people are always defending sex,nudity,or violence in today's movies because of artistic freedom and the right to tell the story-and they have a point.If I don't like it,I don't have to watch it(and I don't). BOAN was a ground-breaking film on its techinical merits,and Griffith was a ground-breaking director-it's the height of hypocrisy to try to tell the history of film-making while ignoring his contributions-strictly on their merits as film history. It really compares to the days of the Soviet Union when history was rewritten to support the Stalinist POV-otherwise known as revisionism.

[daddysprimadonna]

I'm glad that I found a copy of BOAN to buy many years ago,otherwise I have a feeling that I would never have had a chance to see this legendary piece of cinema history,and I would have had a huge piece missing from my understanding of the evolution of film technique.

[Melly]

dredagain said:

Of course the Director's Guild of America took it a step further 7 or 8 years ago and took D.W. Griffith's name off its "lifetime achievement" award because some folk might object to his "racist views." Total BULL. At that time I wrote a long article for my film column about the hypocrisy of judging Griffith through 1990's PC standards.

 

You have got to be kidding me? Just because D.W. Griffith made The Birth of a Nation (which I have not seen in it's entirety, but did find racist which I have little, if any, tolerance for) they totally disreguarded the rest of his films and his contribution to the cinema at large? Excuse me while I go be sick.

 

null

 

Message was edited by:

Melly

[Guest]

Hi.... Actually just watched the DVD of Birth of a Nation again and was amazed all over again at what a great film this is. Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, and Henry B. Walthall are all terrific. I also noted the incredible canvas that Griffith created in his scenes. The screen is so full of movement and imagery it's just amazing. He often has foreground, mid-range, and background action all going on. His battle scenes are well done. His sets and costumes are period accurate. And he states over and over again that the film reflects the events of the 1860s and is not meant to reflect on current day attitudes. Like it or not it's historically accurate. Read up on the Reconstruction Period.

 

His use of whites in black face was common practice in films into the 1930s, and it was not limited to blacks, it was also done with American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, etc.

 

And yes I still think the DGA's removal of Griffith's name from its prestigious award is disgusting., cowardly, and totally misrepresentative of Griffith's film career. I have a copy of his 1923 film The White Rose on order.... can't wait to see it!!

 

And I still think Intolerance is one of the greatest films ever made.

[daddysprimadonna]

I love Intoloerance,I don't think any modern film maker has ever touched it for sheer magnitude and spectacle-Cecil B de Mille came close. And the tying together of four different stories,and the inter-cutting,was brilliant.

 

Griffith was more prescient than he even knew to make this film-add mine to the opinion that it's disgusting that his name was removed from the Lifetime Achievement Award-to ignore this man's contributions to the science and art of film-making,as the man who nursed cinema from one and two reel nickolodeon novelties to many-reel full-fledged story-telling,using eye-views that weren't derivative of theater,is just stupid and wrong.

[Guest]

I agree with you, Melanie..... Intolerance is brilliant.... The Babylonian sets are astounding and Constance Talmadge is wonderful as the Mountain Girl..... in the modern story, Mae Marsh gives a fabulous performance.....the close-ups, the intercutting..... all brilliant

[nickdimeo]

I've always found something quite peculiar about BOAN that I have never been able to figure out. I could swear that there was another actress that played Mae Marsh's character at the beginning of the movie. I've never seen any evidence to support my point so I might be completly wrong on this.

[Guest]

Young Flora is played by Violet Wilkey.... a dead ringer for Mae Marsh..... Also interesting is that with only a few exceptions, almost all the principal player in BOAN show up in Intolerance.... Henry B. Walthall is an exception...... right on down to Euegen Pallette and Josephine Crowell