i was almost conviced...and that horrified me
this movie bored me in the first hour or so but then i started to notice the implications i was incredulous ,i actually thought there was going to be a catch or something..i guess i kept forgetting the times then.when i realized what the film was saying i was horrified yet fascinated by the fact that i actually fund myself -on a superficial level- buying into the story and wishing the clansmen triumph...talk about powerful propaganda.i never understood-as in felt for myself- how rational people could be swayed to beieve in outrageously subversive and immoral ideas and always felt myself impregnable to such a thing,but this film opened my eyes and made me realize even more the power of picture and artistic expression in general .i think this film should be used as a tool of promoting such ideas as the manufacture of consent and the shaping of people's minds and i'd love to know what noam chomsky would say about a film like this.

Racial Classic of the Civil War
What makes this opus worthwhile is its significance as a study in early film. In a way its too bad Griffith did not end the film with the conclusion of the Civil War. This would have made for a shorter, tighter film without all the bizarre stuff of the latter part.

Even as a Civil War film there is a lot lacking here. The classic friends and brother against brother film is shown here and its a theme that the movies would use many times again. The battle scene showing Peterburg seems an odd choice to show on film. Since this is an epic showing the whole Civil War it seems strange that Griffith decides to show such a late battle in the conflict. There is no Bull Run, or even Gettysburg shown here. The Petersburg scene is well done, although rather choatic looking. Too much smoke almost obscures the set sometimes, and while this is a period detail it leads to visual confusion. There are also a lot of guys standing around waving Union or Rebel flags in the middle of the battlefield. I doubt this was done in actuality.

Perhaps one of the reasons where Griffith chose Peterburg as his battle for the film is that this seige closely resembled the trenches of WW1. At the time of BIRTHS release in 1915 the war was waging in Europe and America's entry was only a few years away. Petersburg with its seige lines was a precursor of WW1 battlefields and perhaps Griffith wanted to show this.

The second half of the film is a bizarre look at events associated with Reconstruction in the South. There can be no doubt that if Lincoln had lived things would have been a lot better for the defeated South. This film seems to imply that with his death the North betrayed Lincoln's promise to bring the nation back together again. Radicals did seek to take advantage of the strickend South and Blacks were used as a means to exploit the situation. But Griffith's take on all of this is pretty odd. Romanticizing the KKK seems a strange way to do homage to the sacrefices of the Civil War. Again, if Griffith had ended the film sooner it would have been a more balanced work. Still, the influence of BIRTH on Hollywood's view of the Civil War would be profound, and remains so even to today. An imperfect epic that is worth watching for its historical interest, but should not be taken too seriously as a perspective on American history.

Beware of those skeletons in your closet...
Throughout my cinematic life there has always been that one film that both critics and audiences have agreed, both time and again, to be one of the greatest films created. Upon watching sed film, I was unimpressed. It was grandiose alright, but a continued classic? This critic would have to disagree. The blatant racism, the glossy view of the South, as well as that final line that instead of joy, sends a painful shiver down your spine - that is not the grounds for a film that continues to show up on everyone's top ten lists. The film, "Gone With the Wind", and searching through my older review of it, these words were use "From the unexciting, unloving characters (of which we all hate, yet are supposed to love by the end) to smile on Scarlett's face after the marital rape scene, this movie was a disaster." Now, upon watching D.W. Griffith's brave, bold, and uncensored epic (the word epic CAN be used for this film because it not only details history, but it also carries suspense, love, vengeance, and innocence throughout) "Birth of a Nation", it cannot be comprehended as to why this film has not honored with the same praise as that candy-store epic. It is studied in film classes, it demonstrates the rawest form of both independent production as well as large, scoping scenes involving mass crowds, war, and a final battle sequence that would knock the socks of any modern CGI created moments, yet only in independent forums is it considered the powerhouse it should be. Could it be that this film feels more racist now than "Gone with the Wind" ever did? Are we afraid to embrace this film because of honest or argumentative vision that Griffith took?

"Birth of a Nation" can rattle any viewer to the core because of both the brazen images that it conjures, but also, made in 1915, it forces the viewer to change the way they watch movies. There are no spoken words, just the loud notes of the orchestra playing "Dixie", or "Star Spangled Banner", or just tunes to carry us to the next scene. This film also depicts the racial tensions of the time rather honestly. Griffith has been marked a racist for his work on this film, the images of white actors playing African Americans, or the depiction of the power of the Klu Klux Klan can rattle any viewer to the core. Isn't that the point? "Birth of a Nation" is not only a stronger, more influential film than "Gone With the Wind", but it challenges the typical popcorn-to-couch viewer. One could show similarities between the two films by saying that there are sweeping landscapes and powerful battle scenes in both films, but Griffith takes it a step further by showing us the history of racism, a.k.a. the birth of a fearing nation. He begins with the Civil War, most specifically two families that were friends prior to the War, but find themselves eventually on dueling sides of the battlefield. It is this brother-against-brother war that fuels the future events of the South. Griffith's film also develops the power of Abe Lincoln throughout these times. It shows his compassion, his desire to unify the country, and to assist in the redevelopment of the South. This, sadly, gives a further reason as to why his assassination took place, and how the North used this to push the South into further disarray.

To modern standards, "Birth of a Nation" is racist. Griffith's depiction of African Americans in the army, voting, and taking office is very difficult to watch in 2008, but there is a moment of truth to his images. The new rule from the North brought too much power to one particular person, thus destroying any level of equality for this already war-ravished nation. In the same vein, Griffith's portrayal of the KKK to today's modern standards is also considered racist. To have an organization, fueled by hatred, be the heroines of the film, is again, difficult to watch in 2008 - but Griffith, I believe, sees this and with that final scene of the KKK demonstrates how they have transformed into an entity of hatred, instead of encouraged by change. Griffith credits the birth of the KKK as a group that merely wanted to have a voice in the South, a group that wanted to have equality across the board, so in retaliation, they organized, and the KKK was formed. Having never read "The Clansmen", one does question how detailed Griffith went when pulling source material for his film from this book. Watching how the KKK regains power is necessary to this story, because Griffith is able to take these historically accurate moments and show us where we went wrong. "Birth of a Nation" is a film that points the finger inward, depicting casualties from both the North and South, both white and black, and both rich and poor. The underlining meaning to "Birth of a Nation" is that corruption and evil lurk from all different places and that perhaps the best response isn't the greatest action.

Finally, I would like to end this review by expressing my feelings toward this film. This was an emotional, exhausting, and powerful film to watch. Why it isn't on everyone's "Top Ten" lists is beyond me, outside of the fact that perhaps the depiction of the KKK or African Americans is a bit hard to swallow. I would agree that this film is racist, but in the context of the time, I think Griffith was right to do what he did to create this masterpiece. I am not racist myself, but if I had a child, and wanted to show them a darker side to our great nation, this would be the film I would showcase. Not only does it show racism, but is shows "why". It is a courageous film from its historical basis, but a sad film from its honesty. Everyone should watch "Birth of a Nation", it is a bold entry into not just the world of cinema (the first real epic), but it is one of the few films to really paint a dirty picture of the Civil War. While we all agree that the Civil War (or any war) is unjust, "Birth of a Nation" takes us to next level to show its repercussions.

Overall, I initially had trouble training my eyes to watch a non-talking film. The music was fantastic, the scenes were detailed, and the story captured my attention until the very end. This was a historical epic - surprisingly, an epic that takes you away from you comfort zone. It forces you to root for an evil organization, to shake your head at the images of African Americans, and see the corruption of the North (a side we typically see as sympathetic to the cause). My argument is that this film is a classic - alas, a forgotten classic. While film schools, film geeks, and non-commercial film literature feels that "Birth of a Nation" is considered the ultimate classic, there is a strong majority that fear the message in this film - that fear the images that Griffith has created - thus they push away, and on so many lists of films you will find "Gone With the Wind", a glossier, less engaging film. In conclusion, "Birth of a Nation" is exactly what the title describes. It is the birth of our current society, complete with racism, hatred, confusion, corruption, epic battles, and greed. It is a film that should be catapulted to the top, not forgotten at the bottom.

Grade: ***** out of *****

Important turths presented
The movie brings to the fore important truths for people to consider. I 100% agree with the premise of the movie, "Do not start a war if you cannot finish it".

The end of state sovereignty I believe was the victim of the Civil war while it brought blatant racial discrimination to an end. The first 2 hours of the movie I felt was balanced apart from the denigrating caricature of Americans of African descent (minority). The unfortunate truth presented in the 3rd hour of the movie, where, the minority community en masse have since been targeted rather than identifying those among minority community who colluded with machiavellian politicians and unscupulous profiteers (carpet-baggers) from the north with a single-minded objective of taking advantage of the impoverished southern community after the war.

If President Lincoln had the opportunity, I would like to imagine a reconciliation not different from what took place in South Africa at the end of Apartheid would be in vogue in United States. Unfortunately that was not to be.

I believe Mr. Griffith's heart was in the right place when portraying:
(a) President Lincoln as a true friend of southern community in toto irrespective of colour.
(b) Machiavellian politicians manipulating the southern minority community to meet selfish ends.

It is however unfortunate Mr. Griffith did not recognize the nature in people (to this day remain unpunished) who wreaked havoc on the southern majority community by manipulating the minority.

Birth of a Nation-the birth of cinema
This film will be of great use in teaching the evolution and development of cinema in my Media Studies classes. D.W.Griffith's pioneering techniques were used in Peter Jackson's "Forgotten Silver" mockmentary on the birth of film in New Zealand. The two films will be useful as examples of film history.