statesofunrest
It was good during the civil war part. I liked the big battle scenes and the story during that part was interesting enough and everything, but then the second half started and I thought at first maybe the director was going for something that was actually pro-rights for African Americans but then I noticed all the black face, and then the story takes a much darker tone that really wasn't necessary, accurate, and came from a place of ignorance. I know it was a different time, but as the highest selling silent movie of all time, I guess I was expecting something, you know...less racist. Anyway, I guess that shows you that controversy sells tickets, if nothing else.
GusF
Based on the 1905 novel "The Clansman" by Thomas F. Dixon, Jr., this silent film epic is as brilliantly made as it is incredibly racist. It has often been hailed as one of the most important films in cinematic history because of the techniques that its director D. W. Griffith, a master of his craft, pioneered while working on it. Many of the techniques that audiences now take for granted such as long shots, pan shots and frequent use of intercutting made their first appearance here. The battle scenes are thrilling, beautifully staged and surprisingly violent for the time. The script by Griffith and Frank E. Woods is very well structured and, while it inspired many feelings in me, boredom was not one of them. The film depicts a version of the United States, North and South, and its people, black and white, which only ever existed in the minds of bitter Southerners. Its warped, ahistorical treatment of race relations led to widespread protests by the NAACP, riots in several major cities and, according to one report, the murder of a black teenager by a white man as a direct result of the latter watching the film (though the evidence is less than conclusive). The film has also been blamed for contributing to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, which had essentially ceased to exist in the 1870s but returned with a vengeance over the course of the next few years. The storyline follows two families, the Northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons, who are acquainted as a result of the fact that the eldest sons attended boarding school together. The film's first half concerns the prelude to the Civil War and the war itself while the second concerns Reconstruction. Austin Stoneman, played by Ralph Lewis, is the Speaker of the House of Representatives and a thinly veiled version of the Radical Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, even possessing a club foot. Like Stevens, Stoneman is not only an abolitionist but believes that blacks and whites are equal. As such, he is one of the major villains of the piece. The other major villain, his biracial protégé Silas Lynch, does not appear until the second half but he is depicted as being a truly evil, venomous character who seeks to create a Black Empire in the South with himself as its king. The only other African-American shown to have any real intelligence is Stoneman's housekeeper Lydia Brown, who is likewise biracial. Based on Stevens' housekeeper and alleged lover Lydia Hamilton Smith, she only appears briefly but she is clearly intended as a Lady Macbeth type who manipulates Stoneman into going along with her ideas of equality. Most of the other black characters are depicted as being ultra- violent, cruel, detestable and sometimes little more than animals. In one particularly disturbing scene, a black renegade named Gus - played by Walter Long in blackface - attempts to rape the fragile waif Flora Cameron, ultimately driving her to commit suicide. The implication of this scene is clear: black men will rape and kill every white Southern woman unless the KKK does something about them. It's one of the most sickening sequences in a film which has no shortage of them, particularly in its second half. The only black characters portrayed in a sympathetic light are the Camerons' "faithful souls" - perfect illustrations of the Mammy and Uncle stereotypes - and various slaves who were much happier before they were freed. The majority of the black characters are played by white actors in blackface but there are many black extras in the background. They were probably glad to get some work but I have to wonder what they thought of the film, especially Madame Sul-Te-Wan whose parents were freed slaves.Although the film is perhaps best remembered for its glorification of the KKK, they do not actually appear until 2 hours and 5 minutes into the 3 hour and 13 minute running time but they certainly make their presence felt after that. They are described as "the organisation that saved the South from the anarchy of black rule" and that really says it all when it comes to the film's attitude towards them. They are depicted performing several supposedly heroic feats such as hanging Gus, dumping his corpse on Lynch's doorstep and rescuing the bound and gagged Elsie Stoneman before she can be forced into marrying Lynch. The Klan's founder is Elsie's lover Ben Cameron, otherwise known as "the Little Colonel."One thing that surprised me was the fact that Abraham Lincoln was treated very positively with Dr. Cameron even describing him as "our best friend" when it comes to Reconstruction. There are some moments that seemed genuine such as Phil Stoneman and Margaret Cameron's shy interaction when they first meet and Elsie putting on a brave face as her three brothers leave for war before bursting into tears the moment that they leave. It's a lovely little moment which is wonderfully acted by Lillian Gish. Although most of the characters are misconceived to some degree, the film nevertheless has a very strong cast: Miriam Cooper as Margaret, Henry B. Walthall as Colonel Cameron, Mary Alden as Lydia Brown, Ralph Lewis as Stoneman, Elmer Clifton as Phil, Spottiswoode Aitken as Dr. Cameron and Josephine Crowell as Mrs. Cameron.Overall, neither the importance of the film nor its racism have been exaggerated. I think Roger Ebert said it best: "Like Riefenstahl's 'The Triumph of the Will', it is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about film, and even something about evil."I'm sort of torn about how to rate this film. In terms of quality, I'd give it 10/10. If I were to rate it in terms of morality (something that I have never done before and may never do again), I'd give it 0/10.
