Benefit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,193
A masterpiece. Powerful racist propaganda. Epic storytelling. Remarkable cultural document. Cinema in its purest form.
Birth of a Nation is all these things. It was D.W. Griffith's groundbreaking epic, released in 1915, which grossed approximately 10 million dollars at the box office. Theatres charged an unprecedented $2 admission price to see this film. Never before had a film showcased that kind of earning potential. It effectively brought motion pictures, which had traditionally been the stomping ground of the working class, to the upper echelons of American society and lent filmmaking a sense of artistic legitimacy.
In a nutshell, Birth of a Nation tells the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction era America. The film's thesis is that America was a conglomerate of divided states until the white man united under the banner of white supremacy to disenfranchise the newly liberated Southern black population. It glorifies the Ku Klux Klan and demonizes blacks and mulattos, portraying them as incapable of wielding political power and lusting after white women. There is one scene in the state legislature where the newly elected black representatives are seen eating chicken, drinking liquor and taking their shoes off. The absurdity of this scene is unintentionally quite humorous.
The film drew criticism for its overt racism when it was released, and has been the center of controversy ever since. It is, unequivocally, white racist propaganda. But that does not detract from its value as a cinematic milestone. Although Edwin S. Porter may have technically been the first director to make use of close-ups and cross-cutting, D.W. Griffith refined these techniques and introduced them into the filmmaking lexicon. The kinetic energy of his filmmaking, the fluid camera movements, the contraction and dilation of the iris, the cross-cuts (which are effectively precursors to the vaunted Russian technique of montage that would develop a decade later); it all comes together into a superb example of pure cinema.
The film definitely drags, coming in at a staggering 180 minutes. There are many parts that should have been cut, but the length of the film itself was a conscious artistic statement. There had never been a film of this length produced before; the studio standard was 60 minute features. Griffith wanted to redefine the feature film. Birth of a Nation was unprecedented in its scope, ambition and epic length.
The large scale battle sequences during the Civil War are still impressive today, compounded by the fact that Griffith was literally working with the most rudimentary of tools. Motion pictures had been in existence for only 20 or so years at that point, yet he succeeded in creating sweeping visuals of the battlefield, frantic mob scenes and one very powerful closing sequence. The iconic images of white hooded Ku Klux Klan members cresting a ridge on horseback and riding through a stream are powerful and kind of inspiring, even today. Despite the obvious racism, the scenes succeed as cinema and should be acknowledged for that achievement.
Like Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin, the casual movie viewer probably won't be able to sit through the whole thing, or even want to. But to anyone interested in cinema history, this is another must-see.
Birth of a Nation is all these things. It was D.W. Griffith's groundbreaking epic, released in 1915, which grossed approximately 10 million dollars at the box office. Theatres charged an unprecedented $2 admission price to see this film. Never before had a film showcased that kind of earning potential. It effectively brought motion pictures, which had traditionally been the stomping ground of the working class, to the upper echelons of American society and lent filmmaking a sense of artistic legitimacy.
In a nutshell, Birth of a Nation tells the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction era America. The film's thesis is that America was a conglomerate of divided states until the white man united under the banner of white supremacy to disenfranchise the newly liberated Southern black population. It glorifies the Ku Klux Klan and demonizes blacks and mulattos, portraying them as incapable of wielding political power and lusting after white women. There is one scene in the state legislature where the newly elected black representatives are seen eating chicken, drinking liquor and taking their shoes off. The absurdity of this scene is unintentionally quite humorous.
The film drew criticism for its overt racism when it was released, and has been the center of controversy ever since. It is, unequivocally, white racist propaganda. But that does not detract from its value as a cinematic milestone. Although Edwin S. Porter may have technically been the first director to make use of close-ups and cross-cutting, D.W. Griffith refined these techniques and introduced them into the filmmaking lexicon. The kinetic energy of his filmmaking, the fluid camera movements, the contraction and dilation of the iris, the cross-cuts (which are effectively precursors to the vaunted Russian technique of montage that would develop a decade later); it all comes together into a superb example of pure cinema.
The film definitely drags, coming in at a staggering 180 minutes. There are many parts that should have been cut, but the length of the film itself was a conscious artistic statement. There had never been a film of this length produced before; the studio standard was 60 minute features. Griffith wanted to redefine the feature film. Birth of a Nation was unprecedented in its scope, ambition and epic length.
The large scale battle sequences during the Civil War are still impressive today, compounded by the fact that Griffith was literally working with the most rudimentary of tools. Motion pictures had been in existence for only 20 or so years at that point, yet he succeeded in creating sweeping visuals of the battlefield, frantic mob scenes and one very powerful closing sequence. The iconic images of white hooded Ku Klux Klan members cresting a ridge on horseback and riding through a stream are powerful and kind of inspiring, even today. Despite the obvious racism, the scenes succeed as cinema and should be acknowledged for that achievement.
Like Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin, the casual movie viewer probably won't be able to sit through the whole thing, or even want to. But to anyone interested in cinema history, this is another must-see.
Last edited:
