# Can a blatantly racist film be considered "Great"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 1, 2024, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-blatantly-racist-film-be-considered-great/1001034 "2024-05-01T22:32:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2024, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-blatantly-racist-film-be-considered-great/1001034/81 "2024-05-06T11:58:14Z")
All of that is generally true, with several caveats: - As I argued above, I do not agree with the use of the term “great” here, because of its semantic blurriness. There is a definition of “great” that is defensible, but several others that are not. Better to forestall the debate about intent by avoiding the word entirely. - _Birth of a Nation_ did not, all by itself, revolutionize film grammar. It incorporates many techniques of editing and camera movement that had been experimented with previously (e.g. the earliest “thematic closeup” I’m aware of was _fifteen years_ before BoaN; also, Griffith himself was tinkering with cross-cutting in a Dickens adaptation five or six years beforehand), but it was the first movie to put them all together _and then become a blockbuster box-office triumph._ These techniques were previously uncommon because conventional wisdom said viewers wouldn’t know how to process the visual information; the real success of BoaN is in showing that audiences were ready for the revolution. The point is that it’s an overstatement to claim Griffith invented all of this modern film grammar in a single groundbreaking movie; the real history is quite a bit fuzzier than that. - The real question is whether this movie has any interest or value outside the circles of serious film scholarship. I believe that _within_ those circles, BoaN is indeed a very important movie, well worth watching, studying, and acknowledging. But outside those circles, I’m more skeptical. I take a dim view of the simple-minded cultural critics who foolishly argue that depiction must in all cases equate to endorsement, but at the same time I believe it’s worthwhile to carefully contextualize one’s comments about a technically significant but thematically repugnant movie like this. Here is **[Roger Ebert](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-birth-of-a-nation-1915)** on the movie: > [@](#): > > To understand “The Birth of a Nation” we must first understand the difference between what we bring to the film, and what the film brings to us. All serious moviegoers must sooner or later arrive at a point where they see a film for what it is, and not simply for what they feel about it. “The Birth of a Nation” is not a bad film because it argues for evil. Like Riefenstahl’s “The Triumph of the Will,” it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil. As noted earlier, I quibble with the use of the word “great,” but _in the context of this essay_ Ebert makes a case for it. He articulates a nuanced position, one with which I largely agree. There is space between “it’s a great movie, full stop” and “to the dustbin with you, racist trash!” BoaN occupies that middle space. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2024, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-blatantly-racist-film-be-considered-great/1001034/82 "2024-05-06T12:08:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Just depicting it as it was viewed at the time. > > Context matters. That’s it exactly. If a movie is portraying a certain time and place where racism was prevalent, then the movie is going to have racism in it. The movie and the people who created it shouldn’t be punished for that. In fact, I think it is necessary that history be portrayed accurately. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2024, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-blatantly-racist-film-be-considered-great/1001034/83 "2024-05-06T12:17:58Z")
So, did they portray the slaves as being miserable, and treated like crap? Whipped and whatnot? Did they portray the Southerners as traitors, fighting to keep slavery an institution? Because the people impacted by that evil system saw it for what it was at the time. They just didn’t really have a voice in society back then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-blatantly-racist-film-be-considered-great/1001034.md?page=4)