Half for the influence, half for what it lacks (or: just because it's influential doesn't mean it lacks flaws)

Rating: 5/10 (17 January 2013)

Given there are nearly 300 reviews written for this title, it's hard to say anything that hasn't already been said. But I will add my voice and will hopefully put things in a new light.
First, I want to describe why I gave it five stars. As you will see at the end of it, it's quite elementary. It's all to avoid extremes. Giving it a 10 is to deny its shortcomings especially in its characterization and depiction of history. Giving it a 1 is to deny its importance in cinema, both for American and for cinema-at-large. A "5" is a fair-balance between the two poles.
*The Birth of the Nation* was the result of several decades of one-reel films made for the nickelodeon theatres. While Griffith didn't invent the various shot scales, camera positions and editing, he helped shape the language into how we understand it today. As Alfred Hitchcock said when he first saw it, "it has everything in it." You have your close-ups for dramatic effect, long shots for establishing geography and grand action, insert shots to clarify information, match-cut editing to make actions and reactions seamless. Furthermore, this is beyond just one-reel. *The Birth of the Nation* provided the birth of the feature-length film.
Because many others have taken the torch as it were to make more sophisticated and refined feature-length films, the technical flaws are more noticeable. While Griffith was one to rehearse extensively with his actors and everything was planned out and thought out, there are some shots where the blocking is not refined and the pacing is not quite there. And though it's easy for us in the present to criticize silent film acting as "overdone," this is where the visuals have to carry the message and thus action has to speak the dialogue. But in spite of the flaws, it was a very good start for what film-makers will do with their own stories.
The negatives are in its story with its racist overtones. While much has been said about its racist nature, it's much broader than that. The story is very simple and the characters are not one for complexity and depth. Good guys are good guys; bad guys are definitely bad guys. Caricature and exaggeration are part of people and situation portrayal as well. And with its three-hour running time, it's a long, unfolding story of complete flatness. This is not to say it lacks emotion or drama; but its execution is too simple. Again, this is comparison to a number of films made longer after this one that do employ more sophisticated means of telling its story and showing its characters.
All in all, it's a film that can be seen once. Even then, you'll already know the aspects make it influential. For better and for worse, it's part of cinema's canon for it pushed it from nickelodeon novelty into the predominant art and entertainment form once held by the novel and the theatre.