Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Birth of a Controversy
D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark American film that ushered in many of the hallmarks of classic Hollywood cinema. It is preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the AFI (American Film Institute). Yet it is also a film which advocates white supremacy and lionizes the Klu Klux Klan. Can such a film truly be great? Why or why not? What about other films such the Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will a film that trumpets Nazi ideology and celebrates Adolph Hitler? Do political and moral statements matter in an artwork? Or is it enough to be technically and artistically brilliant? Can an artwork's message trump its style?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Daniel Bernardi’s criticism of The Birth of a Nation is invalid for it evaluates the film in a modern moral context instead of a historical cinematographic context. A reoccurring argument throughout Bernardi’s Integrating Race into the Narrator System states that the greatness of the film is corrupted by its immoral racist messages, thus it is “nothing more than racist propaganda” (60). It is undeniable that the film is tainted with racism, but Bernardi fails to recognize that films at that time cannot be evaluated under the same criteria as modern films. Cinematography during the early 20th century was still under a significant experimental phase. The way these films were produced in that time was not to establish some strong moral message, but rather to simply experiment with ways to effectively convey a story—any story—to an audience. This is evident for the film was deemed great by many for leading “American cinema into the era of Hollywood style”, which is known for its “narrative filmmaking that marshals cinematic technique” (59). Essentially, cinematography developed to a sophisticated art form over time; it started off simply wanting to convey powerful storytelling in the past, and now it has developed into higher abstract notions of morality and art in the contemporary. Bernardi fails to see this development and thus he is really only criticizing the values of society in the past rather than the film in of itself. Obviously if The Birth of a Nation had a modern version screened today, all would criticize it under modern standards. The evaluation of film must depend on its time, modern cinematography is sophisticated and thus it should be held to higher moral standards, however, morally problematic films of the past should nonetheless be evaluated in consideration of its underdevelopment as a robust art form.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that when determining whether or not a film is "great," you must consider the historical context first and place yourself is the time period in which the film was made. The Birth of a Nation was made during a time in the United States when racism and the glorification of white supremacist groups, such as the KKK, were very real and widely accepted concepts. The message D.W. Griffith gives in this film is actually a huge part of what makes it so great. It vividly portrays a time in our history that many Americans wish to dismiss, but that is very important to take note of. Many people are afraid to face the horrifying truth about American history and, therefore, argue that this film is anything but great. However, my argument is that by making this movie, Griffith freezes time at a point where racist and morally inhumane opinions existed, which is a very important time for modern Americans to acknowledge. When looking at this film from an artistic standpoint, it is obviously beautifully made. In terms of visual art like paintings and sculptures, most people don’t really care about the message the give, but rather the quality and the beauty of the piece. The same goes for The Birth of a Nation. Even though the message of the film throws up a lot of red flags for modern viewers, it still is a great film and should be seen as a valuable piece of our history as Americans.
ReplyDeleteTo answer this question, it is necessary to define what one defines the word “great” to mean. For a film to be considered “truly great” I believe that the film, in its entirety must be “great.” The cinematography of The Birth of a Nation revolutionized film-making with its groundbreaking techniques for the time. It changed the way film was done and was a turning point in Hollywood cinema. This is an inarguable fact about The Birth of a Nation that is widely acknowledged. I cannot agree that it is one of the best movies of all time because of the blatant racism and bigotry being so strongly celebrated by the film. Morally, a movie that champions racism in anyway, is not a movie that should be celebrated. A movie can be acknowledged as artistically well done, but for a movie to be dubbed “great” I believe that word must be applicable to all aspects of the movie. When a person hears that a movie is great, they assume that watching the movie will be an enjoyable or thrilling experience. I find it very difficult to describe a movie as simply good or great, there has to be a more specific adjective(s). The sickening storyline of The Birth of a Nation prevents the movie from rightfully being considered one of the greatest movies of all time. One can celebrate and acknowledge the wonderful cinematography in The Birth of a Nation, but to describe the movie as “truly great” is purely offensive, not only to African-Americans, but to the human race.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFilm is a combination of artwork and imagery with a plot that usually contains moral meaning. Both mediums rather than just one should evaluate a film’s rating. The controversial message The Birth of a Nation depicts is presented through skillful directing. D. W. Griffith’s artistic ability is able to manipulate opinions and trigger emotion in the mind of the viewer. The film was able to provoke viewers and cause much outrage, “Disgusted by the negative images of African Americans and the positive images of the Klan… social and political organizations called for protests and boycotts.” (68) The screenings were able to make viewers take action against the film’s ideologies. The film also encouraged the opposing side, “Several scholars report race rioting in major cities after screenings of the film. Equally disturbing is the apparent fact that the Klan used the classic film as a recruiting tool.” (69) It is clear the film was able to infuriate the minds of viewers to take action for or against the moral message, which displays how powerful the flickering images can be. President Woodrow Wilson even used it to influence government agencies, “Wilson was also an open and persistent supporter of segregation… Wilson reportedly encouraged screenings of The Birth of a Nation for Congress and at various government agencies.” (62) It is likely that the purpose of the screenings was to make more of his government counterparts agree with his segregationist ideologies. The power of D. W. Griffith’s directing is unquestionable when provoking the viewer, therefore the film’s artistic aspect may live up to its praise. The moral of The Birth of a Nation is an ideology of hate and that is most likely why so many disregard the film.
ReplyDeleteFor a film to be considered “truly great” I think that there should be no hesitation as to whether or not it is outstanding. The Birth of a Nation cannot be thought of as one of the top films of all time because people are still discussing whether or not this controversial topic should be reckoned great today. Personally, I would never support a movie that advocates white supremacy and promotes racism; however, at the time the film was created racism and the encouragement of supremacist groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, was praised and extensively conversed. During this turbulent period in American history it was deemed acceptable to have these ideals, but I think that since we have entered a new era we should no longer praise films, like The Birth of a Nation, that advocate bigotry. Without a doubt the film redefined the way films were created, and “led American cinema into the era of the Hollywood style, a system of narrative filmmaking that marshals cinematic technique – from cinematography to editing – in the service of character psychology, causal plot development, and moral endings” (Bernardi 59). Even though The Birth of a Nation is a beautifully made piece of artwork, the message can sometimes trump its style. For example when the producer and director, David Wark Griffith, portrays the Ku Klux Klan as the hero it can distract the watcher from the true meaning of the piece. In the film the way Griffith illustrates the hierarchy of races is painful to watch, and I do not think that it can be considered one of the greatest films of all time.
ReplyDeleteI believe films that idolize groups such as the Klu Klux Klan or people like Adolf Hitler cannot be considered great films. While the artwork and the camera work may be good, the message that the film sends outweighs the celebrated art. For us as human beings to celebrate the work of these filmmakers would be morally unjust. To do so would send the message to past, present, and future filmmakers that it does not matter what kind of message your film sends as long as your artwork is good. Doing so would cause many problems to arise. Personally, I believe that society would be moving backwards instead of forwards. Furthermore, we would be creating a world that celebrates hate and prejudice. I find it obvious that this is not the world people want to live in. While I understand that people believe we can celebrate the artwork of the film and not the actual plot or message, I do not believe that we as a society should celebrate any part of the films of this nature. In addition, I don’t believe that aspiring filmmakers should be learning from these films even if they are ignoring the plot or message and just focusing on the art. I think that in some way that shows that it does not matter what kind of message you send through story telling because you can still be considered a great filmmaker for your art. Thus, giving the opportunity for more filmmakers to follow in their footsteps.
ReplyDelete