Home :: DVD :: Documentary :: Military & War  

African American Heritage
Art & Artists
Biography
Comedy
Crime & Conspiracy
Gay & Lesbian
General
History
IMAX
International
Jewish Heritage
Military & War

Music & Performing Arts
Nature & Wildlife
Politics
Religion
Science & Technology
Series
Space Exploration
Sports
The Birth of a Nation & The Civil War Films of D.W. Griffith

The Birth of a Nation & The Civil War Films of D.W. Griffith

List Price: $29.95
Your Price: $26.96
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .. 11 >>

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: 1915 - 3hrs long, up to $2 a ticket, top movie for 2 yrs !!!
Review: DW Griffth created the first epic movie in the world in 1915. He chose a topic and subject he and the world was obsessed with, the Civil War. Many Hollywood films of the day were about the Civil War and the human stories of that war. Griffth was a son of a Confederate Colonel from that war. He had deep feelings and beliefs from his family hertiage. 1915 was the 50th Annivserary of the ending of the Civil War. Many Civil War veterans were still alive and like Spielbergs "Saving Private Ryan" the veterans were dying at a very high rate so this was a vehicle to launch a Classic Epic movie of rememberence. The first of such a film that changed the world, film making and censorship forever.

DW Griffith chose the 1906 book "The Clansman" by Rev. Thomas Dixon Jr. Actually up to the final premier date Griffith was using the book title finally and wisely chose a new title "Birth of a Nation".

Summary: Story is about the abolishment of slavery in America. The southern sanction refused to follow suit so state cessation occurs. "Birth of a Nation" takes us through the Civil War, President Lincolns assaination, to the Reconstruction, Carpetbaggers and the conception of the Klu Klux Klan. This is brillantly done by Griffiths vision of the viewer observing through the eyes of the northern family the "Stonemans" and the southern family the "Camerons". We follow there lives through this complex web of controversy.

To understand the scope of this epic you must understand the world of 1915 and the people who lived then. That this movie toured the world for 2 years in all the top theatres getting up to $2.00 a ticket. Can you imagine that??? People were only making as little as 5 cents an hour wages. A 24 minute "Making of Birth of a Nation" is quite helpful in understanding this time and its people. I recommend you watch this 24 minute clip first. This movie was voted into the TOP 100 films of the last 100 years by the American Film Institute (AFI) in 1998.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Once Innovative; Now Dated
Review: Few will dispute that "Birth of a Nation" is a historically important film. But in order to remain relevant and enjoyable to new generations of viewers, a film must be able to transcend the limitations of its own era, and "Birth of Nation" simply does not do this. For all its historical importance, from a modern standpoint it is a rather weak and embarassingly racist film that pales in comparison to director Griffith's later "Intolerance."

Any one seriously interested in silent film, film history, and the evolution of film into a legitimate art form must see "Birth of Nation." But I do not recommend the film to the casual viewer.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Just a quick note
Review: I do not need to write about Griffith's accomplishments, everyone else here has written nicely to that account. The only thing I disagree with is that Griffith was in fact a racist. His father was a man deeply affected by reconstruction and his portrayal of slaves as happy campers is no less than sickening. However, I do agree that "Birth of a Nation" deserves a high place in the AFI list for it created a cohesive narrative story. Yes, it was lengthy and at times, very slow paced but Griffith changed the way films are created; something, albeit his racism, cannot be denied.

On a final note, Thomas E. Dixon's "The Clansmen," which was the source for "Birth of a Nation" is in fact, even more racist.

AT
...

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Interesting
Review: I just saw this last night for research. I am trying to write a book about the KKK and I need everything to be accurate and perfect. So I rented this. It was very good, except that it was pretty inane. It was very, very, very racist. I don't suggest an African-American see this - they'll be very offended. But the actors did a good job. But this leaves me wondering something. How can a black person act in this? I know that some wore make-up, but there were real ones and I just wonder how could they? Silas Lynch was creepy and I didn't like him. But this was a pretty funny movie where it wasn't racist.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: A brave and prophetic work
Review: The film is a brilliant masterpiece. While most silent films that we see on TV are of the silly comedic type, this is probably the only silent film that I can watch and enjoy. I am moved by the battle scenes and the love stories--the music can move you to tears. This is probably my favorite war movie of all time, it is even better than "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Das Boot".

As for the pablum-eating meally-mouthed PC types who criticize the second act for its virulent "racism"; I don't know how accurate is this film's portrayal of the post-war South. But it is quite possible that the radical Republicans of the North could have imposed stringent voting laws in South Carolina (which had a 45% black population at the time) that favored Blacks thus electing a Black majority in their legislature at the time. If you look at this film's portrayal of majority Black rule, it is not that far removed from today's Zimbabwe or post-apartheid South Africa. The only thing different today from back then is that Whites then were not continually brainwashed with self-hatred as they are by today's "media".

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: An outdated film - that¿s why it's good
Review: This movie is good for two reasons: 1) it provides a history lesson on the civil war and the reconstruction period from a point of view that probably is not shown in any other film, and 2) it shows that Hollywood directors used to make films from the heart instead of worrying about "political correctness".

I personally found this movie more enjoyable and more informative than any of the films I was shown in high school history classes. It portrays the confederates as American heroes, rather than traitors. And more notably, it shows the Ku Klux Klan to be a group of noble American patriots fighting against the tyranny of the carpetbaggers, instead of being a bunch of ignorant, reprehensible criminals. Unfortunately, because of the people who run Hollywood nowadays, no one is allowed to make a movie like this anymore.

True, many people would see this film as racist propaganda. But I think this is an important piece of history, especially in today's politically correct society in which people speak of banning the confederate flag.

The soundtrack is beautiful as well. I think the only reasons I give the film four stars instead of five is because I don't like the character of Silas Lynch (he looks too much like a white man; it's confusing) and the "pet sister" Flora Cameron seems to fit the modern stereotype of a ditzy blonde. :)

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: A silent film with a loud message
Review: It's been said before and it needs to be said again: this is the film that turned movies from cheap thrill into art. Although the film displays admirable anti-war sentiments, the violence utilized by the Klan in the second half of the picture is what gets under the skin of the politically corrected. It seems that by showing the grievous results of war, Griffith is not so much mourning the losses of a regrettable and avoidable conflict as he is indicting the Northern war of aggression against Southern Independence. However, the obvious technical achievements in The Birth of a Nation transcend ideology. Its pioneering technical work, often the work of Griffith's under-rated cameraman Billy Bitzer, includes the special use of subtitles graphically verbalizing imagery, the introduction of night photography (using magnesium flares), the use of outdoor natural landscapes as backgrounds, the definitive usage of the still-shot, the technique of the camera "iris" effect (expanding or contracting circular masks to either reveal and open up a scene, or close down and conceal a part of an image), as well as many other techinques that are now standards in filmmaking. The fact that the film most likely increased enrollment in the Ku Klux Klan reveals the power that effective filmmaking can wield over a wide audience. This fact was not only picked up on by Lenin and other Communist swine, but has endured to this by those in the media and those in Hollywood. Either way, The Birth of a Nation is not only a part of film history, but it's the most important film in American screen evolution, possibly the world.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Wonderful Epic
Review: This film is NOT racist. It is simply a statement of this times. DW Griffith specialized in showing mans inhumanity to man. Just do a search on DW Griffith ..., and you will see his movies often dealt with dark subjects. In Broken Blossoms, he takes existing prose and converts it into a movie. The prose refers to the hero of the story as a "chink" because he is Chinese. Yet, "Chinky", as he is referred to, is the hero. Be careful about repeating what people have told you about this movie. Watch this one, and then a few more of Griffith's movies to get the full picture. Broken Blossoms is a good "next see" in your discovery of DW Griffith.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Film Mking History
Review: D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation is an epic telling of the Civil War. In terms of a vision of the scope that film could take Griffith was a notable master. On the other hand he was a racist who protrays his views throughout this movie. As a historical piece this movie is great but extremely dated.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: DISGUSTING
Review: I don't care how many film critics declare this movie as a masterpiece, it simply is NOT. You know this is the same world where people consider human excrement to be art so I am cautious in actually taking their opinions. I sincerely believe that these people are in fact trying to sugarcoat the fact that they feel that the film was accurate, especially in its portrayal of blacks. Its also sad that the beginning of cinema in this country is marked by something so negative. Yet that is the USA in a nuthsell. The film was boring for the most part, but the second half raised my blood to the boiling point. It is highly incendiary and I warn anyone that watches it that your hackles will be raised (if not then perhaps you should take a good long look at yourself).


<< 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .. 11 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates