Few films have been able to spawn the amount of controversy that D W Griffith's silent epic has. 'The Birth of a Nation' continues to enrage its viewers and has the dubious honour of being one of the most despised films ever made.
Every serious film buff eventually comes across 'The Birth of a Nation', and the feelings that it creates are often mixed. It is the sort of film that is generally watched only by critics, film historians and those who are interested in the artistic and technical sides of cinema. These days, some people may have heard of the film, but very few have seen it. The thought of a silent film from 1915 that runs for a touch over three hours would put the majority off in an instant.
The film covers the Civil war, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the reconstruction of the South and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. D W Griffith astounded audiences with the introduction of many new film-making techniques that laid the groundwork for the future of cinema. Without exaggerating, practically every film made afterward must give some credit to 'The Birth of a Nation'. The film is constructed and put together seamlessly and still looks amazingly fresh. It was once regarded as one of the 10 greatest films ever made, but the repercussions of the film have marred it's status. So much so that when the American Film Institute put together a list of the 100 greatest films, 'The Birth of a Nation' was placed at number 44, and when the list was reissued, was not given a place at all.
After its release, there were many that wanted the film banned because of the subject matter it featured. The film was accused of rewriting American history as part of the story shows the African Americans threatening to create a black empire and dominate the South, all with the support of Northern carpetbaggers. The threat is countered by the rise of the Ku Klux Klan who are credited as being the saviours of the South and bringing about political control and peace. So a major complaint was that the film was grossly inaccurate from a historical viewpoint, though there were claims by historians that argued for its authenticity.
But the main factor that caused outrage was the way that the African Americans were presented. It was a different world in 1915 though, and the film is a reflection of its time, seeing as how those views and attitudes were what many white people would have had and grew up with. Griffith no doubt would have had prejudice embedded in him from his childhood, or at least a superior attitude towards Negroes. But Griffith insisted he was not hateful toward African Americans and Lillian Gish herself backed up that claim.
The film has also been put in the same category as Nazi propaganda. That of course was not Griffith's intent, though the Ku Klux Klan have used this film to support their cause. These days, audiences are disturbed at seeing the Ku Klux Klan in a glorified manner. But the Klan that Griffith depicts was inspired by the original Klan that began in the 1860's and which had gone out of existence by 1915. They were not as hateful and evil as they were in more recent times. Although you can't condone the things they did when first formed, from a white supremacist's point of view, they would have been considered heroic.
For all the outrage and consequences the film brought on, Griffith never meant to offend anyone. And it's reasonable to conclude that if there were historical inaccuracies, Griffith either thought that what he was showing was accurate or he may have been creating parts of the story for dramatic effect. Maybe it was both. No director would knowingly make a film that would cause the amount of trouble that this did. Griffith always stated that his intentions were good and was forever apologetic about the film.
Opinions of the film will always be divided. It is very difficult for some to praise the film, but to look at it as objectively as possible, its hard not to be impressed. 'The Birth of a Nation' is still so modern, so incredibly fluent and coherent. Griffith truly understood cinema and how movies really worked. He was a director who was light-years ahead of his time and has no doubt inspired countless others. How many other films can claim to have contributed so much to cinema?
Every serious film buff eventually comes across 'The Birth of a Nation', and the feelings that it creates are often mixed. It is the sort of film that is generally watched only by critics, film historians and those who are interested in the artistic and technical sides of cinema. These days, some people may have heard of the film, but very few have seen it. The thought of a silent film from 1915 that runs for a touch over three hours would put the majority off in an instant.
The film covers the Civil war, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the reconstruction of the South and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. D W Griffith astounded audiences with the introduction of many new film-making techniques that laid the groundwork for the future of cinema. Without exaggerating, practically every film made afterward must give some credit to 'The Birth of a Nation'. The film is constructed and put together seamlessly and still looks amazingly fresh. It was once regarded as one of the 10 greatest films ever made, but the repercussions of the film have marred it's status. So much so that when the American Film Institute put together a list of the 100 greatest films, 'The Birth of a Nation' was placed at number 44, and when the list was reissued, was not given a place at all.
After its release, there were many that wanted the film banned because of the subject matter it featured. The film was accused of rewriting American history as part of the story shows the African Americans threatening to create a black empire and dominate the South, all with the support of Northern carpetbaggers. The threat is countered by the rise of the Ku Klux Klan who are credited as being the saviours of the South and bringing about political control and peace. So a major complaint was that the film was grossly inaccurate from a historical viewpoint, though there were claims by historians that argued for its authenticity.
But the main factor that caused outrage was the way that the African Americans were presented. It was a different world in 1915 though, and the film is a reflection of its time, seeing as how those views and attitudes were what many white people would have had and grew up with. Griffith no doubt would have had prejudice embedded in him from his childhood, or at least a superior attitude towards Negroes. But Griffith insisted he was not hateful toward African Americans and Lillian Gish herself backed up that claim.
The film has also been put in the same category as Nazi propaganda. That of course was not Griffith's intent, though the Ku Klux Klan have used this film to support their cause. These days, audiences are disturbed at seeing the Ku Klux Klan in a glorified manner. But the Klan that Griffith depicts was inspired by the original Klan that began in the 1860's and which had gone out of existence by 1915. They were not as hateful and evil as they were in more recent times. Although you can't condone the things they did when first formed, from a white supremacist's point of view, they would have been considered heroic.
For all the outrage and consequences the film brought on, Griffith never meant to offend anyone. And it's reasonable to conclude that if there were historical inaccuracies, Griffith either thought that what he was showing was accurate or he may have been creating parts of the story for dramatic effect. Maybe it was both. No director would knowingly make a film that would cause the amount of trouble that this did. Griffith always stated that his intentions were good and was forever apologetic about the film.
Opinions of the film will always be divided. It is very difficult for some to praise the film, but to look at it as objectively as possible, its hard not to be impressed. 'The Birth of a Nation' is still so modern, so incredibly fluent and coherent. Griffith truly understood cinema and how movies really worked. He was a director who was light-years ahead of his time and has no doubt inspired countless others. How many other films can claim to have contributed so much to cinema?