Perhaps now is a good a time as any to address a thorny issue that is sure to come up time and time again. Is it possible to separate the art from the artist? Is it possible to disagree with, or even outright deplore the message, but still acknowledge and admire the artistry in how that message was conveyed? Is it possible for a work of art that inspires disgust to also inspire admiration, awe and respect? Is it possible to objectively judge a single facet of a film (such as editing or cinematography) while disregarding other factors? The feelings of the Cinema Olympics and its Beleaguered Chairman will be put to the test on these questions very soon. The Birth of a Nation is an undeniably and deplorably racist film. It told the story of the American Civil War and reconstruction in such a pro-white Southern perspective that it helped re-invigorate the Klu Klux Klan (who were portrayed is benevolent rescuers, saving white women from the ravaging of animalistic black men.) It was a major distortion of history that polarized the nation. It is also a major motion-picture landmark. It expanded the possibilities of films to dizzying heights, combining innovations in direction, editing, cinematography and modern acting techniques in way that made anything seem possible for this young medium. Griffith pulled out all the stops, combining everything he had learned in directing some 400 one and two reel short films in a roughly five year span, and in the process, helped give cinema its own distinct language, a means of visual storytelling that separated it from the theater and turned it into something unique. The Birth of a Nation was made in 1915, and the period we are rewarding covers four more years of innovations, so it's not certain it will receive any nominations, let alone medals, but this film has been seen by many as the birth of not a nation, but of a modern cinema.
|