A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Birth of a Nation (1915) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

To me as a black man, it's more than that to me. My grandfather, who was born in 1901, he convey a story to me when I was in high school about this film and living in this country after its release. In short, it wasn't a pleasant time for my grandfather nor others of my race. Almost fifty years later, I still can see the pain on his face when he told me that story.

I tend to think that is it's greatest value and why it shouldn't be forgotten, in the "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" sense. People should know it and know what the reaction to it was. I would say more, but...

 

[Cineman]

It isn't a perfect analogy by any means. Maybe there aren't any perfect analogies. But go to any major metropolitan museum and you will see idealized depictions of infamous tyrants, glorious tableau of triumphant slaughter of the oppressed and enslaved; art created by artists whose work deserved to be preserved and lauded for its artistry, craftsmanship and influence on the medium and to its society. And, to boot, we are rarely if ever reminded on the information placards mounted next to the work that we ought to condemn the subjects of this or that display because of what they truly were and what is truly being depicted.

The differences between those examples and The Birth of a Nation are obvious, of course. In many cases, those museum pieces were not the concept or the intended message of the artist themselves. It was likely commissioned by the tyrants, their heirs or those of the perpetrators of the slaughter in order to spin history to their favor. The artist was possibly expected to comply with those wishes or suffer the unpleasant consequences. Many years and generations have passed since the work was completed, even longer since the subjects and atrocities occurred. There is considerable distance between the people and events depicted in the works and the day we stroll through the museum to appreciate the art.

It is merely a given that we will observe and appreciate the technique of the art without being offended by the content.

However, it is certainly understandable and a perfectly valid response if we are offended by it. Do we wish the works had never been so well preserved and displayed? Some might. And they might have a good argument for that, too. I see people of my ethnic or religious group being tortured and slaughtered by their idealized victors in paintings and am not so offended by it that I would prefer it be put in a vault and ignored. But that is easy for me to say since the events depicted typically occurred centuries ago. I couldn't put a name on any of my ancestors who were alive at the time. Would I have felt differently if I were observing the art so soon after the fact that I could actually recognize my own grandfather at the point of a sword held by a highlighted "hero" of the piece? You bet.

So we are at a very awkward (a weak word in this context I know) point in time for the "great", historically influential product of this particular lively art of cinema. Many of us want as many of the works as possible to be well preserved, easily accessible and available, well displayed and not ignored, neglected, dismissed and forgotten. Like the museum pieces above, we see that as essential for the sake of our descendants' appreciation of the form.

Cinema is so young compared with other art forms that I can see that many of us want a big information placard mounted next to this piece to further emphasize that our appreciation of it as a work of art is about its craftsmanship, technique and historical influence (both cinematic and societal, for good or ill) rather than lauding its message. We have not yet put nearly as much distance between the events depicted and the present day to have it be a given that the unprepared observer will also see it that way.

 

[dana martin]

Historic significance aside, I believe that Griffith viewed what he created and how negative it affected the country. And Intolerance is a better film because of it, not an exoneration of the film but a suggestive apology. I have the Kino, but ordered it based on the recommendation.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The first - the only - time I saw this film was when I was high school age, probably about 15. I was trying to see movies that I had heard or read about when it came to the all time greats. I knew nothing about this movie other than that critics had said it was great and that Griffith was legendary. I took the title at face value and thought that it would be a straightforward history lesson. I had no idea about any of the racist content. I was stunned as I saw the direction to movie turned. Still, I kept watching. I remembered hearing how great the movie was supposed to be and thinking that something by the end of the film would redeem what had come before, would somehow undo what had been done, like a Twilight Zone morality tale, something....but no, the film is what it is.

To have seen this movie just as a young film lover with no idea whatsoever about the racist content in it when I rented it...I’ll just never forget what it was like to watch that movie blindly.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It is an essential part of film history, a pioneer for many techniques still used today. That being the case, I'm very glad this restoration exists. It is worthy of preservation. But I have no interest in owning it, or even seeing it again.

That's pretty much how I feel, Adam. I have seen the film a couple of times because of its historical significance, but I have no desire to ever see it again, nor do I want it as part of my film collection.

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's pretty much how I feel, Adam. I have seen the film a couple of times because of its historical significance, but I have no desire to ever see it again, nor do I want it as part of my film collection.

Eventually, I'm going to buy this BD release and it's not going to be an entertaining experience viewing it, especially with its over 3 hours run time along with the bonus material. However, I'm doing so for cinematic history reasons and nothing else. This will be my fifth and probably last viewing of this film in my lifetime. At least, in its entirety.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Eventually, I'm going to buy this BD release and it's not going to be an entertaining experience viewing it, especially with its over 3 hours run time along with the bonus material. However, I'm doing so for cinematic history reasons and nothing else. This will be my fifth and probably last viewing of this film in my lifetime. At least, in its entirety.

I can appreciate that, Robert. I have a few films in my collection for historical reasons that I really do not enjoy watching, although nothing with the abhorrent themes of Birth of a Nation.

 

[mcblue]

Yes.

I know.

Mr. Griffith's 1915, The Birth of a Nation, which in many ways helped to further the language of cinema, has been seen on every known video format, since the early days.

A quick count, shows, 347 different variants, from VHS tapes, telecine'd at the wrong speed, from well used 16mm prints, to DVDs, and Blu-rays, all based upon different research and availability of film elements.

This one is different.

Photoplay's Patrick Stanbury has seemingly gone about this in a similar fashion to Lord Cararvon, and the opening of King Tut's tomb in 1922 by archaeologist, Howard Carter. On location, was cinematographer Freddie Young, "in town" on a location trip for Fires of Fate (1923).

When all of this occurred, The Birth of a Nation, was seven years old, and had already been re-cut.

Re-cutting continued for the next 270 years, inclusive of re-cuts for sound versions, with added and deleted footage.

The questions remained.

Where were the finest available film elements, what were they, and how did they all fit together.

Mr. Stanbury went about unravelling those questions, and the end result, in cancert with the BFI, was a presentation that finally makes its way to the Colonies, courtesy of Twilight Time.

Let's make this simple.

The Photoplay reconstruction / restoration of BoaN leaves everything released previously in the dust and fit for coasters.

I could go into grain structure, tinting, motion, digital clean-up, use of the original score. But why bother?

While some may have problems with the Klan being the heroes of the piece, one needs to place the film in historical perspective, much like Triumph of the Will.

Just grab a copy, and allow yourself to be surrounded by this non-non-restoration, with all of its digital tools available, used beautifully.

The two-disc set comes with a plethora of extras, including original outtakes (sorry, no gag reels).

Here's a link to an interesting piece on the restoration:

http://www.brentonfilm.com/articles...ial-classic-gets-a-definitive-new-restoration


Image - 4.5

Audio - 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1) score only

Pass / Fail - Pass

Upgrade from DVD, or previous Blu-ray - Don't ask!

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

I love them both, but I had always preferred The Birth of a Nation over Intolerance. When I saw Cohen Media Group's restoration of Intolerance, however, my esteem for that film rose significantly (showing how important presentation is to film), to the point that I was wondering if Intolerance was actually the better film. I withheld judgement until I could see a good presentation of The Birth of a Nation, which I finally did with this release. I think I might still consider Intolerance superior, even though I still think Birth is quite superb.

 

[Rodney]

Mr. Stanbury went about unravelling those questions, and the end result, in cancert with the BFI, was a presentation that finally makes its way to the Colonies, courtesy of Twilight Time.

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

RAH: It appears you are recommending the Twilight Time release, but the Amazon link is going to the older Kino release from 2011.
Is this a mistake, or did you actually review the Kino 2-disc set?

 

[Robert Crawford]

RAH: It appears you are recommending the Twilight Time release, but the Amazon link is going to the older Kino release from 2011.
Is this a mistake, or did you actually review the Kino 2-disc set?

He's recommending the TT release as Amazon doesn't sell those releases.

 

[Rodney]

He's recommending the TT release as Amazon doesn't sell those releases.

Then why is the link there? It's confusing, at least to me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Then why is the link there? It's confusing, at least to me.

The link is wrong!

Below is the correct link!

https://www.twilighttimemovies.com/birth-of-a-nation-the-2-disc-special-edition-blu-ray/

 

[Carlo_M]

I have no interest in seeing this film, but the discussion around watching films in light of the times they were made has hit home for me in a very interesting way...from some of my favorite late 1980s to early 1990s action films!

I recently rewatched all four Lethal Weapons and The Last Boy Scout (Netflix and HBOGo). Both series tackled the race issue. Starting with LW3 they tackled the women's empowerment issue (Rene Russo's character). With LW4 they added the human trafficking element, analogizing the treatment of African American slaves to modern day (at the time) Chinese human trafficking. Pretty progressive stuff for what was on paper just a buddy action flick.

However what struck me throughout all the films? The passive-aggressive tone against non heterosexual orientation. Riggs and Hallenbeck both drop the "f" word (gay slur, not the expletive) in LW1 and TLB (both coincidentally penned by Shane Black). Even later LWs reference a bit of homophobia without dropping the f bomb (in LW4 when Riggs makes Murtaugh dance like a chicken in the opening scene, and puts his hand on him, Murtaugh says "hey don't put your hands on me when I don't have any clothes on). Admittedly that's a relatively innocuous scene vs. dropping the f-bombs.

I'm not a PC policeman. I'm not gay and I didn't take offense at any of those scenes. But I can understand anyone who might find them offensive in light of today's sensibilities. But in the 80s-90s we were in a much different place with regards to the LGBTQ community, so I am forced to contextualize it as such when I'm rewatching them.

It's funny, I'd seen those films dozens of times pre-2000s and never even noticed those remarks. So it was surprising that it stood out to me so much in my recent viewings over the last couple of weeks. I admit I still enjoyed those films, and wouldn't advocate for the removal of those lines. But if they were being remade today (and God help us I hope they aren't ever remade, as Hollywood needs to come up with more original ideas rather than rehashing old ones) those lines certainly wouldn't make in into today's scripts, and rightfully so.

 

[John Dirk]

I have a preliminary opinion but I am going to reserve it for now because I've never actually seen this film.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH: It appears you are recommending the Twilight Time release, but the Amazon link is going to the older Kino release from 2011.
Is this a mistake, or did you actually review the Kino 2-disc set?

I have nothing to do with links. They occur, in the dark of night, presumably put in place by a trainee.

 

[LincolnSpector]

If you love old movies, you have to grow a thick skin about the racism found there. I'm a big Buster Keaton fan, but there are scenes in his films that make me squirm.

But Birth of a Nation, and Gone with the Wind, are racist at another level. They look back nostalgically at slavery, and treat emancipation as a disaster. I can acknowledge their importance to film history, but I can't just squirm and ignore the racism.

A couple of articles of mine:

• The enduring racism of Gone with the Wind
• American Cinema’s Problem Child: Birth of a Nation turns 100 today

 

[bigshot]

I don't hit people over the head with an anvil because I watch old cartoons, and I'm not a racist because I watch old movies. I'm perfectly capable of parsing context for myself. I don't need or encourage other people to help me with that.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

I reviewed the Kino Blu-ray in 2011, and this is my opening paragraph:

D.W. Griffith's silent classic The Birth of a Nation is simultaneously one of the most highly regarded and most deeply reviled films in the history of cinema. As this wonderful Blu-ray presentation from Kino Lorber makes clear, the film is deserving of both the praise and the revulsion. From a cinematic standpoint, it is a landmark epic which forever changed the motion picture industry. At the same time it is one of the most offensive, racist and historically dubious films ever made - in effect, a paean to the Ku Klux Klan. For all its faults, it is essential viewing for any serious student of film. As James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, put it in 1992, "Bigoted and racist as its treatment is of African Americans, The Birth of a Nation is an inescapable part of our history."

At that time, the Kino Blu-ray was the best presentation of the film that we had seen on home video. However, RAH's review makes it clear that the Twilight Time release is noticeably superior, so I plan to do a direct comparison soon.

 

[John Dirk]

I don't hit people over the head with an anvil because I watch old cartoons, and I'm not a racist because I watch old movies. I'm perfectly capable of parsing context for myself. I don't need or encourage other people to help me with that.

Of course but who [here] suggested otherwise?

 

[bigshot]

Of course but who [here] suggested otherwise?

People who suggest that folks need to be protected from ideas in films. Films don't make people racist.