Wad D.W. Griffith a Racist?

[liberalpragmatist]

I read somewhere that Griffith conceived of "Birth of a Nation" as an antiwar and that he was so hurt by the accusations of racism that his next films were all dedicated to trying to prove his antipathy to intolerance of any type.

At the same time, I don't understand how he could find "Birth of a Nation," as I understand it, to NOT be racist, since even at the time it was seen as being racist by many, many people.

Full disclosure: I have not seen any of D.W. Griffith's films. I've heard about the general storyline of "Birth of a Nation" and am aware the Griffith is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time for his innovations and artistry in film direction.

So here's the question to those who are more familiar with his works. Was he a racist or not? Or is the answer more complicated? I'm curious to read from people who know more about this than I do.

[DS1]

1. Broken Blossoms certainly has racism in it, but to be fair

that's largely "how it was" back then.

[flamingyouth]

2. He certainly was a product of a different time.

I remember seeing Birth of a Nation and being horrified. It's probably my least favorite silent film, to be honest. A lot of people call him a genius filmmaker, but I think a lot of the credit is owed to Billy Bitzer, his cameraman. And of course, having Lillian Gish star in your films has to help.

Watching many silent films today is alarming from a racial perspective. There were very few actors of color. Sessue Hayakawa (who went on to win an Oscar in The Bridge Over The River Kwai) and his wife Tsuru Aoki were early Japanese stars. And Anna May Wong, who was Chinese, had her biggest hit as "the oriental slave girl" (actual title) in Douglas Fairbanks' hit The Thief of Bagdad (sic). Other than that, performers tried to Anglicize their names and appearances as much as possible.

So, there's a longwinded answer. I am not going to defend the guy, and he's far from my favorite silent film director, but he was a pioneer filmmaker.

[jmm]

3. This argument works better with a person like

Leni Reifenstal.

I read somewhere that Griffith conceived of "Birth of a Nation" as an antiwar and that he was so hurt by the accusations of racism that his next films were all dedicated to trying to prove his antipathy to intolerance of any type.

Atleast after Triumph of the Will she made blatant attempts to portray people from different cultures in a positive light whether it was in Olympia or her extensive photography in Africa. I've seen a number of Griffith's films but nothing to show me he tried to do the same thing. True he never again made a film as overtly racist as Birth of a Nation but then again that would be extremely difficult.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

4. I feel the arguments can be made for either of these filmmakers

they were products of their time and where they lived. There actions, in some regards, should not be forgotten. Racism and glorifying the Nazis have absolutely are both wholely negative traits.

For myself, as a film lover, I would rather talk about their craft than their personal beliefs, not to diminish that aspect of the person. They were both talented artists and contributed to the development of film as an artform. Unfortunately their art presented the most negative aspects and tragic events in American, German and world history respectively.

[liberalpragmatist]

6. How is "Intolerance"?

I'm curious especially about that film, which I've read was done partly in response to "Birth of a Nation."

Also, what do you make of his views on war? From what I read he considered himself a pacifist.

(Again, I'm not trying to justify any racist views. But I had always simply viewed him as an unreconstructed racist until I read a little about him and found somethings that I hadn't expected. So I'm curious to hear from those who know more about the subject.)

[flamingyouth]

7. I thought that was a pretty big snooze fest

But the ancient Babylonian sets are a sight to behold. :hi:

[Zuni]

5. The Birth of a Nation was based on a book called the Klansman

it glorified the KKK and was meant to spite northerners and blacks. The book was racist, the movie was racist and DW Griffith was racist. Of course, he was a southerner in a different era and I have found that you misunderstand history and historical figures if you judge by todays standards and status quo. But that doesn't mean that Griffith wasn't exceptional for his day. By 1915, much of the country, while not nessecarily positive for blacks had evolved from this hysterical view of race and this "rebel" version of reconstruction

But the movie was clearly meant to be racist and pro KKK, pro-unreconstructed rebel south.