The Racism of 'Birth of a Nation'

Rating: 9/10 (25 July 2005)

Other people's comments about the film should be read - my brief summary is that the film, for its time, content, cutting and so on deserves a '9'. Lillian Gish's performance was, for me, simply sensational while Mae Marsh's character of the 'young, hyperactive teenager' was Oscar-winning material.
That said, I wanted to challenge each and every one who watches this film and who looks at the obvious racism (although it tends to be overly stated by many) to do some research for themselves on the circumstances surrounding the time setting of the film.
Many will shout long and hard (as is their right) that the film is racist - that it makes generalisations about people and groups that can't be substantiated. I would tend to agree with them.
However, I have not yet seen *anybody* research the setting of the film and say 'this is the way it was' and 'this is why the film is wrong'. To be honest, in spite of my research into the matter myself, I have also been unable to determine just what exactly 'happened' and what the 'truth' was.
To see the insertion of the KKK in this film immediately gets one's back up (it did me) - but it wasn't til I did some research that I found out that the original sect ceased to exist by 1871 and was only reformed along *different* lines in 1915 (and partly as a result of this film).
I have no doubt that Griffith misrepresented many of the 'facts' of history but my appeal to each watcher here is to research the matter for themselves - especially those interested in studying film-making - and to see what the true state of affairs was in post-Civil War America, compare it to that portrayed in 'Birth' and see where Griffith chose to re-write history.
Film making is influential. This film was more so than most.