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?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs times have evolved, many old subjects are being questioned as a new generation of expectations has become evident. This signifies to me that humans have made big progress toward solving racial and social issues over the last century. The Birth of a Nation is being questioned now but was allowed and even celebrated one hundred years ago. I believe that this film can be considered great despite the disturbing messages that are shown. The film should be judged by the technique and aspects of the film, not by whom it decides to give power to. While these messages are completely wrong now, they were acceptable during the making of the film. We should be able to say that the movie and imagery were well created without celebrating the content of the movie. This movie in particular set the stage for modern cinema by creating never seen before techniques and camera usage that are still used today. It was extremely modern for its time and allowed many people to become interested in film. Although the messages are against what modern culture tells us is right, it was not the same when the movie was created. If so, it would not have been shown and celebrated for being a great film. Political and moral statements do matter in film, but there was no way for the filmmaker to know that times would have changed after the creation of the film. Anyone viewing the film during this period would likely understand that the messages in the film are not an accurate representation of a successful society.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that while Birth of a Nation was revolutionary for its time period from a technical standpoint, it should be viewed as a relic of the past and serve as purely a timestamp of our racial history and film history. The movie incorporated newly introduced filmmaking elements such as matchcuts and detailed, realistic mise-en-scenes to the film industry, as well as become one of the first full length movies ever created. It also forged a new genre of cinema now known as Hollywood film. I think it is really common in this type of discourse surrounding Birth of a Nation to completely forget historically what this film brought to the cinematic world. However, I cannot stress enough that in order to make a movie truly great, every aspect of it has to be up to par and at least somewhat revolutionary. While the technical aspects of this film fill that quota, the message absolutely fails in that sense. The core of the film is centered around an extremely racist and bigoted point of view, and I am sure the implications of the intense idolization of the Ku Klux Klan were greatly felt by minority groups after this film was released, which is a fact that may be irrelevant in the discussion of the film's greatness, but still worth mentioning nonetheless. I do not think such a film can truly be great, as the morals of the movie overpower any sort of fluent technological work. Similarly, Riefenstahl’s work trumpeting Nazi ideology should be equally as disapproved, as the same argument still holds true. That film encounters the same problem as Birth of a Nation in that they both cannot be considered great movies due to their offensive messages. Creating art is often about making some sort of political or moral statement, so they absolutely matter in the grand scheme of the work. If a piece of artwork has a politically incorrect message, it is okay to acknowledge the piece, but not to over-commemorate it. If something is truly artistically brilliant, it does not have to rely on the promotion of hate, violence, and stereotypes to achieve that status. Overall, the negative and hateful message of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation completely triumphs his personal style and technological advancements the film accomplished, marking it an important fossil of our country’s history, but not to be regarded as anything more.
ReplyDeletePolitical and moral statements matter in artwork. Film is a visual art that is used to communicate ideas, messages, and stories. Often times, and in the case of The Birth of a Nation, the story goes hand in hand with the cinematography of the film. In the case of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, he uses his extraordinary cinematography to convey a racist and sexist ideology. These ideas are deeply engrained throughout the film work. Griffith utilizes “Hollywood Style” film tactics like framing and mise-en-scène in order to convey these discriminatory messages. An example of these tactics is the chase scene of the film that we viewed in class. Griffith uses the setting of each frame as a form of symbolism: from the fence, which symbolizes the divide between races, to the close-up shot of the spring, which represents sexual and racial “purity.” It is important to recognize that his film work does an amazing job of utilizing visual art in order to communicate ideas and stories. However, the story that he conveys is undeniably foul. Griffith’s film work made a significant societal impact. It widened the racial divide at the time, and deepened these ideologies within viewers. I agree that it is the beginning of Hollywood cinematography, but it would be a shame to consider the entirety of this movie, and still call it the beginning of Hollywood filmmaking. Film is the combination of visual art and storytelling, but the story that he tells within The Birth of a Nation makes it impossible to call it great.
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes, the style of a movie cannot trump the message. The largest contributing factor of a film is the story it tells. The cinematography, yes, can make the telling of a story better, but it doesn't remove the meaning behind it. In the context of Birth of a Nation, the story is rooted in racism and hate. This is important to realize, as for a movie to be truly amazing it has to have a great story and great cinematography. For the time, Birth of a Nation’s cinematography was amazing. However, the racism that was captured in the cinematography wasn’t great. I would go so far as to say that was is being portrayed, matters far more, than how you portray it. Meaning that the racism in the frame outweighs how it is being displayed. Because of that, a movie that has racism and hate intertwined in its plot will never be great. Therefore, a Birth of a Nation can not be a great film. In the context of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, which portrays Hitler in a positive light, the movie can not be great. The reasoning is the same as before, this film, though innovative, is horrible. The cinematography can’t dismiss the horrid actions of a cruel dictator. That is because no matter how well you frame the shot, what you are shooting is the most important. In so far as what is being shot is praising someone who is responsible for the lost lives of millions, it just can’t be overlooked. In all, what is in the frame, matters much more than how you are organizing the frame.
ReplyDeleteIn history, political and social aspects of society have made their way into cinematography. Birth of a Nation may have been one of the first examples of this phenomenon. The movie uses countless techniques that pioneered Hollywood filmmaking into the industry it is today. With that said, I believe it is impossible to critic the technical aspects of the movie without its message overshadowing it. This also goes for any movie that displays political or social propaganda to influence public opinion. When most people watch a movie, they don’t watch it for the shots and editing, they watch it for the story and characters. People want characters they can relate to and feel a distinct connection to. Especially with a younger audience, this can become a complicated issue. Birth of a Nation focuses on a white supremacist narrative, and it is hard to look past the distinct racism of the story, particularly, with all of the publicity surrounding it back when it was released considering it was even shown at the white house. While one can admire the work and effort put into films with immoral messages it will never be able to trump the messages behind them. I understand wanting to study this film and the techniques used in it, but I think it could be more enjoyable to learn about these methods from a movie with good filmmaking and story. Finally, Birth of a Nation should not still be included in the top one hundred films by the AMC cable channel or the AFI, and keeping it on their lists with its message puts a tarnish on their companies. Birth of a Nation is a past representation of the United States, but is not a depiction of how our country has grown as a nation, and changed whithin the realm of Hollywood cinematography.
ReplyDeleteI believe "The Birth of a Nation" deserves is designation as a great film. I also believe no aspects of its message are ok, to be promoted or accepted. While it is challenging for both of these statements to be true, I feel as though they are. The question asks if the film is great, and I believe that the message can be separated from the cinematography. The message cannot be ignored but it is possible to focus on the cuts, framing, and other aspects of the movie that were being pioneered. Additionally “The Birth of a Nation” was significant to not only film culture, as the first true Hollywood movie, but also to general American culture. With the movie gaining attention, the population of Klu Klux Klan members in America came to the forefront of people’s lives. The movie prompted a response across the nation of protests and uproar. It created historical events in America. I believe the same goes for other movies or even events of a like message. They cannot be forgotten just because they display various dark times in history. “The Birth of a Nation” can be a way to not only teach different types of film, but also different times in history. I believe political and moral statements matter in artwork. While you need to acknowledge them, you can also acknowledge the other parts of the artwork. While I believe there may be other films that demonstrate the same techniques, they do not have the same importance, both in history and in the film world. Overall “The Birth of a Nation” is infamous. Every viewer must acknowledge the inappropriate message portrayed before looking at the cinematography. Once that message has been acknowledged and understood, the film can be considered great.
ReplyDeleteIn order to even consider the question of whether or not D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation should be considered a “great” movie, one must first be able to answer a much broader question: what makes any movie “great”? For me, the answer to this question is rooted in the idea that the purpose of cinema (at least in Hollywood) is to tell a story. Every director has some narrative that they wish to communicate to the audience, and the effectiveness of that narrative (in my mind) can be measured by its ability to persuade the audience to think or feel a certain way. Take one of the classic “great” stories, Harry Potter, for example. J.K. Rowling uses a unique combination of words and sentences to make the reader feel such a strong connection with the main character that by the seventh book, they find themselves gripping the pages, anxiously waiting to see if Harry will vanquish Voldemort once and for all. But what if the roles had been reversed in this famous book series? What if the series had been named “Tom Riddle” and J.K. Rowling had told the story of Voldemort’s life instead, such that the reader found themselves cheering for the Dark Lord by the last book? Would it still be considered a “great” story, even though it persuades the reader to root for evil and wickedness? The answer is yes whether we like it or not, and this rationale could equally be applied to Birth of a Nation. D.W. Griffith tells a terribly racist story that celebrates the purity of whiteness and idolizes the Ku Klux Klan, and yet the way Griffith tells the narrative can still allow it to be considered a “great”, or at least “cinematically great,” film. His filmic innovations in areas like framing and editing allowed him to create such a persuasive movie that many in the audience were not only convinced of his racist beliefs but found themselves acting on them. In the years following the film’s release, Klan membership spiked, and race riots and lynchings became more prevalent. Any film that is able to shape the minds of its viewers in such a profound way deserves to be considered “great” from a film perspective, even if what they are being convinced to do is despicable and horrifying. Therefore, because of its filmic innovations and its incredible persuasive effect, Birth of a Nation should be considered a “cinematically great” film, while still bearing in mind the egregiously racist story that it tells.
ReplyDeleteMessages that films convey are significant in the fact that they continue to stick with viewer, even after the film ends on screen. Birth of a Nation did not just bring up racist ideas, but it continued to spread them for people to consider for years after its release. Not only were the ideas of this film blatantly racist, they also influenced the viewer’s opinions on race for the rest of the century. This production of ideas caused many people to suffer greatly. In addition to all of this, Birth of a Nation did inspire the beginning of Hollywood Style films. Mise-en-scènes and unique ways of editing were newly introduced to helped to put this film in the spotlight. In this way, the film should gain some acknowledgement, but praising it for its technique does not justify the immense suffering and pain it caused. In fact, these new techniques only helped to further progress the racist messages that this film conveys. Through framing and chase-and-rescue scenes, the racial oppression is evident. These ideas are still relevant no matter what message a film gives. Leni Riefenstahl’s glorification of Hitler in Triumph of the Will holds true to these same ideas. When watching a film, the viewer is more likely to focus on the plot, as well as the ideas introduced, and the way in which they fit into the narrative. When ranking this film among some of the greats, more emphasis should be placed on the messages it give off, rather than the film techniques. I do not think that Birth of a Nation should be placed on the list of top 100 films of all time because of its degrading ideas, which ultimately overrule the stylistic choices.
ReplyDeleteWhile the message of "Birth of a Nation" heavily emphasizes the ideas of white supremacy and racial purity, the film was a cinematic masterpiece for its time, and that should be recognized. The message of this film reflects its time period and allows us now, as viewers, to analyze the racism in the early 1900s. If we dismissed all forms of art that were racist as not "truly great", we would lose huge parts of history. Racism and groups like the KKK were relatively accepted during that time, so this film wasn't as controversial as we see it. The message of a film is important especially since most audiences do not focus on the editing of a film while watching. However, if we actively analyze the film and understand its context, the style is important. "Birth of a Nation" deserves to be in the National Film Registry and in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the American Film Institute, because it brought together plot, actors, and continuity editing that was innovative for this time. As a viewer, the chase scene was interesting to watch and Griffith did well at making sure the viewer knew where the character was and how far the Black man was away from the girl by matching objects in each scene. Additionally, the point of view shots between the squirrel and the girl innocently playing, then matched with the Black man elevated the suspense as a viewer. Since these practices of editing are "normal" in current Hollywood films, we view this film focusing on the racist message, however considering the context, I think it should be seen as a milestone in cinematic history.
ReplyDeleteD. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is blatantly racist; yet, some people classify it as one of the top 100 films. I believe that for a movie to be great, it needs to have good content as well as good film technique. The Birth of a Nation clearly lacks good content and does not meet the standards of what a great movie should include. It is important to acknowledge when analyzing this film that the camera work and editing were astounding for it time, but more importantly, the messages being portrayed in the story line. Often when watching a movie, I think about the messages I take away from that movie. In Toy Story, it teaches about finding good friends, in Farris Bullers Day Off, one learns about why we should not skip school, and in Cars, we learn about enjoying life. When I think of movies that I have watched in the past, I think of the content and lesson that it taught me first, and if it was positive, I go on to remember specific scenes and shots with advanced editing that made the plot even better. Clearly, the message of The Birth of a Nation is wrong in many ways, so why do some still consider it such a good movie. I believe it is because they watch the movie through the aspect of the time and note how incredible the editing was for that period and not focus as much on the content. While it is important to note what time the movie was made and acknowledge the specific advancements it may have had, it is just as important to note what the movies message is. Content and editing go hand in hand in movie making, and I believe that you can separately acknowledge that one or the other in a given movie is good. However, I also believe that both need to be good to categorize a movie as great, meaning that The Birth of a Nation should not be classified as one of the top 100 movies.
ReplyDeleteD.W. Griffith's film, Birth of a Nation, is an incredibly controversial piece of media because of the blatantly racist and overall problematic themes demonstrated within the film. While I might have only seen one scene from the movie, it was still very difficult to watch. However, one of the main reasons we acknowledge this controversial film at all is because of the cinematography. Birth of a Nation might have been controversial, but it is also undeniable that it was revolutionary within the film industry. D.W. Griffith didn’t invent camera angles and editing, but he was however, able to manipulate each of these aspects to bring out the most of the film. Birth of a Nation has beautifully done framing and editing, which is one of the only reasons we watch this movie at all. The only other reason we would watch this movie is to understand the political climate at the time. This film was used as a piece of propaganda, and it was incredibly successful as propaganda because of how effective the film was. Despite the themes, it was emotional and masterfully made. As for the question of whether or not this film can be great, the answer is a hard no. This is the kind of movie that you will never watch on your own for your own enjoyment, one of the only reasons this film will ever be watched is reviewing it in a classroom setting, whether that be a history class or a film class like this.
ReplyDeleteFilms such as "The Birth of a Nation" should definitely not be revered as a great film due to its disturbing perspective on race. The main message presented in the film is known to be very racist towards people of African-American descent. However, a great movie is defined by both the technique used in shooting scenes in combination with the moral/message of it. A movie with a good message but not great framing and angling can possibly be seen as confusing or cheesy. "The Birth of a Nation", on the other hand, has great, revolutionary technique in each shot, but lacks the good message to the viewer. And especially with a racist message it really drowns out the other aspects of it. This is why a movie's technique should be judged separately from its message. Therefore, certain movies can have a high rating in technique while not being recommended to watch for entertainment. And others can be recommended for pure entertainment and not really to learn from. A piece of art's message can definitely trump its style. Both "The Birth of a Nation" and "Triumph of the Will" have messages that are not acceptable in today's world and that can really be the main factor an audience takes away from the experience. A strong racist message will most definitely stay in a person's mind much longer and more clearly than any revolutionary film method developed during that time. Overall, movies should still be recommended for entertainment or analysis, or even both, but it is much simpler and agreeable to separate the two factors as it makes ranking films less controversial.
ReplyDelete“Birth of a Nation” does indeed deserve the distinction as a great film. This film excelled and mastered many cinematic techniques. W.D Griffith may have created an extremely problematic plot for today’s standards, however, the question wasn’t whether the movie is unproblematic or not, it is whether it was a great movie, and those two questions are not synonymous. Throughout the film, it helped expand white supremacy ideals throughout white culture, however, it also had amazing shots, angles, and scenes right alongside the problematic ones. This by no means excuses his choice of message, although it shouldn’t completely overshadow the movie. Even though this movie was used as propaganda for the KKK to gain members, it should be used as material to educate. History isn’t perfect and is often the opposite, and this movie is evidence of that. It should be analyzed and used as a model for how we can avoid the same or similar situations. “Birth of a Nation” although is very damaging to American culture in promoting a radical and racist hate group, it also is very important in the sense that it set the standard as the first Hollywood full feature film. The film is ahead of its time with its techniques and length. The film also brought to the forefront the problematic stereotypes that were being circulated about African Americans in the United States and how they were damaging. This may have influenced people to join the Klu Klux Klan, it influenced many more people to help rebel and put an end to this mistreatment. Even though this film did a lot of damage, once a viewer acknowledges the faults, it can be viewed as intended, a great cinematic piece.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that the film "Birth of a Nation" was truly a great film as it was revolutionary for its time in the use of "new" film technology by combining all the previous styles into one. The film can be seen as a questionable or a poor film due to the dark message the film portrays in the KKK and white supremacy, but I believe the film having a poor message should not take away from the fact that the movie itself was considered an extremely high quality film for its time and still is. Films being rated overall in the industry should be rated based on how well it takes advantage of the technology for the time and how revolutionary it is. For films with poor morals they shouldn’t be publicly shown however they should still be used for educational purposes, and respected as a phenomenal film as it still majorly affected the era of film in a positive light. When deciding whether or not a film is an all time masterpiece; it should be decided by the message along with whether or not it is an artistic masterpiece, however, when deciding if a film by itself is a masterpiece it should be able to be looked separately in 2 categories dividing the message in one and the actual work in the other. Separating the 2 is very important for the film world as a film with great use of film styles but a poor message could inspire a new film to do better creating an all time masterpiece, as we as people must learn from the mistakes created in the past rather than hiding them away just to create the same mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Birth of a Nation, as well as any other film containing appalling messages that spur on racism, can never truly be considered great. We can say that this film was artistically great for its time because of its length and technicality, as well as changing the way films were made moving forward. That said, I don’t believe that’s enough to call it great, because the content of this film is hurtful and stirs hate through racism. We can admire how revolutionary it was for its time without praising the film itself. For example, if we were to come across a picture, drawn in a revolutionary new style, but the drawing contains a horrible message, the fact that it’s artistically brilliant doesn’t make up for the message. This wouldn’t be something people hang up on their wall and just ignore the message, because within a work of art, the message is crucial. Political and moral statements matter within any artwork. It’s not enough to have a film only be technically and artistically brilliant to claim a film great. Obviously having great creativity within a piece of work is good but this doesn’t matter in the big picture. We can acknowledge the importance this film had in the past without praising or claiming it’s one of the top 100 movies ever made. In the end, the message a piece of art holds is much more important than just a style or the ways in which they were done.
ReplyDeleteD.W. Griffith was, without a doubt, an exceptional cinematographer; he was the first to combine several different framing shots and continuity editing techniques together. However, his remarkable filmmaking style in "Birth of a Nation" is not adequate to consider the entire film great. Style and cinematography are only one portion of a film. The other major aspect that makes up a film is the message. In "Birth of a Nation," Black people, men in specific, were depicted as predatory creatures that preyed on White women. In contrast, White women were represented as pure, innocent beings who were in need of saving from Black men. "Birth of a Nation" created problematic, racist ideologies about Black people. The film even went as far as to glamorize the actions of the KKK as heroic and revive White supremacist groups in America. "Birth of a Nation" should continue to be watched because it holds historical significance in our society and its portrayal of Black people serves as a reminder of one of the reasons as to why Black people are discriminated against. If the film was simply erased, it would force society to forget the damage and lasting effects the film has had. The extraordinary style of "Birth of a Nation" does not suffice for the harmful, long-standing racism that stems from the film. Political and moral statements do matter in an artwork. "Birth of a Nation" might have match cuts and a plot that flows, but the film has caused an immeasurable amount of violence and hatred towards African-Americans. For that sole reason, Birth of a Nation can never be acknowledged as a great film.
ReplyDeleteThe message in D.W. Griffith’s film, Birth of a Nation, is a disgusting reminder of America’s past and therefore should not be considered a great film. When I think of a great film, I think of a film that should be celebrated for its beauty. This beauty does not necessarily mean perfection or happiness. There can be beautiful films that cover very dark topics, but I do believe there is a limit to this darkness. Birth of a Nation exceeds this limit because of the evil the movie promotes. The plot contains countless examples of racism and sexism while glorifying the Ku Klux Klan the entire time. There is no way someone can watch this movie and feel any sort of happiness or satisfaction when it is finished. I think it is extremely unfortunate that this movie is widely celebrated as a great movie within the film community. That being said, I do believe this is a revolutionary movie. It is considered one of the first true Hollywood-style movies because it incorporates cinematic features that had never been seen before. There is continuity editing which creates a story that flows well along with many camera shots that convey different messages. It has close ups of character’s faces to show deep emotion, and it utilizes extreme long shots to show the scale of the setting. These techniques are the most basic elements that filmmakers still use to this day. For this reason, I think this movie belongs in a history or film class.
ReplyDeleteD.W. Griffith’s "The Birth of a Nation’s" monumental visual storytelling reinvented filmmaking; however, the white supremacy ideologies prevent the film from being categorized as one of the greatest films in history. While filming "The Birth of a Nation", Griffith perfected many filmmaking techniques that are still used today. Techniques similar to parallel editing including continuity edits, direction matches, and movement matches helped effectively convey the story. The most crucial detail to acknowledge though is that the film is important for filmmakers to analyze due to its camerawork and persuasive storytelling, but "The Birth of a Nation" is not a “great” movie for the general public. People mostly view filmmaking as a source of storytelling through visuals. The plot, characters, setting, and message are what the general public mainly notices. Since "Birth of a Nation’s" plot perpetuates racist ideas and stereotypes, the audience only focuses on these blatant bigoted ideas shown in front of them. The racist ideas in this film should not be idolized by our culture by categorizing "The Birth of a Nation" as a great movie due to its visuals. Visuals are not enough to label a film great because the message is most important to the viewer, and is the impression that the audience leaves the theater remembering. Griffith displayed how beautiful and dangerous storytelling could be. The beauty of his visuals conveyed a strong message, but for the wrong reasons. This showed all film enthusiasts that a film’s message has the most significance, no matter the brilliance of the images pictured.
ReplyDeleteAlthough D.W. Griffith displays his racist ideas in, Birth of a Nation", it should be considered a great film for his new techniques of filming he presents. The message of the film in no way should be tolerated or accepted. During the time it was released, it was used as propaganda to show the dangers of African Americans. Many people who first watched "Birth of a Nation", would mainly pay attention to the plot. D.W. Griffith would show his biased and misleading information to promote his point of view on African Americans. This was a cause of the reboot of the Ku Klux Klan. But if you look at the cinematography of the film, it should be acknowledged that D.W. Griffith was a very talented director. If you don't look at him for his personal beliefs, it is clearly shown in, "Birth of a Nation" he has shown us a new, modern style of film. Griffith's filming presents us with many styles of framing including, close-ups, medium shots, long shots, and extreme long shots. All of the framing styles show the beauty of film. Each style is meant for different ravishing reasons to make the viewer more intrigued and focused on an important aspect of the film. All of these styles are the basis of movie filming which are all still used today and it is all first shown in "Birth of a Nation". It upsets me to know that the first film to have such important film methods had such a dark plot behind it. I think "Birth of a Nation" should not be known for its controversial message, but for it's revolutionary style of film which D.W. Griffith pioneered which is why I think it should be considered a great film.
ReplyDeleteD.W. Griffith's "Birth of Nation" should be considered one of history's great films even though it portrays racist and prejudiced ideas, because of the quality of cinematography, regardless of the ideas depicted in the film. At the time, D.W. Griffith was a pioneer of many film techniques such as long shots, chase scenes, and close ups. Not only was D.W. Griffith one of the first directors to attempt these brand new film skills, but he performed the new techniques with great expertise, as if he had done it many times before. Although the ideas and opinions shown in the movie are absolutely wrong and unacceptable in today’s culture, when the movie was filmed in 1914, it was not unusual for people to have such racist beliefs. If it is not considered a great movie, why is it continuously on the list of the American Film Institute’s 100 greatest films? The answer is simple. Because of the outstanding and innovative cinematography and filming techniques used to show D.W. Griffith’s controversial ideas and mindset, “Birth of a Nation” continues to find its way onto the American Film Institute’s list. At the time of filming, the Klu Klux Klan was as strong as its ever been and racist mindsets were prevalent throughout America, and just like in today’s world, politics and pop culture are dominant forces when it comes to playing a major influential role in movies and television shows. In 1914, it was no different. D.W. Griffith used his power of directing the movie to show the public what he thinks America should look like, and instead of completely disregarding the movie for that we need to recognize why his ideas are wrong while still realizing his great filming ability.
ReplyDeleteIn D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, he shows off his expertise as a film maker, attempting shots never done before. He is indeed a pioneer of his time, introducing many film techniques. Yet at the same time the message this film portrays is horrendous today, with all of its ideologies of racism and supremacy. Although it’s hard to label whether a film is great or not, D.W. Griffith’s utilization of different forms of filmmaking such as parallel editing, and lots of continuity editing, including eyeline matches, match cuts, POV shots, etc., created a new level to filmmaking at the time. In terms of the film itself, “Birth of a Nation” was beyond its time. The concern is that in movies, generally the characters get noticed first. Behind that, the plot makes a lot of movies feel complete, at least ones that follow a chronological order. In this movie, the racist ideas and stereotypes are blatantly spat at the audience, and that’s dangerous because these ideas shouldn’t be idolized by any culture. Not then not now. The “Birth of a Nation” in itself is wonderous, conveyed great visual imagery, scenery, followed by an easy to understand plot, and overall was a fantastic film. Without the ideas of racism and supremacy involved, this film is in fact one of the greatest films, yet the ideas this film portrays can not be tossed around, because they are too important for other people’s cultures. It’s difficult to say whether this movie is great or not, but this does show that the imagery is not the only important part of making a movie great.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to whether if D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is a truly great film, it’s debatable. The film had great cinematography and was revolutionary during its time, however the film’s message is extremely racist. The Birth of a Nation portrays black men (who in the film are white men in blackface) as sexually aggressive towards white women and makes the Ku Klux Klan the heroes. Even though the film had many different editing techniques and camera movements, I would say the message of a film is more important than the cinematography. Before this class, I never really payed attention to the filming and editing side of a movie. I payed more attention to the content and the takeaway of the film. After watching a movie that I’ve enjoyed, I feel pleased or I’m curious what will happen in the next film. Following the reading we read about The Birth of a Nation and the part of the film that we watched in class, I didn’t feel that way, I felt in a way uncomfortable. I felt uncomfortable about Griffith’s views, how he portrayed Black people and how white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan were looked upto. The message stayed more with me than the cinematography. A film can be great in cinematography and not the message like The Birth of a Nation or it can have a great message and not great cinematography. But for a film to be truly great, it should have both great cinematography and a great message.
ReplyDeleteD.W Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” was one of the first films to introduce a new way of filming. The movie had incredible cinematography at the time, however it is not hard to see the racist intent throughout the story. One scene showed a white man in blackface chasing after a girl with the intent to forcefully marry and most likely rape her. When I first started watching D.W Griffith’s film “Birth of a Nation”, I was focused on the earliest forms of editing and what contributions they made to the film and the emotion of the audience. Soon after the film started I focused much less on the edits, but the racist intent that the film portrayed. This film was considered great to many people for a long time. I think for a movie to be great all parts of it have to be considered. The two main parts of this film that strike me are incredible cinematography, and the very racist intent behind the movie. D.W Griffith was clearly very skilled with a camera and he showed it by introducing shots like; the long shot, the closeup, and chase scenes. D.W Griffith also had extreme racist ideas. His film portrayed many black people as bad and also includes the Ku Klux Klan as the heroes. Does the outstanding cinematography beat out the racist ideas to make “Birth of a Nation” a great film? My answer is no. There are many movies introduced around the same time with these certain shots that are not as nasty as what D.W Griffith displayed. I think D.W Griffith should be recognized for his new ideas in how films are shot but I do not think that Birth of a Nation can be considered a great film.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteD. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is not a great film. While it might have paved the way for modern cinema, that does not excuse or negate its atrocious racism and offensive content. Part of what makes a film great to me is its plot. While this film is praised and hailed as great for its revolutionary film techniques, its techniques are sullied by the plot and events happening with them. Not only was the film blatantly and extremely racist throughout the entirety of the film, but this film had severe real-world consequences on the political climate of America. The showings of this film were used as a requirement center for the KKK. This film is one of the main contributors for anti-black sentiment in America for the time period, and created the stereotype that African-American men are rapists and abusers. This movie gained such great amounts of attention at the time due to the president’s high praise for the film, causing even more KKK joining. This film may have been innovative and nuanced in any number of ways, but those things do not make the film wholly great in the context of its atrocious racism. A single aspect cannot make a film great, especially with an extreme negative factor, influencing the whole film. What makes a film great is the combination of multiple factors, which compile together to make an entire film’s worth or status. When even a single variable is such a significant outlier, it tarnishes then entire value of the film.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that is crucial in labeling what films are ‘great’ is the society in which they are released into. There is no doubt that D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation, was a revolutionary film for the time, from a filmmaking standpoint. This is in terms of techniques and cinematography used in the film, that truly added inspiration to the film industry to help make movies are what they are today. However, since the release of The Birth of a Nation to modern day, society has made tremendous progress in reducing the racial inequalities and stereotypes that were simply part of life back in the day. This is significant because if this film were to be released into our modern day society, it would not be accepted or even thought of being considered great, despite its filmmaking techniques. The racism and hate embedded in this film were looked passed in the early 1900s because the filmmaking was so new and attractive. The stereotype that black men are a threat to white women is seen in this film, while this is obviously an offensive and degrading message to show in a film, it did not matter to society back then, because if its filmmaking greatness. Nonetheless, this film should be considered great because the filmmaking was revolutionary in itself, but more importantly, the depictions of racism and stereotypes serves as a representation and a reminder of how far we have progressed as a society.
ReplyDeleteWhen its comes to the film Birth of a Nation and other films that glorify racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, the message of the film can trump its style. But in this case the revolutionary aspects of the film and other factors still make it a good film. During the time the film was made the racist ideology's were a lot more socially acceptable then they are today. If this film came out in the modern age it would be a completely different story. We can use this films like this one to understand where we went wrong in history and to educate ourselves about the past. History tends to repeat itself if we don't grow and learn from our mistakes. Celebrating the films cinematography, techniques, and other things is acceptable but preaching any of the ideology shown throughout the movie is not. Looking at the good things the movie brought to cinema is ok. In school and education we teach about the good things people did while also thinking about the bad. For example majority of US presidents were racist or sexist and such yet we still learn about what they did for us today. Political and moral statements are definitely important when watching a movie but also understanding that what's acceptable by society changes overtime and that should affect how we view a films significance. However, listing Birth of a Nation or any film that features terrible beliefs in the top 100 films is not something that should be allowed. Overall, we can recognize what a film did for cinema while also remembering that everything in the movie is unacceptable and malicious.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to a Birth of a Nation, the cinematography and mise en scene was revolutionary for its time. No one doubts that a Birth of a Nation was visually revolutionary for its time but the message and racism in the movie lessens the magic of the movie. It is like in a book, the descriptive words and details to describe certain scenery traps readers into the book and makes that book from great to glorious. The 80% of the book that is the most important is the plot, the story being told. Acknowledging that the movie is visually pleasing and nice but the perpetuation of century old stereotypes is what not allows it to be known as one of the top movies. We cannot market this movie as one of the greats because it allows people to be racist and keep these harmful stereotypes in film and media going on instead of stopping them once and for all. In school this is an acceptable movie to learn about racism for this time and what was considered acceptable. I think it is important to learn about such media especially during such a crucial time of social justice to see a lack of social and racial progress, but marketing this as one of the movie greats is not great. How this movie was shown in the white house and was called an American classic is what makes it very hard for me to just ignore the racism and watch the movie for what it is worth. Today, people still do black face and believe black men to be malicious so I cannot just despise the racism.
ReplyDeleteD.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is notable for its impact on film for its time, but not for its quality. The film's critiques are immeasurable despite its notoriety in film history. One of the critique heavily talked about is the film's racist background. In a couple scenes, a main character is being chased down by a man in blackface. He is portrayed as an evil character who plans on committing sexual assault on the main character. His language is exaggerated and "dummy-ed down" to make his character seem unintelligent. This depiction of the black man is meant to give a idea of what the directors truly felt about black people at the time. Of course during the time of the film, racism was very much alive and well, but as the years progressed, the more America was accepting of African Americans. With that came new standards for movies. Racially motivated movies were no longer accepted nor appreciated. The Birth of a Nation is not an exception. Online critiques are quick to note not only its racist notion, but its effects. At the time of its release, President Woodrow Wilson praised the film and spoke of it highly. Due to its large amount of exposure and attention from the president, groups that would support Wilson would also support the movie. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. This film inflated the numbers of KKK members by a large amount. This then caused many racially motivated attacks against the African American population. What does it take for a movie to be "good"? Many variables contribute to a film's success, but the most important variable is longevity. Can you see this film being watched by generations and generations to come? Will this film have the same impact on me from now to later? I believe this film fails at completing this variable.
ReplyDelete