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 Ku 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?
Birth of a Nation is both a great and terrible movie, but altogether I think that due to the time it was made, as well as the milestones it created in its existence, it can be classified as a great movie. While the message it condones and the statements it creates about race are horrible and outdated, the technology and style are notable. The film used new techniques and pioneered what it meant to be a Hollywood movie, which can't be understated. As long as it is understood that the actual plot of the movie promotes bigotry, hatred, and racial discrimination based on false stereotypes, the actual filmmaking portion is solid and was revolutionary. However, I think that condoning this movie as one of the top films is an exception, and not the standard. I consider this movie to be great, not based on the messaging (because the message is undeniably garbage and unacceptable), but rather on the fact that it revolutionized the film industry in America. Triumph of the Will and other similarly hateful movies aren't the same as Birth of a Nation. Those other films merely express hatred using an already established system, since filmmaking was already fairly widespread by the time such films had been made. But with Birth of a Nation, while not excusing the message, is different because of the positive impact it made on the industry as a whole. If Birth of a Nation was just another movie, published after Hollywood was born, then this story would be much different. But the fact that this film was the first of what we would consider a modern film cannot be understated. As long as the film is viewed from a technical perspective, and not from the contents of its message and story, then I'd say that it deserves to be celebrated for being the first big budget movie in American history.
ReplyDeleteD. W. Griffith's 1915 silent film, The Birth of a Nation, is considered a groundbreaking work of art. It was one of the first feature-length films ever made and its use of cinematic techniques, such as cross-cutting, which had not been seen in films before, made it a seminal moment in film history. Despite its technical brilliance, the film has been controversial for depicting African Americans and glorifying the Ku Klux Klan. At the time of its release, The Birth of a Nation was widely praised for its technical achievement and was a box office success. It was also praised by President Woodrow Wilson, who declared that it was "like writing history with lightning." However, the film's depiction of African Americans as lazy, degenerate, and prone to criminal behavior has been criticized as a form of racism. Despite its controversial content, The Birth of a Nation has been praised by many film historians and critics for its artistic brilliance. The film is a masterwork of visual storytelling, which is highlighted by its creative use of cross-cutting, camera angles, and lighting. Its use of light and dark to emphasize the racial divide between whites and blacks is particularly striking. In addition, the film's score is an iconic piece of music used in many films since its release. The Birth of a Nation is a film that is both artistically brilliant and deeply controversial. It is a landmark achievement in cinematic history, and its technical achievements are undeniable. However, it is also a film that has been criticized for its depiction of African Americans and its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. Despite its flaws, The Birth of a Nation remains an important work of art and a testament to the power of film.
ReplyDeleteThe eighteenth-century silent film, The Birth of a Nation, is openly racist and supports the idea of white supremacy. White actors are in black face, depicting African Americans as lascivious and vengeful people, and the Ku Klux Klan is revered in the film. Despite its racist plot, themes, and overall nature, the deserves recognition as one of the top 100 films of all time because of the way it radically altered filmmaking and the film industry. As one of the first feature-length films and the first film to be screened in the White House, The Birth of a Nation changed the way audiences view films. President Woodrow Wilson even commended for “writing history”, as the film had long lasting impacts on movies that can be seen more than a century after its release. Today, rather than viewing actualites or short films, like A Trip to the Moon, which was considered extremely long during its time, lasting about twelve minutes, people devote hours of their day to sit down and watch a movie that entertains them. The length of The Birth of a Nation is one of its most important characteristics, as it maintained a plot for two hours, developing characters and exciting narratives. Innovative aspects of filmmaking and advanced mise-en-scene also characterize the film as artistic and advanced for its time. The Birth of a Nation introduced match-cuts and continuity editing to a growing repertoire of filmmaking techniques, changing not just the way people view films, but how they are made as well. It is also essential to understand the context of the film during its time period, so as to not discredit the film for its racist themes. The Birth of a Nation was created during a time after slavery where there was a deep divide between white and black people. Jim Crow laws were a part of everyday life, and though white citizens did not advocate for the return of slavery, they condoned white supremacy. In the twentieth century, The Birth of a Nation is controversial because of its racist message, but its contribution to the development of filmmaking and viewing as a whole make it a great film that “[wrote] history”.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the film, Birth of a Nation, by D. W. Griffith, presents a dark message of racism, since the reason it was revolutionary was based on its technological advancements rather than its political views, it would still be considered great. This film greatly influenced the film industry by using camera movements, such as close-ups and tracking shots, and more. It also brought new advancements such as cross-cutting and long-length film. Not only did this movie bring new techniques, but they were also used extremely creatively. These changes innovated the entire film industry and almost every film since then has been heavily influenced by this style. With all the advancements that this film has made, it has come with a lot of racism. This includes the re-introduction of the Ku Klux Klan and encouraging racism throughout the country. They condone white supremacy and more throughout the film. This racism however is not what changes the importance of the film, but rather how the film changed the film industry. Overall this film brought more negative through racism than positives through advancements in the film industry, but that isn’t what made the movie great. This film has brought much controversy to America about whether or not this film is good but it has brought both good and bad. In conclusion, the movie Birth of a Nation has had a huge impact on America in many ways, positively and negatively, but in the end Birth of a Nation has allowed films to become much more developed, so in the sense of film, Birth of a Nation is great.
ReplyDeleteDespite the horrible message presented in D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, there were many revolutionary advancements and styles used that were pioneered by this horribly racist movie. So, even though the message behind the movie leaves a lot to be desired, it is undeniable that the movie is "great" for the advancements it presented in film making technology. The Ku Klux Klan is seen as a hero in The Birth of A Nation, and the black characters are played by white men in blackface, it is undeniable that these are unacceptable facts that must not be forgotten. It must not be mixed up whether it was a great movie for it's cinematography or it's message as it is clearly the former. The film sits at a few minutes over 2 hours, which is a decent length even for a modern film. This draws quite a contrast from the short, 46 second long actualites of before with their locked camera and lack of actors. This sets The Birth of a Nation as one of the earliest feature length films with designated plot and actors. At the time, this was revolutionary technology. And yes, while it is a shame that such an influential film focussed on such a racist world view, it’s important to look at the context. The Birth of a Nation was produced and released in 1902, right in the middle of the tightening of Jim Crow laws across the country. So, despite it’s horrible and disgusting message, it was a time where such views were accepted as normal. This is shown even more so when finding out that this film was actually shown by Woodrow Wilson in 1915 in the White House. Does it mean that the film had a valid message behind it? Not at all. However, the influence and implementation of film techniques still used today such as continuity and match cuts and point of view shots cement this as a highly influential film that places it as one of the greats
ReplyDeleteAlthough The Birth of a Nation was ahead of its time when it comes to its display of technical film and editing skills which became the foundation for Hollywood-style movies, its negative cultural and political impacts, in my opinion, should prevent it from being deemed “great.” What constitutes a “great” movie can be debated- whether such a title requires a movie to have innovative filming and editing techniques or insight into life itself- but a necessary factor when evaluating a film’s greatness is its cultural impact and the societal changes that follow its creation. Birth of a Nation not only had blatant displays of white supremacy, racist beliefs, and blackface, but it intensified racism in the country, increased support for the Ku Klux Klan, and caused a surge in violence and hate crimes toward Black Americans. In one scene, a “Black” man (White man in blackface) chases a young, innocent White woman proclaiming his wish to marry her. Ultimately, the girl jumps off a cliff because she would rather courageously die than be raped by a “savage” Black man. Throughout the film as well, the Ku Klux Klan is seen heroically riding on horseback to save the day at the last second, as we would see the hero of a movie do in typical Hollywood-style films. The innovative filmmaking techniques present in these scenes and throughout the movie were used to paint Black people as sub-human and call for the preservation of White America. Well-thought, revolutionary methods of racism should not be deemed “great.” Although one can say the content of the film was not controversial for its time, the film did not just display the racist beliefs of the nation but condoned and encouraged the mistreatment of Black people, overall worsening the state of the country. Therefore, when evaluating the film’s overall cultural impact, it was clearly negative. Yes, Birth of a Nation has a “great” display of filming techniques, revolutionary for its time, but in its entirety, it is not great. Racism, hate crimes, and white supremacy could never receive such a title, and neither can a movie that portrays, condones, and encourages them.
ReplyDeleteD. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation has impressive editing and screen work but it should not be considered one of the greats due to the white supremacy message it spreads and the racist director. I think the film is important. It has great examples of different shots like we watched in class. It was a good demonstration of film at that time. With that being said, I think this film in particular is an exemption from the idea of separating the art from the artist. We know on multiple accounts that D. W. Griffith is racist. He portrays this in his films with white supremacy messages. It is impossible to separate him from this film because he incorporates his horrible ideas into them. The Birth of a Nation includes black face, Klu Klux Klan, and white supremacy. All of these aspects are applauded in the film, not shown to be horrible as they are. If one argues to separate the art from the artist here, the argument is not valid because both the art and the artist are racist. Another reason why it should be dismissed as a great film is due the hero being the Klu Klux Klan. It is nearly impossible to fight for a film that supports something like that. Especially due the aftermath of the film resulting in the revival of this vicious hate group. I think that if this film attempted to portray life at the time accurately showing how people of color were treated rather than celebrating how they were treated, it would have a chance to be considered, “landmark American film”.
ReplyDelete