Reactions to The Birth of a Nation
Mohammad A. Mian
The Emergence of Current America
It can be argued that no different film in American record offers been as controversial as D.W. Griffith’s silent epic film, The Birth of a Nation. The Birth of a Nation, which first of all premiered on February 8th, 1915, and was predicated on Thomas Dixon’s novel and enjoy The Clansmen.[1] The film is defined in the American Civil War and the time of Reconstruction during the 19th century, and chronicles the lives of two family members, the Stonemans and the Camerons.[2] The Stonemans happen to be an abolitionist Unionist spouse and children from the North, whereas the Camerons are a Southern family loyal to the Confederate reason through the American Civil Battle.[3] Throughout The Birth of a Nation, African Americans are portrayed as being savages, violent thugs, sexual predators, ill mannered brutes, and ballot stuffers. For this reason, despite the film’s positive reception among the American general public and news outlets during its release; The Birth of a Nation received a poor response from African Americans and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, both of which protested against the film’s premiere across American locations. Despite the criticism, the film was defended by various news outlets and Griffith himself. Many modern-day film critics and historians respect The Birth of a Nation as America’s first wonderful cinematic characteristic, despite its controversial portrayal of African People in america.
The center point of The Birth of a Nation are two juxtaposed households, the Stonemans and the Camerons. People of the Stoneman household will be Austin Stoneman, an American legislator and abolitionist, his sons Phil and Todd, and his child Elsie.[4] The Cameron family involves Dr. Cameron, a Southern medical doctor and staunch Confederate following the outbreak of the Civil Battle, his wife Mrs. Cameron, his two daughters, Margaret and Flora, and his three sons, Benjamin, Wade, and Duke.[5] At the beginning of the film, Phil and Todd going to the Cameron family estate in SC.[6] Upon immediately finding Margaret, Phil falls in love with her, whereas Benjamin is definitely awestruck by an image of Elsie.[7] A few months after, the American Civil War erupts, and the Cameron sons enlist in the Confederate Army, while Phil and Todd uphold their loyalty to the Union by becoming a member of the army of standard Ulysses S. Grant.[8] During the war, Black militiamen assault and ransack the Cameron estate, however the women of the household are preserved by a Confederate contingent which routs the militia.[9] The portrayal of African American soldiers as brutes and savages highly correlates with the stereotypical portrayal of Blacks the filmmakers envisioned. By the conclusion of the battle, Todd, Wade, and Duke happen to be killed in the conflict, while Benjamin is captured and taken to a hospital in Washington D.C.[10] At the hospital, Benjamin meets Elsie, with whom he evolves a romantic marriage. The deaths of Todd, Wade, and Duke had been emotionally appealed to the film’s audience, a lot of whom likely lost family members in the Civil War. During his stay at a healthcare facility, Benjamin is informed that he’s to get executed by hanging due his associations with the Confederate guerillas.[11] As a way to find a pardon for Benjamin, Elsie and Mrs. Stoneman meet with Abraham Lincoln, and both of them manage to persuade the President to pardon him.[12] After President Lincoln’s assassination, Austin Stoneman and his fellow republicans impose tough measures on wealthy Light Southerners, such as land confiscation, ushering in the Reconstruction period in American record.[13]
Austin Stoneman travels south Carolina to oversee the execution of the reconstruction guidelines of the Republicans.[14] He’s accompanied by a Mulatto governor, Silas Lynch.[15] Lynch is definitely portrayed as having psychotic attributes, a common stereotype of African Us citizens among White People in america in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[16] In the Southern metropolitan areas visited by Stoneman and Lynch, African American soldiers are seen harassing Whites, while triumphantly parading on the roads.[17] In these specific scenes, Dark colored militias are portrayed as being ill mannered and brutish in comparison to the naïve and gentle Light Southerners.[18] Through the regional elections, Whites happen to be shown to be barred from voting, whereas African Us citizens cast multiple votes without the issue.[19] After the elections, the African People in america who will be elected to South Carolina’s legislature will be portrayed as being ill mannered, as the film once more highlights seeks to portray them as being brutish.[20] Laws towards African Americans are as well enacted, which need Whites to respect Dark colored soldiers in their cities, and blended marriages are also legalized.[21] These factors, culminate in Benjamin’s founding of the Ku Klux Klan to counter the ever increasing power of African Americans in the South.[22]
After Elsie hears about the actions perpetrated by Benjamin’s corporation against African Us citizens in the South, she abruptly ends their relationship.[23] Meanwhile, Ben’s sister, Flora commits suicide after becoming pursued by Gus, a African american freedman who seeks an enchanting marriage with her.[24] Gus’ incontrollable carnal desires are designed to portray him as a sexual predator, a common stereotype connected with African American men during the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s.[25] After personally witnessing his sister’s demise, Benjamin has got Gus lynched by his fellow Klan people, and spots his corpse before Lynch’s house.[26] Lynch instantly issues orders to suppress the activities of the Klan, and along the way Benjamin’s daddy is arrested for being associated with the firm.[27] He is, on the other hand, ironically rescued by his loyal Dark colored servants with Phil Stoneman’s aid.[28] After hearing of the imprisonment of Mr. Cameron, Elsie attempts to convince Lynch to stop his crackdown on the Klan.[29] Lynch refuses and attempts to rape Elsie, but she is saved by Benjamin and different Klan members who as well manage to capture Lynch.[30] The get of Lynch by the Klan is meant to emphasize the heroicness of the Ku Klux Klan as defenders of White colored People in america, and stereotype African People in america as savages. In the following election day, Black colored voters are halted from voting by people of the Ku Klux Klan, and Margaret and Phil, and Elsie and Benjamin are wedded.[31] The film concludes with the subject “Dare we imagine a golden time when the bestial War shall rule no more? But instead – the mild Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the City of Peace.”[32]
Following its discharge in 1915, The Birth of a Nation was praised by American film critics writing for several news outlets during the following few decades, without any mention of the film’s racial stereotypes of African Us citizens. One notable review of the film can be Seymour Stern’s document “BIRTHDAY OF A Basic: The Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Birth of a Country’ Recalls Its Significance” in The New York Times, which was published on March 24th, 1935. Despite their being a twenty-year gap between your film’s let go and Stern’s analysis, he reflected the watch Americans acquired of the film after its initial discharge. Stern wrote
It appeared two decades back as an unforeseen and unprecedented phenomenon in the old fashioned movie globe of the day. With it the cinema became one stroke of artwork, and its primary masterpiece was acclaimed by the critics. Concurrently was once and for all sent from the gaudy dominion of the vaude-ville show, which at that time had a stranglehold after it-and David Wark Griffith entered into the long and wonderful reign as the kin of directors.[33]
Stern further more praised the film’s outstanding photography by stating
The picture is indeed remarkable from such a range of important aspects that it’s not easy immediately to select any given one. Griffith introduced a multitude of technical innovations which may have since become the portion and parcel of filmcraft. Here for the very first time he used night photography, self-focus photography, moving video camera pictures, lap dissolves, the split display screen and acute camcorder angles. The low-angle pictures of mounted clansmen looming over the frightened Negroes will be unforgettable. His subtle use of the iris in this film marks the fruition of this device.[34]
From both of these statements, it is obvious that Stern had substantial respect for the film. In fact, he previously such high respect for the film that he explained it as one which innovated and transformed the entire film industry. Stern’s review of the film likewise showcase the prejudiced White Us citizens had towards African Us citizens, as he did not once mention the film’s controversial portrayal of Blacks as a hindrance to the film’s visual magnificence.[35] Furthermore, Stern’s referral to African People in america as Negroes further advise that he mainly agreed with their portrayal in the film, which isn’t surprising considering the fact that African Americans continued to be stereotyped in American mass media until following the Second World War. While Stern had nothing but praise for the film, the National Association for the Progression of Colored People protested against the film, as did African American veterans of the 1st World War.
In the year of and years following The Birth of a Nation‘s release, many African People in america protested against its launching in theatres. While the National Association for the Progression of Colored People opposed the film immediately upon its initial launch, they did not take direct court actions against it until following the First World Battle. The NAACP launched its court case against the film in the Condition of New York in 1921, and it was covered by The NY Times in an document titled “FOES OF KLAN Battle ‘BIRTH OF A Country: Ask FILM Panel to Forbid Revival Here-Griffith and Dixon Defend Film.” The article, published on December 3rd, 1922, stated
Demands that a revival showing of “The Birth of a Country” become prohibited in this state as a “glorification of the Klu Klux Klan and part of a local travel by Rev. Oscar Haywood to increase membership of the Klan had been made yesterday at a hearing before the motion picture commission of the Status of New York by Walter F. White, Assistant Executive Secretary for the Advancement of Colored People; Henry W. Shields, Senator Elect from the 21st District; and Alderman George W. Harris.[36]
The NAACP’s protests were carried out against a rescreening of the film in the Talk about of New York in 1921.[37] A lot of those involved were influential associates of the African American community, and they had been displeased by their portrayal in the film.[38] Sooner or later the protest led to a court case against the film, in which D.W. Griffith was as well present.[39] Sadly for the NAACP, the judge of the case ruled in favour of the film’s screening by stating that it did not, in any way, enhance the Ku Klux Klan, but instead, was a reflection of post-Civil War America.[40] The protests showcased the racial tensions present in the United States
during the early on 20th century, and they also reflected upon the desire of African Americans to see the film own its theatre permits revoked. For many African Us citizens, the film put into their negative photo among many White Us citizens, an image which they sought eradicate. To make things worse, the judicial authorities didn’t support the pleas of the NAACP. Nevertheless, opposition to the film existed even before the established involvement of the NAACP, as in-may 1921, African American war veterans protested against the film’s screening in front of the Capitol Theatre in New York.[41]
In May well 1921, African American veterans of the First Environment War and their wives protested against the screening of The Birth of a Nation in Capitol Theatre in NY. On May 21st, 1921, “Negroes Oppose Film” was published in The NY Times, and it covered these protests. The article reflected the views of the battle veterans on the film by stating
Negro ex-servicemen in uniform, flanked by negro women, gathered in front of the Capital to protest against the revival of “The Birth of a Nation.” Some of the pickets carried placards which go through “We represented America in France, why should ‘The Birth of a Country’ misrepresent us below?” Others distributed circulars released by the Nation Association for the Progression of Colored People which demanded, “Stop the Klu Klux Klan propaganda in NY.”[42]
Ultimately, these protests didn’t result in a triumph for the picketers, as five of their organizers had been arrested by the authorities, including three women, although, they would all be released in a few days.[43] The inability of the protests evidenced having less respect the American political establishment acquired for African American war veterans and the stereotypical portrayal of their community in the film. Actually, D.W. Griffith continued to guard the film, and after the May well protests, he was quoted by The New York Times as saying
It is a source of regret to me that purely advised persons are endeavoring to stir up animosity against ‘The Birth of a Country.’ The opposition is usually misguided, and was misproven and laid away many years in the past. The top rated villain in the storyline is a white man, who qualified prospects a misguided pursuing into conflicts which do not reflect upon the negro. It there were the slightest ground for protest against the film it seems if you ask me that white men could have claim to it than negroes. I shall be quite willing, nevertheless, to submit the problem under oath to the concern of the court.[44]
Griffith’s comments are not surprising taking into consideration the popular frame of mind towards African Americans at that time. Even so, his assertion that African Us citizens were not the top rated villains in the film has no justifiable ground taking into consideration the film’s stereotypical portrayal of these. It is also interesting to note that Griffith was available to take the matter to court. Considering the lack of respect American courts got for African Americans at the time, this is also unsurprising. Having less sympathy for African People in america among American courts is certainly further evidenced by insufficient intervention by federal government courts against the film. For this reason, despite a ban on the film in three claims and some cities after its initial launch in 1915, it seemed that the film would continue being screened in American theatres because of its popularity among the Light populace.[45] In fact, the NAACP continuing to protest against the film up to the 1950s, as the film was constantly revived in American theatres.
In 1950, picketers rallied against the revival of The Birth of a Nation outside the Beverly Theatre at 823 Third Avenue.[46] The protesters had been upset the controversial film was being screened in the New York once again, despite it being 35 years since its primary launching. The President of the NAACP’s branch in New York, Lindsey H. Light, led the protests, which was covered by The NY Times‘ content “FILM REVIVAL PROTESTED: N.A.A good.C.P. Pickets ‘Birth of a Country’ at Beverly Theatre”.[47] According to the article
The revival of D.W. Griffith’s silent-film typical “The Birth of a Nation,” was protested yesterday by Lindsey H. White colored, president of the New York branch, National Association for the Improvement of Colored People. Mr. White stated that the film, now being proven at the Beverly Theatre, 823 Third Avenue, “distorts the traditional truths of Negro and Light in the reconstruction governments which were set up in various at the close of the Civil War.” The NAACP has got been picketing at the theatre since Saturday.[48]
The article reflects after the frustration among African Americans to really have the film’s screening in the Beverly Theatre stopped. It also showcases that while it have been three decades since the film’s discharge, American attitudes towards the film’s content mainly remained the same. Not surprisingly, the attractiveness of the film had largely declined, as Americans became more considering the Western genre of films in the 1950s and 1960s. With the decline of the film, it has become common know-how that the film can be no more as popular, nor as widely viewed as it once was because the 1970s. For modern film historians from the 1990s onwards, the film continues to be thought to be one which transformed the American film market.
Perhaps no lines from a contemporary critic’s overview of The Birth of a Country better capture the film’s legacy on American cinema than these from Molly Haskell’s document “In ‘The Birth of a Nation,’: The Birth of Serious Film” in The NY Times
The defining instant for the film as a mass moderate, an art form and a disturbingly strong social force happened on a bitterly frosty night on March 3, 1915, at the Liberty Theatre in NY. It was the environment premiere of D.W. Griffiths’ “The Birth of a Nation,” an event of such cultural magnitude that 80 years afterwards, controversies still rage about the film among film scholars about its racially charged photos.[49]
Throughout her assessment, Molly praises the film for its ground-breaking improvements, vivid, imagery, and capability to keep an viewers engaged, which is impressive for a film 2 hour and 40 minutes long silent film produced in the first 20th century.[50] She is, however, critical of the film’s content, especially its unfavorable portrayal of African Americans, as she will not trust their stereotypical mannerisms in the film.[51] On the other hand, she concludes her assessment by stating “Found in Griffith’s masterpiece sublimity of expressed was marred by melodramatic racism. However “The Birth of a Country,” warts and all, continues to be a milestone: the movie that catapulted the method from its 19th-century peep-display origins into its position as the great new art sort of the 20th century.”[52] As a result, it can be stated that, while The Birth of a Country remains a controversial film among, there is no doubt it transformed the film industry into a corporate giant.
Upon its initial release in 1915, The Birth of a Nation was positively received by the American community and news outlets as well. Even so, the film was staunchly opposed by Africans Americans because of its stereotypical portrayal of their community. Furthermore, the film reflected the tensions which existed between African Americans and White People in america from the late 19th to mid 20th century. The National Association for the Improvement of Colored Peoples was at the forefront of the opposition to the film, and remained consequently until the 1950s, and the film declined in reputation. Virtually all film historians agree that the film innovated the American film sector. However, they possess criticized the film because of its discriminatory portrayal of African how to start an informative essay Us citizens.
Bibliography
Films
Griffith, D.W. The Birth of a Nation. 12 Reel Film. Directed by D.W. Griffith. NY: Epoch
Producing Co., 1915.
Primary Sources
“DEFENDS FILM Development: Griffith Says He Regrets Complaint Against ‘Birth of a Country.’”
The New York Times, May 9th, 1921. Accessed March 20th, 2017.
“FILM REVIVAL PROTESTED: N.A.A.C.P. Pickets ‘Birth of a Country’ at Beverly Theatre.” The New
York Times, May 19th, 1950. Accessed March 20th, 2017.
“FOES OF KLAN Struggle ‘BIRTH OF A NATION’: Ask Motion Picture Plank to Forbid Revival Here-
Griffith and Dixon Defend Film.” The NY Times, December 3rd, 1922. Accessed March 20th, 2017.
“NEGRO PICKETS IN Courtroom: Decision Reserved on Protest Against Film “The Birth of a
Nation.” The NY Times, Can 10th, 1921. Accessed March 21st.
“NEGROES OPPOSE FILM: Ex-Service Men State “Birth of a Country” Misrepresents Them.” The New
York Times, May possibly 7th, 1921. Accessed March 20th.
Haskell, Molly. “In ‘The Birth of a Country,’ The Birth of Serious Film.” The New York Times, November
20th, 1995. Accessed March 21st, 2017.
Stern, Seymour. “BIRTHDAY OF A Vintage.: The Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Birth of a Nation’
Recalls Its Significance.” The New York Occasions, Mar 24, 1935. Accessed March 20th, 2017.
Secondary Sources
Christensen, Terry. Reel Politics, American Political Films from Birth of a Country to Platoon. New
York: Basil Blackwell Inc, 1987.
[1] D.W. Griffith. The Birth of a Nation. 12 Reel Film. Directed by D.W. Griffith (NY: Epoch
Producing Co., 1915). Film.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] D.W. Griffith. The Birth of a Nation. 12 Reel Film. Directed by D.W. Griffith. Film.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] D.W. Griffith. The Birth of a Nation. 12 Reel Film. Directed by D.W. Griffith. Film.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] D.W. Griffith. The Birth of a Nation. 12 Reel Film. Directed by D.W. Griffith. Film.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Seymour Stern. “BIRTHDAY OF A Common.: The Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Birth of a Nation creative writing examples‘ Recalls Its Significance.” (The New York Instances, Mar 24, 1935), X4.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Seymour Stern. “BIRTHDAY OF A Common.: The Twentieth Anniversary of ‘Birth of a Nation’ Recalls Its Significance.”, X4.
[36] “FOES OF KLAN Battle ‘BIRTH OF A Country’: Ask FILM Board to Forbid Revival Here-Griffith and Dixon Defend Film.” (The NY Times, December 3rd, 1922), 29.
[37] Ibid.
[38]Â “FOES OF KLAN FIGHT ‘BIRTH OF A Country’: Ask FILM Board to Forbid Revival Here-Griffith and Dixon Defend Film.”, 29.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.
[41] “NEGROES OPPOSE FILM: Ex-Service Guys Claim “Birth of a Nation” Misrepresents Them.” (The New
York Times, Might 7th, 1921), 8.
[42] Ibid.
[43] “NEGRO PICKETS IN COURT: Decision Reserved on Protest Against Film “The Birth of a
Nation.” (The New York Times, May 10th, 1921), 6.
[44] “DEFENDS FILM Creation: Griffith Says He Regrets Complaint Against ‘Birth of a Nation.’” (The New York Times, May 9th, 1921), 11.
[45] Terry Christensen. Reel Politics, American Political Videos from Birth of a Nation to Platoon (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc, 1987), 19.
[46] “FILM REVIVAL PROTESTED: N.A good.A.C.P. Pickets ‘Birth of a Country’ at Beverly Theatre.” (The New
York Times, May 19th, 1950), 25.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Molly Haskell. “In ‘The Birth of a Nation,’ The Birth of Serious Film”.” (The NY Times, November
20th, 1995), D5.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.