D.W. Griffith's 'Immortal Spectacle'

Rating: 8/10 (6 September 2006)

Aware of the film's historic importance to the history of movie making, I wasn't prepared for the turn of events in the latter third that paints director Griffith as an apologist for the Ku Klux Klan, an organization in his mind that saved the South from an anarchy that shed more blood than Gettysberg. Also disconcerting was the presentation of a fictional character like Representative Austin Stoneman to further blur the distinction between reality and it's opposite. Stoneman's character was based on real life abolitionist Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, and in the film, opposes President Lincoln's policy of clemency for the South. Stoneman's hypocrisy relative to his assertion that black men are equal to white men is exposed in his revulsion over the mulatto Silas Lynch's suggestion of marriage to his daughter Elsie. Stoneman, who fancied himself the most powerful man in America following Lincoln's assassination, had hand picked Lynch to lead South Carolina's blacks through the Reconstruction.
Other reviewers on this forum have done a superb job of detailing how the film set back the cause of civil rights and the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan upon it's release in 1915, to the point of influencing President Woodrow Wilson to expose some of his own segregationist leanings. In light of that, I'll steer my comments toward facts regarding the history of the film itself.
Historically, "The Birth of a Nation" reinforced the idea that films over an hour in length (feature length) were a viable art form. It premiered in Los Angeles on February 8, 1915 as "The Clansman", based on the Thomas Dixon novel of the same name, and underwent the name change for it's East Coast premiere in New York three weeks later. It was Griffith's belief that before the Civil War, the United States was a loose coalition of states antagonistic to each other. The outcome of the war insured that both North and South would now be bound under one national authority.
The film's controversy over the Klan's importance in restoring order in the South was actually a prevalent idea among historians at the time the movie came out. Vigorously opposed by blacks, it would take the civil rights movement of the 1950's and '60's for historians to rethink their views of Reconstruction.
Financially, the film was wildly successful, grossing ten million dollars by 1925, on grossly inflated ticket prices of as much as two dollars! It would remain the all time box office champion until 1937, when in an odd and serendipitous stroke it was dethroned by "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" - what irony!
Griffith's budget for the film started at forty thousand dollars, and he was constantly forced to raise more capital for the final cost of one hundred ten thousand dollars. Offering ten thousand to novelist Dixon for the rights to "The Clansman", he could only come up with a quarter of the sum, thereby offering the writer the same percentage of the profits. Agreeing, Dixon wound up with several million dollars after his initial reluctance.
The original film topped out at three hours and ten minutes making it the longest film on record at the time. The version I viewed today was only 103 minutes, which would explain some of the unnamed characters I had to contend with, such as Ben Cameron's brother and sisters and the brother of Phil Stoneman. Though somewhat distracting, it did not prevent understanding the proceedings.
I'll have to admit that my involvement with the movie won't end with this single viewing and the comments in this forum. On that point, the film will have succeeded in establishing a desire to learn more about the days of the Reconstruction and it's aftermath. For a ninety year old picture to have that kind of influence, and especially considering that it was a silent, is testimony to the power of film.