Main
About
Reviews
Articles
Links
Contact
Old Site
The Birth of a Nation
(D.W. Griffith, 1915)

Classification: Bad
Originally Published: Movie Poop Shoot, 10/29/03
I believe we can separate a film’s importance from its quality. I recognize THE BIRTH OF A NATION is one of the key moments in the history of early film, and can acknowledge its placement in the canon of essential works, but I cannot for one second pretend that it is not, quite possibly, one of the most racist pieces of lunacy I have ever seen. Over three hours in length, it’s divided into two parts: The Civil War (the boring part) and The Reconstruction (the unbelievably racist part). No matter how much it’s been built up in your mind, you can’t quite fathom the depths of the racism in this picture unless you see it. It’s so bad that even people that are a little racist would watch it and go “Jeez, lighten up. They’re not that bad.”

NATION follows two families over the course of the War and its aftermath, The Stonemans of the North, and the Camerons of the South. The families are friends until they are forced to fight against one another in the war. Aesthetically, Griffith’s astounding war reproductions are NATION’s most memorable; the image of Col. Cameron (Henry B. Walthall) plunging a tattered Confederate flag into a Union cannon remains one of the most famous of cinema from the first half of the twentieth century. Griffith’s reproduction of Lincoln’s assassination is also impressive in its attention to historical detail.

These elements all take place in Part I of the film, and sometimes it is only this section of film that is screened for students, for it is in Part II where historical accuracy and tales of selfless heroism are placed aside to make room for stories of horrific racial stereotypes, white paranoia about blacks, and a valorization of the Klu Klux Klan that would make Adolf Hitler blush. Showing the first half of the film without the second allows you to appreciate its technical achievements without having to subject yourselves to the insane second portion, but by separating you run the risk of glossing over and forgetting its existence, and that’s a real danger. We can celebrate Griffith’s importance in the area of crosscutting and development of the feature as the standard form of narrative cinema, but we should not be allowed to forget the fact that the man not only feared and hated African-Americans, he continued to claim throughout his life that his film was an accurate representation of that period of American history.

His “accurate” representation suggests that all African-Americans are lecherous lazy fools, looking to wrest control of our country from whites so they can drink and chase after white women. In one infamous scene, a black character (In reality, a white man in black face) chases one of the white women through a forest after she rebuffs his sexual advance. Rather than give herself over to him, she flings herself off a cliff, committing suicide, and preserving her purity or some such nonsense. It is clear that Griffith’s racism comes from a place of paranoia; fear of losing control of government, of women, perhaps of retribution for the atrocities committed against a people for a couple of centuries, but the depths to which he will sink to degrade an entire race of people is mind-boggling.

I’m not advocating we destroy THE BIRTH OF A NATION or we put in a box so that people can’t see it, merely that when we watch it we don’t avoid or hide the racism, we face it and don’t excuse Griffith’s ignorance because of his technological brilliance. We can admire its accomplishments, but we should not be allowed to forget its mistakes.

INSTEAD OF THE BIRTH OF A NATION, CHECK OUT: GLORY (1989), a heartbreaking film about an African-American company in the Union army during the Civil War. I must have seen this movie half a dozen times in school, but repeat viewings don’t diminish its power. THE UGLY