Birth of a Nation was among the first full-length feature films produced in the United States. The movie, released in 1915, was longer and more expensive than any of its American predecessors. Prior to Birth’s release, few producers had attempted films of such breadth and depth. American movies were typically short and inexpensive productions. Most were viewed as novelties. Few actually tried to convey stories of substance. In contrast to other early productions, The Birth of a Nation attempted not only to tell a story but also to convey feelings and emotions. Civil War and Reconstruction, were epic subjects, but David Wark
Griffith did more than try to tell a story of the war and its aftermath. He tried to bring out the nationalist feelings of his day.
The movie was more expensive to produce than anything that had come before it. The screenplay, which was only a fraction of the overall expense, cost Griffith $2,500 and 25 percent of the profit. The total cost of production was estimated at approximately $110,000, five times more than had been spent on any previous film. Having run out of money and investors, Griffith borrowed all that he could to bring the production to market. The undertaking was truly monumental compared to other projects of the time. There were six weeks of rehearsals. The shooting that began in July stretched into October. Editing alone took three months in contrast to the six weeks it took for a typical production.
Griffith’s gamble paid off. The movie was a tremendously lucrative undertaking. It is estimated that in the first six months of its national run, The Birth of a Nation drew more people than the performances of all the stage plays in the United States during any five-year period. In the United States the movie ran for 44 consecutive weeks. It grossed an estimated $50 million. Not all of its viewers, however, gave the movie glowing reviews. Audiences in a number of cities were so appalled by its content that they rioted.
The movie was primarily based on Thomas Dixon’s book and play, The Clansman. Griffith also borrowed from Dixon’s The Leopard’s Spots and a number of other sources. Dixon’s racist works, and the movie that followed, offered a slanted perspective on the Civil War, heavily colored by Griffith’s own Southern point of view. The film vilified Northerners and blacks. It portrayed Reconstruction as an attempt by Northerners to punish the South by forcing black rule upon it. It idealized the Ku KlUX Klan. It portrayed the Klan as a just and necessary organization instrumental in saving not only the South but also the chastity and sanctity of Southern women. The movie was based on Dixon’s favorite premise, that blacks are naturally inferior and that expecting them to govern themselves was cruel and inhumane.
Even before the film was released, Griffith was not oblivious to the controversy that the movie would likely create. Aware of the possible reaction, he cut some of the more offensive scenes from the movie. He removed one scene denouncing the hypocrisy of New England abolitionists, who were portrayed as the descendants of slave traders. He also omitted reference to a letter from Abraham Lincoln to Secretary of War Stanton about Lincoln’s belief that blacks were inferior to white people. These compromises proved to be inadequate. Controversy followed the movie.
Controversy was so acute that the film was brought before the United States Senate. The possibility of official action prompted Thomas Dixon to send a cable to James
E. Marine, the Democratic senator from New Jersey, warning against the dangers of censorship. Griffith himself was appalled by the response the film provoked. To challenge his critics, he wrote a pamphlet entitled, “The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America.” He defended both the movie and his right to produce movies that were not always popular in all settings.
Birth of a Nation was the first of two great epics produced by Griffith. His next epic stemmed from the criticisms leveled at Birth. The movie was called Intolerance. Griffith believed that his critics, not he, were intolerant of ideas. He used the movie as a weapon to attack those who were critical of his work. It was based on the premise that things that are good and pure are rarely tolerated. For him, Birth of a Nation exemplified something that was good yet soiled by intolerance. To finance Intolerance, Griffith spent all of his profits from Birth of a Nation and was forced to buy out all of its backers. Unfortunately, Intolerance was not a success. With the decline of liberalism, the movie, which championed brotherly love as the solution to many of the world’s problems, fell out of fashion. Desperate to recoup his losses, Griffith broke the four-hour-long movie into two shorter films.
Birth of a Nation was a grand achievement in cinema. Not only was it broad in scale and scope, but it also conveyed passion and emotion. However, its message was far less spectacular. It offered a distorted view of history. Whether he knew it or not, Griffith’s movie did more than redefine the way movies were made; it displayed the effect that movies could have on the culture.
Further reading: Iris Barry, D. W. Griffith, American Film Master (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1965); Robert M. Henderson, D. W. Griffith: His Life and Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972).
—Steve Freund
World History
