Dixon’s Clansman vs. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation
By Aaron Baek, with comments by Nicholas Alakel and Katherine Prosswimmer
[1] Thomas Dixon, author of the controversial but successful novel The Clansman (1905), has been eulogized as the author of the greatest novel about the Reconstruction era or criticized as a racist for distorting the facts of history to suit his racial prejudices. Nevertheless, the success of his novel was guaranteed when it was turned into the highly esteemed Birth of a Nation (1915) under the direction of D.W. Griffith. The works of both Griffith and Dixon parallel each other, and such critics as Jeffrey Martin even come close to attacking Griffith for his unoriginality:
The film closely parallels Dixon’s theatrical treatment borrowing heavily from the play for much of the second half of the film, filling in exposition from the novel for the earlier sections, and in general, using Dixon’s material more thoroughly than is usually believed. . . . Griffith produced a close adaption rather than a wholly original work. . . . Griffith was much less innovative than is usually thought. (87)
Although Martin states that Griffith was unoriginal, he follows up his sentence saying that he remained faithful to his source material but enhanced its effectiveness by emphasizing its visual and emotional appeal. That is an important distinction. Griffith’s work clearly parallels Dixon’s, work, but the film develops its own identity by enhancing and editing Dixon and simplifying complicated descriptions and scenes.
[2] The first way Griffith enhances Dixon’s work is by featuring both Phil Stoneman and Margaret Cameron to offer a different perspective on the conflict. Phil Stoneman, brother of the protagonist Elsie Stoneman, and Margaret Cameron, sister of the protagonist Ben Cameron, are incorporated into the plot, unlike in Dixon’s renditions. Dixon’s novel/play is focused primarily on the perspectives of the protagonists and minimizes the interaction of minor characters like Phil and Margaret. Martin clarifies Griffith’s decision to utilize these characters: “it ties the families more closely together . . . they provide Griffith with a second strong couple for his double rescue at the end of the film†(90). In Dixon’s novel and play, the epic rescue of Phil is told behind closed curtains. Phil offers to take Ben’s place in prison for his involvement in the KKK, and we are told that he is rescued later by Ben and the Klan. Instead of an anti-climatic capture of Phil Stoneman, Griffith puts all the characters in danger to double the excitement of the ending with their rescue. Griffith believed that a rescue scene that pertained to both protagonists and minor characters would enhance the content of his film. When the couple is rescued from black radicals in the filmic rendition, Phil is not captured as he tries to fight off the radicals and protects Dr. Cameron and Margaret until the KKK arrives. Dixon, on the other hand, did not have a rescue scene as elaborate as Griffith’s. Griffith’s choice not to follow Dixon’s scene proves to be more of a benefit than a detriment to the film’s success. Griffith cleverly surpasses Dixon’s work by cutting between danger and rescue with ease and transition, which allows Griffith’s cinematic capabilities to appear more visually and emotionally appealing for the audience.
[3] Another instance in which Griffith shows signs of enhancing Dixon’s original work is through his presentation of the formation of the Klan. (see comment by Nicholas Alakel) Griffith does follow Dixon’s chronology of the formation of the KKK but switches the motive behind the creation. According to Martin, “For Dixon, the Klan is a national idea that Ben brings to Piedmont. . . Griffith’s Klan is more personal and completely local†(92). Dixon has Ben learn the idea of the Klan from General Forrest, his commanding officer, while arguing over the idea of the KKK with his father. Griffith, on the other hand, makes the Klan more “personal and local†by allowing Ben to harbor a feeling of resentment towards Silas Lynch, who has prevented him from chasing Gus away from his door. Ben’s resentment against Lynch’s policies protecting blacks leaves him helpless against the tyrannical black rule but allows him to lay the foundation of the Klan. Ben is further tested when his beloved sister Flora jumps off the cliff in fear of the stalking Gus. In response to his loss, Ben can no longer suppress the urge to create the Klan and does so with other southern politicians. Griffith’s editing carefully dissects the key sections of Dixon’s novel/play but allows Griffith to utilize the key incidents that he finds useful and manipulate them to his liking. In doing so, Griffith successfully portrays the Klan’s rising as personal in response to the iron-fist rule the African Americans possess in comparison to whites. Because Griffith provides the audience with this injustice, the audience may feel sympathetic towards the Camerons and the white populace. Dixon’s reasoning for the formation of the Klan is not emotionally appealing enough to draw out sympathy like Griffith’s does. Griffith succeeds on numerous occasions in enhancing Dixon’s original work by appealing to the audience more visually and emotionally. (see comment by Katherine Prosswimmer )
[4] In addition to enhancing Dixon’s original work, Griffith also differentiates The Birth of a Nation by editing many scenes and events for the sake of simplicity. Martin states that Dixon’s material contains complicated descriptions of Southern poverty through taxation and auction that often require detailed explanation. Griffith simplifies these lengthy scenes by substituting them with scenes that have a strong visual impact. A prime example of Griffith’s simplistic yet meaningful editing comes into play when he shows the once prosperous Cameron family selling their personal belongings. Another example in which Griffith simplifies Dixon’s lengthy writing is when Lynch and Stoneman discuss enlisting Ben as the leader for their black supremacist cause. According to Martin, “This is followed by a long discussion about black equality between Stoneman and Ben, which is interrupted when Ben objects to Lynch’s presence in the house†(91). In the film, this is simplified to Stoneman wanting Ben to shake hands with Lynch in front of his house, and Ben refusing. Griffith continues to make many more changes that simplify the lengthy content of the original.
[5] Although strikingly similar, then, The Birth of a Nation, through its unique use of maximum dramatic impact and simplicity, achieves its own identity. Once Griffith accomplished his masterpiece, many knew that Griffith’s success could be attributed to Dixon’s novel. However, the relative popularity and success of The Birth of a Nation and The Clansman is beyond comparison. The Birth of a Nation was far more successful, leaving Dixon’s original work in the shadow. “He may have mined the material in Dixon’s novel,†says Martin, but “his techniques of juxtaposing shots and editing . . . his knowledge of both theatre and film made him the perfect individual to shape a new form of drama†(94). Griffith greatly extended the range and ambition of the cinema, which resulted in the formation of a new technique called the film narrative. Because the film narrative was received by many as innovative and new, viewers forgot that Dixon’s novel played any role in the creation of this film. Dixon’s novel continued to be shadowed by the new filmic techniques and the way Griffith utilized his filmic talents:
The effectiveness by which Birth overwhelmed The Clansman in its ability to achieve emotional effects is a distillation of the process by which the cinema eclipsed the stage as a popular medium and by which the cinema, using the tools of the drama, developed its own aesthetic. (Martin 94)
[6] Although an analysis of Griffith’s work resembles Dixon’s work, the innovations that he makes reveal him to be a pioneer of a new film. Griffith shortens scenes, finds active parallels to take the place of dialogue, and replaces lengthy and dull scenes with more visually appealing ones. Griffith’s film may have originally been intended to emulate that of Dixon’s successful novel, but The Birth of a Nation transcends its expectations and develops its own identity as a film created by Griffith, not Dixon: “The Birth of a Nation may be an adaptation rather than a largely original work . . . [but] an adaptation of this size was in itself a great leap of faith, and the result far outshadowed the largely forgotten original†(94). Griffith truly creates a new identity for his adaptation of Dixon’s original The Clansman.
Comments
It is extremely interesting that one of Griffith’s departures from Dixon’s original is his depiction of the formation of the KKK. Dixon’s original portrayal seems like it would be appropriate for Griffith’s film given that it portrays the clan as a national idea. This sort of rhetoric seems consistent with Griffith’s presentation of the KKK as a hero of reconstruction since it depicts the KKK as having nationalist origins. On the other hand, Griffith depicts the KKK as being inspired by white children playing as ghosts to frighten black children. Certainly this event does not have the same nationalistic flavor as that occurring in Dixon’s work. At first I found this to undermine the presented heroic nature of the clan in Birth of a Nation. However, it does indeed make the clan more “personal and local.†This localization of the clan could represent Griffith’s attempt to create an association between the KKK and the personal identity of southerners.
I, like Nick, was intrigued by Griffith’s decision to alter the portrayal of the KKK’s formation. While I see the merit of depicting a personalized motivation that appeals “to the audience more visually and emotionally,†I can also see this as a detriment to the film. Based on the fact that the marriage between the Stonemans and Camerons was one of the most significant scenes in the film, it seems that the theme of national coherence is important to Griffith. Choosing not to include the nationalistic motivations for the KKK formation seems to work against this theme. While the emotional appeal of Ben’s personal feud with black radicals is irrefutable, I also think the nationalistic motivations for the formation of the KKK would have provided an element of greater reason that may be a bit lacking in the film. I think that fusing Ben’s personal vendetta with Dixon’s original nationalistic motivations would have worked to both appeal strongly to audiences through emotion and logic.
