Rarely Screened 'Birth af a Nation' To Be Shown in L.A.

[LynneSin]

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#film3
Rarely Screened 'Birth af a Nation' To Be Shown in L.A.

Four years after angry protests by the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP and other groups forced him to yank his planned showing of D.W. Griffith's 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, the owner of the Silent Movie Theater in Los Angeles has vowed to screen the film beginning tonight (Monday). Charlie Lustman, who describes the film as both "a cultural and artistic monument" and a "shameful stain" on the history of U.S. race relations, told Saturday's Los Angeles Times that he intended to launch a series on the most important silent films with Nation because he regarded it as "the biggest and most cinematic gem in history." (He intends to show the film with a disclaimer stating that he does not endorse the racist content of the film but wants to honor its place in cinema history, the Times observed.) However, L.A. NAACP President Geraldine Washington told the newspaper that she still opposes the screening. "This movie has no positive value whatsoever," she said. "And it runs the risk of creating unrest and hate crimes. It's just too risky to take a chance."

http://www.silentmovietheatre.com/intro/intro.f.htm

And yes, it's really showing there.

The odd thing is, I know this is the most racist movie outside of a KKK recruiting video, but half of me wants to see it because the movie is also a major landmark in movie making. But I don't live in Los Angeles and to be honest, I wouldn't pay money to see this film.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. I don't see an issue with it being shown

Should we ban "Mein Kemf"? These are historical documents. I don't believe in ultra-political correctness. Virtually every bit of popular literature, film, or theatre from the first half of the 20th Century supports a racist viewpoint. We need to keep a historical perspective and recognize how, in this case, "Birth of a Nation" is a cinematic landmark and appreciate it from a historical and sociological viewpoint. That doesn't mean we have to endorse its conclusions, and it's right for the filmmaker to say that.

[Aristus]

2. I saw it at a screening at a Louisville museum when I was a kid.

My parents took me to see it because of the "landmark film" hype. Boy, did they ask for trouble! My poor parents (mother: liberal; father; left leaning centrist) had to put up with questions about why the black men looked so strange (white actors in blackface), why the KKK were the HEROES, (Even at nine years of age, I knew that was just WRONG!) and why the Confederates were portrayed sympathetically.

[larryepke]

3. The Chicago PBS station...

(not the larger one, but the one associated with the schools) used to show it as part of a series on historic films. To be honest, I think they only had films old enough to be in public domain. And all of them used to show up quite late at night.

When I lived in New Orleans in the mid-70s, I recall seeing a very old copy of the book "The Klansman" (on which the film is based) at one used book store. And the price was quite high ($75.00, if I recall right).

See the film if you get a chance. It's worth the time for its technique, though not its subject matter.

No censorship!

[WI_DEM]

4. see it

it is supposedly a brilliantly made film and highly influential in its day. Yes it is a product of its time and you must remember that.

[HerbieHeadhunter]

5. I had to watch it for a film class in college....

back a decade ago....only parts I remember are about 50 scenes with the KKK on horseback and the fact that it was 5 hours long.

[Magrittes Pipe]

6. I bought a remaindered video for $1.

It's technically brilliant.

It's morally terrible.

It should be seen by everybody with an interest in the history of American propaganda.

[WI_DEM]

7. excellent way of putting it

[LynneSin]

15. Geez, I could jsut watch Fox News for a history of American Propaganda

:eyes:

[FrankBooth]

8. Griffith was a pretty weird guy

He was not a frothing at the mouth racist, although you would never know that by watching "Birth of a Nation." He was a really an innovative filmmaker, and this is an important film.

I don't think there is any danger in showing this film. I watched it in a film class at my liberal university and was not motivated to join the KKK.

[sundog]

9. Griffith was full of shit

--

[FrankBooth]

10. As were many of his era

And this era too ...

[sundog]

11. He also asserts in "Intolerance" that feminism was born

of ugly housewives with nothing better to do (I've seen it, it is very long & very dull)

I just think he's crap... he basically stole what French film-makers were already doing at the time (in regard to full length "dramatic features").. he just Americanized it, repackaged it & took all the credit for "advances in film narrative."

UGH - He just leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

[FrankBooth]

12. No doubt he was an opportunist

He was a succeed at any cost kind of guy. I read his biography a couple years back for a job, and the one lasting impression of it was that Griffith was a complete egomaniac ... he ended up as one of those Hollywood ghosts, haunting the bars and cheap hotels for years after his prime, trying to put together one last movie project, and bitching about how Hollywood had gone to he dogs, and about how unappreciated he was (sort of a poor, male version of Norma Desmond from "Sunset Boulevard.")

Your post on how he just Americanized the French narrative techniques sounds very plausible, but I still think he has an important place in cinema history - he did it in America before anyone else, he helped found Paramount, and everyone in Hollywood started using those techniques after he "discovered" them.

He died broke and alone in one of these cheap Hollywood hotels, which is the truest kind of Hollywood ending!

[LisaM]

17. Didn't he help found United Artists?

With Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks and (I think) Charlie Chaplin?

He was a contradiction. Read Lillian Gish's weird-assed biography of him (actually, it's a weird-assed biography of her, too.) It's called "The Movies, Mr. Griffith, and Me."

[FrankBooth]

19. You may be right

I'm relying on my very fallible memory, but he did go in with Mary Pickford.

[denverbill]

13. I'm curious how black DU'ers feel about this.

I'm white, and I've seen this film before. IMO, other than the fact that it has some historical significance for being the first of it's kind, it's has no redeeming value. It is very racist, and I didn't find it particularly gripping either, even taking into account the fact that it was a silent film.

However, in historical context, it represents a time in America when racism was prevalent. In 1915, practically every white person in the country was racist to a greater or lesser degree. I look at the movie as more of a historical snapshot, kinda like I look at photograph of myself from 1975. It's unbelievable how different the world is today from the world of 1915, just as it's unbelievable how stupid I dressed 30 years ago.

Then look at Gone with the Wind 30 years or so later and see the difference. GWTW is still racist by today's standards, but it's a far cry from BOAN.

I don't understand how this could incite unrest and hate crimes. I don't think a young German who watched a 1940's era German film about Jews would be more likely to hate Jews after watching the film. He's more likely to walk away from the film feeling disappointed with his forefathers for having succumbed to propagandistic garbage.

[elperromagico]

14. It is not Griffith's best film at all.

Great moments, yes. The Civil War section is particularly good. The Reconstruction section falters almost immediately. It's been put up on such a pedestal that to see it is really to be let down. Of course, it's hard to try and understand the impact it had on the cinema back in 1915.

Still, Griffith's later films Intolerance and Broken Blossoms are both vastly superior.

[WoodrowFan]

16. I couldn't watch it...

I tried, couldn't do it. I could watch a minute or so at a time, but not in one sitting.

BTW, the "quotes" by Woodrow Wilson about the film were likely made up by the film's producer. He was a racist but he also had no sympathy for the "Lost Cause" crap.

[No2W2004]

18. You must remember that in 1915

this IS how a large segment of America thought. Many people thought that if one was not white, protestant, and "native" (curious term) then one was little better than a "savage".

It was a technical breakthrough, and was a blueprint for future filmmakers.