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?
I believe that a movie should be considered great if and only if the plot and the technical and artistical choices all work together to create a "great" film. Using this standard I would deem "Birth of a Nation" not to be a great because of the disgusting and horrific plot. Movies that idealize and promote hate against another group of people should never be considered great as they are not pieces of film but pieces of propaganda. A certain moment in the film "The Birth of a Nation" where racism is displayed is the entire part where the "little innocent" white girl is being chased through the woods by a white man who is playing an African American. This chase did not sit right with me as it is showing to the world to fear African Americans, as they will pursue your children. Another moment in the film was when the director decides to do a close up and focus in on the "African American's" face as it shows clear benevolence and hunger for the little girl. Finally, I believe that great films are ones that can be watched on multiple occasions without feeling bad or not good about yourself or the film and after watching just a small portion of "The Birth of a Nation" I can strongly say I never want to watch that film again. In conclusion, I believe "The Birth of a Nation" should not be considered a great because of its clear racist plot and attack on African Americans and promotion of white supremacy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePART 1/2
ReplyDelete(To write a meaningful and all-encompassing response to the questions being asked, I took it upon myself to watch the entire films of both The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will. I also did a brief read over of The Clansman.)
Time does not change the content of a film. “The Birth of a Nation” is a masterpiece that we take for granted. Griffith set the foundations for every film that followed, creating conventions so familiar, that we are no longer aware of them. What people saw for the first time; we cannot see at all. However, we are astonished by the racist attitudes, which were just as invisible to audiences in 1915. Griffith demonstrated what a movie was and what it could be. However, marriage between this achievement and racism was inevitable. Both Griffith and “The Birth of a Nation” were no less racist than the America which produced them. The importance of this film is in the clarity of its demonstration. The film is unapologetically manufactured. However, to deny this film’s greatness is to obscure a clear view of racism in America. We cannot ignore the fact that the founding fathers did not believe in equality between races. Some will deny “The Birth of a Nation” greatness due the racist nature of the film and its maker, claiming its reality is intentionally fabricated. They only see the film through their own eyes. In actuality, the film is viewed through the eyes of a Southerner, who since birth has been raised in a home that cannot view African Americans as possible partners in civilization. This was a time where children like Griffith learned all they needed to know about the confederacy at age 10 when their dads died on the battlefields. When you watched the clip from this film a week ago were you inspired to commit acts of evil or stand up against them? “The allotted function of art is not, as is often assumed, to put across ideas, to propagate thoughts, to serve as example. The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good. Touched by a masterpiece, a person begins to hear in himself that same call of truth which prompted the artist to his creative act. When a link is established between the work and its beholder, the latter experiences a sublime, purging trauma. Within that aura which unites masterpieces and audience, the best sides of our souls are made known, and we long for them to be freed. In those moments we recognize and discover ourselves, the unfathomable depths of our own potential, and the furthest reaches of our emotions.” (Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time) But this is not an answer. If we are to see this film, we must see it all, and deal with it all. In current media, racism is invisible, curable, an attribute of villains. “Birth of a Nation” is unapologetic about it’s attitudes. It shows us a time where racism was not silent, but loud.
PART 2/2
ReplyDeleteInfluence is the key to propaganda. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will adds very few cinematic techniques of its own, instead drawing on the decades of development in propaganda that came before. What sets it apart is the pure scale and scope of the project, and the influence it had over an entire nation. Not concerned with accuracy, Hitler wanted a film which would move, appeal to, and impress an audience. “Hitler called me to see him and explained that he wanted a film about a Party Congress, and wanted me to make it […] anyone who knew all about the relative importance of the various people and groups and so on might make a film that would be pedantically accurate, but this was not what he wanted. He wanted a film showing the Congress through a non-expert eye, selecting just what was most artistically satisfying—in terms of spectacle, I suppose you might say.” (Leni Riefenstahl) Every scene was created to evoke an emotional response. Reminded constantly of life before the first war, marching soldiers symbolized Germany’s revival, achievable only through military might. Endless masses of hysterical men, women, and children served as an image for a new social norm in Germany. The view created in this film frames Hitler and the Nazi party free from any mentions of evil bias or wrongdoing. This film successfully creates a powerful image of a false reality.
A film’s message is in the eye of the beholder. You shouldn’t always be looking for meaning in films. “If you look for a meaning, you’ll miss everything that happens” (Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time)
A film can never be considered "great" if the messages the film communicates to its audience represent hate. For a film to truly be considered great, it must be both technically and artistically brilliant, as well as communicate a positive message to its audience. Just because a film communicates its message in an artistically appealing way does not subsequently make the film an automatic masterpiece. In 2016, director Zack Snyder released one of his most visually stunning and technologically advanced films, Batman V Superman. Unfortunately, viewers noted that the film's confusing plot made the experience almost unwatchable, leading to an abysmal score on Rotten Tomatoes and a subpar performance at the Box Office. Similarly, The Last Airbender (a live-action remake of the critically acclaimed cartoon "Avatar The Last Airbender") also suffered a similar fate, as its visual achievements were overlooked by poor acting, choreography, and a lack of plot. Blockbuster films are often labeled as "bad movies" for their lack of plot despite having incredible visuals. Yet, why does Birth of a Nation Triumph of the Will escape some of this criticism, and remain in many eyes as a top 100 film of all time?
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing films such as Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, many will acknowledge their failure to convey a positive message while simultaneously noting their visual brilliance. While these two things can certainty be true at once, visual brilliance should not propel films with a hateful message to achieve a status of greatness. Perhaps Birth of a Nation's historical importance also plays a role in some critics potentially labeling it as a "great film". Even though it conveyed a message of White Supremacy and hate, it nonetheless pioneered many filmmaking techniques still used by filmmakers today. However, despite their historical importance, these films should be held to the same standard as "Poor Plot but Visually Stunning" Blockbuster films released today. Simply put, if a film represents hate, it can never be a great film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, is a landmark in American film, the technique does not outweigh the content, as technique is merely a way to present it's unarguably repulsive story. I do not think it should be done away with entirely, but the content and technique are inseparable and therefore must be addressed together. Recently I tried reading Stephen King’s The Green Mile, and while it does not advocate white supremacy in such a blatant manner, I still found it contained similar outrageous stereotypes. It is disturbing to see in a book written almost a century after Birth of a Nation that perpetuates the same idea that black men pose a danger to white women and moreover that they are inhuman. Stephen King is a well-regarded author, but I do not think his book should be used to teach, for example his use of suspense, without acknowledgement of the story. Similarly, Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is a piece of propaganda regardless of its technique, and an uniformed viewer could subconsciously accept the stereotypes shown. However, I find censorship is equally harmful. Bernardi writes that the Birth of a Nation, “was rereleased numerous times in attempts to edit, minimize, and excuse the film’s racist message while maintaining its status as a classic.” I am unsure what part of the film would remain once its racism is censored, which proves the inseparability between the artistic brilliance of the film and its content. Ignoring a problematic history will not eliminate the long lasting effects of the hatred it spread, but it is important to watch such a film as an informed viewer.
ReplyDeleteThough The Birth of a Nation had a major effect on transforming future films, it cannot truly be considered a great film. The movie has groundbreaking technical aspects, and uses mise en scene very well, but the racist plot is the reason the movie cannot be classified as great. In my opinion, a great film would have an interesting while understandable plot, and impressive filming features. Even though great films can have flaws, both of these ideas are necessary for producing a great film. A film with a terrible plot but impressive camera techniques or a film with a fantastic plot but poor camera techniques would both be substandard, as the two come together. I realize how this movie would have fit the level of an exceptional film when it was released, but acceptable images on screen are very different compared to the past. For example, wearing blackface on screen today would have a massive backlash and obviously be unacceptable. When this film was created, it was perfectly normal for an actor to wear blackface. Over the years, social norms of what is accepted and what is not have changed drastically. Therefore, the National Film Registry should not preserve the movie today. There is no arguing that it has an important place in our history because of its groundbreaking techniques. However, that does not mean we have to continue to idolize the racist ideas of the film. The faults of the plot are too drastic to ignore. The movie can still be used as a way to educate people about filming technique and the history of past films, but it is hard to watch in its entirety because of the blatant racism and praise of the Klu Klux Klan.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the “Birth of a Nation” should not be considered a great film, we should not overlook and underestimate the impact of techniques used to create the film. The racist and incorrect message being pushed behind the film is the factor holding it from its greatness. A great film is surrounded by the main message the artist is trying to push through. While in this film, the message is racist, incorrect, and insensitive making it hard to watch. Putting the film in context when it was made, for most able to see it, it would sadly not be difficult to watch. But no matter the techniques and styles brought to the film, we can never forget the inaccurate message.
ReplyDelete“Birth of a Nation” was without a doubt, ahead of its time in the usage of mise en scene. One of my favorite aspects of mise en scene you notice throughout the film was the angle shot, focusing on how close and far the camera was. I thought the most used angle was the medium shot. Shifting between the medium shot and large shot, capturing the moments of the chase, giving the audience a sense of location and direction. This is what made the “Birth of a Nation” ahead of its time. It set such a great example and standard on how to utilize mise en scene, and the most effective ways to use angles. While still not making the cut for a great film in my opinion, films would not be the same without this example of great mise en scene. Artists are now able to put forward accurate and factual messages, while using older editing techniques.
D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation should historically be taken with a grain of salt, much like a lot of our history. There’s no doubt that Griffith was a pioneer of many cinematic techniques that are still used today. Though with this great claim to fame comes another not so great catch. Though The Birth of a Nation was a revolutionary film in the technical aspects of film, it was much less modern, and even aged in the aspects of the story it told. With such a racist undertone and plot within this otherwise revolutionary film, can it really be celebrated in a positive light? Historically speaking, it’s important that history is remembered in the way that it plays out, though often times this ‘rule’ is distorted. Though the film itself should be remembered, it should be remembered in a neutral light. Rather than celebrating the film in its entirety, it would be best to only highlight on the cinematic leaps demonstrated in it. An example of this could include studying it in a class that focuses on cinema history. This not only goes for The Birth of a Nation, but for Griffith in general. Many if not all of Griffith’s films had a similar pattern to them. There was always the ‘innocent, Caucasian girl’ who would become victim to the ‘animalistic, African-American, man’. This formula was one that Griffith was very fond of, as it was during a time in history in which equal rights were not established yet. And much like a lot of history, it’s important to remember it not only for its victories, such as the film techniques used my Griffith. But also the lessons that we need to learn from it, such as how we had a long way to grow culturally from the ideals that Griffith portrayed in his films.
ReplyDeleteThe Birth of a Nation although revolutionary in film technique, as a whole i believe it should not be considered a basis for the greatest films. When it comes to a great film i think it is equal part message and equal part technique when filming. Bout aspects work hand in hand to make a truly great film. The Birth of a Nation's racist message keeps it from being a great in my eyes. On the other hand i think that this movie is an exceptional learning material. Both the context and the way the film is shot should be studied. We cannot simply ignore this movie, but rather we learn from it. This film serves as history, and one cannot simply ignore history but rather learn and grow. By Celebrating this film one is celebrating the racist message. As much as one would like to separate the art aspect from the racism this is not possible. The film is judged as a whole, so when celebrated that is sending a negative message. I have realized why this film is considered one of the greatest films, but standards for great have evolved. With changing times i believe the standard for great should shift as well. Like i said previously, a great film should not just be great in one aspect. The film is judged as a whole, so by calling it "the greatest" that is basically saying that the racism in this film is essentially okay. To conclude, this film should not be considered one of the greatest films. This film is better for educational purposes rather than film standard.
ReplyDeleteDue to the plot of white supremacy that underlines the cinematic techniques found in W.D. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, movie is far from being considered “great.” The film uses some of the most modern cinematic techniques of its time to antagonize African American people and pushes towards the propaganda that America should become a safe-haven for whites only. W.D. Griffith uses his cinematic expertise in scenes such as the young woman being chased in the forest by the African American man to further develop his opinions. The controversy of this film arrives in its substance with its technique; despite being racist propaganda, the film has originated some of the most fundamental techniques in cinematic history that are still applied today. Despite the acclimations of originating cinematic techniques, the substance of racial discrimination marks a horrid stain on the reputation of this film for its entirety of existence.
ReplyDeleteBefore the argument of cinematic technique can be applied to W.D. Griffith’s work is crucial to understand and repent the substance of the film. Acknowledgment of the film is not to be exiled, as it is the first film to have these cinematic techniques introduced, but to talk about them, much like what the Century of Film class did, there needs to be a thorough education of African American history in America. It is crucial when analyzing and discussing this film that one does not try in any way to support the racist policies it contains, or display it to a public audience in which they could be heavily influenced, for example, children or young teens. For this reason, I think there needs to be official condoning of this film, and never have it reach the eyes of the public for entertainment purposes; research purposes have a different case as that is similar to what we have used the movie for. The film is a piece of American history, and it is insanely crucial to educate one’s self and condone the racial propaganda of the film to appreciate the cinematic discoveries.
D.W. Griffith’s film, The Birth of a Nation, cannot be considered a truly great film because of the emphasis of white supremacy. The moral and political statements included in the movie represent a time of false ideologies that are not accepted in today’s society, so the film is not great. In this instance, the film as a whole should not be remembered because of the ideologies, but the technical aspects of the film have influenced many different types of film. Griffith uses faming/camera distance, editing, and cuts to create a captivating film. These tools allow the audience to see different places at the same time and the continuity of the editing creates a smooth film for the audience. Griffith is also very successful at expressing the setting and emotion of the actors by using extreme long shots, close ups, and point of view shots. For example, Griffith creates captivating chase-and-rescue scenes that mesmerize the audience by building suspense. Devices like parallel editing and focusing on catching the emotions of the actors has introduced innovative tools to filmmaking as a whole. Thus, the film is technically brilliant because the techniques revolutionized filmmaking; however, the political and moral statements prove the film is not artistically brilliant in today’s society. Understanding the roots of film helps the audience know what to celebrate in film. The techniques are celebrated because they revolutionized filmmaking and are very successful at grabbing the audience's attention, but by knowing the surrounding history, the audience should not celebrate Griffith for his accomplishments because of his ideologies and reputation when filmmaking. The artistic message trumps the technical achievements of the film, thus, the film, The Birth of a Nation cannot be considered a truly great film.
ReplyDelete