Griffith and Dixon Take on the Globe
By Sarah Ballan, with comments by Ed Tabor, Harrison Lawrence, and Lynn Farley
[1] The New York Globe did not have many positive things to say about the Birth of a Nation. To sum it up, the editorial printed in the paper in April 1915 expressed an overall feeling of disgust towards the controversial film. To start off, the editor is unsettled by the name of the film: “The very name of The Birth of a Nation is an insult to Washington,†who is the founder of our nation and is credited to this day for uniting our country. The editor disagrees with the way both blacks and whites are portrayed in the storyline. He is especially bothered by the way they are depicted during the Reconstruction era. When slavery ended, many of the freedmen had been slaves their entire lives. They were technically free but had little means of earning money and spent a lot of time and effort trying to support themselves and their families. Their struggle seems to be eliminated completely by the film; instead, Birth of a Nation presents the black men as “women chasers and foul fiends,†making it a “cruel distortion of history.†It is silly to assume the blacks of the time were completely amicable towards their former masters, but the editor points out that the “outrages†of white on black were far more than the outrages of black on white. He asks the question, “Which race even to the present day has the better right to complain about the unfairness and brutality of the other?â€(74) (see comment by Ed Tabor) To me, it seems like the editor is outraged because he thinks this film could stir up old feelings of hatred and racism because of the biased way in which each race is portrayed. At the time especially, this negative influence could have intensified conflict, since racism was still very prevalent.
[2] It is clear that the original writer of the plot, Thomas Dixon, believes that there is no distortion whatsoever and that he is merely reporting what happened. He even accepts the “full moral responsibility for its purpose and its effects on the audience.†I was shocked when reading this by how narrow-minded Dixon comes across in his letter of defense to the Globe. A jury of three representative clergymen reviewed his book and did not think it needed to be edited in any way. These clergymen stated six things the audience should take away from watching the film, the first being that it “reunites in common sympathy and love all sections of our country.†The ending of Birth of a Nation shows the reuniting of the North and the South when the Cameron children marry the Stoneman children. It is successful in bringing two white families back together after the war, but it is far from reuniting all sections. What about the former slaves? They are part of our country too. Furthermore, the movie ends when the KKK saves the day and rescues Elise Stoneman from the “evil†Lynch who ties her up. Sympathy may be shown for Elise, but where is the sympathy for the black people who were beaten to death by the Klan? Dixon claims that he is “recording faithfully the history of fifty years ago.†He may be faithfully telling the story from the viewpoint of ex-confederates, but no way is he being faithful to telling the story of the Civil War as a whole.
[3] D.W Griffith also wrote an article in retaliation to the Globe’s editorial. He refutes the claim the Globe makes that Birth of a Nation is not an accurate representation of the Civil War/ Reconstruction Era. Although he writes, “no characters in the story are applauded with greater fervor than the good Negroes whose devotion is so clearly shown,†he fails to highlight these “good Negro†characters in the film. The only black people that are given a large role are the bad ones, more specifically, Gus and Lynch. The Cameron’s black nanny is shown in a positive way, but she is by no means a star of the movie. (see comment by Lynn Farley) She is faithful to the Cameron family despite Ben’s involvement in the KKK. It is probably because she feels a connection to the “pet sister.†Griffith’s claim that the movie is focused on these “faithful Negroes†is questionable. (see comment by Ed Tabor) To me it is a minuscule part of the movie. However, Griffith continues to say, “if prejudiced witnesses do not see the message in this portion of the entire drama we are not to blame.†If he isn’t to blame for not enhancing the “good Negroe†characters, then who is? (see comment by Harrison Lawrence)
Comments
Sarah, I couldn’t help but give a mental applause for the editor of the New York Globe when he points out the “patience†of former slaves and questions Griffith’s right to show the “unfairness†to the white southerners. I felt this was a really important section, and your focus on it helped me to see another side to these essays. Today, the situation only seems like karma -- that white slaveholders should suffer after the war. At that time, it was apparently still an issue of great contention.
Sarah, as for the depiction of “bad negroes†in the film, you pointed out that Griffith claims the “faithful negroes†are there as well. This is Griffith blindsiding us again. These “faithful negroes†as you say are really a miniscule part of the film. They may be faithful, but are they moral? They are suspicious of freedom, and they dislike the northern black characters. Rather than create a dialogue, in the first encounter the “black nanny†has with a northern free black man, she kicks him in the posterior. She resorts to this kind of communication with northern black characters more often than not. The Cameron’s slaves are more ready to serve their old masters than they are to move toward freedom. I suppose you could classify this as faithfulness, but isn’t it more blind faith than anything else?
To answer your rhetorical question, I believe Griffith is 100% to blame for the lack of advancing the African-American race. Griffith knew what he was getting himself into in this monstrosity of a film, and I believe he knew exactly what type of pedestal his film would be placed on, not to mention how much criticism it would receive.
Sarah's point about the black nanny being portrayed positively caught my eye. The mammy archetype in Birth of a Nation definitely was not subject to the lewd, animalistic, ignorant characterization of Gus, Lynch, and the slaves in the background action. In doing a brief search, it seems Griffith was historically accurate, blackface aside, in portraying the mammy as a maternal, non-threatening domestic servant that took care of the children. As Sarah mentions, Griffith failed (in our minds) to highlight this positive character. She was a very small counterpoint to an otherwise abhorrent depiction of African Americans. Obviously, Griffiths overstates that “no characters in the story are applauded with greater fervor than the good Negroes.†However, he might have inadvertently done something right by including her at all. In fact, the first African American recipient of an Academy Award was Hattie McDaniel, the daughter of former slaves, for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Mammy in Gone With the Wind. The small screen time Griffith gave to a "good Negro" might have laid the path for McDaniel's starring role 25 years later. Griffith was still alive when McDaniel received her Oscar in 1940. In her acceptance speech she said, "I sincerely hope I shall always be a credit to my race and to the motion picture industry." I wonder what he thought that night.
