Great film, wrong ideas!

Rating: 7/10 (25 April 2008)

I recently viewed "The Birth of a Nation", which was directed by D.W. Griffith. I must say that as sick as it made me the film, for its time in history, was put together in a fashion that the audience could relate to. The film is focused around the story of two families, one Northern and one Southern, and how their lives would become caught in the whirlwind during Civil War. It focuses on two sons who fought in the war, and the effects their fighting would have on their families, mainly focusing on how one son would go on to be the founder/creator of what is now know as the Klu Klux Klan. The irony in the film is how intense role reversal is presented in the film. When one speaks of the Klu Klux Klan now, well those of us who wish to banish terrorism, we see the evilness and sheer horror that this organization has produced. But in Griffith's film the Klan plays the role of the hero. Hero? Well the movie titters on the definition of hero. It is common knowledge that in most cinematic films the hero stands up for all citizens, in place of what law enforcement is lacking. This is true to an extent with Griffith, but who qualifies as citizens is called into question.
For a film that cost $100,000 and used 13-reel film, the movie was shot quite well. The film distinguishes itself from other movies in its era. The editing from the film is broad to say the least. Griffith toys with long shots in the film, especially during enormous battle scenes of that war. He never loses focus on that is actually happening on the battle field. Although it is quite difficult to distinguish certain actors in the scene, it's still wonderfully caught on camera. I think if you were to compare the battle scenes to other shots in the film, one might find that there are many BCU (Big Close-Up) shots. Take for instance the scene where Flora takes a nose dive to her death. As insane as the scene in, Griffith does capture the horror in her eyes and the fear that is causation from Gus. Although there are two sides to every story and I'm sure Griffith had his. I must state my stance on the film. I personally felt that Griffith could have used his gift, and it was a gift, no matter how sick he portrayed it, to create a masterpiece the all of humanity could enjoy. This films negative view of African American is a shame to our country. I don't understand how the film actually passed production stages. I understand that there wasn't a stern hand, in terms of regulation in the film industry, but that's still no excuse. The showing of this movie in certain parts of the country can purely be defined as an allocation to join a terrorist organization. The word terrorist might seem harsh, but let's take a moment to understand the actions of the Klan in the movie. There is no unified statement that clarifies what they all stand for. What is unified is the violence blacks are faced with when not compliant with what whites thought their role was. From what I tool from the film, the role of blacks was to be sub-servant to all whites in the post Civil War period.
It is astounding to realize that "The Birth of a Nation" is one of the first full length films in cinematic history. Realize that in this time out country was in turmoil and on the edge of destruction. This film is almost a fleeting hope for the side that lost, with the re-enactment of the assassination of President Lincoln, I still amazed that this was allowed in theaters. I do praise Griffith in his boldness to try different angles in the film. He explores slightly vertical angles, while maintaining pose and centralizing the films characters. The scene in which the confederate soldiers are marching off to battle, he captures the emotion of the town. This is illustrated with the fireworks and jeers of approval as the soldiers march off to war. It's quite another scene when "the little Colonel" (Ben Cameron) returns back from the war to find that there is no crowd or fireworks waiting for him. I enjoyed this scene because it shows a failing aspect of the film. One could interpret this scene as a reflective thought, on the part of Camerons, emotional self possibly ponder what was all the fighting for. I understand that he stands for certain causes, but the Mise en scène of this can be seen in the motion of the shot. As the camera is angled in front of Cameron and the focus in entirely based on how he might not understand, the reaction of the town, due to his return.