Rating: 
Summary: Imagine it's 1915, and you're in the theater....
Review: Having read the reviews of this film in Amazon, I have four comments: 1)The best way to appreciate this movie is to imagine it's 1915 and you're in the theater.You're seeing stuff that's never been done before: close ups, an extended narrative, character development, crosscutting and all kinds of crazy things never done with a camera before. We take it for granted now: try to imagine yourself back then. 2)Of course, the sad part about this movie is that that African-Americans were little more than stereotypes (they weren't even allowed to play themselves!)But you have to remember Griffith was not unique in that respect. 3)I find it really disturbing that some reviewers would use this forum to espouse racist or nativist opinions. OK, free speech, but please... 4)Henry B. Walthall, who plays the "little colonel," appears in John Ford's 1934 "Judge Priest," where he plays a Confederate veteran.If you found him interesting in this movie, wait till you hear his speaking voice! It's a shame they didn't have sound in 1915. In sum: Worth seeing for historical content and context, but Saturday night? I don't think so!
Rating:
Summary: An excellent history lesson from those who were there!
Review: A true American Treasure!I didn't think that I could sit and watch a silent film for very long.As a society we now expect phoney computor generated creatures(new Star Wars)and computor generated sets,birds and scenery (Titanic), both of which I refuse to see, to keep us entertained.Show this movie to your children. However,this film, because it is silent & in B&W it forces you to focus on the storyline like no contemporary film could do. ...
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding example of early cinema
Review: The Birth of a Nation remains one of the giants of motion picture making and one of the most controversial landmarks in film history. As a cinematic achievement the movie was both a stunning commercial and artistic success. No, Griffith did not create such innovations as the closeup, fade-out, irising effect, etc., but it was he under whom these devices were used so successfully and creatively.One of the main arguments against the film is its racist portrayal of the newly freed slaves. Yes, the pre-Civil War South is overly romanticized, the movie is historically inaccurate, and the caricatures are insulting. Nevertheless, the movie is an awesome achievement, and here, viewing the definitive version of the film, restored to its full twelve-reel length at the visually correct speeds and with the original color tints and original musical score performed by a full orchestra, it is engrossing entertainment and it is easy to see why it was so influential both as a film achievement and as an opinion-molder. The Birth of a Nation is often criticized for its racism, but the film is eigthy-five years old this year (2000), and should be viewed with that in mind. As for Griffith, there is ample evidence that Griffith did not hate blacks, but he was a product of his time and the portrayal of the newly freed slaves in the picture reflects this. No, Griffith did not view blacks as equals, but in many ways he did admire them. Yes, his attitude was undoubtedly condescending, but as I said, he was a product of his time. I have read in many reviews of this film anger over the film's inclusion in the AFI 100 list. The film was enormously influential to the industry, and claims that someone else would have or could have achieved what Griffith achieved have no legitimate foundation. There is no way of knowing whether someone else would have achieved what Griffith achieved, and in any event, if someone would have, that does not change the fact that Griffith did it first. The film is in the interesting position of being supremely white-supremecist yet an undeniable landmark at the same time. It should be given a chance and viewed as superior picture making, and not simply as racist garbage. Such an attitude is as simple-minded as is much of the film's haracterizations and romanticizing of history and the silly wording of some of its intertitles. This, the restored and definitive edition (also available on DVD from Image Entertainment) is the ideal way to see this great cinematic masterpiece, and it is a masterpiece. Beware of inferior shortened versions at incorrect projection speeds! A definite silent film fan, I recommend this film to anyone else who can appreciate silent drama and who can keep an open mind. Enjoying this film does not make you a racist. (By the way, the review for this film that someone submitted on January 18, 2000 was copied word-for-word from the VideoHound Golden Movie Retriever review of this film!)
Rating: 
Summary: It's art, all right?
Review: I can imagine the many viewers who would find this film quite offensive, and I must say that from a casual perspective, I am as equally shocked as many African-Americans so rightfully are. If one looks as it, however, as art, then perhaps it can be slightly less shocking: that's how critics view it without vomiting. A landmark perhaps because of its racist opinions, this is not for the squeamish.
Rating:
Summary: Birth of a Nation
Review: A fine work of art,beautifully done and a good and accurate history lesson.
Rating:
Summary: Birth of a Nation is a great historical piece
Review: This movie does a wonderful job of exposing racism prevalent in the United States at the time of its release. While a hideously inaccurate portrayal of African-Americans and the Ku Klux Klan, the movie's best value comes when taken in the context of a racist propaganda film that was actually shown in the White House by President Woodrow Wilson. Through watching the picture, one can truly gain a better understanding of how pervasive racism was during the early part of 20th century America.
Rating: 
Summary: Historically Worthless
Review: Although it is true that Northern carpetbaggers exploited the Southern nations after the Civil War, and that Reconstruction was not the wonderful process that some people make it out to be, this movie is not the way to educate people about this. Even though it's vitally important to see things from all perspectives, this move is ludicrous white supremacist fantasy, based on shaky half-truths, and smoothed over with a great deal of prejudice. Some people writing reviews of this movie complain about "liberals" who are turning our society into a fascist regime. And you know what? They're right. The media, as well as politics, are full of manipulators who want to champion certain liberties, and then take them away from anybody who disagrees with their point of view. But this movie is EXACTLY THE SAME THING, except that it's coming from the Ku Klux Klan instead of a politician. This movie has no real educational value, unless you understand it in the proper context, and even then it's not something that a student of American history needs to see. And, just like political propaganda, it will give you entirely the wrong idea about the South after the Civil War. The best advice I can give you is not to be suckered into anyone's philosophy. Don't accept this movie as Bible truth, or anything else you see in the media or in politics. Think for yourself. Of course, I don't exclude this review from that line of thinking. Personally, I believe that rascism, against blacks or whites, was wrong. And it's still wrong. You don't have to agree.
Rating: 
Summary: Significant and Racist
Review: How can you describe this movie? While not for all tastes (some might find it rather slow), this movie did started the basics of modern filmaking. I thought the battle scenes and the Lincoln assassination were very well done. For historical significance I would give it 5 stars. See this movie if you are into the history of cinema or history in general to get an idea of society's view of blacks in the early 1900's. However, you cannot separate the message from the movie. The blatant racism is unbelievable. Most of the scenes involving the "Clan" were so blatant it was almost laughable. And lets not forget it wasn't the "War of Southern Independence" that my racist southern brethen like to name it; and the textbooks of today are not "revisionist." I took a class a couple of years ago about the South after the Civil War. This movie was part of the class. The one thing I took out of that class was the fact that the South became so illiterate and backwards because whites spent any extra time and money trying to keep blacks in a subservient position by any means legal or illegal. That includes promoting this movie as well as the sorry excuses for history books written before 1970 as KKK propaganda tools.
Rating:
Summary: Groudbreaking classic, coming of age for film, warts and all
Review: The movie that started it all. The closeups, the battle scences, the highly involved and intricate story, all tolled make this a truly groundbreaking and classic film. The direction of David Wark Griffith is superb, and no one in 100 years of movies has been able to top the grace, beauty, elegance and out and out talent of Lillian Gish. Henry Walthall also gave a performance which most assuredly would have won an Oscar had the award been around for 1915. The only drawback to the film is the totally ridiculous portrayal of African Americans in the film. Whatever Thomas Dixon and D W Griffith were drinking to buy into such fantasy and discriminatory drivel is hard to comprehend. However, this film, like many other things, should not be banned. Yes it is disgusting and insulting, but it is a window to our not so distant past, where many Americans, including President Wilson, believed that what was in this film was fact. It was partial fact poured over with personal opinion and prejudices. This does not take away from the film. Considering the revival of the klan in the 1910s and 1920s, one can see how much impact a film like this contributed to everyday American life. We must treasure it for what it is, a groundbreaking film which redifened films for all time, and caused films to come of age. Only one other film before 1940 (Gone With The Wind) made over $10 million at the box office - see why, for this is a must see classic.
Rating:
Summary: The movie that changed it all !!!
Review: This is an absoulte must see!! The historical signifigance alone is worth the price of admission. A true movie lover should see how this one movie alone changed movie production. As well as the brilliance of D.W. Griffith. Fact is embellished in modern filmmaking so what is the problem with doing the same earlier. Too many people complain about the racial overtones....... don't be so thin skinned. Look at it today, Political Correctness abounds. Check out this movie to see what real acting was all about.
|
