The Birth of a Nation: Revisionist History
D.W. Griffitth’s 1915 film The Birth of a Nation presents a reimagining of our history romanticized by white supremacists. The film depicts the confederate army as heroes, slave owners as benevolent, and slaves as content. The Birth of a Nation is overtly and deeply racist and plays into stereotype upon stereotype throughout its 193 minutes. The Black people in the film (the majority of which are played by White actors in blackface) are villainized and shown as lazy, animalistic, unintelligent, and predatory. The film presents an interesting duality, as it has been protested by civil rights activists since its release, but also lauded by film scholars for its advanced special effects and performances. Is it possible for a piece of media to be studied purely formally and objectively, when its contents display such evil and propaganda-like narratives? Something else that was interesting about this film was the context in which we watched clips of it- a class on Afrofuturism. While many works we've looked at so far in this class have been reimaginings of the future (Space is the Place!) The Birth of a Nation and the novel it was based on show reimaginings of the past. And while Space is the Place presented a utopian future for Black people, created by Black people, The Birth of a Nation is quite the opposite.
I thought your point about how Birth of a Nation differed from the other pieces we've looked at in terms of being a reimagining of the past rather than of the the future was really interesting. That makes me think about where exactly Rebirth of a Nation exists between all the works we've looked at; through its own reimagined, ephemeral reimagining of the original film, is it trying to demonstrate how our perception of the past is always an ongoing and shifting project of the present and future? And with the new title of Rebirth of a Nation, what kind of nation, exactly, is being reborn in this new narrative?
ReplyDelete