D.W. Griffith did not invent every cinematic technique employed in The Birth of a Nation, but he no doubt took and focused them into his film, creating a masterful epic. The film, widely criticized for its outrageously racist views, seems to be slowly losing its place in history to Intolerance, the film that Griffith made in response to such claims. While critics might still argue which film is Griffith’s masterpiece, it was undoubtedly The Birth of a Nation that changed cinema forever. Whether one would like to factor in influence or not, the film’s brilliance should not be ignored due to its racist content. To do so would simply be ignoring American movie history.
The film consists of two parts, the first covering the Civil War. Two families are juxtaposed, the Northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons. The two families are closely linked, as one of the Stoneman brothers, Phil, falls in love with Margaret Cameron, and Ben Cameron becomes infatuated with Elsie Stoneman. When the Civil War breaks out, however, the young men join their respective sides, broken apart by the war. This domestic separation is mirrored in the state of the country itself, the nation divided politically between the North and the South.
The film, rather blatantly, sides with the South, presenting them as courageous underdogs. They lack food, their struggle shown in a close-up shot of parched corn kernels in a pan. Their much needed food train is intercepted by Union forces, and in the battle that proceeds, Ben leads a heroic charge against the Union entrenchment line. The North simply stands behind their own lines, using their greater numbers to their advantage. Ben, despite the loss of his soldiers, carries a Confederate flag during the assault, shoving it inside a Union cannon before collapsing. The South loses the battle, but their honor remains, having given it all against the greater forces of the invaders.
While Griffith definitely tries to establish the theme of Southern honor, he by no means glorifies the war. He includes a shot of numerous dead soldiers, prefaced by a title card that reads, “War’s peace.” War is connected to death, and is viewed as futile – not only for the South, but also for the North. As the numerous extreme long shots of battlefields show, once a battle begins, it simply becomes men fighting for their lives. The tragedies of war, however, go beyond the battlefield. Phil and Ben, good friends before the war, are forced to fight on opposing sides. Promising relationships, such as the burgeoning love between Phil and Margaret, are put on hold.
The second half of the film focuses on Reconstruction, and most of the film’s staunchly racist views are contained in this part. The beginning of the movie depicts the introduction of American slavery, stating that this mixing of races “planted the first seed of disunion.” This theme of racial mixing leading to trouble is further explored in the second half, an example being Gus, a freedman, lusting after Flora, Ben’s sister. He chases her onto a rocky cliff, and to avoid the possibility of being raped, she jumps to her death. This threatened rape, then, symbolizes the emasculation of the whites in the South by the suddenly freed blacks, now threatening the order of society.
The film’s tense climax comes when Ben leads the Klan to the rescue of Elsie from the hands of Lynch, a mulatto, who was planning a forced marriage. This rescue, and the Klan’s rescue of the Cameron family from Lynch’s black militia, goes beyond showing the Klan as saviors of these individual people. The Klan is shown as the protector and savior of white glory and honor. During the next election they intimidate the blacks into not voting, and the aftermath of all this leads to the reunion of the two couples – Phil and Margaret and Ben and Elsie. Order is restored.
Griffith, labeled a racist by his critics after the release of the film, attempted to answer them with his next film, Intolerance. The film tackles four separate stories, all set during different time periods. One recounts the fall of Babylon, another tells the crucifixion of Jesus, a third showcases the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, and the fourth is a modern tale focusing on a couple torn apart by a false murder conviction. Each story is connected through themes of intolerance and hatred, and the film, rather boldly, alternates between the four stories.
By having four parallel stories, the film forces comparisons to be drawn between the characters and events throughout these different time periods. There is less focus on the Christ story, but Griffith spends enough time to establish the devastating results of intolerance. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre story is also a lesser focus, though it establishes the idea of religious intolerance and the abuse of power by authority. The other two stories, the modern tale and the Babylon story, are where the true heart of Intolerance lies.
The modern tale echoes some of the frustrations of early 20th century, displaying the anxiety surrounding big business and interference by outside, moralist forces. One striking example is the mill owner reducing the wages of his workers by 10%, and crushing the strike that follows. One of his employees turns to crime, but tries to break free after marrying. His ex-boss, however, frames him for theft and he is sent to prison. While he serves his sentence, his wife suffers the taking of their child by reformists, who find her to be an unfit mother. What greater intrusion on a mother than the taking of her child? As for the Babylon story, it tackles the issue of betrayal as well as intolerance. The High Priest of Bel does not worship the same god as King Nabonidus, and sees Babylon’s downfall tied to this wrongful worship. This religious intolerance leads him to betray Babylon, setting up a meeting with Cyrus, the Persian invader. The result is the fall of Babylon.
The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance are perhaps two of Griffith’s finest works, both among the most influential films of all time due to their groundbreaking use of various cinematic techniques, including cross-cutting, moving-camera shot, the close-up, the long shot, and so forth. The Birth of a Nation, however, has often been looked at unfavorably, its racism too much to handle. Nonetheless, its importance was recognized, and it was listed in AFI’s Top 100 movies in 1998. Inexplicably, it was removed in the 10th anniversary edition of the list, though Intolerance found its way onto the list. By removing the film, the AFI is not dealing with the issues the film raises, and is ignoring a monumental moment in film history. It is frightening how effective and brilliant a film that paints the Ku Klux Klan as heroes is, and that is truly the worst aspect of the film. It is undeniably among the most important films in American history, if not the most important, and deserves to be recognized as such. Intolerance arguably shares that honor, but the legacy of The Birth of a Nation should not be overshadowed by it. Both films deserve the recognition.
Comments