Thursday, January 22, 2015
Birth of a Controversy
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 Klu 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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The early film, The Birth of a Nation, is both considered successful and unsuccessful. I believe that it is successful in the sense that it introduced new techniques of film, such as the introduction of chase scenes. But this film is definitely unsuccessful because of the message it portrays. This movie’s message definitely trumps its style. The film stresses the idea of white supremacy. As I watched a scene from The Birth of a Nation, I did notice the advanced filming techniques, but what I noticed more was the way the characters were portrayed. The African American man in the movie could have been compared to an animal. At times he walked on all fours, and he acted as if he was not as smart as a white person. Also, the white man was portrayed as the time hero. No matter what, the black men were the bad guys. But, what we have to remember when watching this movie is the time in which it was created. Back when this movie was made, racial tensions were higher than they are now. African Americans were seen to be less important when compared to white people. Today, it is clearer that everyone is created equal. Knowing this, it is sad to realize that the movie, The Birth of a Nation, reflects real opinions at the time. I think that a movie can be successful technically and artistically, but I also believe that this success can be hindered by poor political and moral statements. In this film’s case, the extreme racism prevents it from being popular among all people. But, another idea that we have to remember is that not every single person will be impressed with a film. Opinions will vary from person to person no matter what.
ReplyDeleteThe film The Birth of the Nation, cannot be considered, ‘truly great’. The idea that the basis of the film relies on the ideals that the white race is considered supreme; makes the film not appealing to all individuals, which by having the film appeal to all individuals is what makes a film great. Not only does the film single out one race but brings to the film world one of the worst groups in the history of the United States, The Klu Klux Klan. The director of the film is giving this group of people the power that they need. By showing people the harshness of their actions makes them heroes the director is creating even more of a reason for this group to consider their actions as reasonable. I am a strong believer that a film being technically and artistically brilliant is all that is needed in a film. Sure, artists wants to get their beliefs out in the world but there is a certain way in which it should be done. I believe that artists should be able to express their moral values but it shouldn’t over power the piece of artwork or exclude or only include certain groups. Most of the time however, artwork can just be enough technically and artistically. There can be times when the message of the artist can triumph the artwork. I do believe that there is a certain time and place when that is appropriate. When the time is not appropriate for the message to triumph the artwork then I believe the message detracts from the artwork.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to keep in mind when considering whether a movie is morally acceptable or not is the time period in which the movie was made; in the case of The Birth of a Nation, although the presentation of the subject matter is undoubtedly reprehensible, the fact that it emerged from an era of great racism and discrimination reduces the amount of scrutiny that must be affixed to the movie.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the technological advances that a movie makes in the history of film must also be considered, and the leaps that The Birth of a Nation made are significant; D.W Griffith’s use of parallel-editing scenes in chase sequences was new to the film industry (although it had been used by Griffith in previous films). For example, the scene in which Gus, a black man (portrayed by a white actor in blackface) gives chase to a white girl named Flora, uses parallel editing shots in somewhat fast succession to “[add] a degree of tension to the sequence...”(67). This use of parallel editing sequences not only adds to the fearful atmosphere of the scene, but also shows that the chase occurs over a rather wide landscape; as the chase progresses, the background scenery changes, effectively showing the lengthiness of the chase. Another scene that uses parallel editing is the scene at the very end of The Birth of a Nation, in which “the Klan rides to save otherwise helpless whites from threatening blacks”(67). In this scene, the parallel editing once again adds to the tension of the atmosphere while simultaneously showing the characters crossing a wide track of land (the Klansmen in this case). As a result of this parallel editing, the movie is once again made to be more compelling and captivating for the audience.
Understandably, however, many movie critics would argue that racism is racism regardless of the era of production; after all, a hate crime is still a hate crime, and this movie not only depicted lynchings but also provoked them throughout the country. While not undermining the horror of such acts, I still think that it is important to note that societal standards in the early 20th century were far different from those that people are expected to uphold in 2015. D.W Griffith was undoubtedly a blatant racist, but at the same time an artist who furthered the ability of filmmakers that came after him in a significant way. As a result, it is to be expected that a first time viewer of The Birth of a Nation would be disturbed by the racism depicted in the movie, yet at the same time from an objective standpoint the movie was innovative, creative in its techniques, and influential (for better or for worse).
One thing to consider when examining the aftershock of The Birth of a Nation is that D.W Griffith most likely didn’t intend for these killings to actually happen; while he was certainly a white supremacist, there is no proof that he was trying to get these lynchings to occur. However, even if it was inadvertent, some responsibility must be placed on him for the reactions of the viewer s. At the same time, President Woodrow Wilson may have been responsible for these murders themselves as he openly supported the movie. Although he denied it later, Wilson once stated, “And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true”(61). It seems like Wilson was trying to discourage racism and violence, yet history suggests that Wilson himself was a racist and he may have also inadvertently turned people towards this movie through this statement. Once again, this movie was clearly the cause of some horrible things, but it isn’t as easy as placing the blame simply on the director for the deaths of many African Americans.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, The Birth of a Nation was indubitably an innovative film that involved intense racism, but this racism is a product of the time period in which the movie was created; however, the deaths of many African Americans cannot be excused simply because the United States was racist during the early 1900s. It is not black and white as to whether or not this movie should be nullified in its historical commendation due to the racism that it involves, but one thing that is for certain is that it changed the history of film forever.
While the messages and values in Birth of a Nation may be considered controversial due to the racism and portrayal of the KKK as heroes, this does not negate the brilliant cinematography compared to other movies at the time, classifying Birth of a Nation as a "great" film. The plot is clearly racist and the message of the movie would not be considered politically correct nor moral in the present, yet this film was not created in the present. It was created in a different period of US history before the civil rights movement when racial issues were not addressed as they are today. The overall greatness of the movie should not be penalized because the plot is not respected in today's society. Many people are unable to look past the plot and see the breakthroughs in cinematography pioneered by D W Griffith.
ReplyDeleteBirth of a Nation is considered the first "Hollywood style" movie. It contains plot, character development, many different scenes, and advanced filming techniques which were all rare aspects of a movie in the early 1900's. Griffith used different types of framing from a few close ups to extreme long shots which created variation to draw in the viewer, and created a better perspective of where different events were happening. While Gus (the black man) was chasing Flora (the white girl), Ben (Flora’s brother) came to look for her because he was worried that she had been gone for so long. Griffith shot an extreme longshot exposing a large chunk of the woods through which Flora, Gus and Ben all ran. This shot helps the viewer understand the distance between the three so the chase becomes much more realistic to watch. Another advanced tactic used by Griffith was parallel editing where he would shoot two different events that are happening at the same time. The movie would switch back and forth between the two scenes in order to express that the events were happening simultaneously. Griffith used parallel editing when Ben started running towards the woods. He filmed Ben running out of the house, past the fence and into the woods while simultaneously showing clips of Gus approaching and chasing Flora. Griffith was ahead of his time in using this editing technique, and the overall cinematography of the film was rare in 1915. Regardless of the message of the movie, Birth of a Nation was an incredible film in its time due to the advanced cinematography skills of D W Griffith.
While the messages and values in Birth of a Nation may be considered controversial due to the racism and portrayal of the KKK as heroes, this does not negate the brilliant cinematography compared to other movies at the time, classifying Birth of a Nation as a "great" film. The plot is clearly racist and the message of the movie would not be considered politically correct nor moral in the present, yet this film was not created in the present. It was created in a different period of US history before the civil rights movement when racial issues were not addressed as they are today. The overall greatness of the movie should not be penalized because the plot is not respected in today's society. Many people are unable to look past the plot and see the breakthroughs in cinematography pioneered by D W Griffith.
ReplyDeleteBirth of a Nation is considered the first "Hollywood style" movie. It contains plot, character development, many different scenes, and advanced filming techniques which were all rare aspects of a movie in the early 1900's. Griffith used different types of framing from a few close ups to extreme long shots which created variation to draw in the viewer, and created a better perspective of where different events were happening. While Gus (the black man) was chasing Flora (the white girl), Ben (Flora’s brother) came to look for her because he was worried that she had been gone for so long. Griffith shot an extreme longshot exposing a large chunk of the woods through which Flora, Gus and Ben all ran. This shot helps the viewer understand the distance between the three so the chase becomes much more realistic to watch. Another advanced tactic used by Griffith was parallel editing where he would shoot two different events that are happening at the same time. The movie would switch back and forth between the two scenes in order to express that the events were happening simultaneously. Griffith used parallel editing when Ben started running towards the woods. He filmed Ben running out of the house, past the fence and into the woods while simultaneously showing clips of Gus approaching and chasing Flora. Griffith was ahead of his time in using this editing technique, and the overall cinematography of the film was rare in 1915. Regardless of the message of the movie, Birth of a Nation was an incredible film in its time due to the advanced cinematography skills of D W Griffith.
In my opinion, D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is not a film that deserves to be considered truly great because of the vile, racist message that it conveys. While it is true that The Birth of a Nation was a major influence on modern film, the hateful messages it communicates delegitimize any artistic and technical mastery it demonstrates. The film’s immoral messages might also be considered dangerous since they were used to advocate white supremacy or conversely African American inferiority. The Birth of a Nation delivers a false message that can feed people’s prejudice and perpetuate hatred. In the film, viewers are exposed to racist portrayals of African American men who are depicted as brutish and lustful. In addition, the film glorifies the Ku Klux Klan by depicting them as valiant heroes contributing to the betterment of white America (which is all that counts in the film). Think about it this way, the other day I was watching Chelsea Paretti, a stand up comedian, and one of the things she talks about is how people commend Hitler for being a good public speaker; well of course he was! His skill in public speaking was one of the crucial resources he implemented to gain followers of his movement, a movement that killed millions of innocent people. There’s no need to commend Hitler for a skill that he used as a tool for evil. D.W. Griffith is praised for his ground-breaking skills that begat modern film, but, like Hither, Griffith used his skills to express a demeaning, hurtful message, that inspired the hatred to which so many Americans have fallen victim. As a modern nation that strives to achieve equality and justice for all of its citizens, we should not revere films that serve epitomize the cruel hatred that we have fought so hard to overcome. It is never too late to right the wrongs of the past especially regarding the lionization of this racist film, which in my opinion, is flawed in the values it portrays and the message it conveys.
ReplyDeleteThe film Birth of a Nation is a technical masterpiece but to call it a “great film” would do nothing less than support the racist and sexist ideals that the film glorifies. Birth of a Nation was undoubtedly groundbreaking. The filming and editing techniques that the film employed created one of the most suspenseful and engaging storylines that 20th century film viewers had ever seen. Despite what many critics have determined, I believe that a film must be evaluated holistically. A film’s writing, directing, acting, as well as moral agenda must be considered when evaluating the quality of a film. Films like Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are undoubtedly morally inferior when compared with today’s standards but many critics argue that we have to analyze movies with respect to the time period that they were filmed in. That since the majority of society believed blacks and women were inferior, it is acceptable for Birth of a Nation to portray them as such. What these historians and critics fail to take into account is that although blacks and women were marginalized by mainstream society, they weren’t viewed as animals hell-bent on deflowering white women. Similarly, the Ku Klux Klan was considered by most of the country not to be the knights in flowing robes as the movie suggests but rather the terrorist organization that they were. In short, the racist ideals expressed in Birth of a Nation weren’t just products of the time but radical viewpoints held by only hateful people. Had the movie retained its technical prowess but displayed the casual racism common of society at the time, it could still be considered for the category of “great film”. The aggressive racism displayed in the film that was radical even for the society it was filmed in, prevents Birth of a Nation and films like it from being considered
ReplyDelete“great movies” when they are analyzed holistically.
Personally, I believe that this is an extremely tricky question to answer for two reasons. Firstly, if I say that yes they can be truly great while still promoting questionable ideologies then I am validating those ideologies. Secondly, if I say no then I am discouraging artists from expressing their beliefs and those with questionable beliefs often create the most amazing work. However, that being said, I still think that these works can be considered great despite promoting horrendous themes. It is impossible to look at works of art without first understanding the historical context surrounding them. When Birth of a Nation was made in 1915, the country was profoundly racist and this film reflects that. I think that it would be wrong of us in modern times to expect our predecessors to have the same values as us. Additionally, I think it is more important to evaluate the film for its cinematographic achievement rather than its message. The fact of the matter is, the nation has moved on from its racist past and now can look back and recognize the mistakes we’ve made. That also means that we can look back and enjoy our accomplishments without them being tainted by the atrociousness that traditionally accompanies them. While it is okay to enjoy the works for their artistic value, it is still extremely important to remember and to not promote the ideas that these films advocate. While The Birth of a Nation was a masterpiece and revolutionized the way movies were made, we still have to keep in mind that the messages portrayed in this film must be taken in context.
ReplyDeleteWhen considering D.W. Griffith’s film, The Birth of a Nation, one cannot solely focus on the cinematic advances that the director made, or the blatant racism that the movie promoted. The two must be considered hand in hand, and it would certainly be disrespectful to the thousands of African American lives lost due to the barbaric white rioting that was a product of this film, and to those affected by the institutionalized racism it promoted and advanced, to gloss over the cultural effects that the film had. If this film’s cinematic techniques are considered to be basis of narrative Hollywood filmmaking that is still widely used and accepted today, we must also think about how the political and social agenda of this movie has informed the cinema Americans consume regularly. While we may believe that we live in a post-racial society that would never promote the ideals that Griffiths once did, in many ways these same ideals, that people of color—specifically African-Americans—are not only inferior to whites but less than human (and therefore not worthy of the same respect as white people), is still perpetuated by America’s mass media culture. This year, out of the twenty acting nominations for an Academy Award, there is not a single nomination for an actor of color. While films such as Selma, 20 Years a Slave, and Django Unchained are very successful, these films specifically center around the history of African-Americans. While this history is undoubtedly massively important to continue to learn about, celebrate, and discuss, there are almost no major box office movies that feature people of color that are not about them being a person of color. This clearly sends a message that people of color are unable exist in stories in the same way that white people do; their stories must be intrinsically tied to their race. How can we, as a society, still devalue the narratives of people of color so much? These huge cultural norms certainly go back to Griffith’s film and films like his. If Hollywood style started with Griffith, then the institutionalized racism in the American film industry was generated in part by him as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile Griffith created many of the cinematic techniques that American cinema still uses, and this fact cannot be overlooked, the racism he and his films perpetuated cannot be disregarded either. It is too simple to say that the racism in the film nullifies its artistic achievements. The amazing technical advancements Griffith made will always be considered great, yet this means that the racism he supported will follow its legacy; the two elements of his filmmaking must be considered simultaneously.
My opinion, in all honesty is that D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation cannot be excluded from excellent movies just because of the racist and radical story it portrays. I agree that the klu klux klan did absolutely noting right for America and that their belief of the white supremacy is wrong. It’s also true that the actions and decisions made in the movie do not present the right idea to Americans. But there is something being forgotten about movies; although some are based off of true stories and events, they still are art and should be respected as artwork created by Griffith. Now whether Griffith agrees on what is portrayed in the movie is important to his own respect by others but it’s just a film. At it’s time it was one of the first to reach new levels of film making that where never seen before making it so astounding to the public and even our own president. Some may argue that the movie is terrible but it did incredibly well in the filming industry because of its leap outside the normal boundaries of movies before it. Movies after The Birth of a Nation have portrayed the same message, whether it is about the Holocaust, genocides or even segregation, all these movies have been respected and labeled good. Personally I do not support the movies message at all and have no desire to see it but I believe it has the right to be considered one of the top movies of all time due to it’s success and break through in the filming industry.
ReplyDeleteD.W Griffith’s Birth of a Nation is heralded a cinematic landmark not due to the innovative style of filming it used, not so much the story. Griffith used switchbacks, close-ups, variety of POV shots, use of mise-en-scene and even included an original score, making Birth of a Nation one of the first films to fit the framwork of filmmaking we have today. Modern movie critics judge the film by these standards rather than the ugly message. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is similar in the sense that they are both considered cinematic milestones but show troubling societies. Riefensthal’s films were cinematically impressive but glorified fascism. Both exist as propaganda, Birth of a Nation portraying African-Americans as primitive and suggesting that white people are inherently superior, and by doing so caused more bitterness between races upon its release. For both films, the respective style, portraying a message that specific audiences would want to hear, i.e. racist post-civil war south being told their ideals are right and 1930s Germany being told that they are strengthening after the loss of WWI, making each movie especially appealing to each respective audience at the time. Due to the theatrical style of filming and political correctness definitely not being a thing, both films were highly successful, but for today’s audience are important historical statements and are interesting for modern viewers from an analytical standpoint rather than one of actual entertainment. Today it’s recognized that the storyline of Birth of a Nation is racist and awful and Triumph of the Will ruined Riefenstahl’s career once Nazism ended, proving that the movie’s ideals inevitably became wrong. Both films were more of an advance for cinema rather than politics or morality, as the messages of each film are blatantly wrong and they would not be remembered so well they were judged purely on their statements.
ReplyDeleteD.W Griffith’s Birth of a Nation is heralded a cinematic landmark not due to the innovative style of filming it used, not so much the story. Griffith used switchbacks, close-ups, variety of POV shots, use of mise-en-scene and even included an original score, making Birth of a Nation one of the first films to fit the framwork of filmmaking we have today. Modern movie critics judge the film by these standards rather than the ugly message. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is similar in the sense that they are both considered cinematic milestones but show troubling societies. Riefensthal’s films were cinematically impressive but glorified fascism. Both exist as propaganda, Birth of a Nation portraying African-Americans as primitive and suggesting that white people are inherently superior, and by doing so caused more bitterness between races upon its release. For both films, the respective style, portraying a message that specific audiences would want to hear, i.e. racist post-civil war south being told their ideals are right and 1930s Germany being told that they are strengthening after the loss of WWI, making each movie especially appealing to each respective audience at the time. Due to the theatrical style of filming and political correctness definitely not being a thing, both films were highly successful, but for today’s audience are important historical statements and are interesting for modern viewers from an analytical standpoint rather than one of actual entertainment. Today it’s recognized that the storyline of Birth of a Nation is racist and awful and Triumph of the Will ruined Riefenstahl’s career once Nazism ended, proving that the movie’s ideals inevitably became wrong. Both films were more of an advance for cinema rather than politics or morality, as the messages of each film are blatantly wrong and they would not be remembered so well they were judged purely on their statements.
ReplyDeleteBirth of a Nation is an interesting example of a film which can be appreciated regardless of the content, but there is much to be said about both the type of appreciation that such a film is capable of receiving, and the eligibility is has to be called a “great”. There is little denial that the racism in the film is a significant sign of the times, and if appreciation of the film is to be considered at all, the time period must be taken into account, otherwise both the cinematic effects and storyline fall short of just about any film created in the last few decades. Birth of a Nation can be appreciated the same way that one can gawk at a well-made vintage car; the engine is likely inferior to that of a modern day children’s motorized bike, but the significance lies in the fact that the machine was created in a time where the (otherwise weak and boxy) vehicle would be the equivalent of a well-crafted supercar. In this perspective, Birth of a Nation can only be considered from the mindset of an early 20th century viewer, taking into consideration the time’s capabilities, the film’s competitors, and the cinematic advancements that it brought to the table. Granted, if the film were to be released as it is but in 2015, everything about it would be considered laughable, and would gather minimal appreciation, if any at all, from a film critic or the viewers. Nevertheless, the film can be appreciated as an article of history more so than an actual quality film; a work of art in its time-period which brought complicated story-telling, innovative cinematic techniques, and manipulation of the human perception to the film-world. For these contributions, Birth of a Nation should not be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIn order to determine whether something is great art, one first must define what makes a piece of art great. In other words, what is the purpose of art? For example, one could use a standard of “entertainment value” in determining greatness. With this standard, “The Hangover” might be the greatest movie ever made. However, if greatness is measured by the social message of the film, then “the Hangover” might be ranked as one of the worst. Many people, including myself, believe that the purpose of art is to inspire others to examine, connect, and engage consciously with the world around them. It is to stimulate the viewer’s thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and morals. Using this definition, “The Birth of a Nation”, and other controversial works including the “Triumph of the Will”, could be considered great art even if the message of the film is repulsive. Even if you don’t agree with the message, or think it is wrong, it still can make you connect with and affirm your own beliefs. John Stewart Mills said the only chance we have of knowing the truth is allowing all opinions to be heard. Even those opinions which contradict what we believe is true are essential in that they enable us to be more certain of our positions. The “Birth of a Nation” provides this opposing viewpoint. “Birth of a Nation” forces us to think about American culture in the early 20th century. While we may not be proud of our past, the truth is many Americans at the time believed in the ideals which the film presents. If something is “great” when it provokes, teaches, and forces us to engage, then there can be no doubt that the film “Birth of a Nation” has done just that despite its abhorrent message.
ReplyDeleteArt is a form of expression that is supposed to elicit emotion. Griffith’s piece of art, Birth of a Nation, is a major cinematic phenomenon, beyond the propaganda for white supremacy. DW Griffith made a film that was revolutionary for its time considering the reaction it received. For revolutionary cinematic aspects, the film is more than three hours long, which is completely groundbreaking for 1915. Additionally, cities held gala screening and expensive tickets; other cities banned the movie and called for censorship due to its horrific scenes. This type of realism was never done before. There are certain charges on cavalry of the K.K.K that are recorded with a camera moving at the same speed of the galloping; this created a type of scene that was visually exhilarating. This became a model for action shots. In another scene, a white women jumped off a cliff out of fear from an African American man. The townsmen then go after this African American man for alleged crimes and murder of this “White Goddess,” the white women who needed their protection. This theme of white supremacy was highly prevalent and marked a Birth of A nation as propaganda for the Confederacy. This type of realism that Griffith manifested was confidence in spreading his ideal world, hence the making of K.K.K. as heroes, African American as villainous perpetrators, and women as White Goddesses. This type of confidence in the production of the film is what makes this film so revolutionary. It touched ground in cinema that evoked emotion and caused the nation to uproar. A successful film is controversial; it elicits emotions. Griffith showed the world what effect cinema could have. A Birth of a Nation did that and became the talk of the century. Griffith made a landmark American film because of its cinematic style, the themes it dabbles with, and the controversy with political strife. Immoral actions and blatant propaganda are a part of the purpose and response of the movie, not the cinematic production of the movie, which is what the movie is rated on. It’s still a controversy 100 years later, thus proving that it is a groundbreaking film.
ReplyDelete