|
|
|
|
|
|
The Birth of a Nation 
Actors : Spottiswoode Aitken, Mary Alden, George Beranger, Elmer Clifton, Miriam Cooper
Studio : Madacy Records
by Madacy Records
Release Date : 2001-05-08
Publisher : Madacy Records
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780778604297
UPC : 056775070397
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 150 reviews)
List Price : $7.98
Our Price : $1.94
|
|
| |
|
Americancivilwar.com essential video |
|
A pivotal moment in film history. After The Birth of a Nation, nothing was the same: not the way audiences watched movies, not the way filmmakers created them. D.W. Griffith's jumbo-size saga of the Civil War expanded the boundaries of storytelling on the screen, conveying a richer, more complicated (and certainly longer) tale than anyone had seen in a movie before. The delicate relationships, the sad passage of time, the spectacular battle scenes all look as fresh and innovative today as they did in 1915. So do Griffith's brilliant actors, most of them--including favorite leading lady Lillian Gish--drawn from his regular stock company. What has become increasingly problematic about The Birth of a Nation is Griffith's condescending attitude toward black slaves, and the ringing excitement surrounding the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith, whose political ideas were naive at best, seemed genuinely surprised by the criticism of his masterwork, and for his next project he turned to the humanist preaching of the massive Intolerance. Despite protests, Birth sold more tickets than any other movie, a record that stood for decades, and President Woodrow Wilson famously compared it to "history written in lightning." That judgment has lasted. --Robert Horton |
| |
|
| |
|
Beware of those skeletons in your closet... |
Throughout my cinematic life there has always been that one film that both critics and audiences have agreed, both time and again, to be one of the greatest films created. Upon watching sed film, I was unimpressed. It was grandiose alright, but a continued classic? This critic would have to disagree. The blatant racism, the glossy view of the South, as well as that final line that instead of joy, sends a painful shiver down your spine - that is not the grounds for a film that continues to show up on everyone's top ten lists. The film, "Gone With the Wind", and searching through my older review of it, these words were use "From the unexciting, unloving characters (of which we all hate, yet are supposed to love by the end) to smile on Scarlett's face after the marital rape scene, this movie was a disaster." Now, upon watching D.W. Griffith's brave, bold, and uncensored epic (the word epic CAN be used for this film because it not only details history, but it also carries suspense, love, vengeance, and innocence throughout) "Birth of a Nation", it cannot be comprehended as to why this film has not honored with the same praise as that candy-store epic. It is studied in film classes, it demonstrates the rawest form of both independent production as well as large, scoping scenes involving mass crowds, war, and a final battle sequence that would knock the socks of any modern CGI created moments, yet only in independent forums is it considered the powerhouse it should be. Could it be that this film feels more racist now than "Gone with the Wind" ever did? Are we afraid to embrace this film because of honest or argumentative vision that Griffith took?
"Birth of a Nation" can rattle any viewer to the core because of both the brazen images that it conjures, but also, made in 1915, it forces the viewer to change the way they watch movies. There are no spoken words, just the loud notes of the orchestra playing "Dixie", or "Star Spangled Banner", or just tunes to carry us to the next scene. This film also depicts the racial tensions of the time rather honestly. Griffith has been marked a racist for his work on this film, the images of white actors playing African Americans, or the depiction of the power of the Klu Klux Klan can rattle any viewer to the core. Isn't that the point? "Birth of a Nation" is not only a stronger, more influential film than "Gone With the Wind", but it challenges the typical popcorn-to-couch viewer. One could show similarities between the two films by saying that there are sweeping landscapes and powerful battle scenes in both films, but Griffith takes it a step further by showing us the history of racism, a.k.a. the birth of a fearing nation. He begins with the Civil War, most specifically two families that were friends prior to the War, but find themselves eventually on dueling sides of the battlefield. It is this brother-against-brother war that fuels the future events of the South. Griffith's film also develops the power of Abe Lincoln throughout these times. It shows his compassion, his desire to unify the country, and to assist in the redevelopment of the South. This, sadly, gives a further reason as to why his assassination took place, and how the North used this to push the South into further disarray.
To modern standards, "Birth of a Nation" is racist. Griffith's depiction of African Americans in the army, voting, and taking office is very difficult to watch in 2008, but there is a moment of truth to his images. The new rule from the North brought too much power to one particular person, thus destroying any level of equality for this already war-ravished nation. In the same vein, Griffith's portrayal of the KKK to today's modern standards is also considered racist. To have an organization, fueled by hatred, be the heroines of the film, is again, difficult to watch in 2008 - but Griffith, I believe, sees this and with that final scene of the KKK demonstrates how they have transformed into an entity of hatred, instead of encouraged by change. Griffith credits the birth of the KKK as a group that merely wanted to have a voice in the South, a group that wanted to have equality across the board, so in retaliation, they organized, and the KKK was formed. Having never read "The Clansmen", one does question how detailed Griffith went when pulling source material for his film from this book. Watching how the KKK regains power is necessary to this story, because Griffith is able to take these historically accurate moments and show us where we went wrong. "Birth of a Nation" is a film that points the finger inward, depicting casualties from both the North and South, both white and black, and both rich and poor. The underlining meaning to "Birth of a Nation" is that corruption and evil lurk from all different places and that perhaps the best response isn't the greatest action.
Finally, I would like to end this review by expressing my feelings toward this film. This was an emotional, exhausting, and powerful film to watch. Why it isn't on everyone's "Top Ten" lists is beyond me, outside of the fact that perhaps the depiction of the KKK or African Americans is a bit hard to swallow. I would agree that this film is racist, but in the context of the time, I think Griffith was right to do what he did to create this masterpiece. I am not racist myself, but if I had a child, and wanted to show them a darker side to our great nation, this would be the film I would showcase. Not only does it show racism, but is shows "why". It is a courageous film from its historical basis, but a sad film from its honesty. Everyone should watch "Birth of a Nation", it is a bold entry into not just the world of cinema (the first real epic), but it is one of the few films to really paint a dirty picture of the Civil War. While we all agree that the Civil War (or any war) is unjust, "Birth of a Nation" takes us to next level to show its repercussions.
Overall, I initially had trouble training my eyes to watch a non-talking film. The music was fantastic, the scenes were detailed, and the story captured my attention until the very end. This was a historical epic - surprisingly, an epic that takes you away from you comfort zone. It forces you to root for an evil organization, to shake your head at the images of African Americans, and see the corruption of the North (a side we typically see as sympathetic to the cause). My argument is that this film is a classic - alas, a forgotten classic. While film schools, film geeks, and non-commercial film literature feels that "Birth of a Nation" is considered the ultimate classic, there is a strong majority that fear the message in this film - that fear the images that Griffith has created - thus they push away, and on so many lists of films you will find "Gone With the Wind", a glossier, less engaging film. In conclusion, "Birth of a Nation" is exactly what the title describes. It is the birth of our current society, complete with racism, hatred, confusion, corruption, epic battles, and greed. It is a film that should be catapulted to the top, not forgotten at the bottom.
Grade: ***** out of *****
|
| |
|
Important turths presented |
The movie brings to the fore important truths for people to consider. I 100% agree with the premise of the movie, "Do not start a war if you cannot finish it".
The end of state sovereignty I believe was the victim of the Civil war while it brought blatant racial discrimination to an end. The first 2 hours of the movie I felt was balanced apart from the denigrating caricature of Americans of African descent (minority). The unfortunate truth presented in the 3rd hour of the movie, where, the minority community en masse have since been targeted rather than identifying those among minority community who colluded with machiavellian politicians and unscupulous profiteers (carpet-baggers) from the north with a single-minded objective of taking advantage of the impoverished southern community after the war.
If President Lincoln had the opportunity, I would like to imagine a reconciliation not different from what took place in South Africa at the end of Apartheid would be in vogue in United States. Unfortunately that was not to be.
I believe Mr. Griffith's heart was in the right place when portraying:
(a) President Lincoln as a true friend of southern community in toto irrespective of colour.
(b) Machiavellian politicians manipulating the southern minority community to meet selfish ends.
It is however unfortunate Mr. Griffith did not recognize the nature in people (to this day remain unpunished) who wreaked havoc on the southern majority community by manipulating the minority. |
| |
|
Birth of a Nation-the birth of cinema |
|
This film will be of great use in teaching the evolution and development of cinema in my Media Studies classes. D.W.Griffith's pioneering techniques were used in Peter Jackson's "Forgotten Silver" mockmentary on the birth of film in New Zealand. The two films will be useful as examples of film history. |
| |
|
To say that I have mixed feelings on this one would be an understatement..... |
This film has the unique distinction of being one of the most technically innovative films ever made, and also one of the most disgustingly racist pictures ever made.
Techincally, the film is astounding. The film runs 3 hours (in some early versions, it reportedly ran 3 1/2 hours), and most silent films during that time were 2 reelers (running 20 minutes or so, as a reel of film was roughly 10 minutes). D.W. Griffith pushed the envelope in encompassing more and more in film, treating it with respect and saying, quite rightly, that it was an art form in itself and that it would replace books as history (the latter part of that statement is debatable, but not the first). The cutting here of wide shots to close ups, pretty standard editing nowadays, was considered revolutionary when D.W. started it. The film was a true epic. It played in many huge theaters, and was treated like a night at the opera. It made people sit up and notice that film was a true art form. I think people were so moved by it because it was a spectactular film, filled with great battle scenes and epic scope, which had never been attempted before. As a historical document, it's incalcuable.
As for the thematic elements, the stories you've heard about this films unbridled racism are all true. Blacks (played by whites in black face, which is offensive enough) are portrayed in the most unflattering, disgusting stereotypes that they've been subjected to. One of the slaves, Gus, lusts after one of the Cameron daughters (Gus is portrayed as someone who can't control himself with the white women, which is reprehensible). She ends up killing herself than being with a black man. After blacks receive their emancipation, they start harassing whites, and the KKK comes in to "save" white civilization. This film is the only film that I know of that portrays the KKK in a positive light. Some of the intertitles are so outrageous that you are really shocked to see them (one reads "people come together in defense of their Aryan birthright"). People were naturally offended by this, and it can't be dismissed as political correctness (this was 1917, where there was no term for political correctness). The NAACP despised this film back when it was made, and protested it vigorously. Griffith defended his film, even saying in an interview that the Klan was needed in those days (I saw this interview on an early VHS copy of the film). If Griffith was trying to convince people to be nicer to him, saying that about the Klan wasn't helpful. Considering the Klan is one of the most heinous organizations in American history, it was historically incorrect and from a human standpoint, outrageous.
It is difficult to seperate the sheer scope and innovations of this film from its disgusting and incredibly false portrayal of black people. So, do I think people should see this film? Yes, but keep in mind that you will be infuriated by the end. I can't seriously expect anyone to sit through a film like this and not be outraged by the stereotypical, ugly, and racist way blacks are depicted. It's just impossible to do. But if you can somehow appreciate the epic story and the great camerawork, editing, and the like, you may get something out of it.
Griffith's next film was Intolerance, perhaps an atonement for his portrayal of blacks here. It's another technical marvel, but one that ended up bankrupting Griffith. |
| |
|
A brilliant, albeit revisionist, romp |
The conversations about this movie have been ongoing for a century, so there is little for me to add. "Birth of a Nation," D.W. Griffith's 1915 revisionist film masterpiece, mangles history, excuses slavery and plays into every self-serving racial myth imaginable. The film is also exciting, often poignant and occasionally funny. For modern film buffs, it offers a fascinating glimpse into the conventions of silent movie acting and visual communication. Margaret Cameron's mad forest flight from the lascivious Gus -- complete with almost-cartoonish erratic changes in directions, punctuated with throwing her arms into the air -- was a lesson in how to communicate terror and despair without the use of words or sound.
The film would need a thick companion guide to point out its errors, misrepresentations and biases. It would also need someone to discuss how such a Union-unfriendly, "Negro"-bashing testimony could find acceptance on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Over 140 years after the end of hostilities, I found some scenes infuriating. At Appomattox, I can accept that Lee was stoic and noble, but cannot believe the leering, cigar-chomping caricature of Grant portrayed here. Nor can I believe that newly-freed, armed blacks roamed the South, keeping poor, helpless whites away from the polling stations. And on and on. Don't get me started.
There is a "making of" feature on the DVD. It is much too short to provide in-depth analysis of my questions, which lost it a star, but it does provide some context about America's ambivalence to the slaughter just 50 years in the past. Blaming the fratricidal war on the slaves and meddling, hypocritical abolitionists is one approach, I suppose. Through outtakes and test material previously unseen in public, the feature provides insights into Griffith's filmmaking history and techniques.
"Birth of a Nation" is a movie that, like the period it portrays so badly, has its moments of lightness and dark. It belongs in the American film pantheon, no doubt. But it's place there owes as much to its testimony of film's power to delude, divide and redefine as to its technical innovations and daring. |
| |
|
|
|
