Overrated, even for it's time and even ignoring it's message

Rating: 4/10 (12 May 2018)

I've watched this while on a binge of silent-era films and I knew I would come to this film eventually. I expected the racist propaganda, but I was still a bit shocked by how overt it was. Regardless, I knew that it had been praised for its technical and artistic brilliance so I knew it was a must watch. Honestly, I was severely disappointed.
The characters are paper thin with little explanation of their motives. This is especially true of the antagonists such as Austin Stoneman and Silas Lynch, who seems to want to do what they do just because they are bad people who need mustaches to twirl.
The acting is also pretty atrocious, even making allowances for the theatrical nature of acting at the time. It sometimes looks like some actors are smiling or laughing while in peril or under attack and supposed to be showing fear and terror.
The story structure is also pretty poor and different events in the narrative seem to be very loosely connected. Large swaths of the film could have been removed in order to tell a better story. This is even true compared to contemporary films like Les Vampires, released in the same year. Pacing suffers, particularly in the first half of the film in which it languishes introducing characters that won't be relevant for another 2+ hours.
The themes are unclear or appear contradictory as well. Griffith's opening intertitles point out that the film is meant to show the horror of war, but the treatment of Ben Cameron's actions during the war are glorified and shown as heroic. Likewise, the final intervention of the KKK is shown as heroic and glamorous rather than horrifying, complete with trumpet fanfares. It's not subtle. Aside from that, there are several references to insidious plans and evil agendas of "carpetbaggers and scalawags" but it's never clear what those plans are or what makes them so insidious. I was left to assume that this evil agenda was equality between the races. In the final minutes of the film there's a reference to "Aryan birthright" without ever explaining what that birthright would be, leaving me to assume that Griffith meant White Supremacy.
My research has shown that the film is notable for it's advancements in cinematography, but it doesn't really show. Griffith has gotten credit for introducing intercutting, tracking shots, and close-ups but there are earlier examples of each, several more effective than Griffith's in this film. Intercutting, tracking shots, and close-ups were used in The Great Train Robbery in 1903. 1903 also had a famous example of a close-up in Little Doctor and the Sick Kitten. All of these techniques already existed.
Even aside from the horrific racist propaganda, it's just not a good film and there are much better films from the time period. For example, Buster Keaton's silent film The General features a Confederate soldier protagonist with clear motives, amazing shot composition, and a tight story.