Saturday, January 25, 2014
Birth of a Controversy
D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark American film that ushered in many of the hallmarks of classic Hollywood cinema. It is preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the AFI (American Film Institute). Yet it is also a film which advocates white supremacy and lionizes the Klu Klux Klan. Can such a film truly be great? Why or why not? What about other films such the Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will a film that trumpets Nazi ideology and celebrates Adolph Hitler? Do political and moral statements matter in an artwork? Or is it enough to be technically and artistically brilliant? Can an artwork's message trump its style?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that this film is exception and artistically brilliant, because of the choices Griffith made as a director. The film is ahead of its time and has used many techniques in film that are still used in modern film today. For these reasons, I believe this film is great regardless of the message. I believe it should be watched and taught as to learn from it, not to glorify its racist views. By watching the movie, viewers can get a idea of what society(or Griffith's view of society) was during that time. I think it is educational and even though it advocates white supremacy, we can watch the movie and discuss the many issues that arise from that and the reason why it was so horrific during that time period. It gives modern young students a real example of racism, an eye opener that can be beneficial.
ReplyDeleteexceptional**
ReplyDeleteThough the Birth of a Nation does feature many innovative filming techniques that may far precede its era, the focus of the film is much more towards the side of racial prejudice. Griffith’s usage of framing and juxtaposition to enhance the story were at the time revolutionary and hailed him a hero, however this was at a time of inherently different political circumstances in America. At the time, a film that hailed white supremacy as virtuous and just was endorsed by community leaders, even the president of the United States. Today, such a film would be banned and chastised by audiences for its prejudice. Answering the question of whether or not the film should be seen as great or shameful is a question that is entirely up to the individuals themselves that view the film. For that reason, I view the film as horribly racist and a hindrance to social equality in America. The film, however “innovative” the techniques may have been, is enormously over shadowed by the clear plot line that demonizes the African-American race, and promoting the idea of racial inequality/white supremacy. The focus is not on the techniques, rather on the message, and as a result the message is what I interpret to be the largest aspect of the film. Griffith made the decision to make this the highlight of the film, and continued to do so in his later works. Griffith’s contribution to film should not be undertaken, however the film should continue to be viewed by audiences as a hindrance to fixing the problem of racial prejudice in America.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the film, "The Birth of a Nation" helped D.W. Griffith earn the name "the Shakespeare of the screen" due to the film's profound narrative content, "The Birth of a Nation" cannot be considered a great movie due to the film's racist message. Before assessing whether or not a film is good or bad, one has to remember that a main point of a film, or a work of art, is to convey a message or a theme; without this ability, the film or the work of art loses its meaning, and it becomes indecipherable. However, a work of art, or a film, with a clear message, can be very convincing, and can become a piece of propaganda, as observed with "Battleship Potemkin." It is for this very reason that "The Birth of a Nation" is a bad film; the film's racist message condoned prejudice against blacks, making the film a kind of social weapon. For example, the KKK used the film as a recruiting tool. The number of lynchings victims also increased after the film was shown. In other words, D.W. Griffith's film is not a good film or work of art; it is technically a hate crime, and I think it is more appropriate to call it a weapon or something to that extent.
ReplyDelete"The Birth of a Nation" placed itself ahead of the game because of its ability to convey a story and have the audience become engaged from what is on the screen. The reason why this film is so highly accredited is because not only does it contain a narrative, but because D.W. Griffith used so many different, groundbreaking filmmaking techniques that may blur what the story is actually trying to convey. Keep in mind, when this film was first shown to the public, none of the themes of racism and sexism were out of the ordinary. However, looking at this film from a modern perspective, it is clear that if this film were created at this point in time, it would obviously stir up a lot of controversy. My final verdict: While I do not approve of the actual story, I cannot call it a bad film. Yes, it is extremely racist and is presenting the KKK in a positive fashion, however, for its time it was groundbreaking and sparked new ideas involving different camera techniques that sparked new ideas for the future of filmmaking.
ReplyDeleteAs Ryuji Fujita stated above, "a main point of a film, or a work of art, is to convey a message or a theme." Fujita goes on to denounce the film for this reason; he believes that the racial undertones of the film create a deplorable aura that can't be justified. While it's irrefutable that the film aims to glorify the KKK and it advocates white power and the abominable acts that inevitably follow such propaganda, I simply can't lie to myself and say that it is a "bad" film. If we are restricting ourselves to Ryuji's definition, then I'd have to say that the film is great, if not perfect. We all know that Griffith ruffled the feathers of just about every racially-accepting human being in the United States at the film's release. But, believe it or not, "The Birth of a Nation" was not the first prejudiced film to be released in the United States; it was however, the best. It's obvious that such widespread indignation couldn't stem from a bad film, it'd just be tossed to the side as a bigot's attempt at filmmaking. "The Birth of a Nation" is so controversial because the film is artistically sound, shot and cut immaculately, and conveys its message with ease and expertise. I despise the racist connotations as much as or more than the next guy, but I'd be lying through my teeth if I said the movie wasn't a masterpiece.
ReplyDeleteThe underlying message in "A Birth of a Nation" is indefinitely racist, but the film portrays a true part of our history. Yes it is true the film toots the horn of the KKK in regards to racism, but the film was tailor to a specific audience. The audience could relate to something they thought which was that African-Americans were not human. Even though I do not agree with the said monster of the film, I understand it. If we put the controversial story aside in the film it is a work of art, each scene thoughtfully planned out along with exceptional film techniques. The film brought new techniques into the light for others to follow. Griffith's work as a pioneer help craft the film industry today. Even if the message is considered racist the film itself is a true piece of art.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a film, like "Birth of a Nation" can be truly great if it can convey the ideas and themes of a society during a given time period. "Birth of a Nation" gives contemporary viewers an honest look at opinions held about blacks and women in America during the early 1900's. America and Americans would like to believe that after the Civil War there was more equality for blacks, but that is simply not the case so a movie with these outdated and offensive stereotypes remind viewers to stay humble because the national past is not as clean as we would like to think it is. Greatness is truth, even if the truth is not so great. The message of this film has made it into history classes, making it a notable piece of art. Had this film been tasteful, politically correct and had it accurately portrayed blacks and women it would not be as relevant one hundred years later. The style of a film and its message are two very independent aspects of a film. In some films the style is pushed aside, but in others the style makes up for a thin plot. It really depends on the film, but in "Birth of a Nation" I believe the message makes the movie so interesting and that the style is just a side note.
ReplyDeleteThough the message behind D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation portrays ideas of racial prejudges, the movie itself was innovative for its time and could be considered to have great importance to the film industry today. Griffith’s techniques of editing the film are seen in many movies in this new day in age. His way of juxtaposing two different events together as they were happening at the same time was a great way of adding and building a certain scene or the story of the whole movie. This is now a common used technique in the editing of movies today. The moral statement of a piece of art can change the way audiences view that piece; however, the statements made could also give the audience a look into how society was then. Griffith’s story of racial inequality could be unaccepted by many today, but this was the mindset of many in this time, which allows us today, not to relate, but to understand better of why the story is the way it is. The moral statement could ruin the piece of art because it may not be accepted by everyone who comes in contact with it. This being said, it is also possible that the moral statement made can be overlooked in the end because the techniques and artistic brilliance that it presents. This is possible to do with The Birth of a Nation because of its importance and impact that is has to the film industry today.
ReplyDeleteI think that "Birth of a Nation" is a brilliant film based off of technicality. I personally disagree with the message that D.W. Griffith portrays in this movie but his editing techniques were ahead of its time and this is one of the reasons why so many people refer to him as the founder of the classic Hollywood film style. D.W. Griffith is the godfather for juxtaposing multiple scenes together as if these events were happening at the same time. Even though this film was beautifully executed I could never come out and say that I enjoy watching this film considering the fact that I am African American. This film was based off of Reverend Thomas Dixon Jr's novel called, “The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan". There were a lot of stereotypes being shown in this film such as making the African American male in the film a rapist and the villain. Instead of using an actual African American male Griffith decided to use a Caucasian actor, who used black face to pretend as if he were an actual black person. Despite this film being a slap in the face to the African American race, this film still deserves its rewards and accolades since it was a very innovative film. An artist has the right of freedom of speech whether the audience likes the certain piece or not, this is why art is such a prominent piece in today’s culture.
ReplyDelete"The Birth of a Nation" is an extraordinary piece of filmmaking for two major reasons. The first, as essentially everyone before me has pointed out, is that it is a technical marvel. Though he did not necessarily invent such techniques, Griffith brought together a wide range of camera positions, shots and editing methods to create a wholly powerful and effective narrative. The film is truly epic, and marks a drastic change in scope for the medium, which previously had yet to fully break free of the limitations of stage productions. For instance, whereas filmmakers like Melies kept their cameras at a fixed distance away from the action, Griffith would sometimes bring it up to an actor's face so as to properly convey the emotions of a specific character, and other times he would push it back to show the position of the same character relative to his or her surroundings. However, are these advancements rendered null by the film's blatantly insensitive message and imagery? I believe not, which brings me to the second reason why “The Birth of a Nation” is so effective. There is indeed some truly horrific imagery on display in this film, but, just as Christina mentioned before me, they are born out of strong, honest feelings of a far less tolerant time. Even though the black characters of “The Birth of a Nation” are exaggerated caricatures, they are embodiments of very real sentiments that were at one point held by a large portion of the population, and as such should not be faulted based on modern perceptions of what is and is not appropriate. “The Birth of a Nation” is a product of a very dark past, and while it may be hard to look at, we should dismiss neither its technical achievements nor its unflinching examination of the standards of its time.
ReplyDelete"The Birth of a Nation" shows many different techniques in film making and portraits many different messages. Many would argue that the film is extremely racist and are offended by it considering that the film does include the KKK and views the group as "good guys". Others may find the film fascinating and brilliant because of the techniques used. I would have to agree with those who think that it is a brilliant film, even though it has a bad message, the techniques and story behind it are great and that is how movies are critiqued. "The Birth of a Nation" shows advancements in technology and using many different techniques to catch the views eyes which gives it its brilliance.
ReplyDelete“Birth of a Nation” innovated film by creating a picture that had never been seen before. By utilizing different techniques and camera angles, this motion picture will forever be remembered as the movie that revolutionized film industry. Along with this reputation however, the film’s message is promoting white supremacy which is something that cannot be ignored. As an African American it is hard to accept the harsh reality of how individuals viewed our race during the time period, but I do believe it is important to see. Our nation hasn’t been and still isn’t accepting of all people; there is always a hierarchy in which people believe they are superior and I don’t think that will ever change. “Birth of a Nation” displays the reality that we as a country thought and by watching “Birth of a Nation” one can see how our nation has grown from the past. I believe that “Birth of a Nation” deserves its high reputation; despite its controversial message this picture jump started the film industry and changed the perception of how we view movies today.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, "Birth of a Nation" sends a horrible message about race, we have to keep in mind that it was filmed in 1915. At the time, there were many racist people and racism was not frowned upon. The film may send a bad message but the camera angles and editing made it truly unique. It shows Griffiths ability to produce a great film, not based on the story, but based on how the film was shot. However, it is hard for me to say anything about enjoying this film, for two reasons. The first and most obvious reason being, the message. I simply do not stand for racism and it still shocks me that people in this world believed that treating people differently because of their race was considered okay. The second reason being, how the film portrays women. I am not surprised at all that the woman is shown running away from a man and then is stupid enough to jump off a cliff, instead of trying to stand up for herself. It is as if portraying women as weak and incapable was the only way to portray them in the early 1900's. This is a frustrating part of, "Birth of a Nation" because the main plot of the story is portraying not only black men as bad, but women as stupid. Answering the question, "Can an artwork's message trump it's style?" I believe, yes it can and I believe that the message in this film trumps the great camera angles and style of filming.
ReplyDeleteAlthough The Birth of a Nation displays white supremacy, Griffith makes this film into a piece of art. This film precedes the era in which it is made and uses many different filming techniques. Griffith is able to use different framing styles and juxtaposition to enhance the film and to connect the story in ways that hasn’t been seen before. These techniques Griffith uses in The Birth of a Nation are still seen in film today and ultimately show how great of an impact Griffith has on the modern film making industry. However in today’s world, more people tend to view the film for its many displays of racial inequality based on racial beliefs today, instead of for its artistry. It needs to be taken into consideration that this particular film is made during the time in which society views African Americans negatively and portrays them with negative connotations, such as being animalistic. Viewers should ultimately be able to see, experience, and overall understand what society is like during 1915, instead of trying to relate modern day racial beliefs to those of the 1915 era. By doing this, viewers ultimately overshadow the true meaning of the film and do not notice the creativity and originality that is put into it. The Birth of a Nation should be used as a tool, in order to teach and educate people of the modern world as to what society is like during 1915 and the beliefs of people during that time period. Overall, even though Griffith’s film does portray racial inequality, this does not undermine the fact that The Birth of a Nation is truly a great film.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletePolitical and moral statements matter in artwork- it can be used as propaganda. Sometimes the artwork can be appreciated, if one is aware of his or her own values and knows not to let this work influence them. Sometimes one’s ignorance can be overpowering, allowing them to be vulnerable propaganda portrayed in an art piece. I think that this film is considered good and bad. It’s good in the way that it teaches us a lesson. It gives insight into an unfortunate time of our history, and from this film we can improve and be reminded that we need to be careful with artwork- because it can represent so many things. I think it’s bad in the way that it had, or could even still have an influence on people. This movie is good for those who are aware of their principles, but bad for those that are susceptible or those that still have these beliefs. The technicality part was advanced for its time, but I don’t think it should be glorified this much. He came up with the left to right technique, but I feel like this technique was inevitable, and because of the bad message it sends out, I don’t think it’s that great. I’m sure after this film was created, others came out that used the same technique, but in a much more interesting and intriguing film. Since the purpose was to poorly represent African Americans, and not to get credit for its techniques, it shouldn’t get all this recognition.
I believe that The Birth of a Nation should be considered a great movie, since for its time Griffith’s directing was groundbreaking. Also the styles Griffith pioneered paved the way for future Hollywood style moves to be created. It is important to take in mind the social norms that were prevalent during the filming of the movie. The Birth of a Nation was published to the public in 1915. Throughout this time period segregation was still very prevalent. People who viewed the film soon after its release would not have found to offence. President Wilson even commented that the film was very true to history. In watching the film the viewer should look at the racist actions depicted, only to learn from them though and not let them hinder the viewing experience. For these reasons I feel that we should put aside the racist aspects of the film and instead focus on the artistic brilliance of the film.
ReplyDeleteAlex explains in his comment that political and moral statements do matter in artwork, and that is why this film shouldn’t be considered great, because of its racist nature. And while I do agree that this can definitely evoke a negative reception from today’s viewers of the movie, I think it is very important to draw a distinct line between something that is important/innovative and something that is truly great. Something that is innovative is not always great, and something that is great is not always innovative. What makes this film so innovative, as many have said above me, is that it was the first film of the “Hollywood” style, with a linear narrative plot that emphasizes “character psychology, causal plot development, and moral endings” (83). His cinematic technique was also astounding for the generation; Griffith used parallel editing to create brilliant chase-and-rescue scenes, and his emphasis on storytelling created a whole new wave of filmmaking. While “The Birth of a Nation” will always be considered innovative and important in the context of the history of filmmaking, the moniker “great” doesn’t necessarily apply because my feeling is that when a film is “great”, it has more to do with the plot and message of the film rather than the artistic subtlety. While both Jackson and Christina point out that when the film was made it was just a product of a much less tolerant time, it does not give Griffith a pass for lionizing the KKK. There was immediate backlash when the film came out, mainly from social and political organizations, and from 1915 to 1973 the film was challenged at least 120 times (92). As time has passed, the racism in the film has become even more apparent, and that is why I think we should remember the film for what it truly is: important and innovative, but not great.
ReplyDeleteI believe that such a film that advocates for racism, though immoral in todays standards, has the potential to be great in terms of its creation date. I do not believe that this film has artistic value that overweighs the immorality of it, however to fully understand it one would need to put themselves in the era it was made. Racism was accepted and endorsed by many people at this time. Another element to this movie that one would need to remember the date its creation, would be the artistic worth. At the time this movie was way ahead of the game. In regards to the "Triumph of the Will," I believe this same concept applies. To understand a movie's "greatness" one must delve into the world in which it was created in. I believe that moral and political statements do not matter in artwork and I believe this because even if a movie with the same central theme as either of these movies were created today and they were completely shut out for being immoral, they could still have a truly artistic flavor. This is why I believe an artwork's message cannot trump its style.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not to call this film a great film, is a toss up. Its style, editing, and the overall direction of the film stand out on its own for films at the time, and has set many trends in film that are still used today. It is very rare for a silent film to contribute so much to the films with sound today. While it has done so much for the film community, its message and celebration of one of America's true enemies (the KKK) put this film into question. Yes, at the time it was somewhat politically acceptable to portray such messages, and yes as a nation we have grown much since then, but the wounds of these hateful crimes and just the times in general are still healing. I feel as if to call this film great, could not bring back these awful actions that are celebrated in this film, but it could be taken by some that the message in this film is an ok way to think in today's times. I think in the future, we will have room as a country to call a film like this and others such as "Triumph of the Will" great, but as of now, the ends just cannot justify the means.
ReplyDelete