The Impossible Debate
By Michael Ronan, with comments by Anthony Pascale and Nicholas Alakel
[1] D.W. Griffith, “pioneer of prejudice†or “creative master of the screen� The Birth of a Nation is still hotly contested as one of the more controversial films in American cinema history. Now almost ninety years after its first appearance it sparks debate just at it did in 1947, when in the autumn issue of Sight and Sound, Peter Noble attacked Griffith with his article “A Note on an Idol.†Noble bases his assault on the fact that The Birth of a Nation, Griffith’s masterpiece, is “the first important movie to devote much of its length to an attack on Negroes.†Griffith quickly replied with a response letter in which he states, “I gave to my best knowledge the proven facts, and presented the known truth, about the Reconstruction period in the American South.†In the following issue of Sight and Sound, Seymour Stern submitted an article titled “Griffith not Anti-Negro†defending Griffith and accusing Noble of libel. What are the facts, what arguments are made, and how are they answered? Does Mr. Griffith stand on a high pedestal in the history of American filmmakers, or does he stand on feet of clay?
[2] Noble is appalled by Griffith’s very apparent anti-Negro bias in The Birth of a Nation. Unfortunately, Griffith suffers from a “pathological obsession with the Negro rape of white women†which he brings to the screen “not once but twice†exclaims Noble! Noble explains that according to Griffith “villainy and rape†are the “two main attributes of the coloured man.†These things contribute to the “extraordinarily vicious anti-Negro bias†Noble accuses Griffith of exhibiting in The Birth of a Nation. Furthermore, Noble finds that “mulattos receive from Griffith even worse treatment, it would appear than full-blooded Negroes.†Noble attributes Griffith’s opinion on race to his “understandable partisanship†but says that it “provides no real excuse for the deliberate distortion and, indeed, his almost malevolent disregard of the real historical facts.†Noble is convinced that The Birth of a Nation paints an insulting and negative portrayal of Blacks, gives a misleading impression of the violent Ku Klux Klan, and is near entirely inaccurate in the historical sense.
[3] Regardless of the fact that Griffith was born in Kentucky, it is curious as to why Noble, who presents strong charges indicating Griffith’s bias, would describe Griffith’s partisanship as “understandable.†One would think Noble would oppose racism absolutely; this weakens his argument. Noble’s argument is also weak because he praises Griffith’s actual work, many times, in terms of the filmic techniques he employs. Noble states that Griffith is “among the immortals of the screen†but later tells us he is racist. Which is he? To make a more effective argument, Noble should have chosen to profess only that Griffith has made a partisan film that should not be taken seriously. Noble did not need to give readers reasons to watch the film by claiming that despite its content it is an epic and a masterpiece. (see comment by Anthony Pascale)
[4] Noble does bring one interesting point to the table when he references another of Griffith’s films Hearts of the World. In Hearts of the World Griffith films a scene in which a dying Black soldier, crying for his mother, is kissed and comforted by one of his White allies. This was filmed three years after The Birth of a Nation, and Noble suggests this scene was included because Griffith felt guilt for his previous treatment of Blacks. This is one of the most effective points raised in the article, because by proving Griffith felt guilt, Noble proves that Griffith did do something wrong; he proves Griffith was racist in Birth. Stern however, refutes this point by stating that Griffith never felt guilty. Griffith included the scene because it was appropriate within context. Griffith says that it has nothing to do with race, just as Birth is not racial, but factual. Stern also notes that the scene occurred in The Greatest Thing in Life, rather than Hearts of the World and that the movie took place during World War I and not the Civil War. Noble’s knowledge of both history and film here is questionable, thus further discrediting his argument.
[5] Stern does not ever meet Noble’s main argument head-on. He chooses rather to prove that The Birth of a Nation is historically accurate, finding this easier to do than to deny that Griffith may have racist tendencies. Stern states, “First, The historical events and scenes filmed in The Birth of a Nation are all based either on eyewitness accounts of actual happenings or on unimpeachable source-material.†Stern claims that “with Wilson as his principal academic authority, Griffith depicts the history of the tragic and turbulent Reconstruction Period in the South with a degree of authenticity, documentation, objectivity and scholarship, seldom if ever equaled on the screen.†Stern claims that Noble has slandered Griffith. He replies with bitter sarcasm aimed directly at insulting Noble. Stern mocks Noble, explaining that Noble “appointed himself a purveyor of ‘enlightenment’.†Stern is convinced Noble is “misinformed about a great many things†and suggests he read “a little American history of the non-“social,†non-guesswork school…†Stern does not at all answer Noble’s attack on Griffith’s racial tolerance. Stern attempts to prove through subjective histories, that racist or not, the scenes depicted in The Birth of a Nation are based in fact.
[6] A major, more specific, disagreement occurs over the character Austin Stoneman, who is a white senator in the film. Here, Noble and Stern meet head-on, but still it is hard to determine if either author is victorious. Noble believes Stoneman is the product of Griffith’s “malevolent disregard of the real historical facts, “ whereas Stern suggests that Stoneman is “the exact screen counterpart of one of the worst scoundrels of American history: Thaddeus Stevens.â€
[7] Noble calls Griffith’s treatment of Stoneman “symptomatic of his narrow and prejudiced outlook.†It is interesting to see Noble effectively criticize all of Griffith’s politics by extending Griffith’s alleged prejudice to even a White senator. Noble says that Griffith portrays Stoneman as solely a “villainous careerist, egotistically insincere, whose avowed plans for the betterment of Negro life and conditions are shown to be fired only by personal ambitions and a deep hatred of the South.†Noble explains that Stoneman is in cohorts with another of Griffith’s characters Silas Lynch, a mulatto. Lynch is a character of race that fulfills Griffith’s requirements in that he is a character of “utmost villainy.â€
[8] On the other hand, Stern claims that indeed, “Stevens is known to every literate American as a kind of post-Civil War Benedict Arnold, a traitor to his civilization and its government.†Apparently, Stevens tried to establish a “Black Empire†in the South “of which he envisioned himself a godlike white master or overlord…â€
[9] It seems unlikely that a “Black Empire†was Stevens’ goal. Though Stern is convinced that he and Griffith share an accurate knowledge of history, this is probably not the case. However, one can’t say that Stern’s “fact†is not what he truthfully believes; essentially, Stern can’t be deemed wrong. Therefore, Noble can’t necessarily be correct in his accusations. These “gray-areas†are abundant in the Noble-Stern debate, and throughout the controversy surrounding The Birth of a Nation.
[10] Overall, there are many weaknesses in both authors’ arguments. On the surface, there is no conclusive victor in the Noble-Stern debate; it is unclear how there could be a decisive victor. Both authors share their own opinions on The Birth of a Nation from their own unique perspectives. Winners write history; history is itself subjective. Disciples of the “Lost Cause†South may very well believe the events depicted in Griffith’s film are accurate. These Southerners more than likely provide the “eyewitness accounts†Stern refers to as having been used as a basis for The Birth of a Nation. On the other hand, Noble sees this as racism. To determine the winner in this “debate†one must search back to the Civil War era. One must side with either the Union or the Confederacy. This choice of sides establishes the foundation to decide what The Birth of a Nation really is: history in moving pictures or racist propaganda. It is the responsibility of readers of these articles, as well as viewers of the film to measure the credibility of what they read and see against their entire knowledge of history. Any person with conviction can make something seem true, but that does not mean it is.
Comments
I understand where Ronan is coming from in suggesting that if Noble wanted to assert that Griffith was a terrible racist, praising his abilities as a filmmaker would not help the argument; however, I do not believe that being a racist and being a phenomenal film maker are two mutually exclusive qualities. In fact, I think that it is quite possible that Griffith’s filmic ability is one of the reasons that history may have been rewritten in some ways, through Birth of a Nation. Ronan says in his final paragraph that “winners write history,†and I think this is very true. In this case, Griffith is a winner, having spent $110,000 on a movie that produced earnings of approximately $10,000,000! Was his film completely historically and contextually accurate? Probably not. But there can be no question as to whether it was one of the best films of its time. Griffith utilized his skills as a director and his influence as one of “the immortals of the screen†to perpetuate his racist beliefs and effectively alter history in the minds of the thousands of people who saw his film. Did he intentionally lie throughout the film to produce the end result? I tend to lean towards Stern in his belief that Griffith’s “eyewitness accounts†were more than likely men from the South who had a huge bias since they were, themselves, racists and Confederates. (see comment by Nicholas Alakel)
I agree that being a racist and great filmmaker are not incompatible qualities. In fact, if it weren't for Griffith's ability as a filmmaker, we would likely have not been exposed to this film that allows us to view and analyze the unfortunate racism that was present at the time of Griffith's film. Griffith's skill as an artist allows us to consider how even popular media can present prejudiced and biased views. This bias appears painfully clear to us viewing it almost one hundred years later; however, its popularity at the time suggests that people were perhaps blinded by the entertaining and artistic nature of the film and not able to see the misrepresentation present in Birth of a Nation. Study of a film such as this should enhance our ability to seek out bias in contemporary popular media.
