Thursday, January 12, 2012
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)
A film like birth of a nation can be great. Obviously, the message is very disturbing and we would not take any kind of value from it, but it can still be enjoyable and respected. We find ourselves loving movies that we would never be able to relate to. For example, Pulp Fiction is probably my favorite movie. I have no experience close to being a hired hit man or a boxer fixing a fight and then crossing a guy like Marcellus, but yet I still enjoyed it and though it was an awesome, well put together movie. Yes, maybe we will take an overlaying message from it but often it is hard to interpret or we just don’t care because the movie was entertaining to us. That is the main appeal of birth of a nation to most people these days and in the film institutes. It is aesthetically pleasing to people from that time period because it was the best looking thing they had. We respect it now because it ushered in many new film techniques, helping to progress the art of film into what we see today. It is not that it is something we would watch now over another mediocre movie from this time period, however it deserves to be commended for its huge accomplishments in its day.
ReplyDeleteI think films that trumpet horrible messages can still be great, and that’s because I tend not to judge the quality of a film by its opinions. In other words, the content of a film being bad does not make the film itself bad. What makes a film great is how compellingly it presents its material, and if D. W. Griffith was able to convince audiences that black people and Northerners were the spawn of Satan, then clearly he had mastered cinematic techniques to the point of being able to manipulate others. That takes incredible skill worthy of being called “great.” Now, calling a film “great” doesn’t mean I agree with it, but if movie greatness were attainable only through the creation of a message with which everyone could agree, then no film would ever be great. For example, it wouldn’t be possible for both “Twelve Angry Men” and “Dirty Harry” to be great if that were the case; the former espouses nuanced argument and the idea of innocent until proven guilty, while the latter advocates vigilante justice and the principle of shoot first, talk later. If greatness were based on agreeing with a movie’s message, then I’d only call “Twelve Angry Men” great. Nevertheless, both are considered classics by the mainstream, which suggests that people on the whole look to craft more than content when judging a film’s quality.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with both Aden and Nick. Even though the content of The Birth of a Nation may be considered taboo in our society, especially when the Ku Klux Klan, at the end of the film, rescued the white family from the black man who was attacking them, it was still a revolutionary movie for its time. In order to fully understand the film, we need to see it in context, from the time it was produced. In the early 1900's, this would have been considered socially acceptable, even enough to be played multiple times at the White House and to be preserved in the Library of Congress. This, though, is not the only example of what has been called a "great" film that has a message that many may not find to be acceptable. In the end, when judging a film, we must take into consideration the techniques and style to which the movie was filmed over the message presented by the film; The Birth of a Nation really proves this point and remains widely recognized as a great film because of its innovations in filmmaking.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this film is pivotal to the creation of the modern day motion picture, its message holds it back from being truly, "great". Film scholars such as David Bordwell say that the film, "is usually credited with perfecting the enduring artistic resources of the story film". Bordwell is praising the technical aspects of the film, not the story or themes. Any topic or subject matter surrounded by the technical advancements used in "Birth of A Nation" would get a similar reaction from film historians all over the world. The fact that this film is racist or propaganda at best, tarnishes its legacy. A movie could be considered "well done" or "high art" but I find it hard to call a movie, "great" when its message is so wrong and degrading towards the American people. In my mind, doing so would somehow give an endorsement to the message that the creators were trying to convey. Forms of art can be considered advanced and creative, while at the time pertain to painful periods in history such as, "Triumph of the Will" a film that praises the work of Adolf Hitler. Like "Birth of A Nation", this film showed technological advancements but I would not consider a work praising Adolf Hitler to be in the same league as Hollywood classics we all know and love. The same goes for D.W. Griffith's film. The technical aspects are vital in the creation of cinema, but the story and message portrayed, can be better left, unsaid.
ReplyDeleteWhen “Birth of a Nation” was conceived in 1915, it proved to be one of the most innovative and accurate portrayals of American society. Audiences around the nation, including President Wilson, who urged congress to have a viewing party, revered it. While the film has a questionable political message, the techniques used to create the movie proved to change the face of the cinematic business. Director D.W. Griffith used advanced framing and editing practices that would stand the test of time and prove to be utilized for decades after. When the movie was made, the notion of white supremacy and positive influence of the Ku Klux Klan were considered normal. Audiences were not taken aback by the underlying political messages. Rather, they identified with the actors and emotionally connected with events portrayed in the film. In my humble opinion, that is what makes a film great; the actors’ ability to connect with the viewers and also the ability for an audience to emotionally attach to the film. While the messages portrayed in Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” are horribly racist and offend today’s audience, it was an accurate depiction of life in America at the time. Yet, more importantly, the film was so innovative and advanced for its time, that the film can be considered great. It changed the cinematic business for the better. Someone could make a movie today, movie “X”, depicting modern society as we know it, but using techniques and styles so advanced that they change the way movies are forever made. One hundred years from now, society may be appalled by the messages portrayed in movie “X”. Yet, they can still call it great for the work that it did to revolutionize how movies were made and advance the business into the future. Thus, I believe that while a message of a movie is important, it’s techniques and innovation are enough to label it a great film for years to come.
ReplyDeleteAs much as it pains me to induct A Birth of a Nation into my memory bank as a “work of art”, I must admit that it is a work of art regardless of its ignorant content. Its message may be racist, based merely upon assumptions and stereotypes about a set group of people, but the film does hold some value. A Birth of a Nation records what our society was thinking many years before we were here. It’s interesting to see just how different things actually were and imagine how society and day to day life must have functioned during times where everyone was not accepted.
ReplyDeleteDue to the message presented in A Birth of a Nation it’s easy to understand how someone could not see its scarce good qualities. It’s hard to see something for its artistic expression when its message is masked by hate and violence, things which we as a people innately know to be wrong. A film such as this can be appreciated and valued in an artistic light; however it does speak to the condition and mindset of mankind. This is what was socially acceptable. People found these loose renderings comedic and entertaining. I don’t fault the director or writer for creating such a work of art. I criticize society itself for choosing to view and laugh at such an art form.
Controversial movies like Birth of a nation can still be good works of art despite having a disagreeable message, but they can never be truly great. Art can be broken down into two elements. Aesthetic style is the first element, and Birth of a Nation's combination of groundbreaking techniques and style fulfills that part well. For a modern viewer the film may seem archaic, but its greatness lives on as a historical piece. It would be foolish to forget that BN is responsible for a great many parts of modern Hollywood. This also applies to Triumph of Will. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and many other directors borrowed techniques from Leni Riefenstahl. The original idea for the countless lines of white imperial storm troopers standing in line came from Triumph of Will.
ReplyDeleteOn the other end, movies with immoral messages can never be great story wise. Story is a huge part of cinema. For many, it is more important than visual or auditory aesthetics. The storyline of Birth of a Nation can never connect with an American audience again. Most even consider the topic to be revolting. This is why BN is only watched by historians and cinema enthusiasts. Some of the older classics may be forgotten by the majority of the population, but I imagine that those movies would still be favorably received if modern day audiences had a chance to watch them. This is not so with Birth of a Nation.
When looking at the film “The Birth of a Nation” we can see a few things right from the start. They are that the film is using brilliant new techniques and that it is blatantly racist. This film can, in my mind, be a great film because of its technique and artistically brilliant. With that said the racism cannot be disregarded. It was irresponsible for President Wilson to show private screenings in the white house because the president should not be seen promoting racism in anyway. This film should be adored artistically and be denounced politically. In this case I believe that the artist message has trumped its style, but the style shouldn’t be over looked. His message said that a black man will chase a white girl who will be saved by a white man. The villain in his film was only a villain because he was black… this is the blatant racism that is not acceptable, and shouldn’t be endorsed by our president. Looking back at it today I do not personally believe this film should have been added to the library of congress. There are better examples of the techniques this film used that don’t contain as much racism, sure they weren’t the first to do them, but they are more acceptable from a diplomatic approach. All in all it is the racism that trumps the artistic style for this movie, BUT I do understand from an artistic stand point it is brilliant and hence a good film.
ReplyDeleteA Birth of a Nation was and still is an extremely controversial movie that promotes racism and helped revive the Klu Klux Klan, but still managed to be preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed on many different lists of best movies of all time. This may seem unreasonable because of its terribly racist themes, but I believe that there were other factors that contribute to it not being forgotten in history. First, A Birth of a Nation was one of the founding films of the movie industry and it utilizes some of the earliest film techniques such as continuity editing and many other practices that are vital to the film industry today. These techniques have been used ever since the filming of A Birth of a Nation and if any other movie were to have utilized these earlier, it probably would be preserved for the technical aspects alone, no matter what the plot. A Birth of a Nation can also be preserved for artistic reasons as well. Art, whether in the form of painting, music, theater, sculpture or any other medium is used to convey a message from the artist to the viewer. Once the viewer sees the art, it is their decision to decipher the message and then form an opinion about the piece. By this definition A Birth of a Nation is definitely a piece of art; however it is a piece of art most people disagree with. This may not be enough to merit making it one of the 100 greatest movies of all time, but it does give it the right to exist as a piece of early art in a new medium. Lastly, A Birth of a Nation warrants being remembered because it can be used as a checkpoint in American History. After viewing the film, the viewer can see that although racism and inequality still exist, America as a country has made huge strides since the Civil War. A Birth of a Nation may not be a great movie because of its racist message, but is great in the sense that it was able to create the foundation of modern cinema with early 20th century technology, and also deserves credit as an artistic representation of post-Civil War America.
ReplyDelete