I find it interesting that this thread has changed from whether Griffith himself was racist to whether
The Birth of a Nation is a racist film.
It seems there’s an issue with semantics going on here. Looking up racism/racist in the Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the definition reads:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
:
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\?r?-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective
Applying this definition to
Birth, does the film try to make the case that one race is superior to the others? I think that there have been ample examples, cited in previous posts, that the film promotes the superiority of whites over everyone else, particularly blacks.
Is Griffith racist? It seems that it is agreed that Griffith didn’t intend to make a racist film. I think, that had he
intended to make a racist film, and was trying to exploit the mentality of the times to make a hit movie, it could be argued that Griffith wasn’t a racist, and was merely an opportunist, creating one of the first exploitation films.
But since he didn’t intend to create a racist film, but did, we should see if the definition applies: Did Griffith feel superior to a particular race? The fact that many (most?) people also felt superior merely means that racism was prevalent, right? By simply applying the definition, it seems to me, the film, Griffith, and many (most) of the people of the day were racist. Is this news? Certainly not to African Americans.
I don’t see the difference between “racism and racial attitudes”. If an individual sees himself “superior to a particular race”, he’s a racist, and if a society has an attitude that the majority of its members are “superior to a particular race”, that’s racist, too, just on a mass scale. Again, is this news?
In an earlier post, Mr. Arkadin made some interesting points and comments, citing Roger Ebert on Griffith’s re-editing his film. In my earlier posts I may not have been as clear as I intended. I merely was stating that since Griffith continued to re-edit his film, and never removed any of the overt racial elements, he either disagreed that they were racist (check the definition), or felt compelled to protect his art. I am not suggesting that edited versions of
Birth (either by Griffith or anybody else for that matter) would be better in any way; in fact quite the opposite. I, too, want to see the film as it was presented in 1915. (If, by the way, that’s even possible. I have many DVD’s, laserdiscs and videos of
Birth, all slightly different.) The fact remains, however, that film-makers continue to re-edit their movies. Spielberg, Lukas, etc. Chaplin re-edited many of his films in the early 70’s, and unfortunately these are the versions currently available on the Warner/MK2 releases. (Hope everyone got their hands on the CBS/Fox editions, if you want Chaplin’s original versions!
The Gold Rush a notable exception...) In the case of Spielberg, where he CG’d cell phones over the guns in
ET, he was making a comment on the current times, trying to dissuade, somewhat, from the gun culture. While, I disagree with Spielberg, and think that film-makers should leave their art alone (but it is there art, so who am I to say?), Spielberg addressed what he considered a “mistake”, something which Griffith never did.
Unfortunately there are plenty of, at best uncomfortable, scenes in Hollywood (and not just Hollywood) films depicting various forms of racism;
The Bank Dick and
High Sierra included. Nobody is saying that we should “consider these people racist Klan members”, but I think it’s fair to ask, do these scenes represent a feeling of “inherent superiority of a partucular race”, and if the answer is yes (which it is for me), then they are racist by definition. The excuse that the feelings represented on screen were felt by the majority of people (but unlikely by those being negatively stereotyped) doesn’t alter the definition one bit.
The fact that I think Griffith, and certainly
Birth were (and are) racist, doesn’t mean I don’t continue to admire Griffith, his films, and his legacy. He was, and remains, one of the most important people in the history of cinema, and
Birth, by virtue of being not only his first masterpiece, but the film that defined cinema, is a milestone and should continue to be seen (unedited!). I also believe, despite it being 93-years old, the film maintains all its power, and can still cause “an uproar” (and still be used to recruit). In my eyes, age hasn’t lessened the film’s impact at all. That’s one of the reasons the film remains so controversial; Griffith made it that good.