|
|
40 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Outstanding example of early cinema, January 31, 2000
The Birth of a Nation remains one of the giants of motion picture making and one of the most controversial landmarks in film history. As a cinematic achievement the movie was both a stunning commercial and artistic success. No, Griffith did not create such innovations as the closeup, fade-out, irising effect, etc., but it was he under whom these devices were used so successfully and creatively.One of the main arguments against the film is its racist portrayal of the newly freed slaves. Yes, the pre-Civil War South is overly romanticized, the movie is historically inaccurate, and the caricatures are insulting. Nevertheless, the movie is an awesome achievement, and here, viewing the definitive version of the film, restored to its full twelve-reel length at the visually correct speeds and with the original color tints and original musical score performed by a full orchestra, it is engrossing entertainment and it is easy to see why it was so influential both as a film achievement and as an opinion-molder. The Birth of a Nation is often criticized for its racism, but the film is eigthy-five years old this year (2000), and should be viewed with that in mind. As for Griffith, there is ample evidence that Griffith did not hate blacks, but he was a product of his time and the portrayal of the newly freed slaves in the picture reflects this. No, Griffith did not view blacks as equals, but in many ways he did admire them. Yes, his attitude was undoubtedly condescending, but as I said, he was a product of his time. I have read in many reviews of this film anger over the film's inclusion in the AFI 100 list. The film was enormously influential to the industry, and claims that someone else would have or could have achieved what Griffith achieved have no legitimate foundation. There is no way of knowing whether someone else would have achieved what Griffith achieved, and in any event, if someone would have, that does not change the fact that Griffith did it first. The film is in the interesting position of being supremely white-supremecist yet an undeniable landmark at the same time. It should be given a chance and viewed as superior picture making, and not simply as racist garbage. Such an attitude is as simple-minded as is much of the film's haracterizations and romanticizing of history and the silly wording of some of its intertitles. This, the restored and definitive edition (also available on DVD from Image Entertainment) is the ideal way to see this great cinematic masterpiece, and it is a masterpiece. Beware of inferior shortened versions at incorrect projection speeds! A definite silent film fan, I recommend this film to anyone else who can appreciate silent drama and who can keep an open mind. Enjoying this film does not make you a racist. (By the way, the review for this film that someone submitted on January 18, 2000 was copied word-for-word from the VideoHound Golden Movie Retriever review of this film!)
|