When watching a film, especially one from so formative a period in cinema, it's important to view it in the context in which it was produced. Given Mr Griffith's background and the prevailing attitudes around the time he made this film, it is evident why the tone and content of the film is the way it is. However, even taking into consideration the context and the other factors involved, the fact that this is a film that is clearly racist can't be ignored.
What makes it compelling viewing then? There are any number of racist films that have sunk into obscurity, and rightly so. The 'problem' with The Birth of a Nation is that it happens to be an enormously influential, well-made film that can probably stand as the first modern motion picture. And it is well-made. Compared with the earlier shorts of M. Melies and Mr Porter and indeed Mr Griffith's earlier works, this is slick and professional. The actors don't overact and are convincing in their roles, but it is the production techniques that make the film stand out. At over three hours the film risks being something of a slog, but it is so expertly paced that it doesn't feel excessive. There is an elegance to its shots that is absent from so many of its predecessors and the confidence from Mr Griffiths is evident, something that has been built up gradually throughout his filmography and perfected here from his longer films.
What is also innovative is the blending of 'history' and fiction, as the Stonemans are the invention of Griffiths with some similarities to real families and political movers at the time. This is obviously something that is very common amongst modern films, but the blend seems fresh and enables the story to zip along without being overly shackled to any notions of historical accuracy (which is dispensed with anyway in key ways).
The pleasure from watching something that is so obviously a massive step forward in the production of film has to be contrasted with my dismay at the racism evident throughout. It really is quite punishing to watch and I considered turning it off on a number of occasions while watching. The blackface actors, the pushing of the idea that African-Americans can never be fully integrated into society, the presentation of the Klan as a force for justice - it all leaves a very unsavoury taste in the mouth and does so much to negate the technical aspects. Can something be considered a 'great' film when the subject matter is presented in such an abhorrent way? I suppose it depends on the definition of great. In a purely technical way, The Birth of a Nation is a towering achievement, easily the greatest film released at this stage in film history. In every other sense, however, it is damaging and upsetting and it fills me with regret that a talented filmmaker like Mr Griffith wastes his talent pushing this kind of rubbish, whatever his background and upbringing.
Review by DleasdanachBlockedParent2013-07-26T13:22:50Z
When watching a film, especially one from so formative a period in cinema, it's important to view it in the context in which it was produced. Given Mr Griffith's background and the prevailing attitudes around the time he made this film, it is evident why the tone and content of the film is the way it is. However, even taking into consideration the context and the other factors involved, the fact that this is a film that is clearly racist can't be ignored.
What makes it compelling viewing then? There are any number of racist films that have sunk into obscurity, and rightly so. The 'problem' with The Birth of a Nation is that it happens to be an enormously influential, well-made film that can probably stand as the first modern motion picture. And it is well-made. Compared with the earlier shorts of M. Melies and Mr Porter and indeed Mr Griffith's earlier works, this is slick and professional. The actors don't overact and are convincing in their roles, but it is the production techniques that make the film stand out. At over three hours the film risks being something of a slog, but it is so expertly paced that it doesn't feel excessive. There is an elegance to its shots that is absent from so many of its predecessors and the confidence from Mr Griffiths is evident, something that has been built up gradually throughout his filmography and perfected here from his longer films.
What is also innovative is the blending of 'history' and fiction, as the Stonemans are the invention of Griffiths with some similarities to real families and political movers at the time. This is obviously something that is very common amongst modern films, but the blend seems fresh and enables the story to zip along without being overly shackled to any notions of historical accuracy (which is dispensed with anyway in key ways).
The pleasure from watching something that is so obviously a massive step forward in the production of film has to be contrasted with my dismay at the racism evident throughout. It really is quite punishing to watch and I considered turning it off on a number of occasions while watching. The blackface actors, the pushing of the idea that African-Americans can never be fully integrated into society, the presentation of the Klan as a force for justice - it all leaves a very unsavoury taste in the mouth and does so much to negate the technical aspects. Can something be considered a 'great' film when the subject matter is presented in such an abhorrent way? I suppose it depends on the definition of great. In a purely technical way, The Birth of a Nation is a towering achievement, easily the greatest film released at this stage in film history. In every other sense, however, it is damaging and upsetting and it fills me with regret that a talented filmmaker like Mr Griffith wastes his talent pushing this kind of rubbish, whatever his background and upbringing.