The Green Bag

THE BIRTH OF A NATION
My comments and thoughts

There’s so much to say about this film, I hardly know where to start. While watching it, I experienced:

Surprise at some of the technical aspects in the making of the film.
Being impressed by the acting.
Embarrassment, evoked by the portrayal of African-American behavior.
Puzzlement, created by a statement regarding Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation – this sent me to my Encarta encyclopedia CD.
Understanding of the possibility that some portions of the population actually might believe this version of the Reformation of the South.
Curiosity regarding the reaction of those who viewed this in theaters when it was originally released.
Wonderment at the undertaking of the film.
Agreement with the 5-star rating of the movie.
Respect for the Turner Classic Movies cable channel for showing the film.
Thankfulness that I have had the opportunity to see the film.

The film, created by D. W. Griffith and dated 1915, is a silent film, of course. I had anticipated this. I discovered that, with having viewed any number of foreign language films over the years, having to read the “script” was no problem at all. I’ve not watched many silent films in my lifetime, and most of those were not full length features. Perhaps I wasn’t as interested in those movies, because I found most of them silly or boring. There were silly portrayals of African-Americans (referenced as “Negros” or “Niggers”). A few scenes seemed a little goofy, but those mostly concerned a young girl who was portrayed, I assume, by a starlet who was being promoted by Griffith at the time. As a whole, this film is neither silly nor goofy.

The presentation by TCM is hosted, before the film started and then at the end, by two men who explain some of the aspects of the movie. These two conversations are worth watching. They prepare the viewer for some of the things I’ve mentioned, and offer comments regarding the controversial nature of the film.

The only name I recognize from the cast of characters is Lillian Gish. She was lovely, and the director created any number of shots of her that showed off her beauty and delicacy. That’s part of the technical aspect that surprised me. The use of shadows and lighting is sometimes truly amazing. The battle scenes and Sherman’s march through the South are awesome. I had to remind myself that these were done on site in some really rugged country. There is no computer imagery here! The filming done at sunrise or sunset, whichever the case, is downright artistic. The logistics of getting so many participants to create these scenes is mind boggling. I found myself wondering if any of the scenes had multiple takes. Now THAT would have been some project.

I assumed, as I watched battle scenes and field hospital scenes, that actual amputees were amongst the extras. If they were not, the expertise in creating the illusion of lost arms and legs should be envied by today’s film makers, who have all sorts of plastics, computers and special effects materials at hand.

Part of the ease of following the story line was created by the acting of the major characters. The method of filming seems to make some of the actions “jerky” – but facial expressions and gestures fill in everything needed to flesh out the nuances of the scene that aren’t described specifically in the posted “script.” (As I write this, I wonder if viewers who regularly went to silent films had a name for the inserted reading panels. I guess that if I really wanted to know, I’d do some research on that!) All things considered, the acting was quite good. It was somewhat shocking to actually see some of the major African-American roles being played by Caucasians in black-face. I found myself embarrassed about that; I think it must have been insulting to the African-American extras on the set.

My opinion is that the first part of the film, which covers the relationships between the major characters, the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination, is that it does a better, more realistic job of portraying that part of history than does “Gone With the Wind.” There was one part of the script in this first section that puzzled me somewhat. My research has answered a question that I didn’t know I even had!

My sisters and I – and some of our offspring, I think – have discussed from time to time that, while U. S. and world history are taught in elementary, middle-, and high school and institutes of higher learning, most of us have to live longer than those years to really “learn” history, because we thought that so little of what we were taught was relevant to our lives while we were in school.

A statement in the “script” of The Birth of a Nation refers to the consternation of the citizens of the southern states created by the Emancipation Proclamation, not so much that it banned slavery, but that the federal government was exercising power over individual states. I certainly didn’t remember learning THAT in any history class. I have heard what I grew up calling the “Civil War” being referenced as the “War Between the States” and a “states’ rights war” (especially while living in a southern state for the last thirty years). But I have read many times recently that the Constitution of the United States of America originally provided power to the federal government only to protect and defend the states, to mint money, and to build and run post offices.

A digression, if I may. As informed as I believe myself to be, I was surprised to realize, while reading over the Constitution, that so many of the Amendments were passed in the 20th century – some in the life span of my sisters and me, and even some during lifetimes of our older offspring. That set me back a step or two!

My research of the Constitution and Emancipation Proclamation confirmed, for the most part, that the Emancipation was, at the time, one of very few laws passed by congress that exerted power of the federal government over all of the states. It was this issue that was the basis of the book from which the movie was adapted, i.e., “The Clansmen”. This is an area in which much more reading would be necessary to determine why the northern states were willing to accept federal “rule;” at this point I assume it was because slavery, as a practice, was a “hot” political issue, as are so many, in my view, for which members of the federal government wish to have control for political reasons. But, what do I know?

The issue of federal control over individual states is the major subject of the second part of The Birth of a Nation, which is about the Reconstruction of the South, particularly in South Carolina, the state in which one of the two families of major characters resides.

This second part of the movie is where the story deviates drastically from any U. S. history I’ve ever heard before.

After Lincoln’s assassination, a friend and confidant of his hires a respected Mulatto who, along with what became known as “carpetbaggers” (which I had believed were land investors and salesmen) to organize and move into the South – again, specifically to South Carolina. The carpetbaggers “unionize” many members of the African-American population under the Freedman organization, to the extent that a militia is formed and Caucasian voters are denied entry to the polls, creating a huge majority of African-Americans in the state legislature. The African-American population ends up ruling South Carolina. The Caucasian population resists, of course. Two of the “resisters” happen to see a couple of Caucasian children playing under an old bed sheet one day. Along the trail comes a group of pick-a-ninnies (apologies for the word, but that’s what is portrayed in the movie). When the bed sheet moves, the African-American children scream and run in fright. The two resisters look at each other, and you can almost see the lights bulbs brightening above their heads.

Voila! The Ku Klux Klan is born. And the new organization becomes the saviors of the South, the true heroes of the Reconstruction.

Without going into details of the rest of the story, I do need to mention that throughout the movie, romantic relationships develop. At one point, I realized that the movie was built to “formula” – and that was immediately followed by the further realization that, perhaps, Griffith, himself DEVELOPED the formula! Who knows?

I do really wonder what those who viewed this in theaters in the early days thought of the movie. One of the hosts in the pre- and post-segments of the film commented that, reportedly, Griffith was genuinely surprised at the resulting controversy. This was history as he had learned it. He was merely trying to honor and glorify the Klan, and to illustrate the necessity of its establishment.

That’s when I decided that if there really are people who believe that, for instance, the Holocaust was a propaganda scam developed to discredit Nazi Germany, then there probably are uneducated soles (but whose educational perspective are we referencing here?) who believe that the story in The Birth of a Nation is the “true” one.

I never have decided if, upon finding one answer about life and discovering a loose thread that leads to other questions, is good or bad for me. I get scared sometimes, finding myself “way out there” pondering some subjects. It’s comforting to me to recognize that there are some really unimportant questions that can be discarded; I can die without ever knowing the answers to those questions, and it won’t matter at all. And THAT fact, as far as I’m concerned, is part of growing up! (I’ll think about the other questions later. )

I have to believe that The Birth of a Nation has affected a certain number of people in a good many ways. I find myself wondering if Griffith was really so naïve that he truly believed he was simply recording history (in a masterful way)? Or did he know, deep down inside, that he was offering a film that would arouse in many viewers feelings and thoughts that would raise questions and evoke reverence and hatred, both? Was he more than a genius at film making? I’m sure there are books I could read that would express both views – and most likely raise even more questions in my mind.

So, I consider the movie a really great accomplishment, and well deserving of its 5-star rating. There are many, many movies that have been made just for entertainment. A number of them are really very good.

This movie gave me a whole lot more than that. After years of being teased by references to the film, I am very grateful that I’ve had an opportunity to see it. For that, I thank Turner Movie Classics. (And I do wonder if the channel has had any response – pro or con – to the airing.)

I’ve got the movie on video tape. I’ve covered the slot on the bottom with tape so that I can’t record over it. I plan to take it with me to Ohio when I visit for the big wedding. Sheri has said she’d like to view it. Anyone else who wants to see it is welcome to the video, too.