Lambie Discusses The Birth of a Nation

Year: 1915
Accolades: One of 1001 films you must see before you die; Revolutionised cinema as we know it.

I guess you know you've made it as a film buff when you watch the opening credits of a film that's nearly 100 years old and your first thought is "Hey look at that, Lillian Gish is in this film." You're not really a film buff, though, until you've sen D. W. Griffith's three hour, extremely famous and yet controversial epic.

The film is famous for two reasons. The first is that it established many cinematic techniques that are now considered to be stock tools of the trade. The second is its overtly racist story and depiction of African Americans which caused outrage at the time and (as the poplar consensus says) prompted Griffith to work on Intolerance, his next major film which showed how hurtful the ignorance and intolerance of others can be. (Intolerance was one of the other films I watched in 2012, and one of the reasons why I know who Lillian Gish is.)

Watching this film poses an interesting dilemma, one in which everyone who has watched the film faces. As a technical production, it is extremely well made. It is clear that Griffith put a lot of care into what he captured on film. Lillian Gish looks innocently gorgeous, and her love interest is suitably dashing. The action sequences are thrilling. Shots are masterfully constructed and framed. But Griffith didn't just make the film using existing techniques which resulted in their popularity. He virtually invented them, and was the first to use many of the standard techniques we use today. The result is considered to be the film that revolutionised cinema, moulding it into the form we now know today.

The problem, of course, is the content that goes with this revolutionary vision. There is no denying that it is an incredibly racist film. This is partly because it is based on a very racist book called The Clansman. The racist elemts are quite sublte during the first half and can be missed if you're not paying attention. I was actually uncomfortable as I sat through the second half of the film, in which the Ku Klux Klan is formed and its members depicted as the heroes of the film. In addition, there are many actors that are clearly in blackface.

It's difficult to tell whether Griffith intended for these views to be the prominent message of the film. There are title cards that would suggest that the film is intended to be more about the abhorrence of war and its consequences than about promoting a racist agenda. However, it is clear that Griffith was at the very least indifferent to the racist elements, which is no less excusable. Much as been made about the film's message and attitudes towards the issue of racism, as well as the cinematic techniques that Griffith introduced to the world of filmmaking. Rather than regurgitate it all here, I would merely suggest that you hunt down some this material for yourself, if you're interested. It is, after all, considered to be one of the most important films ever made.