Racist Propagana

Rating: 4/10 (14 April 1999)

How "Triumph of the Will" can be hailed as a masterpiece is strangely more understandable than the persistent acclaim of this atrocious example of a mass medium used to disseminate ideas of duplicitous evil. From a historical standpoint, Griffith's Civil War and Reconstruction themed saga of three plus hours, was a blueprint for modern narrative film, but do its methodological novelties justify the movie's claim to be a work of art ? Can, in any event, a practical recruitment ad for the Ku Klux Klan, be viewed as a work of art ? Can the climactic "rescue ride" by the white-hooded clansmen be deemed exciting ? No more so, I daresay, than a pornographic video, no matter how high in quality, which depicts simulated rape or torture. But the latter's existence is in a way, more justifiable, since assisting a disturbed individual to release (usually his) dark fantasy in a safe manner is not the same as an active promotion of hatred. No smutmaker would ever demand legitimate recognition as an artist, and no critic would ever even give so much as a thought to lauding a smut flick, even if it's a personal favorite. But "Birth of a Nation" has a greater purpose than instant gratification - as the opening intertitles declare, to "preserve the purity of the Aryan race", and to paint the events as truth, albeit unfortunate. Watching the film in its entirety can be an ordeal which one does not soon forget. It is a spectacle of little dramatic merit : after calculated sentimentality of the prewar exposition, and a few grand-scale battles, the "Negro savages" (white actors in blackface who act like subhuman troglodytes, bipedal apes) are introduced, and an indignant posse of "noble white knights" is promptly assembled to liberate the South once and for all. What follows is a spectacle that makes one twitch in disgust and anger, the viewing of which can start a riot in a matter of minutes. Only for educational reasons, to stimulate meaningful discussion, Griffith's opus should not be prohibited from being shown, as any first-amendment protected work. The director himself later repented, making some real cinema with the the obvious title "Intolerance" in 1916. Why the AFI voters did not include that instead, baffles any intelligent mind.