"The dark side of wrong"

Rating: 8/10 (5 September 2009)

In writing these comments, I don't normally look into the political or ethical issues of the films in question, but in the case of Birth of a Nation I feel I must, due to its significance in cinema history and its appalling and conspicuous racism. While most buffs who view the picture today will be able to ignore that racism, the fact of it still causes a number of problems. As it was DW Griffith's most famous and successful picture, it has been taken as representative of his whole career and personality. Consequently, some of today's writers have attempted to downplay Griffith's contributions to cinematic form (see for example John Steinle's woefully uninformed essay at sensesofcinema.com). Others have stated that Birth is overrated compared to Griffith's less objectionable pictures, or even that the less racist first half is also technically superior to the second.
None of these attempts to reassess the quality of Birth or Griffith's work as a whole is particularly convincing, and they are little more than a ridiculous assumption that a director's views are synonymous with their talent (a misunderstanding for which the auteur theory is at least partly to blame). Anyone who has seen more than a handful of Griffith's pictures will know that he made pictures putting forward many different and conflicting views – see for example the Biograph shorts The Red Man's View, His Trust and The Rose of Kentucky – but the fact that he made Birth of a Nation proves he was certainly a naïve and unconscious racist, although not a hateful one. Still, this doesn't detract from his being a master craftsman of the cinema, and to deny Griffith's influence would be to misrepresent cinematic history.
So with that said, let's have a look at the picture itself. Birth of a Nation's greatest asset is perhaps its portrayal of family life and romantic love. Griffith's tableaux are a beautiful blend of naturalism and the style of renaissance painting. He paints a nostalgic picture of the Old South, linking its romantic imagery with the emotional heart of the story – for example Henry Walthall having his first glimpse of Lillian Gish's portrait while standing in a field of cotton. By contrast many of the action sequences are actually rather dull. The main battle scene in the first half is a bit of a mess, with too many indistinct god-shots of people running round, a bit of flag-waving and some puffs of smoke. The one exception is the final ride-to-the-rescue, which is, unfortunately, perhaps the best Griffith ever constructed. I say "unfortunately", because it's also completely abhorrent, racially. While I can appreciate it objectively, I can't enjoy it.
It's often overlooked that, aside from his technical innovations, Griffith's pictures were also at the forefront of revolutionising screen acting. They took us from the grimacing and pantomime of the mid-1900s to the subtle yet expressive performances which we see here. In Birth of a Nation, it's particularly nice to see Lillian Gish at her peak, before she descended into a style which consisted of nothing but childish gestures and over-the-top hysterics. Another standout is Raoul Walsh as John Wilkes Booth, who brings a powerful presence to his small yet pivotal role. On the downside, perennial villains George Siegmann and Walter Long are simply hammy stereotypes, indicative of the crudeness of many reconstruction scenes. Griffith defenders who claim the first part is better than the second are at least right in terms of the quality of acting and level of realism!
As a cinematic achievement, Birth of a Nation is surpassed by Intolerance and many of Griffith's short pictures. It is still however an example of his sensitivity to cinematic form and a culmination of his pioneering work of the previous six years. Today, discussion of it seems to be either at an infantile level (see the message boards below ;) ) or simply non-existent. Griffith's pictures are not only integral to the development of cinematic language, they are also beautifully made works of entertainment, and acknowledging this does not make someone a racist by association. Let's not throw Griffith's baby out with its bigoted bathwater.