Birth Of A Nation
Forum
Hi im taking a Film class at the University for my Ethnic Studies req. and we watched Birth of a Nation yesterday and now i have to type and essay about the movie..does any1 have any suggestions?
>>By Peaches (Friday, 10 Jan 2003 08:30)
hi i'm wondering what the movie Birth of the nations is about. Is it about the K.K.K.?
>>By noodle (Tuesday, 14 Jan 2003 01:31)
It seemed to me that the movie was a propaganda piece for the southern lifestyle but I am wondering if I understood it or not
>>By junior (Monday, 20 Jan 2003 19:48)
Was made by racist fucks and to tell you just how racist America is, it was the most successful movie of its time and was accepted as historically accurate.
>>By The Negro (Tuesday, 28 Jan 2003 03:16)
Birth of a Nation was not intended to be a racist movie. The director, DW Griffith in fact was shocked by the notion that he had mad a racist movie. You have to understand the culture of tha time. There had to be a villain in the movie, and his choice was one he would come to reret for years to come. Infact, he made another movie soon after, called Intolerance, in whch he tried to right the wrong he had done. It failed miserably at the box office. Its true that his movie did give rise to the KKK, but to his credit, Griffith later released a shortened version of the film without references to the KKK.
>>By Impartial (read, not white or black) (Sunday, 23 Mar 2003 22:03)
I am doing an 8-10 page paper on "Birth of a Nation". I have never heard of this movie until i told my
father that i was going to do my paper on it and he told me"good luck." Everything i read about
this movie basically is told in a dim as well as a bright light. Movie critics feel that the movie
was actually racist, and that the film justified it's revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which they deemed
themselves as necessary to protect the Southern States of vile, and corrupt blacks who
were tryin g to take over. I laugh at that justification that DW Griffith does convey in this movie.
But everyone is upset at DW Griffith, and the original piece came from The Clansmen, orginally
written by Thomas Dixon. Yet, ironically, Thomas Dixon was also upset at the explicitly racist
job that DW Griffith did on that screen. For anyone to insinuate that DW Griffith's intention was
not to be racist is true, but not true. It is true in the aspect that like great film critic Andrew Sarris
said that it is very possible that DW Griffith did not know that he was being racist since this
was a widely accepted depiction of blacks as mongrels and animals, and whites as heroic,
civil, and intelligent. But it is also ludicrous to insinuate that he isn't being racist. If in any
era where racism is a way of life and racism is disregarded and a racist society categorizes
a movie as " racist" when racism wasn't a household word, something is odd about that
don't you think. To Impartial, not white nor black, i am assuming you may be mixed or
indian, i don't think if someone made a movie about a white person with red shoe paint on
his face, or a white person with tan shoe polish on their faces to depict you, you would
passively say that they aren't being racist.
Did you know that when asked why he didn't just choose blacks to play the role. DW Griffith said
that it was a low-budget cost and that he only worked with people he trained. Being the
fact that blacks never were allowed to be actors, that explains that he's never trained them
since it was by law that no blacks could be motion picture entertainers. they used what
they call "blackface" white men and women, dressed up in black shoe polish on their
face, now how many people will still passively say, that this movie doesn't depict racism. To
the Negro, it is a shame that i was accepted as the most brilliant film of it's time. But not be-
cause of the disgusting and grossly false depiction of blacks, but people focused on the
fact of the quality of the film and how the equipment was used to make such a good
quality film in such an old time era. what made it famous was the societal upheavel, and
disapproval of the African-American race. But, being a Negro as no one will understand
but a Negro, we as Negroes are living and cursed by ignorant ass film producers like
DW Griffith, who is the forefather for other producers and directors who have followed his
pattern of the misrepresentation of blacks, and we live by those stereotypes because
we give them a pat on the back by paying for these movies that cleary and disrespectfully
defame ou culture, and we live that day by day and have arise above media, which influences
us the most, and other past histories we can't help to remember if we choose to move on.
>>By BY the Black Student (Tuesday, 15 Apr 2003 21:51)
I am doing an 8-10 page paper on "Birth of a Nation". I have never heard of this movie until i told my father that i was going to do my paper on it and he told me"good luck." Everything i read about
this movie basically is told in a dim as well as a bright light. Movie critics feel that the movie
was actually racist, and that the film justified it's revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which they deemed
themselves as necessary to protect the Southern States of vile, and corrupt blacks who
were tryin g to take over. I laugh at that justification that DW Griffith does convey in this movie.
But everyone is upset at DW Griffith, and the original piece came from The Clansmen, orginally
written by Thomas Dixon. Yet, ironically, Thomas Dixon was also upset at the explicitly racist
job that DW Griffith did on that screen. For anyone to insinuate that DW Griffith's intention was
not to be racist is true, but not true. It is true in the aspect that like great film critic Andrew Sarris
said that it is very possible that DW Griffith did not know that he was being racist since this
was a widely accepted depiction of blacks as mongrels and animals, and whites as heroic,
civil, and intelligent. But it is also ludicrous to insinuate that he isn't being racist. If in any
era where racism is a way of life and racism is disregarded and a racist society categorizes
a movie as " racist" when racism wasn't a household word, something is odd about that
don't you think. To Impartial, not white nor black, i am assuming you may be mixed or
indian, i don't think if someone made a movie about a white person with red shoe paint on
his face, or a white person with tan shoe polish on their faces to depict you, you would
passively say that they aren't being racist.
Did you know that when asked why he didn't just choose blacks to play the role. DW Griffith said
that it was a low-budget cost and that he only worked with people he trained. Being the
fact that blacks never were allowed to be actors, that explains that he's never trained them
since it was by law that no blacks could be motion picture entertainers. they used what
they call "blackface" white men and women, dressed up in black shoe polish on their
face, now how many people will still passively say, that this movie doesn't depict racism. To
the Negro, it is a shame that i was accepted as the most brilliant film of it's time. But not be-
cause of the disgusting and grossly false depiction of blacks, but people focused on the
fact of the quality of the film and how the equipment was used to make such a good
quality film in such an old time era. what made it famous was the societal upheavel, and
disapproval of the African-American race. But, being a Negro as no one will understand
but a Negro, we as Negroes are living and cursed by ignorant ass film producers like
DW Griffith, who is the forefather for other producers and directors who have followed his
pattern of the misrepresentation of blacks, and we live by those stereotypes because
we give them a pat on the back by paying for these movies that cleary and disrespectfully
defame ou culture, and we live that day by day and have arise above media, which influences
us the most, and other past histories we can't help to remember if we choose to move on.
>>By BY the Black Student (Tuesday, 15 Apr 2003 21:52)
I am doing an 8-10 page paper on "Birth of a Nation". I have never heard of this movie until i told my father that i was going to do my paper on it and he told me"good luck." Everything i read about
this movie basically is told in a dim as well as a bright light. Movie critics feel that the movie
was actually racist, and that the film justified it's revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which they deemed
themselves as necessary to protect the Southern States of vile, and corrupt blacks who
were tryin g to take over. I laugh at that justification that DW Griffith does convey in this movie.
But everyone is upset at DW Griffith, and the original piece came from The Clansmen, orginally
written by Thomas Dixon. Yet, ironically, Thomas Dixon was also upset at the explicitly racist
job that DW Griffith did on that screen. For anyone to insinuate that DW Griffith's intention was
not to be racist is true, but not true. It is true in the aspect that like great film critic Andrew Sarris
said that it is very possible that DW Griffith did not know that he was being racist since this
was a widely accepted depiction of blacks as mongrels and animals, and whites as heroic,
civil, and intelligent. But it is also ludicrous to insinuate that he isn't being racist. If in any
era where racism is a way of life and racism is disregarded and a racist society categorizes
a movie as " racist" when racism wasn't a household word, something is odd about that
don't you think. To Impartial, not white nor black, i am assuming you may be mixed or
indian, i don't think if someone made a movie about a white person with red shoe paint on
his face, or a white person with tan shoe polish on their faces to depict you, you would
passively say that they aren't being racist.
Did you know that when asked why he didn't just choose blacks to play the role. DW Griffith said
that it was a low-budget cost and that he only worked with people he trained. Being the
fact that blacks never were allowed to be actors, that explains that he's never trained them
since it was by law that no blacks could be motion picture entertainers. they used what
they call "blackface" white men and women, dressed up in black shoe polish on their
face, now how many people will still passively say, that this movie doesn't depict racism. To
the Negro, it is a shame that i was accepted as the most brilliant film of it's time. But not be-
cause of the disgusting and grossly false depiction of blacks, but people focused on the
fact of the quality of the film and how the equipment was used to make such a good
quality film in such an old time era. what made it famous was the societal upheavel, and
disapproval of the African-American race. But, being a Negro as no one will understand
but a Negro, we as Negroes are living and cursed by ignorant ass film producers like
DW Griffith, who is the forefather for other producers and directors who have followed his
pattern of the misrepresentation of blacks, and we live by those stereotypes because
we give them a pat on the back by paying for these movies that cleary and disrespectfully
defame our culture, and we live that day by day and have arise above media, which influences
us the most, and other past histories we can't help to remember if we choose to move on.
>>By BY the Black Student (Tuesday, 15 Apr 2003 21:55)
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW MOVIES