Friday, January 18, 2019
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)
Birth of a Nation has a very complex background. Despite its racist tone, it is still listed in the top 100 films by AMC and the AFI. Clearly, there is something that makes this film worthy of being included on these lists, especially when you consider how many films have been made in the last 100 plus years. Since the actual political message of the film is so abhorrent, its prestige in film history must stem from its artistry. For its time, Birth of a Nation was revolutionary, and D.W. Griffith helped spur the creation of the Hollywood style. However, as social climates have evolved over time, one must wonder if the artistry is enough to keep calling it a "great film." The film's plot is extremely problematic. At some point, continuing to rank this film (and others with disturbing messages such as Triumph of the Will) so highly no longer feels acceptable. It almost becomes evidence for lingering racist beliefs in our country. It is hard for the style of Birth of a Nation to trump its message because of how truly offensive it is. One might even argue that the message of the film is often more important than the visuals and thus Birth of a Nation is so overwhelmed with negatives that they outweigh its positives. Additionally, as new visual techniques such as CGI and other updates to the film industry come about, the artistry of Birth of a Nation becomes less impressive. Ultimately, controversy in the world of film is nothing new, but Birth of a Nation’s extreme racist views stretch beyond what is acceptable in today’s society and even its historic importance in terms of style cannot fully justify it being considered a great film.
ReplyDeleteThe Birth of a Nation brought the beginning of the Hollywood film era and style as it was the first longer film of its time with an extreme message. Additionally, this film is so popular because its style is still used in today’s films. Because of the film’s innovation editing and technology for the time, this piece of work is appreciated. However, what comes along with it is a horrible message of white supremacy. The significance of this film is understandable, but the meaning of the film can overpower the technology. It is hard to appreciate such a film when the scenes include blackface, portraying African-Americans like monkeys and dangerous, or even having the Ku Klux Klan act as the hero. To top it all off, this film is not an educational film that was produced for the meaning of other people to learn and reflect on history. The film was meant to show racism and prove white superiority. D.W. Griffith in the past and after Birth of a Nation has made more films that have and support racist objectives and ideals. Because people recognize the prejudice message but still appreciate the artwork of the film, it shows that artwork indeed can be both considered beautiful and ugly at the same time. Nevertheless, the rating of the film in the top 100 films of all time shows that the racism in the film is acceptable and even honored. People can acknowledge the significance of the film, as it is a monumental part of history, however, rating the film in top 100 should not be condoned.
ReplyDeleteThe Birth of a Nation is one of the most memorable films in film history because of its controversial subject matter. D.W. Griffith most likely chose the topic of white and black relations in the South knowing that it would strike tension in its audiences, then and now. The feeling this subject matter creates is the same as when your mom would tell you not to eat a cookie, but that would only make you want it more. The film is this guilty pleasure for many people because many places refused to show it, but this most likely only made it more popular by striking curiosity in the public. When this movie first came out, it was all people could talk about because it was revolutionary for the time, but the tactics Griffith used were immoral. The movie repeatedly perpetuates common African American stereotypes that were common, like the uncivilized and violent nature of slaves. One of the most disappointing aspects of its popularity is that many people, including the president at the time, enjoyed watching it and felt that it accurately portrayed African Americans. This reality offers an insight into the American mindset in the 1910s. D.W. Griffith knew the opinion of the public and capitalized on it to make the most profit and write his name in history. If he would have chosen another subject for his film, it would not have been as popular. The statement that he chose to make in his work was strong and influential for many people, but should not be considered a great film today because our standards for racist content have changed, so we cannot praise a film that epitomizes everything America should be against.
ReplyDeleteArdently do I believe that films such as D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation - a work so heavily criticized since its 1915 release for embracing immoral and antiquated beliefs - have the capability of being great. If one manages to overcome the prejudice content of The Birth of a Nation, a revolutionary masterpiece is unveiled. Overcomers will be dumbfounded by the film’s brilliant Mise-en-scene, framing and editing, all of which deem The Birth of a Nation Hollywood’s first movie. Far be it for me to say the film’s artistic merit justifies the abominable Klan-worshipping content. However, I am saying that a film’s artistic merit and its content fall into two resoundingly different categories, categories which should not be lumped together when judging nor analyzing a film. I believe society needs to correct their habit of categorizing artistic merit and content as one while analyzing films. For example, The English Patient is a slow film with a quite good story, in my opinion. The primary reason I am so fond of The English Patient, however, is because of its beautiful picture and historically accurate details.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Triumph of the Will, a film I have never seen, and the significance of political and moral statements in a work of art are concerned, I believe artistic merit and such statements are not to be categorized together when judging a piece good or bad. (This corresponds to my aforesaid beliefs regarding The Birth of a Nation and The English Patient.) Further, I believe an artwork’s message is incapable of trumping its style, as I am more than competent to see why Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is frequently ranked among history’s best films.
Although many film organizations recognize D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation for its extraordinary cinematic techniques, to the majority of the audience the film’s racist message completely distracts from the artistry. The film blatantly attacks the character of African Americans, as they are depicted as ruthless animals who have no moral code. In the scene where Flora is running away from the African American man, Griffith makes the man appear to be frightening as he runs with all of his might to catch the girl. Another aspect is the lighting on the African American man’s face. Griffith aims to make it seem as if all the man has is bad intentions. Here, he is painting a false picture of who African American people are and sending a message that they should not be in interracial relationships. The audience can also see that in this scene a technique called crosscutting is used, which is when “shots of two or more separate but usually parallel locations are interwoven to advance the film’s plot” (Bernardi). Crosscutting certainly adds to the suspense of the scene, but once the viewer realizes what story Griffith is telling, the artistry has no significance. After analyzing the film, I have concluded that even though a film may have fantastic camera work, the story and message that is being told is the primary factor that viewers pay attention to. Finally, D.W. Griffith’s cinematic techniques complement the message of the film and this is because the message is what pulls the audience into the story.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThrough analyzing Daniel Bernardi’s opinion in Film Analysis: A Norton Reader, in conjunction with my own opinion, as well as the film itself, it can be seen that while morally problematic, the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation should still regarded as a “great” work. To fully understand this argument, we must acknowledge the varying definitions of the word “great”. For the purpose of the Century of Film class, I would define greatness as a film that tells a story using advanced, well thought out cinematography. As we established, the first film, a short actualite by the Lumiere Brothers, was screened in 1895. These first films were very short, a few minutes at most, with no plot development, movement, or camera work. Not more than twenty years later, a short time in the grand scheme of things, D.W. Griffith’s work mastered “character psychology, casual plot development, and moral endings” in The Birth of a Nation (Bernardi 59). Upon first screening of the film, which we only watched a few minute clip of, I was immediately impressed by this early twentieth century film’s similarly to modern movies. Griffith used camera angles, lighting, and acting to advance the plot. In terms of the plot: black face, the KKK as the heroes, and overall lack of morality, the film is not something I would have any interest in watching for entertainment. The backlash Griffith had gotten is completely justified, in my opinion, as the film was wildly offensive and crossed lines, even in historical context. Despite the horribly racist and offensive storyline, Griffith was the first to create a movie as we would define them today; I think The Birth of a Nation should be regarded as a historical relic of greatness, while still contextualizing the immorality of its’ plot.
DeleteWithout context, or knowing the history, most would find Birth of a Nation a very extreme example of America’s racist past and the rise of the KKK. Unfortunately when only viewing the movie for its content, the fact as to why it appears on the AFI top one hundred. The reason why I believe Birth of a Nation is a great film, despite its controversial content, is because of the storytelling and filming techniques which were pioneered by DW Griffith. The characters, if progressing, always move from left to right in order for the movement to feel more natural to the audience, because people in the west read from left to right. This also assists the continuity of the film because whenever characters have to go back to a previous location, they will turn around and go back to the right. This is also really helpful to the audience especially in silent movies, where characters can go back to the right, and it does not even have to be explained that they are going back. When looking off somewhere, the character’s viewpoint is shown with tunnel vision on the screen. Although not a complicated effect, adding the black blurry circular border around the scene adds the feeling of the character’s limited eyesight. The audience is transported from a viewpoint where they can see everything going on to one where almost nothing could be seen, and that also adds a sense of unknown, which DW Griffith also uses to add suspense during the chase scene in the movie. Overall Birth of a Nation, when its content is understood for the now controversial beliefs of the past, its storytelling technique can be praised and appreciated for pioneering the Hollywood style we continue to enjoy today.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhile D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation not only contains, but is itself an abhorrent and immoral message, I believe there is a way to “separate the art from the artist,” so to speak. Because of the numerous ways in which the film was successful in popularizing film mechanics, it is important to remember the implementation of those mechanics as great art. The true question revolves around the semantic definition of film and movie. For the sake of my argument, I define the terms slightly differently. I truly believe any film can be great, regardless of its contents or message; The Birth of a Nation is no exception. Film here is taken literally to mean moving picture, or rather, a collection of photos made to look as though they are moving. In this respect, The Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece because of its cinematic genius and mechanical excellence. Because the ‘film’ has no intended audience or effect, it exists in a vacuum where its racism has no consequences. However, in the real world, this definition’s usefulness dwindles. Every action has consequences. Because the intent was not only to make racist and hateful messages, but to mass produce and distribute those messages to the general public, The Birth of a Nation becomes a complete movie. A movie here is a film with intent for viewership and a point of view. In the real world it becomes damn near impossible to separate the art from the artist; how can the same human be praised for his skills yet condemned for his views? It would take a level of objectivity far greater than most humans can hope to achieve to really separate the two, rather than just trying to compensate for the natural inclination to dislike the art for its message. Because of this, I believe that The Birth of a Nation is undoubtedly a great film, but cannot hope to be a great movie.