should be viewed as propaganda, not art

Rating: 10/10 (29 November 2005)

~Birth of a Nation~ is not a film. It is an historical document of racism whose merits (or lack thereof) as "Art" are completely irrelevant. Consider this hypothetical sentence: "Niggers are not really human beings, but rather, they are more like hairless apes that can talk." Do you really care about that sentence's grammatical form, or whether or not it has spelling errors? I didn't think so. Well, for those of you who haven't seen it, ~Birth of a Nation~ is just as bluntly and horribly racist as that sentence, and I can't see how ANYONE could possibly get past that fact, as if anything could ever be more relevant.
The fact is, whether D. W. Griffith was a cinematic genius or a second rate hack DOES NOT MATTER! What matters is that he was a racist, who spread hatred and condescension of blacks with this abominable film.
I don't agree with censorship, simply because there is no way to regulate it. And also, as some people here have noted, when you try to stifle the bigots, you just give them something valid to complain about. So people can rave about Birth of a Nation if they want to, oohing and aahing about its battle scenes and use of tinted lenses. But you should all keep in mind what another reviewer here has already pointed out - innocent people were murdered because of the hate this film engendered.
Do you think the families of those murder victims would agree that ~despite~ its racism Birth of a Nation is ~nonetheless~ one of the 100 greatest films of all time? Shame yourselves.