Blacks vs. Birth of a Nation: The Political Response
By Kelsey Lee, with comments by Taara Ness-Cochinwala and Jonathan Zubkoff
[1] In 1915, D.W. Griffith stunned America with the release of Birth of a Nation. This silent film was groundbreaking in that it included unusual camera shots, night photography, battle scenes, and an unfaltering tempo. While nickelodeon two-reelers were common at the time, this technical masterpiece was a remarkable twelve reelsâ€"three times as long as any other film of the day. For the first time, a motion picture charged $2.00 per ticket, and Birth of a Nation quickly became the highest-grossing film of the silent film era. But as successful and powerful as this film was, it was equally as controversial and resented. Considered “The Most Controversial Motion Picture of All Time,†Griffith’s masterpiece was widely criticized for its blatant racism and promotion of white supremacy.
[2] Even before the film’s premier, blacks were outraged and fearful of the film’s potential:
From the moment that black press representatives got wind of the news that Griffith and Dixon were adapting The Clansman for the screen, they embarked on a public awareness campaign to prevent the film’s exhibition. This opposition should not be equated with an unwillingness or inability of the black press to recognize or appreciate the artistic merits of the film. On the contrary, African American critics of that era understood too well that the film’s artistic merits could function to sublate and obfuscate its more wrenching sociopolitical agenda of fomenting racial discord. It is important to recall that black press opposition to the film was not simply a knee-jerk reaction to a racist book cum play cum film. Theirs was a resistance forged in the trenches of battle against decades of damaging fallout from pernicious blackface theatrical minstrelsy and pervasive antiblack discourses in popular American literature. Those African American writers were intent on contextualizing the film within that hazardous narrative trajectory. Even in their scathing denunciations of Birth of a Nation, several black critics acknowledged the film’s artistry in some way. (Everett 71)
African Americans’ immediate fear and anger was not unwarranted; it was the result of years of injustice, disrespect, and an already tainted image of the Negro race. They foresaw the dangerous effects of this monumental film on their people and refused to passively allow it to unfold before their eyes.
[3] Although they could not stop the film’s production, blacks responded immediately upon its release as they protested premieres in numerous cities and riots broke out when the film was shown. Chicago, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis refused to allow the film to open. In Boston, 5,000 Negroes marched on the state capitol and demanded that the film be banned. And in Philadelphia, 500 policemen took on a mob of 3000 blacks that gathered to protest a showing of the film. With action already taking place and emotions on the rise, Negro leaders were forced to respond immediately. They were presented with three options: they could ignore the film and its resentful and offensive portrayal of blacks, urge censorship, or create propaganda films of their own.
[4] Lacking the funds needed to finance and make their own propaganda films, blacks of the urban North deemed censorship the best option. Blacks in Ohio were particularly determined to ban the film, as Ohio was one of just four states with a legally constituted censorship board. In what was very much a grass roots movement, ordinary citizens took it upon themselves to contribute to the cause by writing letters, giving speeches, pressuring politicians, printing lively editorials, drafting resolutions, and marching in peaceful protests. Protesters built the case against Birth of a Nation on the following arguments:
1. The film stirs up ill will between whites and blacks.
2. The film defames the Negro race.
3. The film portrays behavior of the Ku Klux Klan as romantic and heroic.
4. The film distorts the history of the Civil War and its aftermath.
At the time, Frank B. Willis, a Republican, was the Governor of Ohio. Willis was sympathetic toward the plight of Ohio’s blacks, and although it is unclear whether Willis was solely responsible for the decision, the Ohio Board of Film Censors officially denied approval to exhibit the film in September of 1915. However, this major victory was short-lived, as Willis lost the governorship to Democrat James Cox. Within a month of Cox’s election, the same three-member Board of Film Censors declared that Birth of a Nation was acceptableâ€"“moral, educational and harmless.†Ohio then experienced a very interesting change of events:
With the Board’s approval of Birth of a Nation and the subsequent inability of municipalities to supersede its ruling, the censorship cause appeared lost. Then in a surprise move shortly before the election of 1918, Governor Cox announced that at his request the company distributing Birth of a Nation had voluntarily agreed to refrain from showing the film in Ohio for the duration of the wartime period. Once again, Birth of a Nation became a lively issue in the black press. (Berquist 42)
With Birth of a Nation in the spotlight once again, the public grew more and more curious and intrigued by this forbidden film. Ironically, the initial two-year ban had the adverse effect: piqued interest and enthusiasm.
[5] The Akron Beacon Journal reported that “there hasn’t been a more enthusiastic audience in Akron for months, perhaps years†than the opening night audience which let loose “unbridled cheering.†According to the Dayton Journal, the story did “not matter so much because the thrills are so numerous that one doesn’t stop to wonder what a story has to do with it all†(Berquist 42). Booker T. Washington observed that “The managers of this play encourage and even skillfully initiate opposition on account of the advertising the play receives when attempts are made to stop it.†(see comment by Taara Ness-Cochinwala)
[6] Boston experienced similar controversy when Negro groups, frustrated with their failed campaigns in New York, regarded Boston as friendlier territory as it was home to William Monroe Trotter’s Guardian and the liberal Boston Post. Negro and white pulpit, press, and lectern aggressively attacked the film and were shocked when “On the first Sunday in April Bostonians opened their paper and found a large sensational, pseudoreligious advertisement for the film which mentioned a forty-piece orchestra, 18,000 extras, and 3,000 horses†(Cripps 118). It seemed that no matter which city the Negro groups migrated to nor how much effort they exerted toward their cause, they were unable to achieve the end result that they had envisioned and set out to attain. Although blacks viewed Birth of a Nation as a blatantly and deliberately racist film, white audiences saw it as “a patriotic and theatrical spectacle of a scale never before experienced.†Uncertain leadership and differing emphases inhibited blacks from overcoming white indifference and from successfully establishing the message that the film was racist, detrimental, and immoral:
Consequently, the annual report of the NAACP for 1915 could only record a long, negative battle for censorship. Negroes had demonstrated and had broken into segregated theaters to get a hearing for their censorship pleasâ€"a stand their leaders were coming to reject in principle but tactically were unable to replace with another weapon because of budgets already strained by litigations and demonstrations. (Cripps 124)
Despite their efforts, the black political response was simply no match for Birth of a Nation. Though small gains were made along the way, certain setbacks and obstacles were ultimately unable to be overcome, and the behemoth Birth of a Nation could not be slain.
Comments
With a new understanding of the results of censorship of Birth of a Nation, I have to agree with Booker T. Washington that the force of opposition actually creates more of an interest in the movie. Not only in this instance but throughout history and still today, when one is told not to do something, the impulse to do it only increases. There is actual psychological evidence to support this idea that when told not to think about something, it is much more difficult to remove the thought from one’s mind and a preoccupation with it ensues. Other instances of this increased appeal of something when forbidden include prohibition of alcohol, drugs, censorship of novels, as well as Adam and Eve’s fall from grace in the garden of Eden. While I agree that African Americans could not be bystanders in this situation and had to act against Birth of a Nation, they were unfortunately unsuccessful. Not to say that they are to blame in the least, for a reaction like this is difficult to foresee, but their failure still remains the unfortunate truth. In my opinion, they would have been better off recruiting as many people as possible to watch the film -- specifically those of their race and in favor of their cause. In doing so, they would have enlightened the masses as to what they were dealing with and could then try to fix the situation and campaign against it. Without knowledge of the problem or issue that one is tackling, it is impossible to fix. So, while African Americans made the correct choice in taking action and made a valiant effort at that, it was unfortunately, as Lee states, “no match for Birth of a Nation." (see comment by Jonathan Zubkoff )
While I do agree that the African Americans should have all seen the movie, enlightened the masses to their issues, and could then try to fix the situation and campaign against it, I disagree that this would have been remotely more successful than their plan of action. The South at the time was just ripped to pieces. They had lost a war, were being taken advantage of by the North, and had almost no sign of hope. Birth of a Nation provided a hero in the KKK and gave the defeated South a new enemy, African Americans, whom they now saw as the root of all their problems. It was a galvanizing moment and one in which saw Southerners take a stand against African American rights and refuse to step back from that post. Regardless of how the African Americans responded to the film, This was still going to be a film that caused a new movement for the South, albeit a horrible one. The KKK were made out to be credible heroes, and in the eyes of the Southerners, they were the leaders in keeping the Confederacy alive. The African Americans had no hope for a very long time.
