Rating: 
Summary: Historically important, but . . .
Review: I am always amused whenever critics attempt to praise this film. They have to add a proviso that they cannot approve of Griffith's disgusting attitude toward blacks (whom he would have called "negroes" or worse), and his outrageous portrayal of the KKK as the saviors and preservers of the good and the pure. The film was supposed to have been titled "The Clansman," after the ludicrous book that inspired Griffith to make The Birth of a Nation. I wonder how many of this film's praises have been sung by African-Americans? I happen to be one of the whitest men in America, and yet I believe this film should be universally reviled - not banned but despised.
Rating: 
Summary: Teaches important film lessions in more ways than one
Review: If you watch only the first 90 minutes of this 3-hour epic film you would believe this is flatly one of the best movies ever made. D.W. Griffiths is not only able to create thrilling spectacles such as those depicting the Sherman March and the siege of Atlanta. But he is also a master of intimate and poignant moments, as in the scene where a Confederate solder reunites with his family in their ruined home after the Civil War, a scene that never fails to bring tears to my eyes.It is the latter 90 minutes of the film that incenses viewers to this day. It is not only a wholesale endorsement of white supremacy, but also an utter trashing of the black race so much so that many film stereotypes of blacks persisted for decades after this film. Blacks are portrayed as vindictive, greedy, lustful, and yet ineffectual and lazy ex-slaves bent on defeating the whites of the South. In one grotesque moment, a white woman kills herself because she arouses a black man's attention. Blacks vow to build a "Black Empire" to rule over whites, while the Ku Klux Klan serves as the "rescuer" of the South at the end. The historical truths about the post-Civil War Restoration period is of course distorted beyond recognition by the film. Griffith made anti-racist films like "Broken Blossom" and films where the KKK is the villain. But in "Birth of a Nation", he made a grostesque travesty out of historical truths, and showed that he did not fully comprehend the power of the film medium as a manipulator of opinions, and wasn't ready to deal with the repercussions the film created. Racialism was a serious issue then; unfortunately, it still is today. Hence the controversy of "Birth of a Nation" lingers. Griffith did a lot of things right and a lot wrong in "Birth of a Nation", and they should be lessons to future generations of filmmakers. As vicious as the film's viewpoint is, the film should be seen and not be forgotten. If we don't learn from Griffith's mistakes we may be bound to repeat them.
Rating:
Summary: A Cinematic Landmark, The First Great American Epic!
Review: It is a sad cinematic truth that Griffith's obvious racism has always crippled 'Birth', but that doesn't diminish it's value and it's reputation for being the first truly great American epic. 'Birth' is most admirable for it's scope, a melodrama of operatic grandeur set to the turmoil of the Civil War and the ensuing problems in the Reconstructed South. In it's day, it presented groundbreaking technical advances, and the epic battle scenes are still remarkable. 'Birth' would become the highest grossing film of it's time and the film by which all other films would be measured by for decades to come. Griffith's racism and glorification of the KKK, he portrayed them as the 'saviors of the Reconstructed South', may repel some and offend many. It's messed-up historical accuracy still stirs up some controversy and remains a matter of discussion to this day. But, shortcomings aside, 'Birth' remains a cinematic classic that changed the medium and the business and directed it to a more ambitious level. Also Mae Marsh and a very young but ravishing Lillian Gish stand out in the cast. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 9!
Rating: 
Summary: not for the politically correct
Review: I bought this movie about ten years ago and found it to be entertaining for a silent movie.It's the story of two families(one Southern and the other Northern)and how the War Between The States affected them. Althought melodramatic and sappy in some spots,I think the over all gest of the movie was pretty accurate. That being that the yankees came,they saw,they conquered.And not being satistfied they sought revenge,using the newly freed slaves to do it. (To the reviewers that denounce this film for it's glorification of the Ku Klux Klan,remember this was not the klan of today.It was about the only vehicle Southern Whites had at the time to end the terroristic activities of the predominantly Negro "Union Leagues" and their Carpetbagger leaders.) If you want to see the closest thing to historical accuracy in a fictional story about the War and Reconstruction,watch this movie.If you feel more comfortable with politically correct fantasies I suggest you go watch "Roots".
Rating:
Summary: The Birth of a New Kind of Filmmaking
Review: Let me say that am not racist. Let me also say that anyone who thinks that this a bad movie does not understand movies. This was a monumental film in it's day and continues to be one. Movies have never been the same since The Birth of a Nation primiered in 1915.
Rating:
Summary: An excellant documentary film!
Review: An excellant Documentary/Acting silent film. Great for knowing the history of the Civil War. May not be in todays words: 'political Correct', but an interesting film with great acting. I recommend this to any film history buffs!
Rating:
Summary: Not Politically correct-but still a great movie
Review: The drama of this movie is spellbinding. In its day racism was not politically incorrect-but it must also be recognized that D.W. Griffith had artistic integrity. Most American do not learn about the intollerance of the white carpet-baggers from the North who callously used the freed slaves for their own profit and power (many are still doing it today).Griffith was really telling that story as it really happend. Selznick did the same thing in 1939 with "Gone With The Wind"-but his message centered around Scarlett O'Hara and her romantic interest.Griffith attempted to give drama to historical happenings which still lived in the many stories he heard as he grew up in the south. Gish's heart rending performance in this movie has never been duplicated even in todays super technical techniques of Hollywood. This was the first of movie artistic masterpieces which tied together the facts of history to human emotion. What Griffith did in "Birth" is the father of the storyline done in "Saving Private Ryan".How can we label the artistic genius of that movie? To question Griffith's intention or his integrity over "Birth" reminds me of the defamation Michelangelo" received from the Holy Cardinals when he refused to put clothes on the figures he painted on his "Last Judgement" fresco.Buonarati just did not know how to be politically corect in the 16th century.
Rating:
Summary: The first Masterpiece.
Review: This film is racist, yes, but also important. Italy's Cabiria was the only other full length film before this one, so it broke new ground for cinema in the states. It's storytelling is perfection and along with Fritz Lang's Metropolis the best silent film of all-time. NOTE: I in no way condone racism.
Rating:
Summary: Content and Form Inseparable
Review: This DVD is a fabulous teaching tool. The old 16mm image and sound are rendered as clear as possible through this format. As a scholar of history and film, I always find it amusing to remind my students that film is a vehicle, that it is not historical fact, and that it was made for entertainment. This movie was popular BECAUSE of its form AND content. This visually overwhelming film spit audiences' racist sensibilities right back at them, pleasing a population living a full 70 years after Reconstruction failed. (the klan and northern political reconciliation assured this failure as well as the possibility of a film like "Birth") The interesting (sad?/hilarious?) thing is that people still respond to this film like it's a history book--which indicates the levels of racial and sectional venom that continue to poison our society 85 years after the film's release and 135 years after the end of the Civil War. For incisive criticism of this provacative movie as a cultural text, type it's title or Griffith, along with your subject heading of interest, like "race," "reconstruction," or "civil war," into an article database at your local library. There are hundreds of reviews and critical analyses by folks who actually know something about film, theater, mass culture, the book the movie was based on, Gish, Griffith, black-face performance, white womanhood, the klan, broad-based protest against the film, American social history, etc. Happy reading.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful use of film as propaganda
Review: I saw this film as a little boy and still have nightmares! Any one who majors in rhetoric should see this film because in that sense it is powerful. However, I don't think children should watch it for the exact same reason. If you appreciate the film for its storytellig merits, the scene of the Ku Klux Klan coming in to save the day is both breathtaking and enough to scare the living daylights out of you. See also "Triumph of the Will."
|
