A question about Hypocrisy.

[diabeticman]

Okay let me give you some background.

My wife LOVES I mean LOVES watching movies old TV series. She loves DVDs with commentaries on it and special features behind the scene stuff all that. She feels she gets a better understanding and an appreciation of a film. I tell you this so you understand her love of movies and TV shows.


The issue is my wife has a chance to see some old silent movie called Birth of Nations (or something like that.) She is torn about seeing it because she says it was made in a very racist tone BUT the film had a LOT of innovative "film firsts" She just doesn't know if she should forgo seeing the movie or if she should stick by her guns of not encouraging racism by giving this movie attention.

[PoliticAverse]

1. The Birth of a Nation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation

[rurallib]

2. I watch lots of old newsreels and such

I doubt my current philosophies will be altered in any way by their bias.
History is what it is and watching Birth of a Nation will help one understand how we got where we are.

I am currently reading Ann Frank with my mentee. Reading or watching what happened helps prepare me for the bigots out there.

[iemitsu]

3. "Birth of a Nation" is a three hour long, silent film

made in 1915, by D W Griffith. The film highlights the corrupt nature of the post Civil War era in US government and society (at least what the film maker perceived to be problems in post war America). The film is racist and characterizes African -Americans in negative light. Elected officials sit with their bare feet on congressional desks and toss the bones from fried chicken over their shoulders. They laugh and joke about the legislative process. The portrayal is awful and evidently played a role in the very real upswing in Klan terror during that year.
Another important scene shows a black man approach a white woman, for some reason I forget, in a manner she finds threatening. He misunderstands her fears and continues to try and communicate with the woman, whose panic level just increases. Eventually the black man touches the woman on the arm and to escape she throws herself off a cliff.
Then the KKK rides to the rescue. There are some great battle scenes.
There are also innovative cinematic techniques which film students appreciate (I am not among this group). But I think it is worth watching to see what the American political and social climate was like in 1915. That was the year that Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the military.
Griffith did get negative flack for the film and had to produce an apology film later, "Intolerance".

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Good point on the Wilson Administration

Another man of his time - and the child of a slave owner who is reported to remember meeting Robert E. Lee as a small child. He did the best he could at Paris post WW I - he tried you know.

He also 'endorsed' Birth of A Nation and felt it was terribly accurate portrayal of the way things were.

He's right - IF you were a white supremacist or had sympathies / leaned that way.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. It was part of my

Art and History of Film class in 1992. Requirement for my technical piece of my Mass Comm Degree - Film Making.

That said, I love classic films. And now - to me - films like Tootsie, Mask, Moonstruck, etc. etc. are 'classics' too.

Here's what I would ask her -

Would she not watch Breakfast at Tiffany's ever again because of Mr. Yunioshi (Mickey Rooney's racist caricature of an Asian American)?

What about Gone With The Wind? Are not all of the blacks portrayed as idiots? Mammy - not so much - but she looks nothing like what we now acknowledge the truth of a 'Mammy' was. We now know acknowledge that most "Mammys" on plantations were more likely to look like Halle Berry - as they uh - er - tend to be 'related' to the family. Ms. McDaniels was a caricature of a stereotype that white Americans felt more comfortable with.

What about Imitation of Life? Either version (mid 30's or 1959). The mythical tragic 'mulatto' woman appears. Yet the story remains near and dear to the hearts of many.


Those are just three examples - don't get me started on caucasians playing Native American Caricatures for years in B-Movies.


I would say - she should watch it. It has some horrific stereotypes in there but it is ALSO a slice in time of the history of racism in America. D.W. Griffiths took the book and made the movie . . . not so much for the firsts -but to see who BLATANT they were in 1916. She can probably (as a film buff) see how the stereotypes laid out in the movie have evolved in Hollywood over the years. They still exist - but the portrayals are now more nuanced.

[iemitsu]

8. Excellent comments on both the film and on history.

You place the film in its historical context, and in the developmental context of the film industry, and you ask good questions of a prospective viewer.
Many things worth watching or reading aren't pretty but exposure to them makes one a more insightful, thoughtful, informed, and possibly even more caring.
Imitation of Life, especially the 30s version (though I like the newer one too), is an all time favorite (if somewhat painful) film for me to watch.
I met my bi-racial wife when we were just 12 years old. Back then it was still illegal (in many parts of the US) for Americans of different ethnic backgrounds to date. Her status was special/unique, she fit nowhere. I witnessed her life in public school and in the community. Years later, when he was in high school, our son, who could pass for white, chose to do just that. None of his friends could come to our house or they would discover the truth about his mother. Ultimately it meant he had to cut all ties to us.
The similarities between the film and our lives end there but the pain and hurt revealed in the film are real.
That pain is real whether or not others know it exists (should one watch the film or not?).
People hide their pain thinking it is easier to not talk about. But that strategy actually doesn't make them feel any better. Things only get better when people acknowledge situations in their lives that they struggle with or have no control over.
Then, perhaps they, and others, can be motivated to make changes in their own lives, and the lives of the community, to address the root problems that plague their lives. Or at least they can deal with the pain, and move on with the rest of their lives.
Thank you for your post.

[MineralMan]

6. The movie won't turn her into a racist.

I've seen it, and it's one of the silent films every film buff should see. It's part of just about every film class.

[iemitsu]

9. "The movie won't turn her into a racist."

No it won't.
I love the matter-of-fact way in which you proclaim that fact.
I've seen it and shown it to students. Like most older films it is slow moving for modern audiences and three hours is a long time to sit for a silent film.
I think it is a fascinating film but many students find it tedious and "boring". I don't think it has the power to influence modern audiences to adopt its underlying ideology.

[MineralMan]

11. Thank you.

I enjoy silent films. I often find cinematographic elements that are still being used.

[iemitsu]

13. You are welcome.

I enjoy silent films too. I love to see how stories are told without voice. The musical score and the script obviously tell the story but the actors' facial expressions and over-done gestures are a kick to watch.
They honed the medium before sound. Now we rely on voice too much and have lost many of the dramatic elements of old school cinema.

[diabeticman]

7. Thank you all for your thoughts.

[DirkGently]

10. It's a historical artifact. And, if the issue is that

she / you / every decent person disagrees with racism, it would still make sense to examine one of the most influential pieces of racist propaganda in our history. We don't just study the ideas we already think we agree with. Hard to know what you're talking about otherwise.

[RainDog]

12. Spike Lee watched it i film school

If you are a film buff, or want to know the history of film, you watch certain landmark films - even when they are disgusting, politically.

In the same way, if you're an English major in college, you will read Milton because he's one of the most important voices for freedom of press/speech in English literary history and his work informed writers who came after him.

Yet, he's a total misogynist pig. The things he wrote and thought about women are disgusting.

He's dead and gone. His time is dead and gone. No one can defend his pov anymore and be considered sane.

The same thing with Griffith - he was a product of racist America.

Academic freedom is about the freedom to hear ideas even when they are disturbing and you disagree with them Censorship makes it impossible to develop a DIRECT response to the racist or misogynist, etc. things people have said because you don't have direct knowledge of them.

I am especially concerned that women do not have such direct knowledge. Women don't need men to tell them what's what. They need to find it out for themselves.