@@user-df1ns1ob8y I mean the film was showing the KKK as a force for good against Blacks or anyone not white/christian, I think the most powerful man in the country basically giving it a lot of attention definitely means he played a part in reviving the Klan.
...AND! The movie opens with a quote by Woodrow Wilson: "The white men were roused by an instinct of mere self-preservation . . . until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South to protect the Southern country." -WW
@@willevensen7130 Sure but like Wilson was considered extremely racist in an already extremely racist period in American history which can't be said for many others
@@willevensen7130 He is certainly a candidate at the very least hence why I called him "one of.." To be fair most presidents, including ones who we consider ahead of their time on issues of race would be considered racist by modern standards. What makes the racism of Woodrow Wilson and a couple others noteworthy, is that they were racists even by the standards of their time.
@@willevensen7130 I'd put Jackson above Wilson just because he sought to commit a wholesale genocide of Natives. But yeah, Woodrow was a close second.
One thing I noticed while watching the film (out of curiosity) was that there are many black extras that can be seen at several points in the film despite the use of white actors in blackface for the more notable characters. It makes me wonder how much they actually knew about the true nature of the film.
Praised by Woodrow Wilson who said, “It's like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Woodrow Wilson would be an epic headache in the UA-cam comments section if he were alive today. 😅
I’m a film student in college, and we were talking about this movie recently in my editing class. It made use of a lot of new techniques at the time such as seamless editing and different camera angles. It’s unfortunate that it was also a KKK Lost Cause propoganda film. And that Wilson proclaimed “that it was all too true.” The director, DW Griffith, was also just a terrible person not including this movie.
I don't think that Griffith was that bad and I'm pretty certain that he wasn't a racist, not "burning crosses" racist anyway. Intolerance, his other masterpiece, could be considered anti-racist and Broken Blossoms, another one of his great films, tries (and fails by being a product of its time) to portray positively an interracial relationship. I could argue that Griffith's choice to portray the black men as bad and the white men as good in The Birth of a Nation is purely an aesthetic choice...
@@majestic3850 Are there any other evidence besides that film? Stating opinions and using the word "period" at the end doesn't automatically make these opinions facts. I hope you know that...
@@stamatiskon3049 a film that glorifies the kkk while portraying the main black characters in blackface isnt evidence enough🤣 if this was about any other group it would be stated. only racism against our people constantly gets dressed up and excused.
@@majestic3850 I'm not talking about the film, I'm talking about the person. Please, can we seperate the two? The film, though brilliant, is probably the most racist film of all time but that doesn't mean that the person behind it was the most racist of all time! We know that Griffith was born and raised in the American South so obviously he had a racist background. What I'm saying is that he wasn't a KKK type of racist, he wasn't even a member. And if you watch his other films you'll understand that he wasn't the type of man that would be part of a lynching mob. Also, no one tries to excuse racism here. I'm just pointing out the fact that the black/white divide works aesthetically and conceptually and Griffith, with his racist background, used it to make the film more comprehensive. We have to remind ourselves that this was the birth of the art of cinema and people like Griffith, Eisenstein and Chaplin were experimenting with this new art form. P.S. I asked you what evidence besides that one film you have and you told me "yes I have, this film"! You understand that this is not a way to carry a conversation. If someone asks you something and your reply isn't an answer to the question then you don't want to talk but to impose. Period!
Well, tbf, America and Europe is two different things. America wasn't in the war in 1915. European Countries also banned the film, so it doesn't really matter in that sense.
Not sure what makes you think black soldiers dying in Europe is relevant here. Racism isn't justified regardless of whether or not you have soldiers in the field or not. And at the time this movie was produced and released, America hadn't joined the war yet anyways.
@@redtube8667 having black soldiers dying in war for a country that is portraying them a raping sex hunger barbarians is why that original comment is relevant and Wilson could have showed it at. Any time
Thank you for posting this. Not long after the movie was released the second Klan was born. The 20s saw a massive resurgence and they were at the peak of power. It was a time of hard nativist sentiment especially with waves of immigration.
Wilson wrote the forward for the book it was based on and is quoted in the movie. During his administration segregation was introduced in the federal government.
When you can look back and say by today’s standards someone is a bigot that’s one thing but Wilson was genuinely very racist even for his time! It amazes me it took so long to hear about this side of him!
Why are there so many comments high on cope trying to rationalize this racist movie and make it seem like Wilson wasn't a super racist who screened a super racist movie in the white house
I think it's important to be able to separate how something can be racist and portray views we hold abhorrent, AND can be a masterpiece of technical skill and cinematography. You can criticize the movie for all the horrible things it stands for and portrays, but even the harshest critic has to give credit where it's due.
@@TheHottrod3000 Sure. Aren't there some early nazi cinema that were basically masterpieces in technical skill and cinematography despite their propaganda content?
@@JurasJankauskas Yes, you can actually make the argument that is was due to this impeccable technical skill that those propaganda films were so effective at growing the movement.
One theory as to why it was so successful, was that at that time the cities of America were filled Irish, Poles, Italians, and Jews - who naturally hated each other. The movie created unity among these non-black people and hence was insanely popular. The high estimate of it's gross in 2023 dollars is 3.1 Billion. There is a way to bring all the people of the Earth together... Black n's
I have seen some people claim it to be so. I hope I found out about this recently that good ol’ Teddy was the first one to screen a film at the White House. a film called Cabiria was the first. I have seen some people claim it to be so. I hope it's true so Wilson can suck it
Cabiria was the first movie screened at the White House. It was screened on the lawn. Birth of a Nation was the first movie screened inside the White House. Unfortunately, Cabiria's screening was in 1914, so Wilson was President for that one, too. That said, he can still suck it.
“For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” Obadiah 1:15
It was great at creating more racism in society in a horrible way. Some could say similar tactics get used today just not as aggressive. Not great in a good way btw lol
Having seen it myself, I acknowledge its significance in film history but also the controversial elements are uncomfortable, and may be a turn off for anyone who doesn’t want to watch it.
See this is a perfect example of why what your story is ABOUT matters far more than how well it was made. Nowadays people tout around well-made games and movies as if they are great examples of Art. No. Art is about Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. How well a story is made is merely a measure of how effectively it conveys its themes. But if the themes are Bad, the story is Bad no matter how great the production is. I would much rather have a Good but flawed story than a Bad but expertly crafted story
It wasn’t trying to be racist per say but DW Griffith was just telling his life story, what he had been told by his southern family as a child. Film making rule #1 Make a Motion Picture about what you know, not what you don’t know. That more than likely would be your masterpiece and obviously most personal story so you’d do amazing at telling it. I see nothing wrong with the film, all I see that is wrong is the racism. I’d advise everyone to watch the interview of DW Griffith talking about his detail of making the picture for a rerelease of The Birth of a Nation.
I acknowledge this as an important part/moment for art as a whole, but just as much I acknowledge this as a great tragedy and a great product of hate and prejudice.
The first film screened IN the white house, but the first film screened AT the white house was the Italian epic Cabiria. It was shown a few months earlier outside on the grounds.
I'm glad you put it this way. It can be a technical achievement AND incredibly, purposefully racist at the same time. Those two things do not have to be mutually exclusive and in this case they most definitely are not
Some of the most innovative and techncially groundbreaking works in documentary films were Leni Riefenstahls films on the 36 Olympics. But also the infamous Nuremberg party films. Making them quite sucessful for a few years not just in Germany simply for that aspect. They and she got obviously a bad reputation later. But i think the Olympics one is still considered a milestone. So infamous content and context doesn't exclude technical achievements.
It was voted as one of the greatest films of all time in this past BFI 2022 poll top 200 I believe. Masterpiece in technical achievement only maybe surpassed by DW Griffiths Intolerance the very next year. Is it a racist film yes but boy is it a landmark and a masterpiece.
When my son was 7 years of age, he found a text in my library titled, Mein Kampf. He put one fist on his hip and pointed a finger at my face, “Dad, you’re a Nazi!” he shouted. I sat with him and listened quietly to his rant before replying, I have that book because it is important to know how evil minds work. Did you see the Bible next to it? It is there for comparison. The Bible is full of terrible things people are capable of, but shows us what not to be and how important it is to strive to be better. Birth of a Nation is one such story in film format. I own a copy. We are endowed with free will. Who do you want to be?
I was so pissed when I read the title! I thought you was going to speak on nate parkers film, but yes I agree I saw 1915 birth of a nation at 17....I had never been more pissed off in my life after watching that rhetoric and seeing the acclaim it got
"I always find new ways to make my legacy that much worse. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to put ketchup on my mac n cheese and put the toilet paper roll on in the under position." -Woodrow Wilson
Terribly racist, but even a casual movie watcher like me found the technical skills fantastic. That all this was done in 1915 makes it even more impressive.
I think Jud Süß is more Racist. That beeing Said I am German/European. And we dont View Racism /Race "Just" threw a lense of Color. However I think every Race theory is stupid.
This film had a sequel. Released in 1916, The Fall of a Nation is just as racist as the first movie. Thankfully, this film was a failure and has since become lost media
If you are a film person, and while I think that while the KKK is a disgusting part of our history, you should watch it for a historical view on how film making developed over time. If only these techniques where done in a not so controversial film
I've never seen this movie, but i was appalled at how blatant Jud Süß was with racism and antisemitism for a propaganda film. I'm guessing this one is similar with the "in your face not trying to hide it" ?
Well the opening showing slavery as an okay thing excepting saying that having black people among the population was the first step to American dis-union is the least racist thing about the film originally titled "The Clansman" had in it. Which is crazy but true. Part 2 is about "reconstruction" the period after the Civil war where troops were stationed in the South to prevent lynching of black people and denial of their rights. The movie shows black people stuffing ballot boxes ( submitting way more than one vote per person), the newly elected black members of the South Carolina legislature putting their bare feet up on their desks, drinking and eating fried chicken. A free black captain stalking a woman through the woods, proposing marriage and then getting aggressive and chasing her to the point she jumps off a cliff to avoid him. A main character of mixed race pursuing a white woman against her will and trying he up. The Klan being "persecuted" for lynching that black captain. A bunch of free black people over running the house of a man who's son was a clan member and him prepared to kill his own daughter if they breach the doors. The Klan rescuing the other white woman. Legalization of mixed race marriage is done by the villain. And the klan intimidating black people outside their homes is shown as a good an noble thing. The film ends with "The masses are shown oppressed by a giant warlike figure who gradually fades away. The scene shifts to another group finding peace under the image of Jesus Christ. The penultimate title is: "Dare we dream of a golden day when the bestial War shall rule no more. But instead-the gentle Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the City of Peace." Fun fact the only successful coup in US history was in Wilmington NC in 1898 where white supremacists violently overthrew the mixed race government, killed somewhere around 300 black civilians, torched the black newspaper, drove out 2000 black citizens and well.. I recommend learning about it yourself. There was a large buildup including a rally route shooting into black homes and schools followed by a barbecue and passionate speaking on how disrespectful black people were especially the men to the white women, how they were bestial and lusted after white women, and how violent black people would become if denied the vote so preemptive action was necessary. So essentially, all the nasty racist stereotypes that Birth of a Nation showed 26 years later. Thanks to poor or false education, segregation, and the widespread prevalence of at best ignorance of the reality of black people and their lives and at worst racism in general the film which was pitched as historically accurate was stupid influential. People threw klan parties, ushers wore klan robes, people claimed it was historically accurate and that it was a "compliment" to black people because it "told the truth" and showed "how far they had come since reconstruction". According to one Harvard researcher "On average, lynchings in a county rose fivefold in the month after [the film] arrived."
That's why I was incredibly disappointed to see the American Battlefield Trust include Birth of a Nation in its "Teacher's Guide to Civil War Movies - Classroom Appropriate Films to Enhance the Civil War for Students" Classroom appropriate? I suppose the film could be included as a cautionary lesson for older students, but if I was a teacher I wouldn't show it to any ages short of college age.
Most racist film in history? No. But certainly among the most problematic in terms of real world affects, doing more damage to race relations and mainstream historical views than any other film.
I dare to make the statement the nazis still made the most racist films in history. Many still aren't allowed to be watched without additional commentary or followed by a discussion.
If anything, it (alongside Gone With the Wind) did a lot more to romanticize and sanitize the Antebellum and Reconstruction-Era South more than any other piece of media, which in turn may have also done a lot to give the Second Ku Klux Klan the necessary PR to even regain prominence in the first place. That, regardless of their technical achievements for cinema, are what make them pretty unforgivable to me.
Kinda sad that this is first movie screened in the White House, the fact it was even made at all is sad but now that will always be the first to be screened in the White House which feels like a gutpunch
But... is it all that racist... Note: look at some of his other works, movies that portray Indians as victims of white settlers, movies about poor farmer being taken advantage of by speculators in Chicago making the farmers poor and the cities rich. DW Griffith was a Progressive and with it he held all the same beliefs as the Progressive movement always has. One could also state ... that this was the first movie to have a major character in the movie being a black man and having a "name" and he is portrayed sympathetically as a man being told he could marry anyone he wants. He decided he wants to marry a white society woman and goes to talk to her. He doesn't know the social customs, women do not talk to men in public unless the man is her fiancee or relative (that would be scandalous and destroy her reputation), she she's him and runs away and jumps off a cliff to her death rather than face the dishonor of being seen with a strange man. The black character is horrified at her death and is emotionally shaken. Her death results in the KKK going after him (obviously an innocent man). Also nearly all the black characters are not treated poorly or as the villains, the only real villains are 2 people who push for the "Radical Republican's" opinions, and even going beyond that. (note the Progressive Movement was very hostile to these ideas, even today using the "dog whistle" of "Radical Right") But again is this really the most racist movie... take in point the scene of the black legislators... this scene was based on an image in a newspaper that showed "their view" of the black legislators as ignorant, lazy, incompetent and slobs. All of which were the mainstream views of Democrats at the time. Now fast forward to the current era. There was a black comedy a few years back 2002 called Barbershop and as I remember there was a scene of the black men in the barbershop that looks like it was an exact copy of that scene from Birth of a Nation. May I recommend watching Hollywood Shuffle, this is a comedy based on the experiences of Robert Townsend and Keenen Ivory Waynes as 2 black men trying to make it in Hollywood. I would here argue that their experinces in Hollywood during the 70s and 80s or for that matter all of Hollywood films from the 1920s to the present, shows that Hollywood has been and still is more racist than the DW Griffith film. DW Griffith at least portrays most blacks as generally innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control, as opposed to nearly all modern films that portray all blacks as Stereotype Athletes, Rappers, Drug Dealers, Gangsters, etc. Can you name 6 movies in the last 10 years where a black actor was not playing a stereotypical "black part". I can only name a couple... Tennet, Winter Soldier, The Fast and Furious movies, and Maverick. No that good a track record Hollywood.
Something to emphasize here is how unsophisticated the audience was back then also. I mean, one of the first films created was just a train leaving a station towards the screen and people were momentarily alarmed it was going to hit them. Whatever propagandist impact you think movies have today, poorly representing this or that group or issue, people back then were more akin to the Thermians from the Klatu Nebula in GalaxyQuest watching "the historic documents".
Good Ol Willson being a horrible person
wow I heard about this film before but not to that extent
More Like Pooprow Illson
Just a normal democrat.
@@way2tehdawnParty switch.
@@lemaygaming6952 Not a thing.
This was definitely one of the worst things that Wilson did as president.
Playing and praising a racist movie is one of his worst acts?
@@user-df1ns1ob8y I mean the film was showing the KKK as a force for good against Blacks or anyone not white/christian, I think the most powerful man in the country basically giving it a lot of attention definitely means he played a part in reviving the Klan.
@@user-df1ns1ob8y Giving the racist propaganda film a presidential stamp of approval when it was a new fangled invention.
Honestly, there are worse things. He was a pretty horrible president
@@user-df1ns1ob8y legitimizing it
Imagine a major political figure start playing a Nazi propaganda film
...AND! The movie opens with a quote by Woodrow Wilson:
"The white men were roused by an instinct of mere self-preservation . . . until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South to protect the Southern country."
-WW
No wonder why he praised the movie
Blacks were committing a lot of violent crime against whites after being freed from slavery. Not unlike today.
Superb
We need that now
@@LMTMartago back to Europe then 😂
Not surprising that the most racist film in history was praised by one of if not the most racist presidents in US history.
Was he the most racist? There were some pretty racist presidents before him 😂
@@willevensen7130 Sure but like Wilson was considered extremely racist in an already extremely racist period in American history which can't be said for many others
@@willevensen7130 He is certainly a candidate at the very least hence why I called him "one of.."
To be fair most presidents, including ones who we consider ahead of their time on issues of race would be considered racist by modern standards.
What makes the racism of Woodrow Wilson and a couple others noteworthy, is that they were racists even by the standards of their time.
@@willevensen7130 era adjusted, he's probably the most racist president. In absolute terms, I'm going with Jackson.
@@willevensen7130 I'd put Jackson above Wilson just because he sought to commit a wholesale genocide of Natives. But yeah, Woodrow was a close second.
One thing I noticed while watching the film (out of curiosity) was that there are many black extras that can be seen at several points in the film despite the use of white actors in blackface for the more notable characters.
It makes me wonder how much they actually knew about the true nature of the film.
A paycheck is a paycheck, especially during such hard times
Sometimes when you're trying to decide between your core beliefs and feeding your family, you make choices you're not proud of.
@@RutabegaNG exactly plus they probably expect it the movie to flop
They didn't account for Wilson idiocy
Damn if only it was teddy or taft
@@RutabegaNG
EXACTLY!
Praised by Woodrow Wilson who said, “It's like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
Woodrow Wilson would be an epic headache in the UA-cam comments section if he were alive today. 😅
he didnt actually say that but yeah, he was still racist tho
He would have loved 4chan
I’m a film student in college, and we were talking about this movie recently in my editing class. It made use of a lot of new techniques at the time such as seamless editing and different camera angles. It’s unfortunate that it was also a KKK Lost Cause propoganda film. And that Wilson proclaimed “that it was all too true.” The director, DW Griffith, was also just a terrible person not including this movie.
I don't think that Griffith was that bad and I'm pretty certain that he wasn't a racist, not "burning crosses" racist anyway. Intolerance, his other masterpiece, could be considered anti-racist and Broken Blossoms, another one of his great films, tries (and fails by being a product of its time) to portray positively an interracial relationship.
I could argue that Griffith's choice to portray the black men as bad and the white men as good in The Birth of a Nation is purely an aesthetic choice...
@@stamatiskon3049 stop it. he was racist. period.
@@majestic3850 Are there any other evidence besides that film? Stating opinions and using the word "period" at the end doesn't automatically make these opinions facts. I hope you know that...
@@stamatiskon3049 a film that glorifies the kkk while portraying the main black characters in blackface isnt evidence enough🤣 if this was about any other group it would be stated. only racism against our people constantly gets dressed up and excused.
@@majestic3850 I'm not talking about the film, I'm talking about the person. Please, can we seperate the two? The film, though brilliant, is probably the most racist film of all time but that doesn't mean that the person behind it was the most racist of all time! We know that Griffith was born and raised in the American South so obviously he had a racist background. What I'm saying is that he wasn't a KKK type of racist, he wasn't even a member. And if you watch his other films you'll understand that he wasn't the type of man that would be part of a lynching mob.
Also, no one tries to excuse racism here. I'm just pointing out the fact that the black/white divide works aesthetically and conceptually and Griffith, with his racist background, used it to make the film more comprehensive. We have to remind ourselves that this was the birth of the art of cinema and people like Griffith, Eisenstein and Chaplin were experimenting with this new art form.
P.S. I asked you what evidence besides that one film you have and you told me "yes I have, this film"! You understand that this is not a way to carry a conversation. If someone asks you something and your reply isn't an answer to the question then you don't want to talk but to impose. Period!
And I thought the Treaty of Versailles was bad.
This is disgusting. But thank you for making sure we remember it happened.
It’s a sad part of our nations past but we need to remember what this country was founded on meritocracy
Wilson screened this while black soldiers were dying in Europe. Damn shame
Well, tbf, America and Europe is two different things. America wasn't in the war in 1915. European Countries also banned the film, so it doesn't really matter in that sense.
Not sure what makes you think black soldiers dying in Europe is relevant here. Racism isn't justified regardless of whether or not you have soldiers in the field or not.
And at the time this movie was produced and released, America hadn't joined the war yet anyways.
@@redtube8667 you really not that smart huh😂
@@johnnick8091 I'm not the one incapable of coming up with a rebuttal.
@@redtube8667 having black soldiers dying in war for a country that is portraying them a raping sex hunger barbarians is why that original comment is relevant and Wilson could have showed it at. Any time
Be honest Chris:
You just chose this topic to rant about wilson
Chris: you’re god damn right.
This film was the building block for the MGM film studio!
Griffith was also one of the founding members of United Artists film studio.
Given the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a super racist, I’m not even a little surprise.
Thank you for posting this. Not long after the movie was released the second Klan was born. The 20s saw a massive resurgence and they were at the peak of power. It was a time of hard nativist sentiment especially with waves of immigration.
Wilson wrote the forward for the book it was based on and is quoted in the movie. During his administration segregation was introduced in the federal government.
When you can look back and say by today’s standards someone is a bigot that’s one thing but Wilson was genuinely very racist even for his time! It amazes me it took so long to hear about this side of him!
It makes my skin crawl since I'm not white
It makes my skin crawl and I am white
It does not surprise me that worderow Wilson liked this movie
Why are there so many comments high on cope trying to rationalize this racist movie and make it seem like Wilson wasn't a super racist who screened a super racist movie in the white house
William Friedkin has some interesting opinions on it. He lists it among his most influential films.
I wonder will it ever come out in 4kkk
Not funny
@@sunnyplays9195 Why?
@@liquidzuel2321 I don't know, I thought it was some racist joke, sorry
@@sunnyplays9195 Nah Just a bit of witty wordplay, I thought it was funny anyway.
lol
Damn you Wilson 🤬
Shouldn't say that about even the worst of people.
WILSON
His next film - *Intolerance* is Great.
Also, that cheeky Title, lol
Petty title for a film
I think it's important to be able to separate how something can be racist and portray views we hold abhorrent, AND can be a masterpiece of technical skill and cinematography. You can criticize the movie for all the horrible things it stands for and portrays, but even the harshest critic has to give credit where it's due.
@@TheHottrod3000 Sure. Aren't there some early nazi cinema that were basically masterpieces in technical skill and cinematography despite their propaganda content?
@@TheHottrod3000 yes, literally leni rifenshtal
@@JurasJankauskas Yes, you can actually make the argument that is was due to this impeccable technical skill that those propaganda films were so effective at growing the movement.
Was it deliberately racist? Yes
Was it a technical achievement that influenced later films for generations to come? Also yes
One theory as to why it was so successful, was that at that time the cities of America were filled Irish, Poles, Italians, and Jews - who naturally hated each other. The movie created unity among these non-black people and hence was insanely popular. The high estimate of it's gross in 2023 dollars is 3.1 Billion.
There is a way to bring all the people of the Earth together... Black n's
The face he makes after he says "honor" explains how he really feels
And was endorsed by Wilson in his role as a "historian" one more disgrace in his legacy.
Who else but Wilson? [Brass band plays]
And Woodrow Wilson remarked that is was so true. Wilson didn't want democracy in his own country.
I have seen some people claim it to be so. I hope I found out about this recently that good ol’ Teddy was the first one to screen a film at the White House. a film called Cabiria was the first. I have seen some people claim it to be so. I hope it's true so Wilson can suck it
Cabiria was the first movie screened at the White House. It was screened on the lawn. Birth of a Nation was the first movie screened inside the White House. Unfortunately, Cabiria's screening was in 1914, so Wilson was President for that one, too. That said, he can still suck it.
What's also mad is that this is the first blockbuster in history.
Curses on Wilson for all eternity!
Wilson loved it.
This is a very beautiful movie quite accurate in its depiction of the civil war. I saw it a few times and love it
“For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.”
Obadiah 1:15
It was great at creating more racism in society in a horrible way. Some could say similar tactics get used today just not as aggressive. Not great in a good way btw lol
WILSONNNNNN!!!
It's a shame that happened on my birthday :(
Wow you are old
Your birthday holds way more value than this excuse of a film.
Common Wilson L
Having seen it myself, I acknowledge its significance in film history but also the controversial elements are uncomfortable, and may be a turn off for anyone who doesn’t want to watch it.
One of the best and realistic battle scenes ever depicted on film. Consultants were actual war veterans.
See this is a perfect example of why what your story is ABOUT matters far more than how well it was made. Nowadays people tout around well-made games and movies as if they are great examples of Art. No. Art is about Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. How well a story is made is merely a measure of how effectively it conveys its themes. But if the themes are Bad, the story is Bad no matter how great the production is. I would much rather have a Good but flawed story than a Bad but expertly crafted story
It's worth watching at least once, but it is hard. Maybe not if the person who's watching agrees with it, but it is a difficult movie to watch.
Those southern negationists really are the worst. Wilson did so much harm.
The worst? The Nazis would like a word …
Honesty is never terrible. It is.
It wasn’t trying to be racist per say but DW Griffith was just telling his life story, what he had been told by his southern family as a child. Film making rule #1 Make a Motion Picture about what you know, not what you don’t know. That more than likely would be your masterpiece and obviously most personal story so you’d do amazing at telling it. I see nothing wrong with the film, all I see that is wrong is the racism. I’d advise everyone to watch the interview of DW Griffith talking about his detail of making the picture for a rerelease of The Birth of a Nation.
I acknowledge this as an important part/moment for art as a whole, but just as much I acknowledge this as a great tragedy and a great product of hate and prejudice.
Most racist film in history? Clearly, you haven't seen some of the Nazi's propaganda films.
Nor half of Netflix's output over the last few years.
The first film screened IN the white house, but the first film screened AT the white house was the Italian epic Cabiria. It was shown a few months earlier outside on the grounds.
this is my first video,and this is amazing! So much history to learn,I’m gonna have to subscribe!
I'm glad you put it this way. It can be a technical achievement AND incredibly, purposefully racist at the same time. Those two things do not have to be mutually exclusive and in this case they most definitely are not
Some of the most innovative and techncially groundbreaking works in documentary films were Leni Riefenstahls films on the 36 Olympics. But also the infamous Nuremberg party films. Making them quite sucessful for a few years not just in Germany simply for that aspect.
They and she got obviously a bad reputation later. But i think the Olympics one is still considered a milestone. So infamous content and context doesn't exclude technical achievements.
This and Triumph of the Will. Why is it the supremacist propaganda films that make revolutionary breakthroughs in cinematography?
Triumph of the Will was not racist though. The Eternal Jew was racist.
It was voted as one of the greatest films of all time in this past BFI 2022 poll top 200 I believe.
Masterpiece in technical achievement only maybe surpassed by DW Griffiths Intolerance the very next year.
Is it a racist film yes but boy is it a landmark and a masterpiece.
Third most succesful film in American history.
Imagine if a President screened this in the White House one da- oh...
Have you heard of Trotsky (2017) it’s not the most racist movie but it still is horrifying.
Now you've made me curious
all my homies hate woodrow wilson
When my son was 7 years of age, he found a text in my library titled, Mein Kampf. He put one fist on his hip and pointed a finger at my face, “Dad, you’re a Nazi!” he shouted.
I sat with him and listened quietly to his rant before replying, I have that book because it is important to know how evil minds work. Did you see the Bible next to it? It is there for comparison. The Bible is full of terrible things people are capable of, but shows us what not to be and how important it is to strive to be better.
Birth of a Nation is one such story in film format. I own a copy. We are endowed with free will. Who do you want to be?
I was so pissed when I read the title! I thought you was going to speak on nate parkers film, but yes I agree I saw 1915 birth of a nation at 17....I had never been more pissed off in my life after watching that rhetoric and seeing the acclaim it got
A very interesting novel and movie.
I'd argue "Addio zio Tom" (Goodbye Uncle Tom) is WAY worse. Including the fact that they filmed it using actual slaves borrowed from a dictator.
I remember watxhing some of the clip at my film school here in Japan 3 years ago🤣
"I always find new ways to make my legacy that much worse. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to put ketchup on my mac n cheese and put the toilet paper roll on in the under position."
-Woodrow Wilson
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Exhibit #329684 of Woodrow Wilson being the worst president.
Despite its racist undertones, it’s a very well made movie and one of my favorites
Nah one of your favorites is crazy bro what are talking about
@@tombradywashed3500 He doesn't have to endorse the movie's message in order to like it
Damn you WILSON!
Terribly racist, but even a casual movie watcher like me found the technical skills fantastic. That all this was done in 1915 makes it even more impressive.
I think Jud Süß is more Racist. That beeing Said I am German/European. And we dont View Racism /Race "Just" threw a lense of Color. However I think every Race theory is stupid.
Strongly agreed. Especially that last statement.
Woodrow Wilson trying not do something racist impossible
This film had a sequel. Released in 1916, The Fall of a Nation is just as racist as the first movie. Thankfully, this film was a failure and has since become lost media
Your eyes are lit up talking about this racist hateful movie. That's disgusting
If you are a film person, and while I think that while the KKK is a disgusting part of our history, you should watch it for a historical view on how film making developed over time. If only these techniques where done in a not so controversial film
It's one of the films that you shouldn't watch but at the same time you should.
*shakes fist at sky* WIIIIILLSOOOOOOOON!!!
Expected that Wilson fact to be snuck in
I'm glad Wilson wasn't a Republican imagine the outrage and constant whining about him by many Dems today 😂
Talks over the most important line in the entire series
I've never seen this movie, but i was appalled at how blatant Jud Süß was with racism and antisemitism for a propaganda film. I'm guessing this one is similar with the "in your face not trying to hide it" ?
Well the opening showing slavery as an okay thing excepting saying that having black people among the population was the first step to American dis-union is the least racist thing about the film originally titled "The Clansman" had in it. Which is crazy but true.
Part 2 is about "reconstruction" the period after the Civil war where troops were stationed in the South to prevent lynching of black people and denial of their rights.
The movie shows black people stuffing ballot boxes ( submitting way more than one vote per person), the newly elected black members of the South Carolina legislature putting their bare feet up on their desks, drinking and eating fried chicken. A free black captain stalking a woman through the woods, proposing marriage and then getting aggressive and chasing her to the point she jumps off a cliff to avoid him. A main character of mixed race pursuing a white woman against her will and trying he up. The Klan being "persecuted" for lynching that black captain. A bunch of free black people over running the house of a man who's son was a clan member and him prepared to kill his own daughter if they breach the doors.
The Klan rescuing the other white woman. Legalization of mixed race marriage is done by the villain. And the klan intimidating black people outside their homes is shown as a good an noble thing. The film ends with
"The masses are shown oppressed by a giant warlike figure who gradually fades away. The scene shifts to another group finding peace under the image of Jesus Christ. The penultimate title is: "Dare we dream of a golden day when the bestial War shall rule no more. But instead-the gentle Prince in the Hall of Brotherly Love in the City of Peace."
Fun fact the only successful coup in US history was in Wilmington NC in 1898 where white supremacists violently overthrew the mixed race government, killed somewhere around 300 black civilians, torched the black newspaper, drove out 2000 black citizens and well.. I recommend learning about it yourself. There was a large buildup including a rally route shooting into black homes and schools followed by a barbecue and passionate speaking on how disrespectful black people were especially the men to the white women, how they were bestial and lusted after white women, and how violent black people would become if denied the vote so preemptive action was necessary.
So essentially, all the nasty racist stereotypes that Birth of a Nation showed 26 years later. Thanks to poor or false education, segregation, and the widespread prevalence of at best ignorance of the reality of black people and their lives and at worst racism in general the film which was pitched as historically accurate was stupid influential.
People threw klan parties, ushers wore klan robes, people claimed it was historically accurate and that it was a "compliment" to black people because it "told the truth" and showed "how far they had come since reconstruction". According to one Harvard researcher "On average, lynchings in a county rose fivefold in the month after [the film] arrived."
That's why I was incredibly disappointed to see the American Battlefield Trust include Birth of a Nation in its "Teacher's Guide to Civil War Movies - Classroom Appropriate Films to Enhance the Civil War for Students" Classroom appropriate?
I suppose the film could be included as a cautionary lesson for older students, but if I was a teacher I wouldn't show it to any ages short of college age.
My Civil War history prof had us watch this and wow… every time you think it can’t get worse, it does. 😐
I am not surprised that Woodrow Wilson contributed to this movie
Yet another reason to loathe Wilson. The hits keep on coming.
It also was a huge propaganda machine for the KKk and is a huge reason why the klan grew so much
Very interesting, thanks for that.
There’s no way to measure racism in the hearts of people… racism is just an idea nothing more
My top 1 movie of all time
So many amazing advancements in movies, and unfortunately it had to be... this movie.
It foretells what America is today
Most racist film in history? No. But certainly among the most problematic in terms of real world affects, doing more damage to race relations and mainstream historical views than any other film.
Screene by who? He shall not be named
I upgraded with has opinions but I hate the fact that UA-cam puts the shop button on the shot
I dare to make the statement the nazis still made the most racist films in history. Many still aren't allowed to be watched without additional commentary or followed by a discussion.
nah lets not downplay birth of a nation. it's byfar the most racist film
Discord link?
I really can't stand Wilson. The stereotypical college elite who thinks policy can overcome human nature.
If anything, it (alongside Gone With the Wind) did a lot more to romanticize and sanitize the Antebellum and Reconstruction-Era South more than any other piece of media, which in turn may have also done a lot to give the Second Ku Klux Klan the necessary PR to even regain prominence in the first place.
That, regardless of their technical achievements for cinema, are what make them pretty unforgivable to me.
Kinda sad that this is first movie screened in the White House, the fact it was even made at all is sad but now that will always be the first to be screened in the White House which feels like a gutpunch
I’m pretty sure Wilson enjoyed though 💀
But... is it all that racist...
Note: look at some of his other works, movies that portray Indians as victims of white settlers, movies about poor farmer being taken advantage of by speculators in Chicago making the farmers poor and the cities rich.
DW Griffith was a Progressive and with it he held all the same beliefs as the Progressive movement always has.
One could also state ... that this was the first movie to have a major character in the movie being a black man and having a "name" and he is portrayed sympathetically as a man being told he could marry anyone he wants. He decided he wants to marry a white society woman and goes to talk to her. He doesn't know the social customs, women do not talk to men in public unless the man is her fiancee or relative (that would be scandalous and destroy her reputation), she she's him and runs away and jumps off a cliff to her death rather than face the dishonor of being seen with a strange man.
The black character is horrified at her death and is emotionally shaken.
Her death results in the KKK going after him (obviously an innocent man).
Also nearly all the black characters are not treated poorly or as the villains, the only real villains are 2 people who push for the "Radical Republican's" opinions, and even going beyond that. (note the Progressive Movement was very hostile to these ideas, even today using the "dog whistle" of "Radical Right")
But again is this really the most racist movie...
take in point the scene of the black legislators... this scene was based on an image in a newspaper that showed "their view" of the black legislators as ignorant, lazy, incompetent and slobs. All of which were the mainstream views of Democrats at the time.
Now fast forward to the current era. There was a black comedy a few years back 2002 called Barbershop and as I remember there was a scene of the black men in the barbershop that looks like it was an exact copy of that scene from Birth of a Nation.
May I recommend watching Hollywood Shuffle, this is a comedy based on the experiences of Robert Townsend and Keenen Ivory Waynes as 2 black men trying to make it in Hollywood. I would here argue that their experinces in Hollywood during the 70s and 80s or for that matter all of Hollywood films from the 1920s to the present, shows that Hollywood has been and still is more racist than the DW Griffith film.
DW Griffith at least portrays most blacks as generally innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control, as opposed to nearly all modern films that portray all blacks as Stereotype Athletes, Rappers, Drug Dealers, Gangsters, etc.
Can you name 6 movies in the last 10 years where a black actor was not playing a stereotypical "black part".
I can only name a couple... Tennet, Winter Soldier, The Fast and Furious movies, and Maverick.
No that good a track record Hollywood.
On that last thing. I can name a lot. You just haven't watched that many movies
As horrible as it is you have to wonder if cinema techniques would be the same today if it wasn't created.
Well, well, wilson
Something to emphasize here is how unsophisticated the audience was back then also. I mean, one of the first films created was just a train leaving a station towards the screen and people were momentarily alarmed it was going to hit them.
Whatever propagandist impact you think movies have today, poorly representing this or that group or issue, people back then were more akin to the Thermians from the Klatu Nebula in GalaxyQuest watching "the historic documents".
lets not defend ignorance. there were black activists back then who protested this movie. the audience knew exactly what it was...
You are wrong. On average we are more than 10 iq points dumber than early 20th century Americans