Wednesday, May 22, 2024

CABIRIA

CABIRIA: 1914 126mins Director: Giovanni Pastrone Cast: Lidia Quaranta (Cabiria), Umberto Mozzato (Fulvius Axilla), Bartolomeo Pagano (Maciste), Gina Marangoni (Croessa) 

 

Looking back through the innovations of cinema, determining “firsts” becomes a tricky business, the term itself being open to interpretation. The Jazz Singer, for instance, often cited as the first talking picture, contains so little sound it hardly justifies the term talkie. Furthermore, sound had been experimented with on film since Thomas Edison was in the business. Likewise, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is not the first animated feature…if by ‘animated’ one is including stop-motion. In that case the crown goes to 1926’s The Adventures of Prince Achmed.

And so it is in this line that D.W. Griffith has his position challenged as the pioneer of the feature-film. Of course, here semantics matter too matter. Boxing matches had been filmed in their entirety since the turn of the century, but these cannot be called movies in the strictest sense of the term. Still, The Birth of a Nation has some heavy competition, especially starting in the early 1910s when the possibilities of film were expanding. L. Frank Baum made a number of movies based on his Oz books out of his short-lived film studio and Keystone (Biograph’s zany sister studio) threw its lead stars into Tillie’s Punctured Romance. Griffith himself was gradually stretching the length of his shorts, reaching almost feature length in 1914 with Judith of Bethulia.

But why Birth of a Nation is credited as the first full-length film and not Giovanni Pastrone’s Cabiria is something of a mystery. To be sure, Birth of a Nation perfected cinematic language and techniques more so than Cabiria and had a greater overall impact on the medium. Still, Cabiria is the first film which by any standard can be called a feature. “In length alone the film surpasses all previous efforts to produce a picture to be shown in a single evening,” South Australia’s The Critic observed.

In its own way it was an innovator, introducing cinema to the colossal possibilities of ancient world epics. With its splendid sets depicting marble palaces, hundreds of extras as Roman soldiers and villagers and a menagerie of exotic animals (camels, a leopard and Indian elephants as Hannibal’s steeds for his journey across the Alps) the vibrations of the film could be felt throughout the career of Cecil B. DeMille. Griffith himself, no stranger to the fascination with the days of pharaohs and kings, would emulate the spirit of Pastrone’s epic in Intolerance.

Cabiria, however, is also a cumulative film, the pieces that came together to make it a whole can be traced in earlier work. Griffith’s influence can be felt primarily in a thematic sense. As is the case with his American counterpart, Pastrone’s depiction of women coasts from fragility and vulnerability to veneration for courage and virtue. In discussing The Birth of a Nation critic Dave Kehr observed that while the film’s overt racism is easily acknowledged, its confused attitude toward women often goes unnoticed. Cabiria, the titular girl (played in her childhood years by Carolina Catena and as an adult by Lidia Quaranta), does little more than survive the eruption of Mount Etna (through no pluck of her own) only to be captured by Phoenician pirates and sent to Carthage as a prisoner of the High Priest Karthalo (Dante Testa). She is rescued just before being sacrificed to the god Moloch by Roman spy Fulvius Axilla (Umberto Mozzato) and his slave Maciste (Bartolomeo Pagano). While Cabiria herself is not afforded as much as a reaction to any of these perils it is important to note, however, that she is rescued from the burning city by her nurse Croessa (Gina Marangoni) who is later also responsible for sending Fulvius and Maciste to her rescue from the temple of Moloch, an act for which she pays with her life when Karthalo discovers her treason. Her other benefactor is also a woman. Sophonisba (Italia Almirante-Manzini), niece to Hannibal and enemy to Rome, shields the fugitive in her palace where she shelters her for a decade as the Second Punic War continues. Like Croessa, Sophonisba sacrifices herself for the greater good. In light of all this and the empty canvas that Cabiria remains, the finale in which she sails off with Fulvius as his bride feels all the more arbitrary, having arrived with no build-up for what seems like an unlikely romance anyway. Even the melodrama (of the sort Griffith was fond of) involving the star-crossed love of Sophonisba and Masinissa (Vitale DiStefano) feels natural by comparison.

Stylistically, Cabiria owes more than a little to Georges Méliès. In particular, the matte shot depicting the images of a nightmare while the sleeping Sophonisba squirms in discomfort bring to life the French filmmaker’s 1898 The Astronomer’s Dream. The mechanisms of the gigantic face of Moloch at the entrance of the temple as well as the statue of the god itself into which children are thrown as sacrifices are similar to 1912’s Conquest of the Pole, one of Méliès’s last works and the superimposed sea sprites frolicking around Fulvius’s ship in the last shot hark back to Méliès early fantasies.

Not surprisingly, contemporary reviews were enthusiastic. Typical of the responses was the write-up in Australia’s The Mail: “This wonderful picture play, representing the highest point ever attained in the sphere of kinematographic art, has created enormous enthusiasm in Italy and America. It deals with the struggle which occurred three centuries before the birth of Christ between the might of republican Rome and the powerful armies of Carthage. Gabriele D’Annunzio, the famous Italian poet, dramatist, and author is the writer of the scenario of Cabiria. He also supervised the rehearsals and production of the film, designed the costumes, chose the settings for the various scenes, and saw that everything was correct historically. The film is the longest ever made. It takes a whole evening to screen it, and it is crammed full with the stupendous incidents of the great Punic wars, presented in a most realistic style. It shows the army of Hannibal crossing the Alps, it vividly pictures an eruption of Mount Etna, it brings before the spectator the burning of the Roman fleet, the siege of Cirta and the sacrifices to Moloch, the hideous infant-consuming idol of Carthage. Through all this tremendous concourse of events runs a sweet love story. Its heroine is Cabiria, an innocent Sicilian maiden, who is captured and enslaved at Carthage. Her lover is Fulvius Axilla, a Roman Patrician, who with his slave Maciste, one of the most extraordinary figures ever introduced into a photo play, experiences the most thrilling adventures. In the production of Cabiria 700 actors, 50 horses, and 20 elephants were busily engaged for 14 months. The total cost of production borne by the Italian Film Company was £50,000.” Cabiria owes a lot to the earliest film innovators but its own influence peaked more than fifty years later when the world of ancient spectacle once again became a grand arena for filmmakers.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

INTOLERANCE: LOVE'S STRUGGLE THROUGHOUT THE AGES



Intolerance was taken as D.W. Griffith’s apology for the incendiary racial sentiment of Birth of a Nation. Griffith may certainly have felt the timing was right. He was, after all, well aware of the riots he provoked with his first feature. Intolerance, however, was in part being planned before Birth of a Nation, pushed aside when Griffith undertook his first breakthrough, and only returned to and expanded on once Birth of a Nation proved a success, now made as a lifelong aspiration first and as peace offering last if at all.
            “He didn’t feel he had anything to apologize for,” biographer Kevin Brownlow told the New York Times. If anything, Griffith felt he was owed an apology and this follow up was his plea. In his own limited way, Griffith fashioned himself a humanitarian through his art and inhumanity was a reoccurring theme in his work. It was only natural that once secure in his independence as a filmmaker he would make a tribute to mankind, with all the styles, techniques, and morals he had cultivated at Biograph. Intolerance, more so than Birth of a Nation, is his cumulative work. Everything Griffith developed and aspired to throughout his career is fitted into the three hour epic.
 In terms of sheer scale, Intolerance is a most impressive sight. Griffith and, in some ways, the movies outdid themselves with it. It was likely out of sensitivity that the American Film Institute replaced Birth of a Nation with Intolerance when it updated its list of the 100 greatest American films in 2007. But, goodwill aside, when the two films are compared, Intolerance makes the better case for defining cinema as an art form.
It even offers an explanation as to why Griffith would next return to the modest melodrama of his early years with Broken Blossoms in 1919. The most heartfelt of the four intertwining stories in Intolerance is also the simplest. Set around 1914 and foregoing lavish sets for the stark cramped flats of Griffith’s Biograph days, it tells the story of a young girl (Mae Marsh) who moves to the city after her father loses his job at the factory for his part in a strike. After the hardships of life in the slums bring the old man to his death, the girl is swooned over by a smooth-operating boy (Robert Harron) who also fled the country after the strike. Finding his way in the streets he falls under the control of a neighborhood rough played by Walter Long.
In every respect, this segment is classic Griffith. There are harrowing close-ups of the girl’s anguished face when the society “uplifters” come to take her baby away after her husband is framed for a crime and sent to jail, most of the action takes place in dimly lit tenement buildings, and it concludes with a race against time as the girl, a kindly police officer, and the Governor hurry over to stop the execution of the boy.
What retains power in this segment more than a hundred years later are the shots of the struggling workers looking on for their chance as the strike goes terribly wrong, impoverished slum-dwellers watching police raid their neighborhood with dismay, and the brutality that ensues when the factory guards turn on the strikers. In these fleeting moments Griffith achieves the social impact he had been working toward since A Corner in Wheat.
Conversely, the most elegantly designed piece is devoted the least time, perhaps because the struggles of Ancient Jerusalem in the years leading up to the crucifixion of Christ (Howard Gaye) was a story so popular with early filmmakers (Griffith himself gave Jesus Christ a majestic appearance in the last shot of Birth of a Nation) there was little else Griffith could bring to it but draw parallels between the moral eyes of the town then and today. For in both this story and that of contemporary times the villains are not only the guards that crucify Christ or fire at the strikers, but the social watchdogs who bring pain and suffering to the very souls they claim to help all under the guise of cleaning up the city. Despite having little experience outside of the world of ballrooms and cocktail parties, the women of the puritanical society believe themselves in touch with the impoverished residents of the tenement houses. Organizing raids on their streets with the funds they raised ostensibly for charity, their crusade results in the young girl losing her baby to foster care.
“The purpose of the production is to take a universal theme through various periods of the race’s history: Ancient, Sacred, Medieval, and Modern times are considered. Events are not set forth in their historical sequence or according to the accepted forms of dramatic construction, but as they might flash across a mind seeking to parallel the life of the different ages,” Griffith wrote.
Critic Vachel Lindsay observed the pattern as well. “The days of St. Bartholomew and the Crucifixion signal back to Babylon sharp or vague or subtle messages. The little factory couple in the modern street scene called The Dear One and The Boy seem to wave their hands back to Babylon amid the orchestration of ancient memories,” he wrote in The New Republic.
The crucifixion itself is handled with little fanfare, but what a beautiful camera work throughout! The reconstruction of Cana, the sprawling shots of the open markets combined with Griffith’s clever use of animal footage (the modern story offers many fine shots of assorted barnyard fowl and in the story of old Jerusalem he finds an interesting subject in a camel) leave a stunning mark on the picture.
It is a pity that Griffith didn’t dig deeper into the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572. Of the four stories, it is the one most directly tied to intolerance. Catherine de Medici (Josephine Crowell) is portrayed as the hateful engineer of the massacre unwilling to accept a truce between the Catholic royalty and the Huguenots but the film never uses this as more than a mere background, having little interest in the religious and politic complexities of the period/ True to Griffith’s style, a subplot involving the assassination of Admiral Coligny (Joseph Henabery) was cut and the focus turned on Brown Eyes (Margery Wilson), a shy Protestant girl and her lover Prosper Latour (Eugene Pallette) and the soldier (Allan Sears) who falls for her. But the romantic triangle is thrown into a mess when the slaughter begins and the carnage in the streets makes for one of the film’s most powerful moments.
Like the contemporary story, the episode chronicling the fall of Babylon following the war between Prince Belshazzar (Alfred Paget) and Cyrus the Great (George Siegmann), circa 539 B.C. , takes up roughly forty percent of the film. It is Griffith’s true answer to his Italian rival, Giovanni Pastrone, whose Cabiria predated Birth of a Nation by a year.  In itself, the set, built by Frank Wortman, became part of Hollywood folklore with the city walls towering a hundred feet high, three-eights-of-a-mile long, elephant lining in the archways, and wide enough to fit the film’s over three thousand extras. Taken singularly, this piece is Griffith’s tour de force.
Craft, however, was not Griffith’s primary motivation and it shows when he abandons the background of the treacherous high priests who betray their citizens when they turn their worship from the god Baal to Ishtar. Instead of reconciling the two gods, the priest, in vengeance, shares the city’s military secrets with the Persian army. It’s the religious animosity between Babylon and Persia that brings death and destruction. The point is made clearly in the film, but this isn’t where Griffith wants to stay. He zeroes in on the story of Mountain Girl (Constance Talmadge), a tomboy who is sold by her brother to wife auctioneers for her unorthodox behavior and then sentenced to be stoned to death. Both times she is saved by Belshazzar and, in return, she runs away on a spy mission to follow the renegade priests and dies fighting for the city.
As stunning as the entire piece is, Griffith’s decision to spend most of it on a micro story cheats it of a larger impact and wider context. This was Griffith’s fundamental weakness as a filmmaker; he could not resist simpering manipulative melodrama. Cross-cutting and other technicalities were his genius and weepers his passion. However, as in two of the other four stories (the Biblical one ultimately remains under used), any objections to the narrative are compensated for by sheer spectacle. The siege and fall of the great Babylon makes for a rising climax and is a technical triumph by any measure. Every detail is built to impressive from the moving battle towers of the Persian army to the crane shots of the city wall and the scrambling armies on both sides flinging burning oil, torches, and arrows in all directions. In these last moments, Griffith achieves what no other captured before him, human suffering as Babylon crumbles before our eyes.
Combining Griffith’s love for schmaltz and his gifts that earned him the title of the father of cinema, Intolerance is justly regarded as his magnum opus, representing everything he was leading up to from the start of his career. All of his recognizable trademarks are here (intense close-ups, intercutting, spectacle, and also the melodrama and his short-sightedness), and it’s hard to imagine the film not being everything he hoped it would be. It is a cinematic monument to his style and vision as a filmmaker both of which he had been developing for almost a decade. With Intolerance, Griffith not only left a mark on cinema but also encapsulated in one movie, his vices and virtues as an auteur. Intolerance struggled to make up for its then unheard of $2.5 million cost and began Griffith’s financial ruin, but for the director it was all worth it. Intolerance is the most revealing of his works. Technically it is the work of a true genius. At its core it’s the sort of marshmallow drama only D.W. Griffith could stomach.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

THE BIRTH OF A NATION

THE BIRTH OF A NATION: 1915 193mins. Director: D.W. Griffith Cast: Lillian Gish (Elsie Stoneman), Mae Marsh (Flora Cameron), Henry B. Walthall (Col. Ben Cameron), Miriam Cooper (Margaret Cameron), Mary Alden (Lydia Brown)

The Birth of a Nation has by now entered a class of its own. After Leonard Maltin and the late Leslie Halliwell, few critics bother rating it in the traditional sense. Systems such as stars or letter grades are misguided measurements in this case. Instead, The Birth of a Nation should be approached as a point of discussion, reflection, and even as a window into the heart of a son of the Confederacy.
            The film is talked about more than it is seen. Here lies what prevents channeling the troubling legacy of The Birth of a Nation into a productive, if difficult, experience. Conversations of the film have consequently fallen into a standard assessment going something like this: the film is a landmark in the development of an art form. D.W. Griffith mastered the art of cross-cutting for mounting tension, close-ups (first tackled in Griffith’s 1911 Biograph short The Lonedale Operator) and epic storytelling, though one could argue that Giovanni Pastrone beat him to that the year before with Cabiria. All of this is tarnished, however, by the film’s unapologetically racist depiction of Black Americans and hero worship of the Ku Klux Klan.
            In his essay on the film for The A List, Dave Kehr took a different angle, examining the film’s treatment of women against men (and a study of Griffith’s complicated treatment of women in his films is long overdue) but few historians or academics have ventured beyond the film's treatment of race and history. Certainly the film’s structure enables this somewhat simplistic evaluation. The first half is a relatively straightforward depiction of the outset of the Civil War and its devastating effect on families and friendships. In the second half, set during the Reconstruction, things get ugly.
            The trouble with treating The Birth of a Nation simply as an ethical conundrum, however, is that such a categorization has become so standardized that few feel the need to explore the film and its implications further. There are still more disturbing questions about human nature in The Birth of a Nation besides the ethics of evaluating a breakthrough boasting about its own inhumanity. The film's innovations and the horror it advocates are obvious. What is not obvious are the probing questions for those who can safely stand apart from the sort of violent racism depicted in the film and yet cannot see their own human fallibility.  One critic who dug a little deeper was Roger Ebert when he included the film in his Great Movies list and found that the so-called radical Republican from the North, Austin Stoneman (Ralph Lewis) is in his own way as much villain to modern viewers though not in a way Griffith intended, namely, for granting blacks equality. Rather, Stoneman represents an early incarnation of the contemporary virtue-signaling hypocrite. He publicly supports and promises interracial marriage until his own associate asks him for his daughter’s hand in marriage.
            Such penetrating examinations are seldom addressed, however. This misfortune is due in large part to the film's blunt, often didactic, preaching which cancels or at least pushes all other points aside. Griffith tells us what to think and we are the historically challenged dopes for not having been swayed by his revisionist narrative, as far as he is concerned. But what are the roots behind the beliefs of men like D.W. Griffith and why have they refused to die?
      Horrifying as it is, Griffith’s interpretation of the Civil War, its causes and effects, should not be surprising. He was born in 1875 to Mary Perkins and Jacob Griffith, a colonel in the Confederate Army in Kentucky’s Oldham County, a small farming community where resentment from the War still lingered. Like many young boys of his hometown, Griffith was raised on tales of bravado and the tragic loss of the Old South. Indeed, the film’s depiction of Piedmont just before the outbreak of war as a sleepy harmonious valley is a materialization of the myth that took on a life of its own in the minds of Griffith and his generation of Southerners. Although born after the war, Griffith easily absorbed his homeland’s approved narrative of the war if only because it was the only version available to him, that of Northern aggression and the plight of the plantation owners. We are constantly reminded by the movie about the War resulting in the loss of state sovereignty. 
    Setting Griffith apart from his ilk was his artistic genius.  Early on he showed a sophisticated understanding of the arts and culture beyond his upbringing. By 1907 he had made it to New York where his first failure came with a silver lining. A treatment he had written based on Puccini’s Tosca was rejected by Edwin S. Porter, then the head of Edison Pictures. Porter did, however, find a role for Griffith in his short Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest and less than six months later Griffith made his directorial debut for Biograph, The Adventures of Dollie 
            From 1908 to 1913 Griffith made around four-hundred and fifty shorts for the Biograph Company ranging in style from a comedy (Those Awful Hats), to a Medieval fable (The Sealed Room)  to cautionary tales (A Corner in Wheat and For His Son), to the first gangster movie (The Musketeers of Pig Alley). But he kept coming back to the love of his childhood, the Civil War. 
Griffith had been building up for an epic since at least 1908 but his ambitions were always cut short at Biograph. To be sure, there were signs of his grand vision in such films as Swords and Hearts, but when he tried extending his reach with Judith of Bethulia and was lambasted by the studio bosses for the excessive budget, Griffith realized he had grown too big for his britches there and took off. 
     After leaving Biograph in December of 1913,  Griffith bought the rights to The Clansman, a reactionary novel by Thomas Dixon Jr., for $10,000. Griffith followed associate Harry E. Aitken and brought the idea to Mutual Film Company. This partnership soon fizzled, however, when Mutual became alarmed at the proposed budget and Aitken’s relationship with the studio soured. Now Griffith was alone with his dream project; a story about his identity the way he felt it should be told.
        Luckily for Griffith, much of the Biograph stock company followed him, saving him the trouble of assembling a new crew. Of all of Griffith’s followers, none clung more tightly to the man than Lillian Gish. With Birth of a Nation Gish established her fledgling career at 21 as Elsie, the reformer's daughter.
          Those approaching The Birth of a Nation for the first time will be surprised how little the film's reputation prepares not only for the degree of its racism but the unapologetic manner with which it approaches it. Just as The Birth of a Nation is a far more beautiful film than technical talks about technique lead on,  its attitude on race, the aftermath of the war, and the ideology that drove the North are far worse than anything imaginable without seeing the film. The film is an assault on the very idea of Blacks as equals, the evils of slavery and the brutality of the Klan.
            To be sure, Griffith’s early work could not be interpreted as anything other than sympathetic to the Lost Cause. Union officers were often shown doing little more besides raiding towns, attacking the families of the boys in gray and looting their homes. Still, there was little to prepare for such a volatile attack on what the Union stood for.
            There were hints, too, about his attitude on slavery earlier on. His treatment of an elderly slave in his 1911 His Trust and its sequel His Trust Fulfilled is almost benign by comparison. Nonetheless, the two short films are more revealing than Griffith himself probably realized. In those films, George, an elderly enslaved man played by Wilfred Lucas in blackface, is depicted in virtue precisely because he doesn’t contest his life as a slave but promises to look after his master’s wife and daughter when he rides off to battle. When Colonel Frazier is killed, George protects his family from marauding Yankees and gives up his humble shack for them after the enemy burns their home to the ground. This is the model Black as defined by Griffith. His value is defined by his devotion to his White masters. Similarly, the only Blacks treated kindly in Birth of a Nation are the Cameron families slaves who grieve hardest of all for their master and devise his rescue when he is arrested by Yankees.
            This is not to say that Dixon’s novel left much room for interpretation even had Griffith been so inclined. But it was the novel's very lack of subtlety, after all, that won Griffith's Southern heart in the first place. On an abstract, The Birth of a Nation is a visual transcript of its source's message: Reconstruction was doomed to fail thanks to conniving radicals who could not see that Blacks could never be integrated into society. Civilization collapsed when former slaves were given the right to vote. From these ashes the Ku Klux Klan arose just in time to restore order. This was the story, long uncontested for Griffith, that he had always wanted to tell.
            Dave Lehr, author of The Birth of a Nation: How a Legendary Filmmaker and a Crusading Editor Reignited America's Civil War, observed, “Griffith thought he was, in a way, reporting history about the Civil War and Reconstruction, and it was widely accepted at the time, which has been completely debunked since, that Reconstruction was a disaster ... and that former slaves were some kind of lower form of life. That was the embedded, bigoted, racist state of mind of the time.”
            Curiously, and perhaps due to the extended runtime, in Birth of a Nation Griffith did elaborate his stance on Northerners and offered them a more sympathetic eye. Austin Stoneman is a fusty old troublemaker but his sons maintain a friendship with the Cameron family of South Carolina. Ben, the oldest Cameron boy, will take charge at the call of war and later become a founder of the Ku Klux Klan. There is no question that Griffith thinks Stoneman’s policies are to blame but still laments that it had to come to war for both families. 
            Like Dixon, Griffith was also charitable (if misguidedly so) to Lincoln, reminding audiences of the president’s forgiveness of the South and commitment to rebuilding it. Had it not been for the fateful night of April 14, 1865 (recreated in the film with commendable detail), Lincoln may have reconciled the nation faster than would prove to be the case. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis as the unwillingness to lend the South a hand was the leading cause of Andrew Johnson’s disastrous presidency.
            Griffith conceding to understand Northern sentiment, however, comes form a sinister place. As the second half of the movie makes clear, despite what happened in the war, Whites from across the country must unite against the newly freed slaves and their political friends. It is not hard to surmise this much even before the climax which finds the Camerons, in escaping a Black mob, taking refuge in the remote cabin of two former Union soldiers.
            “The former enemies of North and South are united again in defense of their Aryan birthright,” a title card reads.
            The Birth of a Nation sealed Griffith's reputation in more ways than he wishes and yet, looking at his body of work, he remains an enigmatic figure. Compassion for the downtrodden (the elderly and even, misplaced as it was, toward Blacks) abounds in his early work. In 1909 he directed The Red Man’s View a look into the tragic plight of Native Americans in which the Whites were the brutes. Intolerance, his next feature after Birth of a Nation, often miscited as an attempt at apology is in fact more a product of Griffith’s complicated and sometimes contradictory ideologies.
            Be that as it may, there could not have been a coming back from his depiction of Blacks in Birth of a Nation. Take Silas Lynch (George Siegmann), the abolitionist who follows Stoneman from the North with political ambitions for the South, who is marked as a villain from the start simply for who he is, an offspring of miscegenation. His transformation into a demon is completed by his lust for Elsie (Gish) and his dreams of building a “Black empire” in Piedmont. Silas embodies the ugly core sentiment of Birth of a Nation; you can give a black man a suit and an education but you can never take out the savage in him.
            “He portrayed the emancipated slaves as heathens, as unworthy of being free, as uncivilized, as primarily concerned with passing laws so they could marry white women and prey on them,” Lehr said.
            The Black extras (a lot of them played by Black actors) fare no better in Griffith's hands. They are allowed no motivation besides looting, savagery, and wasting the pulpit. If Silas Lynch is Griffith and Dixon's political chagrin, Gus (Walter Long), the freed slave with an eye for the youngest Cameron daughter (Mae Marsh), is their nightmare. Gus encounters the girl during one of her walks in the forest and the frightened girl flees. Love-struck, Gus pursues her atop a cliff from which she jumps in terror. This was one of the power climaxes of the film, but its impact is lessened by the implication. We are supposed to be commending her suicide as the honorable alternative to letting a Black man put his hands on her.
            As vindication for his sister’s death Ben is inspired to create the Klan. The gang’s first target is Gus. Two subsequent scenes expose Griffith’s anger and are the most difficult to watch. Gus is lynched and his body dumped on the doorstep of Silas Lynch as a warning. For that gruesome shot the violence and horror loses any abstraction it may have had and the film becomes an inadvertent reminder not only of the violence of the Klan but the celebratory nature with which it was sometimes received. In its own way, the epilogue set after the Klan has ridden the town of the scalawags and Black militants is just as revolting. A title card reads, “The next election”. Hopeful Black voters make their way to the polls only to find them barricaded by an army of Klansmen on horseback. This is Griffith (and Dixon’s) idea of order and justice restored.
           Griffith was out of touch but he had to have known he had an explosive project in his hands. For the last six years the NAACP had built a presence in various cities and a number of presidents were starting to appoint Blacks to different positions following the Great Migration.
Griffith’s caution is evident within the film. The introduction to the second half informs audiences that while its depictions were true to the Reconstruction years they are not meant as a reflection of any race of the day. Not surprisingly, the NAACP didn’t see it that way and launched a campaign to boycott the film in such cities as Boston and Philadelphia. Boston Governor David Walsh would meet with local Black leaders who wanted the film run out of town. The result was the Sullivan Bill, a tool intended to facilitate the blockage of offensive material. The bill passed but The Birth of a Nation was deemed inoffensive in the category described by the bill.
In Chicago the push was but little more successful, despite NAACP secretary Mary Childs Nerney’s passionate letter to the organization’s executive committee, claiming, “I am utterly disgusted with the situation in regard to The Birth of a Nation. As you will read in the next number of the Crisis, we have fought it at every possible point. In spite of the promise of the Mayor to cut out the two objectionable scenes in the second part, which show a white girl committing suicide to escape from a Negro pursuer, and a mulatto politician trying to force marriage upon the daughter of his white benefactor, these two scenes still form the motif of the really unimportant incidents, of which I enclose a list. When we took the thing before the Police Magistrate he told us that he could do nothing about it unless it lead to a breach of the peace. Some kind of demonstration began in the Liberty Theatre Wednesday night but the colored people took absolutely no part in it, and the only man arrested was a white man. This, of course, is exactly what Littleton, counsel for the producer, Griffith, held in the Magistrates' Court when we have our hearing and claimed that it might lead to a breach of the peace.
Frankly, I do not think you can do one single thing. It has been to me a most liberal education and I purposely am through. The harm it is doing the colored people cannot be estimated. I hear echoes of it wherever I go and have no doubt that this was in the mind of the people who are producing it. Their profits here are something like $14,000 a day and their expenses about $400. I have ceased to worry about it, and if I seem disinterested, kindly remember that we have put six weeks of constant effort of this thing and have gotten nowhere.”
 In all, the NAACP successfully convinced the mayors of twelve cities to ban the film, but did little to hinder the film’s popularity. It certainly had little impact in New England where Louis B. Mayer, then just a theater chain owner, paid Griffith $25,000 for exclusive rights to distribute the film in the area.
            Griffith did have some supporters, then and later. The Klan felt so invigorated by both the film and the conviction of Leo Frank in 1913, which would become the basis for Oscar Micheaux’s now lost The Gunsaulus Mystery in 1921, one of the many race films made in response to Birth of a Nation,  that it remerged after a forty year slumber. Forty years later critic James Agee wrote in defense of Griffith attacking his critics as being full of “vicious nonsense”. Woodrow Wilson, up to that point in time the most regressive president in terms of racial justice,  upon viewing the film at the White House, was famously said to have described the experience as, “It is like writing history with lighting. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
Doubt has been thrown into Wilson's attribution to the quote, which can likely be traced back to Dixon as an idea for a publicity stunt. Nonetheless, the film implicates Wilson with some verifiable passages from his History of the American People such as “The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation…until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.”
Wilson's legacy has recently come into question for his backward views on race but it was a sign of the changing times that he had to distance himself from the film when the outrage could no longer be ignored.
Nevertheless, and maybe because of the notoriety it brewed , The Birth of a Nation was a tremendous financial success. As James Monaco explained in How to Read a Film, “Ironically, D.W. Griffith, the filmmaker who had done most to ensure the success of Biograph, the most important of the trust components, was also the first American, after his break with Biograph, to explore the potential of the feature film form. The unprecedented success of The Birth of a Nation ensured the future of the new form. It also set the pattern for the “blockbuster”, the film project in which huge sums of money are invested in epic productions with the hope of even huger returns. The Birth of a Nation, costing an unprecedented and, many believed, thoroughly foolhardy $110,000, eventually returned $20 million and more. The actual figure is hard to calculate because the film was distributed on a "states' rights" basis in which licenses to show the film were sold outright. The actual cash generated by The Birth of a Nation may have been as much as $50 million to $100 million, an almost inconceivable amount for such an early film.”
Griffith could not have been too surprised at the blowback even if its scale caught him off guard. He contested calls to ban the film and defended the film’s interpretation of Reconstruction. It remains difficult, however, to judge just how much his later films like Broken Blossoms (one of cinema’s first interracial love stories) are evidence of his coming to terms with the winds of change. He was, after all, a man stuck in a world that had long vanished. Fittingly, The Birth of a Nation, his magnum opus, parallels his duality. The first half of the film is a grand cinematic breakthrough of stunning vistas and riveting action. The latter half, the one that really mattered to Griffith, is a disgrace.