Friday, January 22, 2016
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)
Although political and moral statements should be recognized within artwork, they do not necessarily determine the piece`s inherent worth. Many incredible works of art have ridiculously outdated messages and themes, yet are still considered masterpieces. The Merchant of Venice clearly portrays anti-Semitic messages, and contrasts a Jewish villain with classic Christian heroes. Yet the Shakespearian play is still widely read, performed, and appreciated. People are easily able to overlook such outdated ways of thinking when evaluating it, and can still appreciate the brilliant writing of the piece. This is also true of visual art. The Death of Marat by David is supposed to conjure up feelings of sympathy for the murdered figure. Jacques-Louis David was a supporter of Marat and Robespierre, despite their role in fueling The Terror during the French Revolution. Marat had some progressive ideas, but also enthusiastically advocated for mass executions of anti-revolutionaries. His death is hardly tragic, and his writing helped shape a climate that allowed for numerous atrocities. The painting, however, is an incredible work of art. It is beautiful from a technical standpoint, and it also helped build the foundation of the modernist movement by introducing politics into art. Clearly great art can have awful messages, and it is very likely cinema only falls under a higher level of scrutiny because it is so new. We have grown accustomed to appreciating plays, books, paintings, sculptures, and various other art forms with bad messages. Movies are the newest forms of artistic expression, and for now, people still have trouble separating the propaganda and viewpoints shown in a movie from its artistic value. The Birth of a Nation should be recognized as a depiction of the racist attitudes of the time, but it can also be evaluated and appreciated for its artistic value. Whether or not it is great should be left up to professional critics, but it should not be disqualified based on its idealization of the Ku Klux Klan and its troubling portrayal of African Americans.
ReplyDeleteI believe a film like The Birth of a Nation can be great. To analyze this film I believe we should separate the positive and negative contributions the film has made to the industry. The film revolutionized the way cinema and set a foundation for Hollywood. One of the main progressive actions Griffith used was the close up shot. This shot allowed the audience to see emotions through the facial expression of characters and allowed the audience to become more personable with the character. On the contrary, Griffith also used long shots to give added value to his films. Griffith also used the foreground, middle ground, and background effectively allowing the viewer to see how actions in the background eventually come to the foreground. The last great cinema technique he developed was the dissolving technique. This allowed the reader to inference what happened in between scenes, this was most prominent in the scene of an empty court house that was then cut to a scene of a court full of African American elected officials. The negative contributions to this film were the overly racist sentiment and stereotypes it reinforced and the lash-out effect against African Americans. The racist sentiment and stereotypes is also best scene in the courtroom scene when the representatives are putting their feet on the table. The lash-out effect is also very horrible because innocent people were hurt and killed as a result of the film's widespread popularity and call to action. I do believe that a film can have some isolated benefits even if the film overall is bad. I don’t believe a film can be great if it does endorse racism or other anti religious sentiment. I do believe that moral statements matter in artwork, however if the moral argument is inherently flawed I don't believe it should even be made. In the case of The Birth of a Nation, the film itself was a very condescending piece, but did inspire many of Hollywood's movies. The disadvantages of the film outweigh the benefits it produced so I don't believe this film was a great, rather it is just a film with above average filming techniques.
ReplyDeleteArt is a practice of expression in which people have the ability to represent their thoughts and emotions freely without having to face the pressures of society as a consequence. Artists choose their medium and ideally have the freedom to create whatever they wish with whatever message they would like to present. For this reason, The Birth of a Nation can still be considered a great film, no matter how much we may disagree with the message it conveys. Filmmaking is an art form that allows artists to recreate life in a way altered to their personal preference. While the white supremacy and racism presented in The Birth of a Nation is something we as human beings should not conform to agree with, this is not a reason to forget the artistic value of this film. What makes this film great is the way in which it was created and the high standard of artistic choice used. The subject itself may be something we disagree with, but there is no denying that the film itself is of great value and therefore we cannot let our personal feelings regarding white supremacy get in the way of praising the work itself. Political and moral statements in artwork is a grant of freedom and should not be discontinued. We must look at the technicality and artistic quality of a piece without letting our disagreements with the subject itself get in the way. The way to properly view a piece of art is not to let personal judgment take way, but to view it in the eyes of the artist and see how well they were able to present their subject to the eyes of the public.
ReplyDeleteBirth of a Nation is still capable of greatness despite its racist overtones. Art must be examined in the context of its time period – and D.W. Griffith was born in a time of prevalent and overt racism. Thus, while his film celebrates white supremacy, it speaks an important message. It is not that Griffith’s moral statement does not matter because it is racist; rather it matters just as much as a film’s message that preaches love and equality. Birth of a Nation offers insight into what the world was like in 1915. Its popularity amongst common audiences and historical figures alike signifies that it is a representation of a widespread sentiment in the early 1900s. We cannot ignore history only when it is convenient and so a great movie can have an evil message. The technical film achievements of Birth of a Nation cannot be completely separated from its message, nor should it be. However, it was successful in ushering in a new style of moviemaking. Griffith’s movies utilized advanced camerawork, filmography, and character development. He tells a coherent story by linking different shots in the same time frame and bringing perspective and reaction shots to the mainstream. These techniques are common in modern cinema due to the work of Griffith. Even though the message of Birth of a Nation can be easily and justly criticized, its contribution to filmmaking is undeniable. This alone is enough for a piece of art to be great. And its message, though abhorrent, should not discredit its achievements and should be additionally recognized as a significant piece of history in the early 1900s.
ReplyDeleteThe Birth of a Nation is considered the most important American film in history because of its exciting characters and scenes overlaid with an artistic subtlety. The film receives the credit for leading American cinema into the Hollywood style while introducing chase scenes and parallel editing. I believe that this film can be great solely based on its brilliance in its artistic techniques. However, The Birth of a Nation has always been enrooted in controversy because of the overall racism and how it depicts African Americans. In this case, the artwork’s message trumps its style because all of the technique is centered on supporting the racial tension: “And yet Griffith did not develop chase scenes and parallel editing simply to advance casual events. In many of his films, including the earliest instances in which the technique is employed, the person being chased is a white woman, the chaser is a person of color, and the hero is a white male” (66). As Bernardi hints at, David Griffith develops these shots to portray African Americans as unintellectual brutes that are threats to the innocent white “damsels.” A great example of Griffith using the shots to describe African Americans in a different light is when Gus, a “blackface brute,” chases Flora, an innocent white woman, and she decides to jump off a cliff rather than be subject to his doings. In a sense, the film is a form of propaganda similar to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will because it misleadingly promotes a negative view of African Americans. In a movie in which the Ku Klux Klan is the hero and wrongful depiction of African-Americans is ever-present it is clear that an artwork’s message can in fact trump its message.
ReplyDeleteI think that portraying these sorts of scenes through art that although controversial provide us with an insight on how the other side thinks, as well as, how our history shaped our present. I think that is very important to be able to talk about events that happened in the past to be able to recognize how these views have been wrong and have negatively influenced our society. I think some of the problem with modern day issues is that we deny the horrible mishappenings that took place in the past. For example, when people deny that the holocaust happened is denying history. Hitler’s attempt to exterminate the jews and the dehumanizing actions that took place within the camps were truly horrible, but without education on what Hitler did and why he did it can we move to prevent further injustices. The same is true for slavery and the Jim Crow era, because without knowledge on the horrible injustices that happened within our very country can we further take action to understand how racism is embedded within society. I think that we must analyze how the southern mindset allowed the Ku Klux Klan to be viewed as a hero. Without this analysis we are doomed to repeat the actions that are so immoral and continue to afflict the injustices within our society. I actually think that being able to provide an education on Southern society in the 1920’s would help to curtail modern racial issues, such as police violence.
ReplyDeleteWhile political and moral statements are important when considering the contextual significance of a film, they do not “trump” its style and prevent a film from being artistically great. The Birth of a Nation advocates for supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan. This advocacy is demonstrated when not only is it considered good to rather die than be with an African American, but also that the whole plot of the African American man chasing a white women is extremely racist. As deplorable as it is, it is also an artistic opinion. Current social norms are not the same as they were from a century ago, let alone two centuries ago. Movies and films that are made now have the potential to be completely outrageous and viewed through the same lens as The Birth of a Nation is now in a century into the future. I am not condoning or supporting the white supremacy or racism within the film. I am simply saying that one’s opinions cannot make their artwork and artistic choices any less valid. Political statements matter in artwork because they add to its contextual significance. However, the specific opinions of these political and moral statements do not impact the art. For example, the artistry of the chase scene and jump cuts that are present would be present regardless of who was chasing who. It is the fact that we see these jump cuts, the combination of long shots and mid shots, in addition to the perspective shots that make The Birth of a Nation artistically brilliant. A film’s moral and political opinions should be acknowledged because they help to give contextually significance to the film. However, they should not cancel out its artistic brilliance.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the moral statements of Birth of a Nation should be repudiated, the film techniques can still be recognized. The Birth of a Nation should be recognized at least for its revolutionary film techniques. Griffith revolutionized story telling through movies and innovated new camera angles and shots. However, the overtly racist message of Birth of a Nation means that we, as film critics, should constantly repudiate the film. The film’s innovative techniques can still be recognized for its place in film history and American history. The idea that we should forget the film on the basis of its racist message is problematic. First, it could have an opposite effect than the one intended and whitewash history. Forgetting about the significance of Birth of a Nation would leave a gaping hole in the annals of film history and in effect deny the historical legacy of racism by omission. Instead of simply omitting Birth of a Nation from film discussions, we should recognize its significance both in its development of film techniques and its use of racist images. Recognizing the film in this way is key to constantly repudiating its racist message. If we applied the same argument against any other racist component of American history, the prescriptive conclusion of the argument would appear silly. For example, should we stop learning about the historical significance of the Transatlantic slave trade because the slave trade was racist? This suggestion is obviously silly because it would in effect deny the existence of slavery. For the same reason, we should continue to recognize the significance of Birth of a Nation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the moral statements of Birth of a Nation should be repudiated, the film techniques can still be recognized. The Birth of a Nation should be recognized at least for its revolutionary film techniques. Griffith revolutionized story telling through movies and innovated new camera angles and shots. However, the overtly racist message of Birth of a Nation means that we, as film critics, should constantly repudiate the film. The film’s innovative techniques can still be recognized for its place in film history and American history. The idea that we should forget the film on the basis of its racist message is problematic. First, it could have an opposite effect than the one intended and whitewash history. Forgetting about the significance of Birth of a Nation would leave a gaping hole in the annals of film history and in effect deny the historical legacy of racism by omission. Instead of simply omitting Birth of a Nation from film discussions, we should recognize its significance both in its development of film techniques and its use of racist images. Recognizing the film in this way is key to constantly repudiating its racist message. If we applied the same argument against any other racist component of American history, the prescriptive conclusion of the argument would appear silly. For example, should we stop learning about the historical significance of the Transatlantic slave trade because the slave trade was racist? This suggestion is obviously silly because it would in effect deny the existence of slavery. For the same reason, we should continue to recognize the significance of Birth of a Nation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that despite the subject matter, D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation can still be considered a landmark American film. I defiantly do not agree that this film should have been used for white supremacy propaganda and I think that it is wrong for people to take the ideas of the film and use them against other people. However, in any form of art, the artist should be able to express whatever type of subject matter that they want, without having to take into account the way that the public will react. It is possible to separate the aspects of the film that make it great from the negative ideology. In order to do so the viewer has to take into account the time period that the film was made. When The Birth of a Nation came out in 1915, racism was very prevalent and many people were openly racist. Even if we do not agree with the general message of the film today, it still shows us an important part of our history. It is also possible to learn about film techniques while disregarding the message of the film. One example of this is the use of parallel editing. Parallel editing is the crossing cutting of different scenes that are happening at the same time but in different places. This form of editing builds a strong emotional effect and can be used in many different cases. D. W. Griffith's use of parallel editing was a new and different way of filming and others can learn from this new technique without regarding the plot of the film.
ReplyDeleteI believe that D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation should not be considered a great American film now. Surely when it came out racism was very prominent and many agreed that the film was extraordinary. However that is over 100 years ago. Stances on racism have taken a complete 180 since then and nowadays the majority of viewers will find it incredibly offensive. Think about it this way- if the exact same film came out today, (with the similar revolutionary film techniques) how would people react? Although this film shows a significant period of our history, I think that a great movie could show a significant period of our history AND be politically correct. I also think that it is important to recognize that every "great" film that deals with controversial topics such as racism typically lionizes the victim. An example of these films include Schindler's list, Django, and Hotel Rwanda. By lionizing and praising the victim or struggler, more viewers will sympathize with the character and relate to them. However by idolizing the perpetrator, less people will identify with them which overall creates a less powerful and less great movie.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, The Birth of a Nation should not be considered a great film. To me, a great film bust be appealing to people of all kinds. The Birth of a Nation is not appealing to the African American community. In the story, the KKK (Klu Klux Klan) save the day with their “Heroic” tactics. In reality members of the KKK were not heroes but rather terrorist to the black community. The KKK tortured the black race with no explanation as to why they were doing so. In society a hero should not single out a certain race, but rather work to bring every race together. Although at the time in which the movie was written, blacks having no power was politically correct, it is still morally incorrect to make a movie out of it. The Birth of a Nation should not be glorified but rather frowned upon. The movie should be frowned upon because it dehumanizes African Americans, portrays them as lesser compared to the white man. Although many people did enjoy the film hence the fact it is considered one of the 100 greatest films ever made, it still shows bad morals because of the ironic heroes in the Klu Klux Klan. If it were up to me the movie would not be considered one of the 100 best films to ever be made, but unfortunately it is not.
ReplyDeleteBirth of a Nation revolutionized film and introduced many techniques that are still important today. However, I do not think it should be considered a great movie because it is impossible to overlook the incredibly racist plot and themes. When people discuss the quality of movies, the film’s message and characters need to be included as part of the evaluation. These qualities are undoubtedly part of what defines a film, and I simply cannot justify classifying any movie where the Ku Klux Klan plays heroes as “great.” Many people attribute the film’s racism to context and how society was when D. W. Griffith made the film. This may account for some racist aspects of the film, such as the widespread use of blackface being considered "normal" when it was made. However, the film goes further than other films from the same time period. Even at the time of the film’s release, it was considered by many to be racist and its premiere was protested by the NAACP. The film certainly appealed to many audiences in 1915, but it offended many as well. I think many films are not as offensive when you consider the context of the time period because audiences simply accepted the themes as normal. Birth of a Nation’s offensive qualities cannot be attributed to time period alone because there were clearly a number of people who saw the negative nature of the film from the time of its release. This is not a film that we, as a society, should want on our “Top Films” lists because supporting this movie indirectly shows that we support what it stands for. Although Griffith’s artistic accomplishments should not be ignored, he should only be celebrated for these achievements and not for the film overall.
ReplyDeleteWhen analyzing the ability of a movie to be “great” one has to look both at its context and its artistic value. Birth of A Nation makes a largely contested and highly racist a political statement about the perception of white supremacy at the time the film was made. I believe that this movie has made such a lasting impression because of the large declaration which it makes. While the content of the film in extremely deplorable, lionizing the Klu Klux Klan and depicting African American actors as white men in black face paint, these are also some of the reasons the fame of this movie has been able to last beyond its generation. Having previously seen this film in a history class, much can be learned about that time period from examining the portrayals of the different characters of that time. In this sense, the fact that movie has lasted long beyond its original screening, the film is truly great, even though it glorifies horrific atrocities and assumptions of racial power. We understand in hindsight how inaccurate the depictions really were, but some of the director’s choices when filming this movie are great examples of the advanced technological and artistic abilities during that time period. Following a cohesive and coherent story line, many of the actual shots in the film demonstrate progressive techniques of filmography; for example, the long shot of the girl falling down the cliff. While we understand this to be a doll, the advanced technique leads the audience to believe that the girl has actually jumped off a cliff. In conclusion, while the film advocates for racial prejudice, the cutting-edge artistic talents allow this film to be considered a “truly great” film.
ReplyDeleteMany people consider The Birth of a Nation one of the greatest movies of all time, but considering how offensive it is toward the African-American race, it is undeserving of such praise. It cannot be argued that the cinematography in the movie was revolutionary and truly breathtaking; however, The Birth of a Nation perpetuates the idea of African-Americans being inferior to white people. Due to the racist implications of the movie The Birth of a Nation, it should be considered a disgrace to our society and should not be given so much praise. The “bad guys” of the movie are supposed to be African-Americans. They are only considered to be “bad guys” because of their skin color. To make matters worse D.W. Griffith makes the African-American characters depicted by white men in black face. The “good guys” in the movie are members of the Ku Klux Klan, who have historically been hateful and violent toward African-Americans. Movies cannot be great if they have such a hateful message. What makes a movie great is what the audience takes away from their experience, and if that message is to hate and discriminate against other people because of their skin color, how can it be considered a great movie? The Birth of a Nation is a horrible example of what was wrong with our society throughout history, so there is no way it can be considered one of the greatest films in history. It should not be considered one of our crowning achievements in cinema but rather one of the earliest examples of a racist movie.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation advocates a bad message, I believe such a film can still be great. Film is a form of art, which is used to express ideas and emotions in a creative way. Ideas come from different perspectives and may not always be the same as everyone else’s, but these different perspectives can be made technically and artistically brilliant. Even though it may not be right, the message in this film allows one to see a point of view from the opposite side around the time of the Civil War. In spite of the fact that the message of a work of art may not fit everyone’s mindset, the techniques utilized can be passed on and applied in other films. The Birth of a Nation contains many artistic advancements and new cinematic methods and effects, which is why it is considered a landmark American film and one of the most important films. A lot of these developments influenced many other future films. Some examples of these developments are parallel editing, the use of outdoor scenery as backgrounds, special use of intertitles, close-ups to reveal emotion of the character, scenes filmed from many different angles, panning shots, and cuts all used to enhance the message of the film. The Birth of a Nation revolutionized filmmaking with its cinematic developments and I believe that even though its message is unacceptable, it is still technically and artistically great.
ReplyDeleteEven when a film sends offensive messages or does not conform to socially acceptable beliefs, I believe that it can still be artistically brilliant at the same time. This can be said of the film The Birth of a Nation, as well as many other films that advocate evil ideas. Once people are able to look past the old-fashioned or outdated ideas that are included in films to fully appreciate them, it is clear that The Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece because of more reasons than just their moral outlook. We can still appreciate the creativity and artistic style that was included in this film as well as its lasting effect on audiences for decades now. Additionally, we can look past the racist ideas shown in this film when remembering how long ago it was filmed. At that time, some of these ideas may have been considered more acceptable, and even though these factors should have been considered equally as offensive then as they are today, it is true that more people were accepting of the ideas of this film in 1915. Overall, analyzing The Birth of a Nation is simply a case of having to look at its individual features and style over its moral content. If we only look at the big picture of this film and the message it is trying to send, its advocacy of white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan can get in the way of its extremely incredible artistic abilities considering the limitations that movie makers had to deal with during the early stages of film development.
ReplyDelete