Griffith's Epic Groundbreaker, Reputation Tarnished Due To Its Handling Of Sensitive Subject Material.

Rating: 8/10 (15 February 2011)

REGARDLESS OF HOW repugnant some of one's national History might be, there is never any excuse to revise even the most disgusting of episodes. Rewriting chapters to make them more palatable to the God of Political Correctness. We owe it to our ancestors, our generation and to our children's generation, as well as to all generations to come to do as best job possible; that we the very best and most truthful historical tableau as is possible.
THERE HAVE LONG been many a glowing review of the film's many outstanding attributes. Never has there ever been any critic to find fault with Director D.W. Griffith's innovative story telling, bold camera work and general brilliance in bringing the story from the printed page. Always there is the caveat, attached to any other positive and praiseworthy aspects that it tells the story of the Post Civil War Period. Known as the the Reconstruction, the painful time was told from the point of view of the South; namely the former Slave Holding 'Aristocracy'.
UNFORNUTELY, THIS ONE fact haunts the film and seems to set it apart and denigrate it as somehow being evil, contemptible and utterly without any social redeeming qualities. There also seem to those who are among the Political correctness crowd, who, without benefit of a viewing. It is as absurd as Congress passing a Bill into Law; without first having read it and both know and understand is content.
TO BEGIN WITH, the film starts with a title card; which states that the first seeds of discontent and regional disharmony were sown when the arrival of the first Blacks to the American Colonies. In all fairness, the wording on the Title Card would seem to be pointing its finger of blame on those brought onto the North American scene for creating any of all discontent. This of course is total absurdity to anyone; regardless of whatever the point of view.
AS THE STORY is unfolded, it reveals the changes that occur with the end of the American War between the States; all the while making extensive use of footnoting as a tool of checking the veracity of what is being portrayed.
THE FILM PORTRAYS President Abraham Lincoln as the just and fair man he truly was. His announced policy was to treat the Southern Cesessionist States as if nothing had ever happened.
THIS, OF COURSE, as we all know, never came to pass; owing to President Lincoln's assassination.
ENTER THE TRUE villains of the story; that being a faction of the Republican Party known as the Radical Republicans. Their being in both the Senate and the House of Representatives made for the passing of overall harsh regulations governing the former Confederate States. Federal Troops were put into the position of a Force of Occupation.
MEANWHILE, NOW FREE former Slaves were thrust into positions for which they were ill equipped to handle.Those who had been born as property, chattel if you will, were now holding political office, without benefit of experience, education or the full authority of office; that being reserved to the military governors.
ABUSES GREW AND were made worse by the Radical Repulicvans. Once again, those who had not carried out the doctrine which Mr. Lincoln had desired were carry out their wish to punish the South by pitting one group against the other; using the now free Blacks as unwitting tormentors of their former masters.
BOTH THE DIRECTOR, Mr. Griffith and the Writer make known in no uncertain terms that race miscegenation, or mixing of the races, is of paramount concern to them. Their are several mentions of such behaviour. One character espouses inter-racial marriage; not just as a possibility, but rather as mandatory.
THE GREATEST OBJECTION to this D.W. Griffith's silent epic is the finale. After bringing us through so many years of Reconstruction, the day is saved by the emergence of the Ku Klux KLan; which defeats a group of Negro Milita in battle.
AGAIN WE MUST contend that historical fact mustn't be ignored; however distasteful it may be. The emergence of the Klan, it would appear, was quite similar to other events in the world. Certainly the formation of the Union Siciliana (the Mafia) in Sicily came about because the people of that island were subjugated to many a conqueror in its history. Hence, a highly secretive, shadow government evolved,
SIMILARILY, HUNDREDS OF years of rule by the English led the Irish in the formation of the Irish Republican Army or I.R.A., for short.
ONCE AGAIN, WHAT is surely the most degrading, cruel and inhuman of practices in slavery, is dealt with in a fully open and frank fashion. In this respect, it surpasses GONE WITH THE WIND in its boldness and it did so without one of those super budget epics; that would come down pike in latter.
INSPITE OF ITS blunt treatment of so many of these unpleasant topics, BIRTH OF A NATION doesn't gloss over any of it as say GONE WITH THE WIND DOES. As an example, we offer the manner in which the latter day film glosses over the Klan; opting instead for having Ashley Wilkes lead a moonlight raid of a shanty town, but without the white sheeted garb. The KKK was not even mentioned, not once.