If there ever was a film that can stoke a firestorm of debates, protests, demonstrations and strong feelings it's Birth of a Nation. Since its release in 1915 it has been viewed as one of the most controversial films ever made and yet, at the same time, one of the most important. Strangely in all my years of watching films I had never had the chance to watch D. W. Griffith's masterpiece.

As I view this film ninety-four years after its original release it's easy to see both why the film has its haters as well as its fans. Between the overt racism, factual inaccuracies and a general sympathy to the old south there is much to make a modern audience cringe. Despite this, when viewed through the prism of film history Birth of a Nation has much to offer the serious student of cinema.

The first act of the film deals with two typical families: the Stonemans and the Camerons. While the Stonemans are northerners, the Camerons are from the South. Through the friendship of their sons in boarding school the two families share a common bond. Both the Camerons and Stonemans suffer greatly during the war with each family losing a son to the war.

This first act deals very little with the cause and slavery is hardly mentioned. At this point I wondered if perhaps the racism wasn't a bit exhagerated. Of course the film was only half over by then.

The second act, dealing with Reconstruction, is a completely different matter. The abolitionists and the free Blacks become the central villains of the story. They and their Northern allies overwhelm the south. To combat this, the Ku Klux Klan rises to power with Colonel Cameron being one of the leaders. This horribly skewed version of history left me more than a bit confused.

Blacks are portrayed almost exclusively by white in blackface. In at least one instance a maid was even played by a white man in drag. The stereotypes are endless from black legislators eating peanuts with their bare feet on the desk to one black soldier attempting to rape the young Flora causing her to jump to her death. White Southerners on the other hand are portrayed as innocent victims; a repressed minority

I was a bit taken back after the historical accuracy of the first act to see that Birth of a Nation is, as many people say, a film with a pro South agenda. Contrast this with the vast majority of Civil War films made since where the Union is portrayed as angelic while the Confederates are the evil slave holders.

The KKK actually comes across as a group of white knights bound to protect law, order and chivalry. After Flora's death the Klan seeks to find her killer for, as the intertitle informs us, so that he may have a fair trial. How interesting history can be revised and distorted depending on the storyteller.

Somewhere between the Pro-Southern extreme of this film and the Union apologist extremes of countless others is the truth. If you want to see a more balanced film in relation to the Civil War, watch either Gods and Generals or Gettysburg. If you want a story of the old South, check out Gone with the Wind.

I would only recommend this film to film buffs or to people who would like to see where films have all began. Birth of a Nation, like the period it attempted to recreate, is a part of our history. If you wish to study film or the rise of cinema then you must see this film. Otherwise, it may be best left to museums.

Labels: 31 days of film, Civil War, Classics, Silent Films