D.W. Griffith: White Racist?

Rating: 4/10 (13 December 2001)

Let's see, after seeing Griffith's INTOLERANCE, a movie where a woman's movement is compared to religious Pharisees and reading about a movie like BROKEN BLOSSOMS, where the lead male character is referred to by a derogatory nick-name, I decided to give BIRTH OF A NATION a look. I am not even done with this film because it has sparked too much anger and disgust in me to finish it. It is the most blatantly prejudiced film I have ever seen. Many of the people who have defended this film in their user comments correctly state that even the best westerns contain some prejudices. I can even overlook INTOLERANCE's minor shortcomings in light of its brilliant 4-story structure and technical expertise. Likewise, BIRTH OF A NATION is beautifully photographed and there are some scenes that are fascinating to watch. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of a novice viewer to Griffith's work, my impression is that Griffith is way too pre-occupied in portraying blacks as racist, violent, lazy, and conspiratory in the second half. BIRTH OF A NATION not only does this, it doesn't hint (except maybe with the exception of it's opening scene), that people suffered because of slavery. Kind of biased for a film placed within the context of The Civil War. A film like this only makes me question Griffith's intent. Griffith later went on to make possibly the first interracial love story in the movies (BROKEN BLOSSOMS) possibly to make amends from my very criticism of BIRTH OF A NATION. Aside from it's technical aspects, I can only view BIRTH OF A NATION in the same way I view Leni Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL: technically fascinating, but blatantly propagandist.