The Beginning of the End: The Lincoln Assassination on Camera
By Sarah Carey, with comments by Karen Haberland, Andrew Tye, and Margaret Watters
[1] The scene that best represents the portrayal of Lincoln in The Birth of a Nation is Griffith’s version of Lincoln’s assassination in Ford’s theatre. He uses several techniques to dramatize this pivotal event and have it come alive for his audience. Griffith uses Lincoln to give Birth a place in history. He uses a factual, “infamous†event to help the audience connect with the story. In the midst of his fictional plot, we are shown artful portrayals of historical events, so the whole piece seems realistic. The techniques that Griffith uses in this scene are set up so that the audience will find it captivating and believable. Later in the movie, when we are shown content that is closer to racist propaganda than to a family film, it seems much more believable when put next to such a monumental moment in American History.
[2] The scene is preluded by a view of the Stoneman siblings preparing to leave for the theatre, setting us up to watch the succeeding events through their eyes, a more personal view. Text informs the audience of the play and its title, and a footnote lets us know that the theatre shown is “exact in size and in detail,†adding to Griffith’s technique of using true historical references to capture the imaginations of his audience. We see an iris shot of Elsie and Phil taking off their coats and taking their seats that shows us the bustling and crowded theatre. The next slide with text tells us more facts – again Griffith is showing us true history. The play starts, and we see the audience react positively. Next, we are informed that Lincoln and his party arrive at 8:30 pm. Again, Griffith is placing us in the theatre, at a specific time, trying to help his audience feel as if they were there for the famous event.
[3] Griffith’s artful arrangement of the event includes prolonging it. Building the audience’s anxiety and suspense helps to create a believable and captivating scene. Everyone knows what is going to happen, but the suspense and anxiety is heightened with the realistic, but drawn-out sequence. We see the Lincoln party file in and are given a good look at what is going on in the play, separating our sense of “fact†and “fiction†in the sequence. The music abruptly changes tone as the bodyguard leaves his post to get a better view of the play; it is hurried and intense. Then we are shown John Wilkes Booth, from Phil and Elsie’s perspective once again. Elsie notices Booth in the balcony; a slide of text confirms his identity. The audience is shown a creepy iris portrait shot of Booth: his vacant eyes are staring out into the distance, and he is unmoving. The music for the next few moments is hushed and slow, building tension as we watch John Wilkes Booth draw a gun and enter Lincoln’s box.
[4] Intercutting with scenes from the play makes the viewer feel anxious; we know what is coming. Booth bursts into Lincoln’s box and, after some hesitation, shoots Lincoln in the head. There is an immediate uproar from the theatre, and Booth jumps from the balcony onto the stage, unfurling an American flag in his wake. We see Elsie and Phil’s shocked faces watching the events unfold. Booth “yells†Sic Semper Tyrannis! and runs away into the darkness. The audience in the theatre is in panic, people pushing to get out and men frantically inspecting the president’s body. The actions are over-exaggerated and deliberate, a tactic Griffith uses throughout the film to make up for the lack of dialogue.
[5] This scene is very effective. It accomplished Griffith’s goal: to make the audience feel like they are present for Lincoln’s assassination, watching from the seats of a crowded theatre. An important technique Griffith uses to create this feeling successfully is subtly showing the events through the eyes of Phil and Elsie Stoneman. These are characters that we have been getting to know throughout the movie, so we feel some form of connection to them by this time in the film. Seeing them sit down at the theatre puts us in a certain perspective. We also see clips of the play they are viewing, basically sharing their experience with them. It is Elsie who spots John Wilkes Booth in the balcony and alerts the audience of his presence; we aren’t simply shown him with a label. When Elsie looks through her binoculars at him, we see an eerie iris-shot of Booth, just as if the viewers themselves were viewing him through a pair of binoculars. Finally, when Lincoln is shot, it is Elsie and Phil who are first to get to their feet; we see a shot of their surprised and horrified expressions, just as if we are sharing the moment with them. Griffith puts us in their shoes to enhance the scene for us. Instead of observing the events, we are a part of them. The characters that Griffith has spent building a connection with the audience for are the ones to take us through this important scene. It is a very effective technique and does exactly what Griffith intended for it.
[6] In addition to the techniques discussed above, one subtle but important factor in this scene is the “play within a play†tactic. The play scene works to Griffith’s advantage. Mark Charney describes the technique well: Griffith’s portrayal “establishes an artificial distinction between what is real or ‘true’—Lincoln’s assassination—and what is representational or false— Our American Cousin. This distinction is critical to Griffith’s directorial politics, because once established, it permits him a great amount of freedom within the context of the ‘truth’.†Griffith is setting up his audience for the rest of the movie with this scene.
[7] Looking at the whole movie in a much broader sense, Griffith uses the “play within a play†technique in reverse using the Lincoln scene and other historically accurate scenes in the movie. These scenes are set up to give the story a place in history: when put next to true historical events, the audience automatically carries over that feeling of trust to the story. The audience knows the events in the Civil War and Lincoln’s assassination actually happened, so without knowing it they are trusting that the rest of the events represented in the movie are true as well. The portrayal of Lincoln is an important part of Griffith’s crafting the movie. (see comment by Karen Haberland)
Comments
As Karen mentioned, Griffith uses obvious and well known historical events to gain the trust of the audience. His falsehoods become overshadowed by the events that actually did take place. My issue essay touched on the movie's relationship to Thomas Dixons's book, The Clansman. The movie has a similar relationship to real life as it does the book. Camperson mentions how Griffith uses important events in the book as staples in the movie but slightly alters the screenplay portrayal to present a different interpretation. One example mentioned is how Flora is raped by a single African American man, making the rape appear more personal--as opposed to the gang rape in the book. (see comment by Margaret Watters )
D.W. Griffith often uses the guise of a "historical facsimile" as an attempt to fool the audience into believing that the scene they are viewing is what really happened. The scene of Lincoln's assassination and the surrender at Appomattox court house are grounded in history and are commonly understood facts. Thus, when the audience is met with these overly presented facts, they are inclined to continue believing that the entirety of the movie is factual. Griffith can draw the audience in with an astounding vision of Lincoln's death then jump to the rape-loving, lawless blacks, and that air of truth can still hover in the background. The director then uses this liberty to accost the audience with heavily dramatized and fictional scenes of the blacks' heathen affront to white honor. Yes, in real life there were some blacks that did bad things, but this movie depicts every single one as a murderer, a rapist, or a ridiculous joke. And, at least back when this movie was first released, people were inclined to believe that this was truly the case.
Griffith was extremely smart in his placement and wording of historical facts because, while not technically lying, he suggests to the audience the truth of the scene. Robert Lang, a professor at the University of Hartford, pointed out numerous historical inaccuracies with the film, including the most glaringly false view of the South Carolina legislature. Griffith begins the scene with a title introducing the "riot in the Master's Hall" resulting from the majority of black representatives. What the viewer also notices is the bold lettering stating that this scene is an "historical facsimile." But what is easily overlooked is the fact that the history is limited to the picture of the empty state house as it was in 1870, a year before the supposed "riot" took place. But Griffith can show a quick shot of the empty room then switch to his fiction with the audience none-the-wiser. Add to this the truth that more anti-miscegenation laws were passed than those that actually allowed inter-racial marriage, and the scene can now be seen for what it really is, a blatantly racist misrepresentation of blacks used to further Griffith's push for continued white superiority. (see comment by Andrew Tye)
The Birth of a Nation only cost $110,000 to make, and its profit was around $10,000,000. That means that far too many people were exposed to these false representations of historical occurrences and most unfortunately, some believed them as true. The way Griffith slips from facsimile to “history†could easily fool anyone into accepting the scenes to follow as historically accurate. It is distressing to know that so many people watched what Griffith portrayed as accurate and that many acknowledged the scenes in his film as true when they are biased toward Griffith’s racist agenda.
