I went to a silent movie program tonight, saw some good flicks. But what got me excited is that next February, at the annual two day silent film festival, is that Birth of a Nation will be showing.
It’s one of those movies that in this day and age folks have heard of, mainly for the controversy on it’s depiction of race relation, but have never seen, except for clips.
I want to be able to see what all the hoo-ra is about. The festival knows that even showing it may make some people upset, but hey, how can a person really talk about the movie if you haven’t seen the whole thing?
So have you ever seen BOAN? What did you think? If you haven’t watched it, would you?
I saw it in college for a Film Appreciation course. 20 or so years ago. It was pretty…one sided?
I’d watch it again, in an appropriate environment. I’m not about to rent it to watch at home for no particular reason.
At a film festival…sure. I’d go watch again. It’s famous, and if you’re at all interested in the history involved, it’s worth seeing it.
Where is the poll option for “I haven’t seen it and don’t particularly care whether I see it or not”?
Put me down in that category. While I think it would be rather pointless to boycott a hundred-year-old film on ideological grounds and I understand that this film in particular is one of the landmarks of cinematic history, I’m still not all that interested in it.
And I don’t quite get the excitement about a rare opportunity to see the movie: viewers can stream it on Netflix any time they want. Is it one of those “must see on the big screen” viewing experiences?
Haven’t seen it, don’t want to. It would make me puke. The stills I’ve seen from it and the descriptions I’ve read are already enough to make me puke. Who cares if it’s supposed to be some paragon of the cinematic art? It’s still pernicious racist filth and nothing will ever excuse that. Whatever cinematic merit it may have ever had is drowned in the blood of all the African-Americans lynched by the attitudes it helped spread. You can’t ever clean that up. It’s a permanent shame on the movie business that cannot be expunged. Likewise for Riefenstahl’s Nazi epics. To hell with that.
Ditto. I saw it in a Black Film class where it was put in its appropriate context. I don’t think it is all that entertaining to a modern audience unless you are a silent era buff ( even putting aside the exceptionally ugly messages it puts out ), but if I had a friend who envinced a strong enough interest I might watch it with them. It’s reasonably short.
My choice would have been “I have seen it and don’t particularly care whether I see it again or not.”
I’ve seen the movie. It’s an interesting piece of film history but it’s not going to impress modern audiences on its own merits.
It’s certainly racist but it was made in 1915. My grandmother was born in 1900 and she was racist. You have to accept that times were different. I wouldn’t forgive somebody for being in a lynch mob but I’m willing to accept that racist beliefs used to be common.
But it does remind me of the Bogdanovich film Nickelodeon, where the main characters, all budding film-makers in the early days of cinema, watch it at the end and are blown away by it as if they’d seen the perfect film. To the point where they question whether it is even worth making another movie. That caused a twinge, because while it would be quite accurate to get that reaction from film professionals in that day and age, most of Bogdanovich’s mainstream audience wouldn’t have known that historical context. And by God it is an ugly, ugly film to glorify in that way, whatever its period technical merits. But, eh - IMHO Nickelodean isn’t a great movie anyway.
Haven’t seen it. I’m not going to go seek it out; I’m sure netflix has it, on DVD or streaming, but I’m not going to choose it over, say, anything.
On the other hand, it’s an important piece of film history, and I’d sorta like to see it sometime, if the right situation arose–a festival, or a film history course, or whatever. So notch me down for option #2.
I’ve seen it, in high school, about the same time we had to read Gone With the Wind (which we also watched).
The innovation of moving the cameras has long been eclipsed by subsequent cinematography, so it’s one point of interest was exceedingly dull to modern audiences. And the over-the-top attempt to portray the racist KKK as noble defenders of womanly virtue was just laughable. We spent the entire time laughing and mocking it.
However, I was particularly amused because the villain of the piece – “Evil Senator Stoneman” – was named to mock George Stoneman, one of Sherman’s generals and apparently well-hated by Southerner apologists. He also, as it turns out, is an ancestor of mine, so I got to be known as “Evil Senator Stoneman” for about a month in high school, which was kinda cool.
If you’re not a film history student or a Stoneman, though, I’d give it a pass.
I chose “I’ve seen it and would not watch it again” but with the caveat that I would be willing to watch it again as part of a class or seminar, or even to discuss with just one other person as a film and a piece of history.
But for entertainment? No, never need to see that again.
As in “'til Stoneman’s cavalry came & tore up the track again”? Would make a great chapter in the epic miniseries about Sherman’s March to the Sea. Which is be far too controversial to be made, still.
I added the film to my Netflix queue. Haven’t really seen the whole thing. But I usually pick something light over “those films I really ought to watch.”
I’ve seen sequences of The Birth of a Nation in various film classes, and no, I don’t have any desire to see the full movie. I understand its place in history and the effect it had on the movie making industry as a whole, but the content is far too offensive for me to willingly watch. Apart from noting its historical significance, there’s not much else there for me.
If you’re interested in film history (and I am), and love silent films, then yes, I own it on DVD and would watch it again (haven’t seen it in many years.) Yes, the content is offensive to us, but it’s instructive to understand that it was a popular message back then (although, even then, it aroused a lot of controversy.) I dislike intensely the censorship that pretends that such racism didn’t exist by expelling it from history.
Having said that, I can certainly understand that it’s difficult for modern audiences (and long, and slow moving at times because film pacing has changed a lot, and B&W, and the silent film acting comes across to us as overly dramatic.)