The Birth of a Nation

Plot synopsis:
=== Part 1: Civil War of United States ===
The film follows two juxtaposed families. One is the Northern Stonemans: abolitionist U.S. Representative Austin Stoneman (based on the Reconstruction-era Representative Thaddeus Stevens), his daughter, and two sons. The other is the Southern Camerons: Dr. Cameron is married to his wife, Mrs. Cameron. The couple also has three sons and two daughters.
Phil, the elder Stoneman son, falls in love with Margaret Cameron, during the brothers' visit to the Cameron estate in South Carolina, representing the Old South. Meanwhile, young Ben Cameron idolizes a picture of Elsie Stoneman.
During the Civil War, the young men from both families enlist in their respective armies for the war. The younger Stoneman and two of the Cameron brothers are killed in the war. Meanwhile, the Cameron women are rescued by Confederate soldiers who rout a Black militia, after an attack on the Cameron home. Ben Cameron leads a heroic charge at the Siege of Petersburg, earning the nickname of "the Little Colonel". But he is also wounded and captured. He is then taken to a Union hospital in Washington, D.C. During his stay at the hospital, he is told that he will be hanged. Also at the hospital, he meets Elsie Stoneman, whose picture he has been carrying; she is working there as a nurse. Elsie takes Cameron's mother, who had traveled to Washington to tend her son, to see Abraham Lincoln, and Mrs. Cameron persuades the President to pardon Ben.
When Lincoln is assassinated at Ford's Theater, his conciliatory postwar policy expires with him. In the wake of the president's death, Austin Stoneman and other Radical Republicans are determined to punish the South, employing harsh measures that Griffith depicts as having been typical of the Reconstruction era.
=== Part 2: Reconstruction ===
Stoneman and his protégé Silas Lynch, a mulatto exhibiting psychopathic tendencies, head to South Carolina to observe the implementation of Reconstruction policies firsthand. During the election, in which Lynch is elected lieutenant governor, blacks are observed stuffing the ballot boxes, while many Whites are denied the vote. The newly elected, mostly black members of the South Carolina legislature are shown at their desks displaying inappropriate behavior, such as one member taking off his shoe and putting his feet up on his desk, and others drinking liquor and feasting on stereotypically African American fare such as fried chicken.
Meanwhile, inspired by observing white children pretending to be ghosts to scare black children, Ben fights back by forming the Ku Klux Klan. As a result, Elsie, out of loyalty to her father, breaks off her relationship with Ben. Later, Flora Cameron goes off alone into the woods to fetch water and is followed by Gus, a freedman and soldier who is now a captain. He confronts Flora and tells her that he desires to get married. Frightened, she flees into the forest, pursued by Gus. Trapped on a precipice, Flora warns Gus she will jump if he comes any closer. When he does, she leaps to her death. Having run through the forest looking for her, Ben has seen her jump; he holds her as she dies, then carries her body back to the Cameron home. In response, the Klan hunts down Gus, tries him, finds him guilty, and lynches him.
Lynch then orders a crackdown on the Klan after discovering Gus' murder. He also secures the passing of legislature allowing mixed-race marriages. Dr. Cameron, Ben's father, is arrested for possessing Ben's Klan regalia, now considered a crime punishable by death. He is, however, rescued by Phil Stoneman and a few of his black servants. Together they flee, along with Margaret Cameron. When their wagon breaks down, they make their way through the woods to a small hut that is home to two sympathetic former Union soldiers who agree to hide them. As an intertitle states, "The former enemies of North and South are united again in defense of their Aryan birthright."
Congressman Stoneman leaves to avoid being connected with Lt. Gov. Lynch's crackdown. Elsie, learning of Dr. Cameron's arrest, goes to Lynch to plead for his release. Lynch, who had been lusting after Elsie, tries to force her to marry him, which causes her to faint. Stoneman returns, causing Elsie to be placed in another room. At first, Stoneman is happy when Lynch tells him he wants to marry a white woman, but is then angered when Lynch tells him that it is Stoneman's daughter. Undercover Klansmen spies discover Elsie's plight when she breaks a window and cries out for help, and the Klansmen go to get help. Elsie falls unconscious again, and revives while gagged and being bound. The Klan, gathered together at full strength and with Ben leading them, rides in to gain control of the town. When news about Elsie reaches Ben, he and others go to her rescue. Elsie frees her mouth and screams for help. Lynch is captured. Victorious, the Klansmen celebrate in the streets. Meanwhile, Lynch's militia surrounds and attacks the hut where the Camerons are hiding. The Klansmen, with Ben at their head, race in to save them just in time. The next election day, blacks find a line of mounted and armed Klansmen just outside their homes, and are intimidated into not voting.
The film concludes with a double wedding as Margaret Cameron marries Phil Stoneman and Elsie Stoneman marries Ben Cameron. The masses are shown oppressed by a giant warlike figure who gradually fades away. The scene shifts to another group finding peace under the image of Jesus Christ. The penultimate title is: "Dare we dream of a golden day when the bestial War shall rule no more. But instead — the gentle Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the City of Peace."

Tags: melodrama

Review:
The second part, set in the reconstruction era, contains almost all of the disturbing material, and it also is really not all that great in terms of cinematic quality.Then also, the degree to which "The Birth of a Nation" may have influenced the development of cinema has very likely been overstated .
The controversy that it generated may very well have helped it to remain better known than other films of the era that were equally innovative and/or lavish, or nearly so.If the movie had ended shortly after the memorable and well-crafted Ford's Theater scene, the anti-war sentiment and similar themes would remain the main focus, since the effects of war on families and individuals is depicted convincingly and thoughtfully.
He may well have been ahead of the pack in terms of appreciating their possibilities, but that does not mean that cinema would not have developed as it did without this particular movie.Just as one example, the Italian epic "Cabiria", from the previous year, has the same kind of lavish scale, is quite resourceful in its techniques, and is quite entertaining, without causing so much controversy.Other early feature-length films also include some creative efforts to adapt film-making techniques to longer running times and more complex stories.
He tried to apologize with the making of his next film, the masterpiece "Intolerance."  He certainly had black friends on the set during the making of "Birth of a Nation" but this harks of the classic case of the good man who doesn't realize that some of the things he is saying are hurtful.
When "The Birth of a Nation" came out, people began to take film much more seriously and wanted to see more high quality movies when it was brand new.
1)  It shows how far the movie making process has come, and gives us all a way to truly appreciate some of the other early films, and how far the moviemaking technology advanced between 1915 and the 1930's.
Many of the other reviewers have labeled this film as racist garbage, but it truly does represent one group's view of society at the time, and gives us a great way to understand some of the driving factors behind the race relations problems we would have later.
When taken in context, you can only be impressed by Griffith's storytelling abilities, no matter what you thought of the story.While the movie is no great work by today's standards, and I actually found it very hard to watch considering it's simple style as compared to today's movies, I think this is a movie you definitely must see.
For this reason and others, Birth of a Nation's claims to historical accuracy would be comical, if not for the horrific implications of the film.That said, this film should be seen, mainly because it provides a document of a poisonous way of thinking that is by no means dead.
Some of the innovations of BOAN (it should be noted that while Griffith didn't originate all of the techniques used in BOAN, he was the first to integrate them all so seamlessly in a feature-length film) included night-time photography-Billy Bitzer achieved by firing magnesium flares into the night for the split-screen sequence of the sacking of Atlanta, being the first film to have an original score, the first film to employ hundreds of extras for the battle scenes, flashbacks and parallel editing, and extensive use of close-ups, long shots, dissolves, etc.
It is now 60 years later and I see "The Birth of A Nation" is scheduled to be screened on TCM next month, so probably the time has come to watch it again; and perhaps comments based on my original viewing so long ago may be appropriate at this time as the impressions I now have of this film will be those that have been with me for most of my life.Films showing conflicts must present both sides as believing utterly in the righteousness of their cause; but historical films also have at least a moral responsibility to ensure the material shown has some reasonable approximation to historical accuracy, and whenever possible the convictions of both sides should be equally fairly presented.
This film is sometimes denounced as racist, and it appears to be when judged by a time following the race riots and black civil rights movement.The black citizens are often shown as illiterate and ignorant.
This also must be judged both by the situation at the time, and with the realization that there were real wrongs to be righted (the carpetbaggers again).Now that a DVD with essentially the whole movie is available, watch it again, trying to put yourself in the place of someone who has heard stories of the civil war (the Southern viewpoint) and reconstruction all your life, and who probably had a father or uncle(s) who fought for the Confederacy.
(Some of which are believed to have been suggested by the cameraman, and not Griffith himself).The history (Reconstruction): For those who argue that this film is historically accurate, I can only guess that you have another agenda, much like those who argued the same at the time.
This film production is controversial , but his plot is exciting, the story is touching, all the performances are excellent , the film presents us a cynical way , is direct with historical facts , all production is most blatant , but Griffith 's narrative is sweet and conveys feelings .Part 1: the American Civil War , displayed strongly with a dramatic charge, the actors express emotions with their eyes , and her patriot message shows in the sharpest scenes.Part 2: reconstruction offers tragedy , justice and revenge , here feelings are more acute , the Ku Klux Kan glorifies , everything is so brutally racist, the struggle for survival is overwhelming.Here African Americans are the villains , they show threatening looks , are murderers, his eyes are sexual threats; Heroes white men are always in constant struggle , they apply their justice from the very personal point of view , they protect their wives and families, the film starts with two families separated by the war , and ends with a spectacular rescue where African Americans are defeated.There is a shocking scene , a white girl commits suicide to avoid being raped by an African American , this scene is this scene is memorable, the music is fine, Griffith defends freedom of expression through his film, but what matters most is the film quality.
Lillian Gish's performance was, for me, simply sensational while Mae Marsh's character of the 'young, hyperactive teenager' was Oscar-winning material.That said, I wanted to challenge each and every one who watches this film and who looks at the obvious racism (although it tends to be overly stated by many) to do some research for themselves on the circumstances surrounding the time setting of the film.Many will shout long and hard (as is their right) that the film is racist - that it makes generalisations about people and groups that can't be substantiated.
To be honest, in spite of my research into the matter myself, I have also been unable to determine just what exactly 'happened' and what the 'truth' was.To see the insertion of the KKK in this film immediately gets one's back up (it did me) - but it wasn't til I did some research that I found out that the original sect ceased to exist by 1871 and was only reformed along *different* lines in 1915 (and partly as a result of this film).I have no doubt that Griffith misrepresented many of the 'facts' of history but my appeal to each watcher here is to research the matter for themselves - especially those interested in studying film-making - and to see what the true state of affairs was in post-Civil War America, compare it to that portrayed in 'Birth' and see where Griffith chose to re-write history.Film making is influential.
It wipes-away the view of "the Silents" as having consisted of either overheated melodramas or "screwball comedies"  played out against cardboard sets.I bought a DVD version of this several months ago and I will admit that it's difficult to watch, simply because it has so little in common with our modern films- black-and-white, no sound, no totally gratuitous violence or sex, no fast-cuts or digital special effects.
benefits of a home education, i presume?to those who praise this movie...let's say a black director makes a film depicting whites as ignorant, violent, subhuman heathens, but hey, its a cinematic masterpiece.
That said, current audiences should concentrate on the amazing achievement of this film.Griffith was a master story teller, and Birth of a Nation is a great story, following two families (one Southern and one Northern) as they lurch through the Civil War and the following Reconstruction period.
but no more than 90 percent of Westerns, almost all American movies about war (against Germany or Japan or Vietnam), or "Gone with the wind" (which also praises the KKK and it shows black people as good servants and bad free citizens).The difference with any other racist artwork is, of course, that this is the best of the best.
The "KKK" in this film are shown as the Heroes but they are the real evil in this film.another thing the burns me is that all the Black Characters in this film are played by white actors in black make-up, I know this because no African-American would ever participate such racist Garbage like this one..
The recurring criticisms towards the film's portrayal of racism oftentimes include the use of black-face makeup on white actors, the limited portrayal of black people being shown in a negative and sexually aggressive manner, historical inaccuracies to favor the South's point of view, and the glorification of the KKK.
It falls into that category of "Movies That Are Technically Important but Hard to Watch," and that much smaller category of "Really Evil Movies." Every critic recognizes that, yes, this is probably the most racist film ever made, a terrible revision of post-Civil War history, and a glorification of the KKK - ah, but it's so innovative, and so wonderfully shot!
At a running-time of over three hours it was the longest film to ever be released back in 1915.Obviously, due to its racist portrayal of black people this movie is not for everyone but if you are interested in the history of Hollywood you've got to check it out, while ignoring the historical inaccuracies and racist bull crap Without this movie Hollywood wouldn't be what it is today.
A spectacular, elaborate production covering the Civil War era of American history, with an unfortunate last half drawn from Thomas Dixon's fictional novel "The Clansman." Made in 1915, the film makes a sincere and documented attempt to recreate several signal events of the period including Lincoln's call for volunteers, battle scenes, Lincoln's assassination, and the signing of the end of the war by Grant and Lee. Unfortunately, it's hard to believe that the last half of the film is in any way historically accurate with blacks shown taking over government, dispensing justice, and running amok all over the South.
Yes, I found a three hour long, silent, racist propaganda film quite entertaining at times, but that's just because I found the overall story very interesting and the previously mentioned battle scenes are quite incredible.Of course, it isn't a film that deserves ONLY praise.
While I gave it a 10/10 star rating, it probably doesn't deserve the honor because of it's brutal racism.As I said, it gets much more racist during the second half of the film in which the forming of the Klu Klux Klan is shown, and how they save the day from the "depressing" period of time in which the "poor" slave owners lost their slaves by killing African Americans.The most dreadfully racist scene in the film includes the Klan getting cheered on as they salute their fellow southerners .
As disgustingly and disturbingly racist as it is, with its black face actors, glorification of the KKK, and victimizing of all African American characters, D.W. Griffith's war epic also manages to be a thrilling, engaging, and action packed epic that has influenced later films for decades to come, and is required viewing for any student of film..
At the base of Griffith's film, for all its importance to early American cinema, is a ridiculous, unbelievable, perverted distortion of history which champions the Ku Klux Klan as the "saviors" of the "endangered" white race.
It is no wonder that studies showed that in many areas where "The Birth of a Nation" was shown, racist attacks against African-Americans increased sharply.Griffith was nothing better than a racist savage who knew how to make movies.
A good film for me is one I keep thinking about, for its story or its images,or both.And this is certainly the case with Birth of a nation.I understand that many people will say,how can you like a film in which the Ku-Klux-Klan are the saviors,that is plain racist and historical wrong?
It got to me from the very beginning.Griffith knew how to mix the big events and the more common,everyday-ones.In this case the American civil war and the influences on two families,the Stonemans who live in the north and the Camerons from the south.Two families that are connected through their sons and daughters who are friends.Maybe a bit predictable but Griffith makes you care.He pictures the battlefield and the horror of this war perfectly.On the front where the soldiers die but also on the homefront, where families are attacked in their homes, and of course the powerlessnes of women when they lose their dear ones.The second part of the film is more politic.The action shifts to the south in a period of reconstruction.
After this event the Ku Klux Klan takes matters in hand.Now the question remains if Griffith was a racist.He certainly was hurt when he was accused of racism and he removed some scenes from the film after the release.I'm no specialist in American history, but I was surprised to hear that what Griffith portrays in this film was written down by famous American historians from that time.So it could be that Griffith was genuinely misinformed about what happened in these troubled years after the Civil War. Being said that there are many other examples of 'creative' people who were judged as racist, sometimes only years later.
W. Griffith, including modern-day columnists of know-nothing newspapers (such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) have condemned it as "racist" or as something else ugly.One must take into account the times in which it was made; and one must also realize that neither the movie nor the director in any way intended an attack on black Americans or even on Yankees.As it would probably be foolish to accuse the director of "Natural Born Killers" of promoting murder, it is more than wrong to accuse Griffith of promoting racism.The movie needs to be viewed as the entertainment spectacle it tried to be; and it needs to be viewed as having some tiny bit of historical veracity, if not in the details, at least in the overall picture.There are scenes, such as the Little Colonel's homecoming, that never fail to bring tears to my eyes, as often as I see the film.And there are other scenes that bring chuckles, however often I see them.Griffith actually got better in his later films, but there are so many instances of genius in "Birth of a Nation," that this film is absolutely a classic.Anyone who has not seen it just does not know the history of Hollywood..
It is really difficult to look objectively at this key moment in movie history, almost 90 years down the line.Griffith's greatest achievement has to be seen in its historical context to understand its lauding of the Ku Klux Klan; here was someone who saw the Civil War and the movements within it with glory and affection, and who undoubtedly had very different values to today's viewers.
While I'm sure that the cinematic effort shown in this film is quite worthy of praise, the result is a film that spits in the face of decency.This piece of fiction, under the guise of telling the story of the Civil War and the birth of the KKK (or a nation), is so fundamentally flawed with a racist depiction of elected blacks during reconstruction (who, among other things, are responsible for our public education system) that I can't imagine anyone not finding it disturbing.As a descendant of two Michiganders who were among the first troops to defend Washington in 1861 (and later died), I'm revolted..
This beautiful piece of racist propaganda centers around the moving story of how the heroic Ku Klux Klan saved the South from being ruled by the terrible immoral Negroes after the Civil War. It includes such unforgettable scenes as the one in which a group of Klan members race into town to save a white girl from being raped by an evil black pervert--of which there are a great many in this film.
Griffith made "The Birth of a Nation" at the outset of World War One. It is the product of a bygone age and should be viewed as such.The arguments about racism spewed upon this film by so many who should know better are completely out of place.
If you can't understand that, then this film is not for you.If you hate this movie because of its racism then you hate America because that's what it was like at the time.
The majority of Americans in 1915 were NOT supporters of the KKK, "Like history written by lightning," Wilson's famous quote, actually was in reference to the huge spectacle of the film in general more than a political comment, (and indicates the President's lack of historical knowledge) and sure, racism did abound at the time.
I have only a brief comment: Birth of a Nation seems interestingly to be paradigmatic of American film ever since: a truly passionate and emotionally involving movie, full of brilliant shots and great cinematography, groundbreaking in every way, that is interesting to watch and fun to enjoy.