Country: USA
Released: February 8th, 1915
Genre: Drama, Historical Fiction
Directed by: D.W. Griffith
Produced by: D.W. Griffith
Written by: D.W. Griffith
The first time I watched The Birth of a Nation was a few years ago in my AP US history class. We were learning about Reconstruction and the film was presented to us so we could better understand racial tensions of the era. We only saw a brief scene but I remember laughing my ass off at the absurdity of the film. Or maybe I didn't actually think it was amusing and was just laughing to ease how uncomfortable I was.
In any case, it's not as funny as I remember.
The Birth of a Nation is one of those films that needs no introduction. Considered the first full length feature film (at least in the United States) it is still regarded as a watershed moment in cinema, pioneering special effects and cinematography that influence films to this day. It is also probably one of the most hated films in history.
Here's celebrating day three, woo hoo.
I'm honestly conflicted with how to approach writing this entry. The rational side of me wants to distance myself from the blatant racism and sheer awfulness of the film's content and analyze it from a purely historical sense. To play the intellectual and move past the film's emotional effects and join the hundreds of respected film scholars in rightly celebrating it for revolutionizing the medium. That's always been my fantasy and my smug ego boost, the assumption that I could objectively and pragmatically view any issue and play devil's advocate for the sake of getting the big picture, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't obnoxiously sometimes hold myself above other people in that regard.
But now, having just finished the movie, I realize that doing so would essentially be whitewashing my actual opinion of the piece, and I've honestly had my fill of whitewashing for one day.
So let me just briefly summarize the movie and list it's few good elements before moving on to what will probably be an anger-fueled rant.
The film follows two families, the Stonemans (from the North) and the Camerons (from the South) over the course of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the eventual rise of the Klu Klux Klan (here glorified as a "defense of their Aryan birthright"). Let me just say right off the bat that the first half of the film is fantastic; it's an amazing war film with a scale that rivals some movies today. Almost everything about this portion of the movie is great: the cinematography is breathtaking, showing huge, sprawling battlefields featuring hundreds of entrenched soldiers firing cannons and rushing at one another. Scenes of pillaging armies are beautifully rendered with smoke and red lighting, creating a jaw-droppingly hellish landscape that's up there as one of the most visceral portrayals of war I've seen despite it's abstract style. Furthermore, with the exception of one or two scenes the racism in this half is limited to just blackface (something I never thought I'd never express as a positive but at this point I'll take what I can get).
My two favourite scenes include Lincoln's assassination, which is excellently set up and features a surprisingly fair and nuanced portrayal of Lincoln, and when Colonel Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall) returns from the front only to find his home in ruins and family in rags. It's a powerful moment and the transition from anguish to relief at seeing his sister for the first time in years is quite touching.
Overall I recommend the first half of The Birth of a Nation to any fan of historical fiction or war movies.
As for the rest of the movie the acting, costuming, editing and of course cinematography are top-notch throughout. Even today, despite most of these techniques have faded into obsolescence, one can really feel the depth of film-making on display. Only three films in and I can still appreciate that in terms of technology The Birth of a Nation isn't so much an evolution as a revolution, and I suppose that's enough to warrant a spot on the list despite it's content.
Speaking of which, now that that's all out of the way let's dive into the putrid pool of shit that is the second half of The Birth of a Nation.
I honestly don't even know where to begin, there's so many layers of awful that it's a little daunting. Maybe I'll start with Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis), the non-too-subtle caricature of Radical Republican Congressman and vehement abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (some of you may recognize him as Thomas Lee Jones' character in Lincoln) who essentially causes the rise of the so-called "Black Empire" by giving blacks political agency at the behest of his seductive, manipulative "mulatto" maid.
Jesus H Christ, really?
Or what about the "facsimile" of the first black majority congress, where every black character is a rowdy drunk in rags? Watch as the "helpless white minority" (actual quote) is powerless to stop dem rowdy "negros" from passing interracial marriage and turning their once 'respectable' congress into a circus. It's worth mentioning that I actually laughed out loud at that "white minority" line.
I know! I'll just talk about when poor Margret Cameron (Miriam Cooper) is chased off a cliff by a lecherous black union soldier and we watch as the family grieves over her dead body only to cut to their two black servants with the caption "and none grieved more then these," at which point I literally yelled "fuck you" at my screen because I was so utterly floored by the backtracking, white-man's burden bullshit on display. It is worth noting that, just like every other main black character, these two are played by white actors in black face and that they're the only black characters in the whole movie that don't chase after white women like they shit gold. Probably because their still faithful and 'good,' unlike all those uppidity black soldiers.
Not that there aren't actual black people in the movie, generally relegated to the background or minor roles.
I can't even begin to fathom what their experience filming this must have been like. Can anyone imagine such a thing? What must've been going through their heads? What must their peers have thought? Where they ostracized for 'selling out' their community? Did they feel some level of shame? But can we honestly blame them for doing what they needed to make ends meet? As I wonder this I'm reminded of Booker T. Washington, a prominent civil rights proponent and former slave who advocated for economic independence before civil rights, today condemned by many as a semi-regressive 'Uncle Tom.' But is that fair, especially since so many blacks were stuck in abject poverty? Can we condemn these actors for trying to find a way out of such a cycle, even if it's at the expense of 'progress'?
And what is it about this film that incises so much rage, more so then other racist films of the era? Is the content really that much more repugnant than its contemporaries? Is it just that it's better shot and therefor more blatant? Or is it that when people ask what the first true feature film in history was this is what we'll have to point to? That as lovers of cinema we have to face the fact that every film can trace its success to the legacy of The Birth of a Nation, and that deep down we can't shake the feeling that in a way this makes it part of are own legacies.
I frankly don't know, and I'm honestly too exhausted to really give it any more thought. I just hope that one day I can revisit The Birth of a Nation and be able to distance myself from it's repugnant aspects to truly objectively review it. Until then I'll leave you with a quote from the great Roger Ebert:
"To understand "The Birth of a Nation" we must first understand the difference between what we bring to the film, and what the film brings to us. All serious moviegoers must sooner or later arrive at a point where they see a film for what it is, and not simply for what they feel about it. "The Birth of a Nation" is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl's "The Triumph of the Will," it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."
Roger, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Released: February 8th, 1915
Genre: Drama, Historical Fiction
Directed by: D.W. Griffith
Produced by: D.W. Griffith
Written by: D.W. Griffith
The first time I watched The Birth of a Nation was a few years ago in my AP US history class. We were learning about Reconstruction and the film was presented to us so we could better understand racial tensions of the era. We only saw a brief scene but I remember laughing my ass off at the absurdity of the film. Or maybe I didn't actually think it was amusing and was just laughing to ease how uncomfortable I was.
In any case, it's not as funny as I remember.
The Birth of a Nation is one of those films that needs no introduction. Considered the first full length feature film (at least in the United States) it is still regarded as a watershed moment in cinema, pioneering special effects and cinematography that influence films to this day. It is also probably one of the most hated films in history.
Here's celebrating day three, woo hoo.
I'm honestly conflicted with how to approach writing this entry. The rational side of me wants to distance myself from the blatant racism and sheer awfulness of the film's content and analyze it from a purely historical sense. To play the intellectual and move past the film's emotional effects and join the hundreds of respected film scholars in rightly celebrating it for revolutionizing the medium. That's always been my fantasy and my smug ego boost, the assumption that I could objectively and pragmatically view any issue and play devil's advocate for the sake of getting the big picture, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't obnoxiously sometimes hold myself above other people in that regard.
But now, having just finished the movie, I realize that doing so would essentially be whitewashing my actual opinion of the piece, and I've honestly had my fill of whitewashing for one day.
So let me just briefly summarize the movie and list it's few good elements before moving on to what will probably be an anger-fueled rant.
The film follows two families, the Stonemans (from the North) and the Camerons (from the South) over the course of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the eventual rise of the Klu Klux Klan (here glorified as a "defense of their Aryan birthright"). Let me just say right off the bat that the first half of the film is fantastic; it's an amazing war film with a scale that rivals some movies today. Almost everything about this portion of the movie is great: the cinematography is breathtaking, showing huge, sprawling battlefields featuring hundreds of entrenched soldiers firing cannons and rushing at one another. Scenes of pillaging armies are beautifully rendered with smoke and red lighting, creating a jaw-droppingly hellish landscape that's up there as one of the most visceral portrayals of war I've seen despite it's abstract style. Furthermore, with the exception of one or two scenes the racism in this half is limited to just blackface (something I never thought I'd never express as a positive but at this point I'll take what I can get).
My two favourite scenes include Lincoln's assassination, which is excellently set up and features a surprisingly fair and nuanced portrayal of Lincoln, and when Colonel Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall) returns from the front only to find his home in ruins and family in rags. It's a powerful moment and the transition from anguish to relief at seeing his sister for the first time in years is quite touching.
Overall I recommend the first half of The Birth of a Nation to any fan of historical fiction or war movies.
As for the rest of the movie the acting, costuming, editing and of course cinematography are top-notch throughout. Even today, despite most of these techniques have faded into obsolescence, one can really feel the depth of film-making on display. Only three films in and I can still appreciate that in terms of technology The Birth of a Nation isn't so much an evolution as a revolution, and I suppose that's enough to warrant a spot on the list despite it's content.
Speaking of which, now that that's all out of the way let's dive into the putrid pool of shit that is the second half of The Birth of a Nation.
I honestly don't even know where to begin, there's so many layers of awful that it's a little daunting. Maybe I'll start with Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis), the non-too-subtle caricature of Radical Republican Congressman and vehement abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (some of you may recognize him as Thomas Lee Jones' character in Lincoln) who essentially causes the rise of the so-called "Black Empire" by giving blacks political agency at the behest of his seductive, manipulative "mulatto" maid.
Jesus H Christ, really?
Or what about the "facsimile" of the first black majority congress, where every black character is a rowdy drunk in rags? Watch as the "helpless white minority" (actual quote) is powerless to stop dem rowdy "negros" from passing interracial marriage and turning their once 'respectable' congress into a circus. It's worth mentioning that I actually laughed out loud at that "white minority" line.
I know! I'll just talk about when poor Margret Cameron (Miriam Cooper) is chased off a cliff by a lecherous black union soldier and we watch as the family grieves over her dead body only to cut to their two black servants with the caption "and none grieved more then these," at which point I literally yelled "fuck you" at my screen because I was so utterly floored by the backtracking, white-man's burden bullshit on display. It is worth noting that, just like every other main black character, these two are played by white actors in black face and that they're the only black characters in the whole movie that don't chase after white women like they shit gold. Probably because their still faithful and 'good,' unlike all those uppidity black soldiers.
Not that there aren't actual black people in the movie, generally relegated to the background or minor roles.
I can't even begin to fathom what their experience filming this must have been like. Can anyone imagine such a thing? What must've been going through their heads? What must their peers have thought? Where they ostracized for 'selling out' their community? Did they feel some level of shame? But can we honestly blame them for doing what they needed to make ends meet? As I wonder this I'm reminded of Booker T. Washington, a prominent civil rights proponent and former slave who advocated for economic independence before civil rights, today condemned by many as a semi-regressive 'Uncle Tom.' But is that fair, especially since so many blacks were stuck in abject poverty? Can we condemn these actors for trying to find a way out of such a cycle, even if it's at the expense of 'progress'?
And what is it about this film that incises so much rage, more so then other racist films of the era? Is the content really that much more repugnant than its contemporaries? Is it just that it's better shot and therefor more blatant? Or is it that when people ask what the first true feature film in history was this is what we'll have to point to? That as lovers of cinema we have to face the fact that every film can trace its success to the legacy of The Birth of a Nation, and that deep down we can't shake the feeling that in a way this makes it part of are own legacies.
I frankly don't know, and I'm honestly too exhausted to really give it any more thought. I just hope that one day I can revisit The Birth of a Nation and be able to distance myself from it's repugnant aspects to truly objectively review it. Until then I'll leave you with a quote from the great Roger Ebert:
"To understand "The Birth of a Nation" we must first understand the difference between what we bring to the film, and what the film brings to us. All serious moviegoers must sooner or later arrive at a point where they see a film for what it is, and not simply for what they feel about it. "The Birth of a Nation" is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl's "The Triumph of the Will," it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."
Roger, I couldn't have said it better myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment