I think “Passion of the Christ” is racist, I think “Dances with Wolves” is racist, I even think “The Blind Side” is racist. However while a case could be made for both sides as it relates to those films, when I say “The Birth of a Nation” is racist I mean it is racist… like that’s the point. The film’s plot is how the Ku Klux Klan heroically rose from the corrupt post Civil War reconstruction period solely to protect the virtue of the white race and particularly its’ women. I wish the content of the movie were enough to be able to dismiss it, but unfortunately it’s not that easy.
While the message of this movie is complete trash and the overall narrative itself is fundamentally and factually flawed, the presentation is not. To the contrary, the presentation is pretty close to being without flaw. There is a wide open feel to the outdoor cinematography that I haven’t seen in any other silent film with the possible exception of Buster Keaton’s “The General.” D.W. Griffith employs clever directorial tools like changing the tinting based on what characters are being shown, using a circular scope effect to illustrate point of view and fast jump cuts depicting action occurring in two different places at the same time. In other words, the film lacks all credibility narrative-wise, but establishes artistic credibility based on the way it is directed.
If there is any doubt “The Birth of a Nation” is propaganda film the opening title cards leave no doubt. One card (ornately decked out with D.W. Griffith’s monogram) quotes Woodrow Wilson in insisting that the events depicted in the film are entirely true. The second promotes its agenda even further by outlandishly claiming “The bringing of the first African to America planted the first seed of disunion.” As if to say that it is somehow the slaves’ faults for being brought to the US and eventually causing the Civil War.
These title cards serve as a sort of prologue as the actual events and characters are introduced after they appear. One family, the Stonemans, is a politically involved Pennsylvania family whose patriarch Austin is a prominent abolitionist Senator. He is shown to be very businesslike and emotionally distant. There is little expression shown when he speaks with his family, even about tragic or thrilling situations. His children are very affectionate towards him but it does not appear to be reciprocated.
His sons have a longtime friendship with a Southern plantation-owning family the Camerons. The Stoneman sons consider the Cameron boys to be like brothers and one of the Stoneman brothers and one of the Cameron sisters become romantically involved. Conversely one of the Cameron brothers, Ben, obsesses over one of the Stoneman daughters, Elsie (silent film darling Lillian Gish), despite never even having met her. He creepily carries a picture of her around, frequently fawning over it- and because the Camerons are the protagonists of the film this twisted action is actually highly romanticized- complete with the lovey-dovey string music accompaniment.
The Stoneman brothers’ visit to the Cameron plantation features one of the most deplorable depictions of slave-life I have ever seen. The intercut explains that the slaves work a 12 hour day with a two-hour dinner break where they all happily congregate outside the slave quarters and perform a minstrel-show-like dance for the amusement of the white people. Not only does this play off an awful stereotype but also implies that conditions were far more agreeable for slaves than we know they were.
Soon after the visit to the plantation the Civil War breaks out. In order to continue emphasizing the differences between the Stoneman and Cameron families several montages of the Cameron brothers writing home to and receiving letters from their sisters are shown. Meanwhile transitions that go back to Austin Stoneman show him apparently very pleased with the progress of the war, seemingly detached from the havoc as well as the fact that his sons are on the front lines.
One scene that is relatively inoffensive and remarkably filmed revolves around the tragic reunion of the Stoneman and Cameron families; on opposite sides of the battlefield. Yes, it is a contrivance and plays off the age-old cliché about how the Civil War turned families against each other, but the image of a Union soldier and a Confederate dying in each other’s arms is powerful and, purposely or not, makes an incredible statement about war. The extensive battle scenes leading up to this climactic segment are also a credit to Griffith’s ingenuity in the direction of this movie. The majority of war films before and even since tended to focus on small groups of people in concentrated areas with shells flying overhead or rockets detonating in the distance of a shot. In the case of “The Birth of a Nation” though many scenes are filmed from a bird’s eye view perspective that show dozens if not hundreds of soldiers at a time covering significant acreage.
"I shall deal with them as though they had never been away." (Abraham Lincoln, “The Birth of a Nation”)
However, from a strictly cinematic standpoint the most superior scene in the film is the recreation of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which is surprisingly depicted as a tragedy given Lincoln’s proclamation that he will treat the Southern states as if they never left. John Wilkes Booth is shrouded in darkness as he sneaks into the private box- almost as if to indicate how unobtrusive he was. The camera zooms in on his gun which he holds waist high, creating a suspenseful air to an event of which we already know the end result. The act of the shooting and the subsequent leap to the stage are recreated so accurately (at least according to every account I’ve read) it could pass for documentary footage.
Following Lincoln’s assassination though, the film ceases to continue with the almost syrupy social conscience the first half is laden with. The depiction of the Reconstruction period is horrifyingly one-sided and misleading. The Union Army is shown turning away white voters and allowing blacks to stuff ballot boxes, carpetbaggers leading militias of newly enlisted black soldiers into southern homes to rape and pillage freely. The rigged elections lead to the installation of black legislators in the respective state’s senates who outnumber the whites and disrespect their posts by smoking, drinking and sleeping during sessions.
The rise of the KKK is justified as a retaliatory action to hostile black takeover of the South with the catalyst being a slave-turned-Union-Captain Gus pursuing Flora, one of the Cameron daughters, presumably with the intention of raping her. Again, as is the case with the entire film, the delivery almost belies the disgusting message in this scene- there are incredible jump cuts between Flora, Gus and the wide-open country in front of her as she flees, leading to a rocky cliff where Flora must make the “courageous” decision to jump to her death rather than allow her to be defiled by a “savage” (also an analogy for the South’s rebellion against Northern imperialism). Ben Cameron rallies the KKK to avenge her death and all the suggested misdeeds the South has been dealt. From then on every time a perceived injustice is committed against a Southerner, the Klan shows up like the proverbial cavalry- including amazing overhead tracking shots of the horses in synchronized gallop.
Austin Stoneman has a change of heart when he is victimized by the black militia while visiting the Cameron family and finally “sees the light” when he realizes his own daughter is at risk of being violated by them. The Klan rescues the Cameron and Stoneman families and Ben’s sick and weird fantasy about Elsie comes true and the Northern and Southern families are very cornily “united” symbolically to represent the, wait for it, Birth of a Nation. Armed Southern militants guard the ballot boxes and pass Jim Crow laws, not to oppress blacks, but to preserve their way of life… Wow.
Just when you think the forced propaganda motif has been exhausted to death, one final and even more blatant agenda is introduced.. Amidst the revelry of the Stoneman/Cameron wedding a superimposed Jesus fades onto the screen. A pile of dead blacks litters the ground outside the Cameron house as Jesus blesses the surviving whites then fades out of the shot as the film concludes.
Watching and owning this movie does not make me feel like a racist. But enjoying it as a well put together piece of FICTION kinda does. I am completely familiar with the concept of separating the art from the artist; I have no problem with that. It is another thing entirely though when the artist is a straight up liar and it is incredibly difficult to accept when the artist is as obscenely talented as D.W. Griffith. I have no problem with Mel Gibson pushing propaganda because he is talentless both as an actor and a director and easy to write off. The cinematic achievements of “The Birth of a Nation” though are woefully remarkable and it is a crying shame that Griffith couldn’t better use his talents- however I also know that all art is based on the knowledge that we are turning to that person for their unique perception of the world.
Though one thing I CAN confidently say is unforgivable about D.W. Griffith and his masterpiece is the fact that his film was the precursor of those ridiculous Civil War re-enactments. Thanks a lot dick…
No comments:
Post a Comment