A remarkable film, yet also a deplorable one

Rating: 3/10 (13 December 2004)

Even I, being a casual movie viewer, can recognize some of the things that make The Birth of a Nation such a landmark film. But like any casual viewer of films, I can't overlook the outrageous racist propaganda that is its subject. All the apologist remarks and arguments about historical context or what have you t won't compel me to view this film again (though I do think it should be seen at least once by anyone with more than a casual interest in the history of film). As it is, when I watched it, I often had my thumb firmly on the fast forward button. I may have missed a few nuances of story but I couldn't imagine myself sitting still through a 3-hour silent film.
Which brings me to my next point: why did this film have to be 3 hours long? The film's racist ideology aside, this film is faulty. More specifically, as I suggested before, it's too long. The second and third acts justify their length, but the first act takes too long establishing things. When we're given the gist of a scene with the title card (or whatever you call it), why do we need lengthy (or at least substantial) stretches of soundless dialogue and theatre-acting? Hello? The audience doesn't know what the heck the actors are saying? Why prolong these scenes? When we're told Lincoln is to sign such-and-such bill (for a more concrete example) why do we need to see Lincoln actually sitting down and signing the bill? Let's face it, the most remarkable thing about the film are its innovative battle scenes and various other innovations that modern moviegoers take for granted. In other words, except for the battle scenes, when the film isn't' being offensive, it is being boring. The other quibble I have with the film is the choice of music. Using Civil War time music is fine, but why bring Beethoven into it? I felt the use of Beethoven's 6th was incongruously used and somewhat profaned in this film.
Anyway, all told, it would be hard enough to make the average movie viewer, weaned on colors and sounds and special effects and whatnot, to appreciate this film if it WEREN'T racist. As it is, its subject remains a formidable barrier against such enlightenment.
As a final note, to those who defend the alleged truthfulness of the film, well, there is perhaps a kernel of truth in every instance of propaganda but, remember, it was also true that white Americans owned black slaves. And there is very little propaganda surrounding this particular truth. So I hope you'll forgive me if I fail to feel any sympathy for "the poor, white Southerner."