I've seen some of it and it certainly seems well-made for its time. It also obviously is incredibly capable from a propaganda standpoint in terms of the narrative of black rapists and the "heroic" Klan.

But liberal rags to this very day call it "one of the greatest films ever made". I find it highly suspect on the basis of the fact that the social context (pandering to racial prejudice, etc.) was such a major driver of its popularity. I feel like it's very possible it just gained this overblown reputation from racist critics and writers that wasn't adequately challenged over the following many years -- however much the ideology might be audited.

That said, I haven't seen the whole thing and I'm not a film critic, even less so of silent film. Anyone here have a strong opinion on the subject?

    • HarryLime [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Just as an example, Griffith's use of cross-cutting in the final action scene (I'm not going to describe the scene because it's incredibly gross but you can read about it if you want) to create tension and excitement was highly innovative. He speeds up the editing as the scene reaches its climax to heighten the excitement at the exact moment it ends. Just as a random example, here's the Death Star attack in Star Wars, which another movie that uses the same kind of cross-cutting in it's final action scene. Notice how the tension builds as the editing gets faster as Luke makes the final run, and as the scene cuts back and forth between Luke and the rebel base and Tarkin in the Death Star. Griffith basically invented that, or at least took it to a new level, in Birth of a Nation. Not to mention the effect of the music- Birth of a Nation was also the first movie to use a full score.