Micheaux's Response: The Glorification of Women

By Michael Oelbaum, with comments by Kelley Higgins and Taylor Kite

[1] The film Birth of a Nation reflects the world that D. W. Griffith saw or possibly wished existed. Griffith yearned for a world in which women are innocent and vulnerable, looking for a strong, white man to protect them. Black filmmaker Oscar Micheaux was a different person altogether and because of this was able to envision a future in which blacks and whites, as well as men and women, are equals. Micheaux’s Within Our Gates, which was produced as an “answer” to Birth of a Nation, portrays women as strong and independent, a sharp contradiction to Griffith. Micheaux’s film serves to show the public that Griffith’s film represents an unrealistic depiction of blacks and women. By producing Within Our Gates, Micheaux provides the public with a visual and realistic example of how women are powerful, diplomatic, and fortitudinous. Micheaux illustrates that women are capable of making an impact on society and the lives of men. This was an unimaginable idea, especially since major films, such as Birth, continued to reinforce the idea that women are helpless and, most importantly, useless. Micheaux’s film seems to not only counter the stereotypes that Griffith uses to portray blacks, but it also portrays a more modern world overall.

[2] In Birth of a Nation, white women are seen as helpless and in need of a protector. In the “Love Valley” scene (12:29), Margaret is at the side of her man. She is shorter than Phil, and while Margaret is not an athlete and there is the stereotype that men are stronger than women, Margaret would appear differently to the audience if she was the same height as the man. In a primitive sense, height is related to strength and dominance. Being taller literally allows Phil to look down on Margaret and forces Margaret to look up to him. Yet, this difference is also metaphorical as well, as will be demonstrated later. Griffith seems to intentionally pair these two in part because Margaret is shorter than the man, fitting Griffith’s belief that the women is weaker and dependent on the man. Never in the film is there a woman who is taller than her lover. Margaret is not taller than Phil, Elsie is not taller than Ben, and even the mulatto maid is not taller than Stoneman.

[3] Margaret’s umbrella protects her from the sun in “Love Valley,” a bright sun capable of burning her skin. Women of that time commonly used umbrellas, if they could afford them, for such protection. By using an umbrella, Margaret appears fragile and vulnerable, as if being without the umbrella invites injury. Furthermore, she has some sort of decorative cloth draped over her shoulders, as if it too was protecting her from the sun and anything else that might harm her. Her skin is almost fully covered, leaving no part of her unprotected. Yet, the men next to her do not need an umbrella. They are straight and upright, perfectly capable of withstanding the sun’s rays.

[4] Margaret’s use of the umbrella also illustrates her weakness. She holds it as if it were heavy, letting it hang over her shoulders, dragging it along, illustrating her weakness and frailty. Her arms are bent, as if they do not have the strength to hold the umbrella straight and tall. When watching the slaves dance after work, Margaret sits, as if tired from the walk. Only sitting does Margaret hold her umbrella up straight, as if she’s re-allocated the energy of standing. Not only does Margaret struggle to hold the umbrella, but she relies on it as a crutch when a man is not present. During an earlier scene (06:00), Margaret waddles up and down a hall and up stairs, using the umbrella to support herself. Even Phil’s hat is tall and straight, demonstrating power and elegance. In contrast, Margaret’s umbrella is loose, flower-like -- like she is. Unlike Margaret’s umbrella, the man’s hat seems to serve a fashion purpose, showing the man’s wealth and style. Other men, such as Margaret’s father, the master of Cameron hall, also wear these hats, though not always outside. Margaret’s umbrella may have a fashion purpose like the man’s, but Margaret also uses her umbrella indoors for support, while the man does not use his hat for any other purpose, making it clear that protection and support are part of the umbrella’s purpose for her.

[5] Margaret is, in fact, like the flower in the shot, the same the type of flower that the man gives her a few scenes later. The flower is wobbly and flows in the wind. Although it is pretty, it needs support. The man holds the flower in this scene, giving the flower the support it needs -- just as later he holds Margaret and guides her (14:01). Similar to a wilting plant stick supported by a stake, Margaret seems to rely on the man for support. Margaret is always right up against the man, the space between them always very small or non-existent. Margaret and the other white women are almost always seen with a man at their side. It is as if they are too weak or vulnerable to be on their own. Even Mrs. Cameron, a mature woman, is seen clinging to Ben before he looks for his little sister (2:08:20). Yet, men do not need anyone at their side, strong and independent enough to be on their own. In this scene, Ben is capable of having no one at his side. Even though for most of the scene, Ben is near them, towards the end he pulls away to examine the photo of Elsie he is given. Margaret is not capable of this and at any time is always clinging to the man as a baby pup would to its mother.

[6] The flower is white, illustrating its purity and appears to be rose-like, the rose being a symbol of love and beauty. Yet, it is important to discern the flower in the shot as a rose, for a rose has thorns protecting it while this flower does not. Margaret, like the flower, is dressed beautifully, has her hair down and braided, giving her the appearance of a princess or queen. Margaret is clothed in layers of expensive looking, elegant clothing. Just as the rose is representative of beauty of flowers, Margaret can be representative in the beauty of white women. It is no coincidence that Margaret and the flower are both white. Griffith appears to make the connection that white women are pure, beautiful, and fragile -- like the flower in shot.

[7] Since Griffith views white women as the essence of beauty, purity, and vulnerability, it is no surprise that Griffith was so taken back by the mere possibility that black men could even desire them. Griffith seems to view white men as restrained and civilized, capable of withholding sexual urges and displaying them as appropriate. Blacks, on the other hand, are seen as having uncontrollable sexual desires. Even the mulatto maid, a woman, cannot control herself after seeing Senator Summers and is seen rubbing herself out of sexual lust once he departs. Griffith seems to exaggerate the helplessness of Ben’s little sister Flora and Gus’s lust to legitimize this fear (2:09:00).

[8] Ben’s little sister tries to slap Gus, but the effort is futile because the slap is so weak it barely fazes him. Flora runs in a helpless way as well, teetering and tottering and grasping for things to hold onto for support, giving the audience the impression that it is only a matter of time until Gus catches her. The most blatant demonstration of Flora’s helplessness is her constant flailing of her arms, a known “SOS” type of signal. And Gus’s lust is evident from the moment he talks to her. Not only does he mention that he wants to marry and implies that he is now worthy to marry Flora now that he is a captain, but he cannot take his eyes off her. The mere fact that Gus chases Flora for so long illustrates, literally and metaphorically, extreme lust, for a man would most likely forget about a woman who rejects him and move on, or at least not continue to pursue her with such intensity. While the chase is physical, Gus also hopes that chasing her will win her heart. Gus looks wildly in every direction, not letting this opportunity to get Flora go. The chase, however, results in serious harm for Flora. Cornered by a man who may hurt her and on the edge of cliff, she jumps off in desperation, since, in Griffith’s opinion, there is nothing else she can do. Gus did not heed the warning to “stay away or [I’ll] jump.” Not caring about the vulnerability or innocence of the girl, Gus advances out of lust, directly causing the serious injuries that Ben’s little sister endures. (see comment by Kelley Higgins)

[9] Within Our Gates is constructed to be another kind of film entirely. Women here are perceived as powerful players in the social realm, never helpless and always resourceful. In almost every aspect, Micheaux counters Griffith’s view that women are vulnerable and weak.

[10] During a parallel scene in Within Our Gates (3:46), Sylvia is equal in height with her fiancé, Conrad. This is a striking difference with Birth of a Nation because the women main characters are portrayed as equal to men. Height, as mentioned previously, can be used as a determination of one’s power and strength. Sylvia hair is in a bun, a hairstyle showing control over her hair. Margaret, on the other hand, lets her hair down to flow freely. Sylvia’s hair style is more powerful and representative of the kind of woman she is. It is no coincidence that Alma, the other power player in Gates also has her hair in a bun. Even Sylvia’s posture overall radiates strength. Her torso is open, facing the audience, illustrating confidence and a feeling that she is comfortable. Conrad actually appears less comfortable, slightly hunched, and his torso is more closed and in a defensive stance, protecting it from the audience. Sylvia’s arm is at her side, angled in a manner which, unlike Margaret, portrays power and, possibly, sexuality. Unlike Margaret, whose arm was bent because of her umbrella, Sylvia’s arm is bent intentionally. Sylvia commands control over her posture and body, standing in a possibly sexual or flirtation manner to attract Alma’s stepbrother, Larry Prichard. What is most striking is not only that Prichard tries to court Sylvia but that Sylvia has the power to turn him away. She tells him that she is already engaged and gets up on her own accord and walks out. Sylvia is not attached to him, while he is to her. This is a huge difference from Birth of a Nation, in which it appears that once the white men, such as Ben Cameron, choose a woman that they like, they have the power to get them. Thus, Sylvia does not just have control over herself, which is already more control than Margaret -- her ability to attract and choose her lover empowers her.

[11] Additionally, women in Gates are highly intelligent and surpass the men in such matters as diplomacy. For instance, despite Sylvia’s aura of power, Alma is conniving enough to get what she wants. She is the essence of the French expression “Femme maîtresse,” a woman who knows what she wants and how to get it. Prichard appears suddenly in this scene, and it is likely that Alma tries to set him up with Sylvia so that Sylvia would leave her fiancé Conrad. Alma too radiates power -- her hair is in a bun, and she strides over to Sylvia and Conrad with purposeful undulation. Unlike Margaret and Flora, whose ability to walk is determined by the length of their dress, their environment, or who or what is supporting them, Alma is capable of controlling her motion in a flirtatious manner, demonstrating power. Elegantly, and seemingly harmlessly, Alma curtsies and creates a reason for herself to disturb Sylvia and Conrad’s conversation and see how her plan is unfolding. As Prichard seems to be unaware of Alma’s plan, it appears that Alma plays with him as a cat does with a mouse.

[12] Even though Alma’s plan, assuming it truly was her plan, fails, Alma illustrates persistence and sets up another scenario to break up Sylvia and her fiancé. This persistence alone illustrates power and independence, especially because Alma sets up this plan alone. Before greeting Conrad, Alma checks herself out in the mirror and puts on make-up, possibly to try to attract him. After an hour, Alma brings Conrad to where Sylvia is and Conrad sees Sylvia talking to a white man who is holding her in a seemingly sexual manner (12:00). Alma receives the reaction she wants—Sylvia’s fiancé is furious. Although Conrad is aggressive and pushes Alma around, she does not appear helpless. She attempts to control him by grabbing his shoulders and manages to pull him back in his rage. Flora had no power or control in comparison. Even though Gus never attacks her, it is implied that she would have been helpless -- hence the reason she would rather jump off a cliff than take her chances. Even Sylvia, who is brutally grabbed and handled, is calm and shows more sadness than fear. She has the strength to get up after being strangled and try to work out the situation with Conrad. After Conrad’s first physical rejection of her, Sylvia does not let Conrad’s aggressiveness faze her, and she tries again. Alma’s conniving plan worked, and even when Conrad unexpectedly acts aggressively, Alma is in control.

[13] Lastly, it is important to note the independence of the women. Even when Sylvia’s fiancé breaks up with her, leaving her abruptly, Sylvia shows that she is upset but also shows that she does not need him and will carry on without him. After Conrad leaves, Sylvia does not pursue him, she continues on with her life and tries to finish her ambition to raise money for the black school. This makes Sylvia different from the women in Birth of a Nation because she is shown as having her own life and goals, not living and doing activities with only her family and romantic partners. Additionally, unlike the mulatto maid in Birth of a Nation, Sylvia is portrayed as jovial a few scenes after her break-up. This illustrates that while romantic relationships are important to her and upsetting when they do not work out, she does not need or rely on them. The mulatto maid, in contrast, drops to the floor distraught after her rejection from Summers and then proceeds to pursue the next nearest white man, Stoneman.

[14] Overall, Micheaux’s film does not merely counter Griffith’s view that women are helpless. In doing so he contests the idea that women are only useful for romantic ventures. Micheaux’s film is one of the few early examples in U.S. history of the glorification of women. Micheaux’s film illustrates that women are not only capable of power but can intelligently use it to fulfill important goals and aspirations. While Sylvia’s illustration of power and intelligence in the scenes with Prichard and Conrad may seem insignificant and only relate to her personal life, the bigger picture that Micheaux presents is that Sylvia was capable of using such power and intelligence within her to accomplish a seemingly impossible task, fundraising for a terribly impoverished black school. In this way, said scenes are Micheaux’s proof that women possess such intelligence and power, and Sylvia’s success at fundraising is the evidence that women are capable of using it in a meaningful way. Not only were there few people to turn to, considering the state was of little assistance, but the fact that Sylvia succeeds is a testament to women because the men in the film, such as the director of the black school, were not capable of raising the money. Thus, Micheaux’s film can be seen as not only an “answer” to the film Birth of a Nation but a wakeup call to the American nation, stating that women should be viewed and treated as equals.

Comments

Kelley Higgins 3/4/11

The pursuit of Flora by Gus not only depicts women as dainty, powerless individuals, but it also paints a negative image of blacks as aggressive, white-women chasers. It really bothered me the way that Griffith portrayed whites’ reactions to blacks as if they were savage-like and would cause serious harm to the women. By running from Gus, Flora put herself in a situation that tempted him to follow her and may have caused him to think that she was simply being playful. It seems that Griffith intended for the audience to negatively view blacks like Gus as aggressors by showing Flora’s feelings of being trapped and victimized. However, her immaturity and ignorance sends just as strong of a message in making women appear incompetent and dependent on men to protect and save them.

What disgusts me most here is the use of vulnerable white women to desensitize the guilt felt towards black suppression and to create justification and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith portrays the KKK as a group of heroes needed in the village to defend the women from these hostile animals. To think that whites might try to excuse our shameful history by emphasizing how delicate and victimized the women could possibly have been, with white men acting as heroes who came to their rescue, is completely historically inaccurate and utterly embarrassing for women of today. Would we really rather view ourselves as incapable accessories to powerful white men in an attempt to deny the disgrace brought on by the KKK’s existence as a racist, violent movement? (see comment by Taylor Kite)

Taylor Kite 3/5/11

Something interesting to consider while watching the movie is the time that the movie was filmed/produced. Women at this time were treated and viewed incredibly different than we are today, and those former attitudes are strongly depicted in the film. Men thought of themselves as protectors of women, but it wasn't necessarily chivalry -- it was ignorance. The men were convinced that women were incapable of caring for themselves in a number of ways. Further, women were quite often forced to keep quiet and not speak their minds or opinions. As a result, these attitudes persisted, for women were unable to defend themselves vocally for quite some time. So, Griffith brought many of these seemingly normal -- at the time -- cultural references. When taken out of context today, it would be understandable that we get offended and upset by the way women are portrayed. I certainly agree with Kelley's points on how the way women are shown is unacceptable and degrading as far as our strength as a gender is concerned. However, I find it interesting and captivating to consider how the man behind the camera literally would have likely thought nothing of it because that is "just the way things were." How much longer must we go excusing things like this just because "it's the way things were"? When will powerful people stand up and make amends for historical wrongdoings and help us to come to terms with these injustices?