_Birth of a Nation_: cinema's problem child? (1 Viewer)

[Mitty]

JungWoo,
I think you misunderstand me. Hitchcock and Chaplin are two of my favourite filmmakers. And they made films that are art. But they were striving first and foremost to make films that were grand entertainments. They were HUGE commercial filmmakers in their time. Since they were artists, everything they made was artistic. They couldn't help it. But, Hitchcock would reportedly get very depressed if one of his films wasn't a hit.
But that is pretty academic, all I was saying in my post was that it seems odd to chastise D.W. Griffith for his lack of artistry. Particularly to compare him to Dreyer and Stroheim who had at least another decade to learn from the evolution of the very young art form.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The NAACP would be better served by not protesting this movie. By doing so, it only attracts attention to it. And since the movie is already available in other forms for public viewing other than in a theater, their protests only creates a height of curiosity and sensation to this film, and only defeats their purpose. After viewing this movie for the very first time, here are my thoughts. (I have posted this here and in my AFI Challenge thread, as well.)
The Birth Of A Nation is without a doubt one of the most controversial films ever made (if not the most). It is however, a landmark for its technical and artistic achievements. Critic Tim Dirks describes the film’s pioneering technical work:

…the introduction of night photography (using magnesium flares), the use of outdoor natural landscapes as backgrounds, the definitive usage of the still-shot, the technique of the camera "iris" effect (expanding or contracting circular masks to either reveal and open up a scene, or close down and conceal a part of an image), the use of parallel action in a chase sequence, extensive use of tinting for dramatic or psychological effect in sequences, moving, traveling or "panning" camera tracking shots, the use of total-screen close-ups to reveal intimate expressions, beautifully crafted, intimate family exchanges, the use of vignettes seen in "balloons" or iris-shots in one portion of a darkened screen, the use of fade-outs and cameo-profiles, high-angle shots and the abundant use of panoramic long shots, the dramatization of history in a moving story, an example of an early spectacle or epic film with historical costuming, splendidly-staged battle scenes with hundreds of extras, extensive cross-cutting between two scenes to create excitement and suspense, and the cumulative building of the film to a dramatic climax.

Technical merits aside, is the movie itself any good?
I was already aware of the movie’s racist contents. I knew that going into this movie with a hateful attitude in my heart will not get me anywhere. So for a minute there (actually for three hours and ten minutes ), I was able to turn off and get passed its racist undertones and concentrate on the story.
I found this entire movie to be very simplistic.
First, lack of character development. The movie contains so many characters that are underdeveloped. One never really cares whether the Stoneman or the Cameron boys will survive or die in the Civil War. Even Lilian Gish’s character was underdeveloped. Except maybe for Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis) and little sister Flora Cameron, David Wark (D.W.) Griffith failed to give us characters with depth and emotions. The Jazz Singer (1927) with its very simple story has better characterizations than this one.
Furthermore, for a silent film to have too many characters that also look alike was just too confusing. I had to go back to certain scenes just to keep some of the characters straight in my mind (the Stoneman and Cameron boys).
Second, there were too many unnecessary scenes. The sequences involving President Lincoln and the surrender of General Lee to General Grant could have been edited out. Since this was a work of fiction and its content is far from a realistic and historical point of view, one has to wonder the significance of these scenes. D.W. Griffith may have succeeded in confusing audiences back then as far as what was historically accurate or not to promote his own motives but that will not work in today’s more sophisticated audiences. These scenes could have easily been replaced by title or dialogue cards for a more fictional effect and a more palatable running time.
Third, it was hard for me to take this movie seriously when I know that the black men who were depicted as brutal, savage and abusive are actually acted out by white actors in blackface. The movie lost all seriousness as soon as I detected this.
The movie does have some stunningly photographed battle sequences. At times, I thought I was watching a documentary instead of a movie. In addition, it manages to build some tension especially when little sister Flora was being pursued by Gus, a renegade black man.
Yes, the movie is racist and even repulsive at times. It is also historically inaccurate. D.W. Griffith may have advanced the art of cinema to the next level but he failed to deliver a movie with greater depth and soul. Moreover, he failed to give a movie that audiences will treasure and love in the years to come.
The Birth Of A Nation rates

(out of four).
**********
I do not promote censorship of this movie. Those who are interested in watching this movie will no doubt see it for what it is in their own way. Now that I have seen it, I really don’t care to watch it again nor will it ever be part of my DVD collection.
~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/003933.html

 

[Jarod M]

Quote:

Hmmm. Would a movie lose its seriousness to you if you know it is a white man portraying an Asian man? Using white actors in blackface was very common at the time. Plus there weren't many blacks living in the Hollywood area circa 1914.
I agree with you that it is very difficult to tell apart the male characters and keep the families straight. Maybe it was easier to see on the big screen with freshly minted prints?
-Jarod

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Would a movie lose its seriousness to you if you know it is a white man portraying an Asian man?

Only if the white man portrayed the Asian man as brutal, savage and abusive. Seriously.
~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/003933.html