Friday, January 18, 2013
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)
There is no question that D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation was a revolutionary film in terms of filming techniques and innovations. Specifically, developments in framing, mise-en-scene, and editing are what landed Griffith’s work a place in history. However, the overtly racist The Birth of a Nation was also groundbreaking in that it was one of the first cinematic works to incorporate artistry with politics. While I do not agree with the beliefs expressed in this film, I do not think that the political message should detract from its rating or qualifications of “greatness.” Every person has the right to express his or her beliefs, even if morally, a majority of people disagree with the message. A film’s message should not take away from the artistry of the film, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I do think there is some limit in that a film should not be considered a film if it only has propagandistic intensions. For example, I do not think a work should be considered a film if it only directly states comments to incite violence or encourages hate crimes.
ReplyDeleteI feel that greatness is a measure of the impact of a film, and The Birth of a Nation was certainly impactful by means of its message and filming methods. Griffith’s film sparked emotion, protests, and debates; it made people think and feel. According to the book Film Analysis, by Jeffrey Geiger and R.L Rutsky, The Birth of a Nation was “the first feature-length film to offer audiences a powerful melodrama;” Griffith provided a complex plot with character development, an unprecedented notion (83). For this, I believe The Birth of a Nation deserves the regard it has been given. If the film did not have some type of greatness, we would not be discussing it today. While most, including myself, can agree that the film is pure ruthless disparagement, there is no denying that the effect this film had on the country is nothing less than legendary.
I agree with Annie that a writer should be able to express whatever he or she wants through art and that even if their ideas seem preposterous or even downright evil, there can still be lessons learned from their techniques. To further understand this, I looked to other forms of art that people often use to express their beliefs. For instance, even though songs come out and their lyrics aren't positive or tasteful, one can still enjoy the beat and maybe even learn from how the artist put instruments together to make their song. Another example could be a painting that shows something that the viewer may not agree with or connect with but they can still appreciate the colors or the techniques used to make the painting. This holds true when looking at film, because even if people don't agree with Griffith's ideas or his beliefs, it is still possible to appreciate all of the new and innovational techniques that he used. In short, when looking at works of art, skill must be put in front of the statement that the artist is trying to make.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the film being one of the greatest of all time, to me, greatness is defined as how good somebody was during their time and what impact they made during their time. For instance, Babe Ruth is regarded as one of the greatest hitters of all time because of the impact he made on the game. If he was put in a modern game, it is unclear if he would even touch the ball because of the skill of modern pitchers but that doesn't take away from his greatness because of the impact he made during his own time in the game. Birth of a Nation made a huge impact on America when it came out and was even shown in the white house. There is no question that the film was great when ignoring the moral statements and as I said earlier, those statements must be ignored when looking at a form of art.
D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation does not deserve its acclaimed place in our history books. While there is no doubt that the film techniques used by Griffith were revolutionary, and a precursor to all the movies we see today, it should not be considered one of the top 100 films of all time. Despite the films novel editing techniques, its message is something that cannot be overlooked. The Birth of a Nation advocates white supremacy and choses the Ku Klux Klan as its hero. It is embarrassing for the country to still be raving about a film that goes so fundamentally against everything we believe in. Regardless, it would be impossible to have the types of films we have today without the work of D.W. Griffith. That being said, The Birth of a Nation was one of the best films of its time, but not of all time. This is due to the fact that when the film was made, the context was not nearly as offensive as it is now. Therefore, the art of the piece can be appreciated. However, when this film is viewed through a twenty first century lens, it is completely inappropriate and expresses views and morals that the American population would like to forget ever existed. Films greatness cannot merely be measured by its success in one aspect. To be a truly great film the artwork, the plot and the message must work together to create something meaningful and The Birth of a Nation does not accomplish this.
ReplyDelete