It is now 100 years since D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" caused both a revolution and a stir in the ever growing film industry. This is a film that is very hard to critique; on the one hand, it showed that films can be artistically challenging, and can far surpass the nickoledian novelties of otherwise taudry entertainments that was the norm back then (as commented on by Stanley Kubrick during his speech on receiving the award dedicated to Griffith. This was how I discovered Griffith, and it made me as fascinated by him as I am by Kubrick). On the other hand, it was the film to show that cinema can be a tool of manipulation and personal embellishment. There is no way of denying this after you see the distasteful nature of Southerners that is portrayed in the film itself.
I always loved what Roger Ebert said in his review of the film. He said "The Birth of a Nation is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl's "The Triumph of the Will" it is a great film that argues for evil. To learn how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil". I feel that this sentiment is the truest that has ever been applied to the film. The scary thing about it is that it does such a sterling job at portraying the Africans as evil and the Southerners as downtrodden. It is both a technical achievement, and the most malicious film I have ever seen. To get deeper into this, I will have to cover what the story is about.
In the 1860's, the nation was divided. You had the Camerons who were on the Southern side and the Stonemen who were on the North side. The character of Colonel Cameron (played by Henry B. Walthall, who had a really devilish appearance throughout) has fallen for the daughter of Austin Stoneman, Elsie (played by the immensely talented and adorable Lillian Gish), whose father is a strong proponent of Black men's rights. At this time, Abraham Lincoln is still the one in charge of the country, and as the Civil War rages on, things seem to be pretty content all in all. And then, at one of the plays Lincoln attends, he is shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth (played by Raoul Walsh, who directed Regeneration, which was a revolutionary gangster film, and he also directed the first film that John Wayne was in with the exception of his extra part in Noah's Arc). At this point, we come to the second act of the film which deals with Reconstruction, and this is where things take a turn for the worst. Austin Stoneman is now the one in power and orders the "evil" black people to raid havoc on the south. This is where most of the racist sentiment starts to become clear. There's even a scene where Colonel Cameron is looking disdainfully at another black man for simply walking on the same ground as him. How twisted is that? And then during one scene where there is a class of black men, they are shown as impudent and uneducated. It is not hard to see why this film really stirred up audiences back then when racism wasn't really a matter of discussion.
The one thing that is undeniable is that no matter how horrible some of the images are, it is impossible to keep your eyes away. I have seen the film three times (my third time bring today where I watched the first hour of it one day and then the other two hours of it today. It can be a real slog if you decide to watch it all on the one day), and through the wonderfully made documentary by Kevin Brownlow, and A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese, many of the images are embedded in my head. The intimate moments like when Colonel Cameron comes out of the hospital and reunites with his family and as he comes closer to the house, you see the hand of his mother touching him. It is a sweet and humane moment that showed the power of framing and acting that Griffith managed to direct in an impeccable fashion. And when Cameron is on the battle field and sticks the flag into the canon just before he collapses. Wonderfully masked and elegantly shot.
And the way the KKK soar through the place as they seek revenge for what the North did to their sister is climactic and grandiose. The Ride of the Valkyires brings the ultimate sweep to the landscape as they ride on horseback, and though the connotations are reprehensible, the tension and execution of the scene itself is magnificent in every single way.
The problem is that while you do get scenes of technical proficiency and of emotional resonance, like you would expect, there are ones that evoke disgust. The worst has to be when they introduce Gus into the film. He is portrayed as the ultimate monster who wants to take advantage of a white girl. As Cameron's sister is drawn closer to him, she takes a leap off the cliff in one of the best intercut shots in the film. As you would expect, the KKK outrage at this and place the man on trial (as the picture above shows). And if that image didn't horrify you, then maybe the man's fate will.
To me, the most relatable character in the film is Elsie (Lillian Gish was given free reign and she did an amazing job at portraying a strong, yet scared character. Her loving moments are subtle and she
is one of the least melodramatic actresses of that era). In her mind, she comes to a crossroads. How can she love a man so vindictive against black people when her father is the proponent of Black men's rights? And as Lynch (the right hand man to Austin Stoneman)'s desire for her increases, she is then conflicted at all possible angles and it is such a shame to see that happen to her. If it weren't for the vindictiveness of the Reconstruction period, you would really be able to feel for Gish's character at that point, which is why I am that ambivalent about this section of the film.
And if you are telling us that black men in that time ruled over the South, then you are just trying to play with the Audience's mind. In a rerelease of "Birth" in 1930, Griffith remarked "Truth? What is the truth?". And I guess it is safe to say that the stubbornness of the Southerner and the idolization for his father took over the true facts of that time for him. But I am grateful for his contributions to the motion picture business, and I think it is a shame to see how people take it for granted nowadays.
If you ever wanted to learn about technique and editing in film (i.e. masking, split cutting, tracking shots, landscape shots and close ups), then this film is a must see, if you can excuse the running time and prejudiced nature of it. However, if you are easily offended and riled up by this kind of thing (or find Silent films hard to watch in general), then I would strongly suggest avoiding this one. If you are interested in seeing, then I suggest getting either Kino's or Eureka's versions since they have the crispest quality. I watched the original Kino DVD, which is still a really good version compared to some of the other public domain DVDs out there. I have heard that the VHS tape by Connoseuier is perhaps the best version of the film, but I have yet to see that at time of writing.
Griffith is a great filmmaker, and Intolerance and Way Down East are some of my favourite films ever made, and while those two films were not nearly as revolutionary as this one, and maybe not even as coherent, they were far more accessible and the techniques used in this film prevail in those two films, so there are many other ways to experience his craftsmanship even if you did ignore this film
"Birth" is an important film in history, and important to watch for its innovations, and I am glad that I have seen it. But the bad taste it leaves in my mouth makes it really hard for me to watch, the length of the film is really bogus, and it is difficult to recommend in all good faith. It is a mixed bag to say the least
No comments:
Post a Comment