Wow, what a debate, just helped a friend do a presentation on this movie

Rating: Null/10 (12 April 2004)

My friend and I just completed a presentation and a 15 page paper is on the way regarding the "film". I must say the teacher thought the presentation to be A worthy (graduate English course & for a Race & Racism course), however he was displeased with and i quote "upset that you brought this message to a bunch of white suburban kids, because you scared them. They do not understand this type of presentation." I have seen this film, or should I say the film has seen me. I found it hard to stay awake and I could only hope that the clan would just save that woman in time from that "horrible" mulatto...with that aside... How on earth can any of us judge this film properly considering it is well over ninety years old and come out the victor? I am African American and I think it could have been a cinematic marvel if not for its underlying message against blacks. Griffith had the opportunity to make a film that captured the essence of the creation of the Klan while making money but instead he decided to make money and whether consciously or unconsciously scar a portion of the population that mostly felt it around their necks. Doesn't any one care that lynchings went up almost double; statistics are sketchy due to no reporting? In my opinion and it is my opinion anything that inspires such an attitude deserves no recognition, except "what not to do". I could give less for the cinematic expertise and newly found film technology that this film possessed what I did find as the overlaying message was "racism". The editing and film techniques were used to carry this message to the masses...that type of brainwashing should not be honored no matter how technologically advanced or amount of revenues generated. But that's just my 2004 attitude isn't it?