I’ve seen it right through in a single sitting once, and seen most of it in bits on other occasions. I have a few clips from it that i sometimes show to my college-level history students.
Awful history and, despite its indubitably groundbreaking film techniques, a boring movie IMO. But then, I’m not a fan of silent film at all.
(In addition to the YouTube link provided earlier in the thread, you can view or download it here)
My only interest in seeing it would be to see some kind of annotated version that points out the film stuff that was innovative for the time. And I’d prefer just to see those parts.
But who knows, maybe the story would interest me. I know it’s terribly racist, but I don’t have to agree with a story to want to see it.
I bought a copy of it about 5 years ago. Too many people hating on it, so, it must be pretty anodyne. Plus, it spites the self-appointed censors.
I haven’t watched it, tho. I plan to, but, I’ve got a lot of other ones to watch first.
You might already know this, but the quote was from a popular song by The Band called “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.” So, it’s impressive that the poster made the connection to your ancestor (and could understand exactly what Levon Helm was singing there – I was never sure myself), but perhaps not quite as impressive as you were thinking.
I saw it in a film class. Before that I had seen a lot of clips of it in a documentary done with Bill Cosby who described how the film was racist and vile.
I didn’t vote since I don’t fit neatly into any of these categories.
In high school, we took a class on the history of film, and we watched a large PART of Birth of a Nation.- but not the whole thing.
So, was it a masterful piece of filmmaking or a blatantly offensive, racist piece of trash? From what I saw, parts of it qualified on BOTH counts. Griffith had some brilliantly moving scenes… but the racist scenes are so vulgar and cartoonish as to defy belief.
I almost never watch silent movies, and I have no special desire to see Birth of a Nation again.
I have seen it.
I am not thrilled by its politics.
Then again, I am not thrilled by the politics of Battleship Potemkin, either, and that probably contributed to a higher body count.
OK, I just have to ask—what censorship? Where is the censorship you guys refer to? Nobody has mentioned censorship in this thread except for the damn thing’s defenders.
Yeah, i was going to ask a similar question.
It’s not like Birth of a Nation is some obscure or hidden piece of American history. It’s available for free download on the internet, as demonstrated more than once in this very thread. You can’t open a book about the history of film without reading about its significance. Basically any historical work that even touches on race relations in America during the first few decades of the twentieth century will likely discuss the impact of the movie, including the positions taken by its defenders and its detractors, and the way it contributed to the re-emergence of the Klan. If i had a dollar for every time i’d read about Woodrow Wilson describing the film as “like writing history with lightning,” then i’d probably have about a hundred extra dollars in my pocket.
It ain’t no Deathstalker.
It’s self-censorship rather than government censorship. Refusing to see a piece of art, or judging it as bad, solely because of it’s message, is absurd. It’s not necessarily as harmful as government censorship, but if people are encouraged to boycott things they disagree with, minds become dulled and views cannot be challenged.
As for Birth Of A Nation, if you’re not particularly interested in the history of cinema, or a fan of silent films, there’s no particular reason to watch it. But if you are either of those things, and refuse to watch it, you are at best denying yourself a pleasure for no reason, and at worst ignoring history.
Being a fan of silent films, I’ve seen it more than once, and own it on DVD. I’d been curious about it since I saw a still from it in the World Book Encyclopedia (which told about how it was an important film in terms of film technique, but didn’t say a word about the racism).
A pleasure? :rolleyes: BARF
If you want to complain about racism, start an Amos and Andy thread.
I am not against people watching this film for historical or artistic reasons, but for me personally, it would just piss me off and why should I spend a few hours getting pissed off, when the assholes on the freeway will piss me off in just a fraction of the time?
I saw it years and years ago. I’d see it again for one reason: A young and very beautiful Lillian Gish. She makes the rest of the movie bearable.
I have it on my Netflix’s queue actually.
I know it’s long (3 hours apparently!) and racist as all get out. But how many other 100 year old silent films are still being discussed? Will be good to have this in my memory.
It’s not that long (3 hours I’ve heard) not all that much time to invest.
There’s a project for someone who wants a master’s degree in film studies.
Kinda the way I feel about JFK. Great film; great filmmaking. Total tripe, too. Oliver Stone is so far off base, he’s practically in the parking lot, as far as it being a factual account of the Kennedy assassination, but it’s still a great film.
I’ve seen it and would probably not watch it again. It’s good filmmaking for its time, and important for its cultural impact, but racist and 'waaay too enamored of Lost Cause mythology.
Check out “Rebirth of a Nation”: http://www.amazon.com/Rebirth-Nation-Starz-Inside-Stien/dp/B001DHXSYE/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1414610391&sr=8-4&keywords=rebirth+of+a+nation
It is a “remix” of the film – but it makes it a lot shorter, plus the commentary explains the context and some of the great film-making parts to it.
I saw it presented by DJ Spooky along with a question and answer session, and it really is worth-while.