Three centuries before Christus. Young Cabiria is kidnapped by some pirates during one eruption of the Etna. She is sold as a slave in Carthage, and as she is just going to be sacrificed to... See full summary »
Two brothers, Phil and Ted Stoneman, visit their friends in Piedmont, South Carolina: the family Cameron. This friendship is affected by the Civil War, as the Stonemans and the Camerons must join up opposite armies. The consequences of the War in their lives are shown in connection to major historical events, like the development of the Civil War itself, Lincoln's assassination, and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan. Written by
Victor Munoz <email@example.com>
While the film was the first to be shown at the White House, President Woodrow Wilson's statement that it was tantamount to "history written in lightning" has been disputed. Many suggest that original playwright Thomas Dixon Jr. coined the phrase in a shameless act of self-publicity. Indeed, Wilson sought to distance himself from the film, later calling it an "unfortunate production". See more »
Car tire tracks are visible in the KKK segment. See more »
[Margaret cannot speak to Phil]
Bitter memories will not allow the poor bruised heart of the South to forget.
See more »
The following was listed in the opening credits: A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE: We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue - the same liberty that is conceeded to the art of the written word - that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare. See more »
The technical: It's amazing how so many throw out their own common sense and swallow an idea if it's fed to them enough. So many people use the defense that this film was so innovative in order to excuse the extreme racism in depicts. First of all, there is still a dispute as to whether Griffith did indeed "invent" the close up shot and cross-cutting of scenes. But even if you accept that, so what? The film was made in 1915, during the very early stages of film-making. Just like with any industry, film-making was progressing, and such obvious shots were only a matter of time. To say that Griffith was ahead of his time is not saying much considering the youth of the industry. The film, even technically, does not stand the test of time. If it did, we would not have to continually be reminded that the film was made in 1915, and that's why we should be impressed. Citizen Kane was made in 1939, and it was truly ahead of it's time. The shots in that film wow me to this day. It just so happens that this film, BOAN, was the first to use simple techniques that were inevitable. (Some of which are believed to have been suggested by the cameraman, and not Griffith himself).
The history (Reconstruction): For those who argue that this film is historically accurate, I can only guess that you have another agenda, much like those who argued the same at the time. The debate about the reconstruction will never end because there was not the technology and a media capable of recording the events in a clear and unbiased way. The written accounts are widely varied, and debated. But again, let's use common sense. Of course there was violence and I'm sure some amount of treachery after the civil war. You have a new "regime" coming into a place full of strong feelings and tradition. Reconstruction would of course have meant getting rid of old leaders and old traditions, and it would have been met with opposition. Still, had the reconstruction been anywhere near as it was depicted in this film, the country would not have recovered and rebuilt as quickly as it did. I've read too much from both sides about the reconstruction to buy this extreme point of view.
We are in a rough time in this country right now. Should an anti-Bush filmmaker make a film about this time 50 years from now in the same vein as BOAN, it would depict this administration as Nazi-like extreme rightist who peer through citizens' window, randomly imprison Muslim-Americans and attack all underdeveloped Muslim countries with oil on their land. The whole administration would look like sinister villains and Bush would be a dopey puppet like imbecile. Of course, if it wasn't for us having the technology to record today's news, anyone with an anti-Bush agenda would rally behind the film and argue that it is historically accurate. Some might even believe it. Pro-Bush folks would argue that it had no validity at all. But like anything, it's more complicated than either extreme will admit.
This film was a racist satire of Reconstruction at best.
Quick response to volksgeist, from Canada: I've read all of your "reviews" and they are nothing more than quotes by historical racists and anti-Semites. Your agenda if obvious. Still, since your non-review made it on the site, I'd like to take the time and respond briefly to your quote. It is indeed an interesting quote. But, like this film, it's from a particular point of view with a particular agenda. Yes, Africans did walk among diamonds for generations. Yes they did have abundant natural resources. And, that remained true until they were invaded.
Perhaps, it was out of wisdom that they chose not to destroy the resources for wealth, but to live among them in balance with nature. Diamonds, after all, are not food or shelter. They are used mainly as symbols of status because they are "pretty". And now, people lose their lives over these pretty stones. Where is the wisdom in that? The natural resources of Africa have been diminished to almost nothing, and the continent is in shambles due to the "progressive" thinkers such as yourself. Maybe, just maybe, your ideas of progress are simply different from those of the natives of Africa. And considering where we are headed now, I'd argue that they were wiser.
Also, since that quote, it has been proved that Africans did indeed travel across the seas. In fact they visited the "Americas" long before Columbus "discovered" them. All your quote proves, to me, is that racists can be eloquent, but it doesn't make them any less wrong.
55 of 98 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?