A Head-to-Head Debate: “The Riot in the Master’s Hallâ€
By Jillian Sloand, with comments by Jonathan Zubkoff and Jaeyong Shim
[1] With the release of the autumn 1947 issue of Sight and Sound, controversy over D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation and its portrayal of racism in the Civil War and Reconstruction-era South resurged. Two critics faced off as one, Peter Noble, attacked Griffith for his prejudiced work and the unforgiving means by which he attempted to recreate history in his film. Responding in the next issue, Griffith-supporter Seymour Stern defended Griffith as race-neutral and endorsed Birth of a Nation for its accurate depiction of mid-19th century history. The approaches by Noble and Stern to each scene are typical of the controversial responses the film has always generated, and their varying perspectives on the specific scene in the black-dominated South Carolina legislature -- “The Riot in the Master’s Hall†-- serve both to illuminate and perhaps even sustain the perennial debate.
[2] In “A Note on an Idol,†Noble criticizes Griffith’s overall portrayal of blacks in the scene: “Here ‘the new tyrants of the South’ (to quote Griffith again), hold sway, lounge back in their chairs, their bare feet up on their desks, a bottle of whisky in one hand and a leg of chicken in the other.†Noble argues that throughout this scene Griffith presents the blacks as immature and improper. He notes that the supposed “honorable member†of Congress swigging from his hidden bottle of whiskey in the middle of the session is a good example of the animalistic, uneducated, and immature aspects that Griffith associates with the blacks in this scene. However, Stern’s view is quite different. Although the absurdity in this scene is impossible to ignore, Stern overlooks the scandalous portrayal of blacks and supports it as an accurate representation of how they were perceived at the time. Stern does not openly agree with how the blacks were received, but he maintains that it was the accepted truth of public opinion during the post-Civil War era.
[3] Even the way Griffith sets up the scene as a whole generates different views of the blacks. The first shot of the House is from the rear, but Griffith chooses to leave the room empty with the aligned desks vacant. He then uses a filmic technique to fade in the commotion and chaos within the House that the viewers witness for most of the remainder of the scene. Noble suggests that Griffith fades in the blacks to prove his personal viewpoint that the blacks swarmed into power quickly and unfairly. The blacks quickly gained support but instantly created chaos as they rose to power over the whites -- standing up, flailing their arms around as they attempt to govern. Stern, on the other hand, once again supports the historical accuracy of the shot -- the blacks did emerge into power rather quickly and inexplicably. So Stern argues that Noble’s criticism of this shot is excessive, insisting that Griffith’s motive is simply to show the true historical interpretation of the black rise to power.
[4] Throughout the scene as a whole, it is hard to identify the leader of the House during the session. So much commotion distracts the viewer from distinguishing certain characters from others, while the overall set up of the scene does not allow for order. Thus, since he is never the focus of a shot nor introduced by an intertitle, Griffith’s filming suggests that there is no specific leader of the House. Noble uses this fact to further his argument that Griffith portrays blacks as incapable of running a government. The legislature lacks a leader. No one is in charge. The blacks are disorganized, virtually a mob. Stern, however, proposes that the lack of a leader signifies the collectivization of thought blacks used in their method of governing. According to Stern, the blacks worked through issues together. (see comment by Jonathan Zubkoff )
[5] Noble even attacks the specific policies Griffith shows blacks pass in session. For instance, the very first policy they implement is that all House members must wear shoes while in session. Right from the beginning, then, Noble suggests that Griffith is showing how the blacks are not taking their new power in government seriously. During this time there are serious issues to be dealt with, yet Griffith depicts black members wasting time passing ridiculous, petty policies in order to stem their present squabbles. Another policy, that whites must salute black officers on the streets, seems excessive to Noble as well. He charges Griffith with the extremism with which he suggests that the blacks only seek revenge on the whites for their unfair treatment in the past. Furthermore, Noble attacks Griffith for making the final policy of allowing interracial marriage another example of blacks taking advantage of their new power for their own benefit. Stern replies to these attacks by arguing that, historically, the blacks were productive legislators not time-wasters. He implies that although their policies are not directly related to societal needs at the time, the depiction of the blacks in passing their policies is historically accurate.
[6] “The riot in the Master’s Hall†scene involves several shots that embody the controversy over the film as a whole. Noble sees the film denigrating blacks, sees the film as racist, sees Griffith as prejudiced. Stern sees the film as historically accurate, sees the film reflecting societal views during the Reconstruction era, sees Griffith as responsible historian. Perhaps never the twain shall meet.
Comments
I agree with Noble's point that the chaos in the room is supposed to represent that the blacks have no leader in the House. Stern's point does not make a lot of sense to me because if the blacks were working through their issues together, Griffith would have shown a much calmer, organized scene in which the representatives talked through their issues in an orderly fashion. This is clearly the opposite of what we actually see here. My main problem with this scene is the ridiculous outnumbering of blacks to whites. This just isn't even close to being historically accurate, which pretty much throws Griffith's entire message down the drain. If there actually was a political House in South Carolina in which this occurred, then, yes, it would have been racist, but maybe part of it would have been true, albeit exaggerated. The fact that this situation never occurred makes the scene irrelevant historically, and utterly racist and unacceptable. (see comment by Jaeyong Shim)
Zubkoff thinks that the hardly realistic scene weakens the credit of Griffith. Nevertheless, I think Griffith needed the scene in order to get what he intended. Although Griffith says that the film is to portray accurate historical facts, I suppose that Griffith's real intention is to raise fear of Aryan's losing power to African Americans. In order to accomplish this, Griffith obviously needed to put out the scene that shows African American's holding power, and the effect would be maximized if the place was the state congress. In addition, outnumbered whites is a dramatic tool to make white viewers frightened to convey his message which is "Don't give away the power to African Americans." Thus, the scene was useful for Griffith to deliver his message and accomplish his goal despite being unrealistic.
