Wednesday

Myth of a Nation Comments

Jonathan, this is as fine and convincing a consideration of Birth of a Nation as I've read in a long time. I remember having some of these same arguments with film professors, in the context of both Leni Reifenstahl and (believe it or not) Buddy Holly. Some of the same folks who would condemn Riefenstahl for Triumph of the Will and for being in bed (metaphorically speaking) with Hitler strangely had no problem with Griffith's film, the main reasons being its innovations and, as you state, its primacy in the foundation of film history. But as you suggest, style, especially in a film that codifies and expounds on social history in such an inflammatory manner, cannot be separated from content, nor should it be. And you strongly get at the roots of what's wrong with the argument of glorifying Nation for its innovations. A friend of mine argued after seeing The Buddy Holly Story and objecting to its praise of the musician for some of the technical and stylistic ornamentation Holly brought to country-rock music. His argument-- if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. The counter argument was, of course, that in the course of this biopic it was absurd to take points away for celebrating recognized historical achievement within the pop music form. But taken out of this context, he was right, and so too would anyone be who might suggest that film history would be only slightly altered had Birth of a Nation not come along. It is Griffith's genius as a director that both makes Nation worth considering and also makes it a specious achievement.

I loved the Okrent quote too. A high point in a brilliant documentary.

I'm looking forwartd to digging back through your archives. You're definitely starting out strong!
Dennis Cozzalio | | Email | Homepage | 07.22.07 - 11:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis,

Thank you for the kind and motivating words. And I like the Buddy Holly statement. It is true that popular music would have progressed along roughly the same lines had there been no Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry or Beatles because someone else would have simply taken their place but that doesn't mean you shouldn't celebrate the fact that they are the ones who did do it first. As long as one remembers first doesn't always mean best. The Beatles' "Flying" was one of the first uses of a synthesizer and... well...let's just say it's not widely known for a reason.

The Okrent quote, along with his statement about imagining if Cezanne and Beethoven were the same person in regards to the Babe, has always stayed with me and it seemed a natural fit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.23.07 - 2:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an outstanding commentary! I have so felt the same way, but was never able to articulate why. You have done it with reason and heart. Racism doesn't even try to wear a mask in this film, it is blatant and ugly and in one's face. I agree, we need to take a wholistic approach when interpreting art, with substance over form, content over technique. - Lisa
Lisa Lindsey | | Email | 08.09.07 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Lisa.

I appreciate your kind words. The Birth of a Nation has for too long been given special treatment by separating content and technique, a sly trick and a dishonest one. Painting, literature, music and film and all other art must be more than technique. I can learn watercolor technique from the local community college's art class but that doesn't mean I'm Cezanne. I wonder if the critics and historians who praise Nation for its technique would have the same praise in the art world for Thomas Kincaide? Or would they argue that painting must be more than technique? I'm betting they would go with the latter argument. I would further bet they wouldn't even see the irony.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 8:47 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the film offensive, calculating, and incredibly dull. I am glad that you put the work into an argument I could have written, but chose not to. (I have an M.A. in cinema, but Birth is a film I choose to avoid now that I've seen it only a single time.) I decry at a lot, but never with the sort of detail and mythbusting you put to it. Thanks for a great article. I'd love to see the film dethroned and given about the level of respect as Mississippi Burning.

Note that when Griffith replicates the photo of the Senate, he uses a dissolve as though he is covering his tracks, since the reference photograph was an empty courthouse, while the antics of the people are pure and simple propaganda not derived from any photograph.
Scott Andrew Hutchins | | Email | 11.29.07 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that when Griffith replicates the photo of the Senate, he uses a dissolve as though he is covering his tracks, since the reference photograph was an empty courthouse, while the antics of the people are pure and simple propaganda not derived from any photograph.

Great point Scott. There's a lot of bald-faced lying going on in this movie and Griffith's defense that he was only portraying history as it actually was is easily dismantled. It is a film that makes me sick when I see it (I've seen it more than once unlike you - you're smarter than I am). It is unbridled racism through and through and I am sick of it being given such a high level of respect when it is unnecessary and dishonest to do so. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 5:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You write:
"What makes a film great? Can one separate content from technique and praise one but not the other?"

I think that's an important question worth exploring. I think the fact that you wrote such a long post on the subject proves how interesting a subject it is!

I'm thus dismayed to see you argue that the discussion is not one film students should be having. It seems to me you learned a lot about film in general and your feelings in particular in the creation of this post. Why should you have that opportunity while those who follow you should not?

Or do you expect students to attain the same enlightenment you did while applying the question to non-offensive films? It seems unlikely to me that they'd see much point to it, much less learn anything.
Jeff | | Email | 02.04.08 - 5:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff - Thanks for the comment. Since writing this I've had many different thoughts about how and what I should have written or did write. I commented on a film forum discussing it and realized that I probably had not made my points abundantly clear. I tried to clear up some of it there but I choose to let the original post stand warts and all in the hopes that comments like yours will allow me to "edit" it over time.

My main error in this post I believe is the muddled way in which I state that the film should not be taught as a great film but within a sociological context. It is an error I should correct and will by the addition of a few words. When I write, THE BIRTH OF A NATION should never be forgotten. It should be taught in history classes and sociology classes to educate people on the power of racial myth, the power of hatred. It is as important an historical artifact as the Nazi propaganda films of the forties and has enormous historical value. But it should not be taught in film class anymore

I should be writing:

THE BIRTH OF A NATION should never be forgotten. It should be taught in film history classes and sociology classes to educate people on the power of racial myth, the power of hatred. It is as important an historical artifact as the Nazi propaganda films of the forties and has enormous historical value. But it should not be taught in film class anymore as a great film.

My main problem with the teaching of the film is the separation of content and technique and teaching it as a masterpiece. It is a masterpiece technically but technically is not all there is to a film. Anyway, the point you bring up seems to be the main point of contention in discussions on this post elsewhere and it is not what I intended so I shall go ahead and make the edit.

Thank you for finally giving me the impetus to do so with your well stated comment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 02.04.08 - 7:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, I agree with you completely on Birth of a Nation, but I would like to respectfully disagree on the Ken Burns moment that you refer to. Ty Cobb was nobody's hero, but he was certainly not the singular black mark of baseball history. To blame the rampant racism, inhumanity, and violence of our past on a southern ballplayer who happened to be full of anger is to misrepresent the scale and gravity of the problem. Further comments:

http://kaweah.com/blog/2008/06/2...b-all-american/
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.27.08 - 8:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan, that's a good write up of Cobb on your site. I don't disagree with you about Cobb not being the only bad apple or disagree that there was rampant racism all around. It's just that for the purposes of comparison, Birth of a Nation is a giant of a film in cinema history and Cobb is a giant figure in baseball history. There are plenty of films more racist than Birth of a Nation. I mentioned a few in a post on the Race Cinema of the teens through the fifties, films that used slurs in their titles, films that reduced black characters to more horrific stereotypes than Griffith did. But they're not Birth of a Nation, they're not examples of filmmaking excellence with a bad moral core.

While there may have been and continue to be plenty of bastards in baseball none of them have the astonishing record making accomplishments of Cobb. That's why I think Okrent singles him out as "the black mark," because he cannot be ignored. Even a player as great as Rogers Hornsby, who was a notorious bastard, can be easily brushed aside if necessary in conversations about the pinnacle of baseball accomplishment but Cobb cannot and so he must be dealt with and as such, becomes the black mark that Okrent was referring to. If Hornsby had been just a little bit better, had just a few more accomplishments, maybe Okrent would have spoken of two black marks.

That's the problem with The Birth of a Nation. While Hollywood produced multiple films with racial stereotypes from the tens to the fifties, none have the historical stature of that movie. So even though there are plenty of examples of racism in the early history of filmmaking, Birth of a Nation is the one we must deal with, because it is so brilliant technically that it simply cannot be ignored if studying early cinema technique. If it had been made incompetently or haphazardly it wouldn't matter. But it wasn't so it's film history's black mark.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 06.27.08 - 11:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi again Jonathan.

I don't want to permit my revulsion at Okrent's righteous indignation to overshadow the value of your general argument. My particular concern is that there may be a need for more skepticism involved in the cinematographic merits of "The Birth of a Nation." The possibility that the early popularity of the film's message may have somehow given it the exposure it needed to gain such an unshakable place in the pantheon of film.

That said, there is great benefit to its existence as an unwitting but eloquent testimony to the deep racism that lurks throughout American history. For that reason, it's a must-see.

About the ubiquity of racism in American film, I remember an Abbott & Costello film that seemed terribly racist.

Then there's Kevin Costner's great white liberal hope in Dances with Wolves, who was lucky enough to find himself a white girl amidst all those Sioux squaws. "Going Indian" is one thing, but I guess "going squaw" was just going too far. Yes, I'm afraid I'm one of the two members of Gary Larson's dread DLDWWS ("didn't like dances with wolves society").

Keep the thoughtful entries coming, and please pardon my nitpicking.
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 11:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm. Looks like I could use a proofreader. Here's a correction, complete with complete sentences, for what it's worth:

My particular concern is that there may be a need for more skepticism involved in the assessment of the cinematographic merits of "The Birth of a Nation." There is a possibility that the early popularity of the film's message may have somehow given it the exposure it needed to gain such an unshakable place in the pantheon of film.

It's all too easy for irrational opinions to become doctrines of history, even among the most respected of authorities.
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 11:28 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...there is great benefit to its existence as an unwitting but eloquent testimony to the deep racism that lurks throughout American history. For that reason, it's a must-see." I completely agree. Like I said, it should not be forgotten. It's an amazing historical record, not of reconstruction, but of the time it was made. And one more thing...
"Then there's Kevin Costner's great white liberal hope in Dances with Wolves"
I can't stand Dances with Wolves! Now, that movie everyone could forget about and it would be just fine with me. Bleh!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 6:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I can't stand Dances with Wolves!"
- Jonathan Lapper

The world is not such a lonesome place anymore!
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.30.08 - 11:02 am | #
 


archived comments © 2009. Design by: Greg Ferrara