Way Down East (1920) and Griffith's editing style

[charliechaplinfan]

Quite plainly the representations in the governing house of drunken 'negroes' ( I hope that word isn't offensive) are a work of sheer fiction.

[drednm]

actually the event happened

[Ann Harding]

It seems that we are reverting back to a previous discussion on BoAN. Let me just quote what Brownlow said about the racism in BoAN and how it was perceived in the 50-60s:

Q: What was the influence of Griffith on other film-makers at the time of THE BIRTH OF A NATION?
A: Oh! Hardly anybody that I interviewed didn’t rave about Griffith and didn’t acknowledge The Birth of a Nation as the greatest thing they’d seen. What is extraordinary to me now is that we didn’t discuss the politics. Now I’d seen the picture at a 13 year old with a school friend at the Everyman Theatre in Hampstead when they were running the sound version. And the sound version is catastrophic because it’s speeded up. Griffith having shot it at 16 fps, it’s now shown at 24 fps. It looks absolutely ridiculous. It’s also terrible quality and we both came out saying: “What a load of rubbish!” But we didn’t respond to the fact that the Ku Klux Klan were the heroes and the blacks were the villains. And when I spoke to people who remembered the picture, the first time round, they all regarded it as cowboys and Indians, besides being tremendously proud of the film as a member of the industry who produced it. And raving about Griffith. I don’t remember anybody pointing out the all to obvious fact that it was wildly racist! So that is curious. When I saw a Sight & Sound poll of the greatest films, they asked the great film makers what films they regarded as memorable, Carl Dreyer –of all people!- chose The Birth of a Nation as number one. So despite the riots they talk about and the protests at the time, it obviously had a very different reaction on people. And I think that the appalling thing to admit is that it was generally accepted that blacks were not exactly sub-human but getting that way. And these wonderful men in white were indeed worthy of being the heroes.

He is absolutely spot on, saying that the racial prejudice and racism (among Europeans & Americans) was so ingrained that people enjoyed the film regardless of its racist message. Thank God, now, we have moved on!

[Synnove]

I should hope so. Thanks for the qoute from your wonderful interview, Christine!

And re. the government scene, I think Mr Arkadin said in the BoaN thread that something like that did happen - uneducated black people being made representations for South Carolina that is. However, the issue here is the way in which the scene is presented. CCfan mentioned the drunkenness, and there's also the scene showing the black men gazing lustfully at the white women on the balcony. Although Griffith claimed that the scene was based on a photo, there was no such photo. According to film historians , it could have been based on a famous cartoon though.

The historical importance of the film is great, but not as a depiction of the history of the civil war. "anyone who has read American history" can tell you about the suffering the slaves underwent under an inhumane and uncivilized system which was completely unworthy of a country that proclaimed that all men were created equal. "anyone who has read American history" will also know enough to be critical of source material which is too obviously biased. "anyone who has read American history" will know about the myths that were created about the pre-war south, in popular literature of the 1890's in particular, but also in later books like Gone With the Wind - and will know that these books are for the most part fiction. Especially the ones that romanticize the vile ideology of racial supremacy, which would lead to lynchings in the US and genocide in Europe. Finally, "anyone who has read American history" will know that many of the things presented in BoaN have been discredited by historians - like the black congressman, for instance. The forced marriage. Thaddeus Stevens' role. All of that's kind of obvious.

But as a historical document of the attitudes of 1915 BoaN is really good! It's also a great conversation piece. And technically I do think it's one of Griffith's more accomplished films with many groundbreaking innovations. I still think Broken Blossoms is the very best in that regard, but it's just my opinion.

[drednm]

For anyone interested in a decent history of THE BIRTH OF A NATION I would recommend the Melvyn Stokes book, D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation. While Stokes clearly thinks the film is racist, at least he gives tons of historical information on the film and provides a context based on this country in 1915 in its racial attitudes etc.

Personally, I don't watch the film as a history lesson. I know where we've been. I watch the film because it's a masterpiece and the first great American film.

[charliechaplinfan]

actually the event happened

I'm thinking of a documentary I watched recently, I think it was a Kevin Brownlow but I could be mistaken. I was shocked to hear in the documentary that events that happened in Congress were wildly exagerated and there may have been an incident of one drunken black congressman but how Griffith depicted the black congressman was a work of fiction. For me it goes beyond a look back at history when history is distorted, more than distorted, when a historical film is based partly on half truths and lies and then claims to be a representation of the time and presents one section of society as savages. Some people them see this picture of the negro as true! It's dangerous propaganda.

Now if that documentary was mistaken and I think it is highly unlikely in the day and age of legal action.

[Synnove]

I think most people who view it today think it's racist - based on the dictionary definition of the word - and find it disturbing viewing for that reason. It's something that makes at least me feel optimistic, because it shows that we've come away from the kind of thinking BoaN stands for. That doesn't mean we should be too judgmental toward the people who made it, but it's a positive thing to be aware of what it shows.

[drednm]

The film is 94 years for god's sake... what propaganda would it be espousing? Why is BOAN considered any more racist in its depiction of Blacks than Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin? Both are works of FICTION. The fictive elements in Griffith's films are BASED on historical events; the film is NOT a history of the South or the Civil War. If the film is disturbing, that's one thing. But when people start flinging that "racist" label without understanding Griffith or, more usually, without even having seen the film, then that's another issue.

We have the luxury of FAST FORWARD now.... if the scenes are THAT offensive, then whiz by them. Or don't watch it at all. I can think of dozens of films that have more offensive depictions of Blacks, including one starring Mary Pickford. But getting so riles up 94 years after the release of a film seems a bit DRAMA QUEENY to me.

[charliechaplinfan]

Are we only allowed to object to Griffith's views of the South if we understand him?

If you are resorting to calling me a drama Queen, you don't understand me and you haven't the capability of discussing a subject without becoming personal. I would suggest you leave this thread to people who can discuss it in an adult manner.

[drednm]

find ignore.... then find FF on your remote so you won't be upset by a 94-year-old film

[moira finnie]

Hi folks,
The style and content of D.W. Griffith's filmwork is debatable, but let's try to maintain a respect for one another while doing so, please, and exercise the same patience with others' opinions that you would wish to receive for your thoughts. As this site's Code of Conduct states:

The ownership and staff of this board would like this to remain a friendly place where a reasonable amount of flexibility is maintained.

Our goal is to share our enthusiasms, discover new aspects of film and media, and create a atmosphere that promotes diversity without sacrificing civility.

Before replying, take a step back for a moment, take a breath, and ask yourself: "If I read what I've just written, how would I react?" It might be useful to remember that the spontaneous nuances of speech can get lost when seen in black and white print, and without meaning to, may hurt rather than enlighten others when perceived differently than intended.

Thank you for participating here.

[charliechaplinfan]

I think I should attempt to bring the thread back to the original topic.

I liked Way Down East, I thought it sagged a bit in the middle and the ending on the ice flow. Well I think that just showed how determined the performers, technicians and DW Griffith. It's surely one of the most dangerous piece of action on film. I don't entirely understand how they did it, I was hoping Karl Brown's book would have told but alas he wasn't with Griffith at that time. It does remind me of the footage in Our Hospitality when the guy rope that is attached to Buster Keaton snapped and he starts going down the river very fast. He was a lucky man that day.

[drednm]

I think some of the long shots, which helped pace the finale, were faked with dummies plus the sizes and shapes of ice don't match the closeups.

The scene was filmed at White River Junction, VT, near an ice farm so Griffith had plenty of ice to play with. The shot of Gish and Barthelmess are very real indeed. Barthelmess takes a few icy plunges when his jumps miss the ice. Gish spent days floating down the river with her hand and hair flowing in the icy river. She claims pieces of her hair broke off and that her hand ached for years.

Talk about dedicated actors! But I guess "stunt doubles" were pretty much unheard of in 1920.

[charliechaplinfan]

It's amazing acting and very brave. They weren't the only ones though, Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton took amazing risks (that house craashing down and no reaction) I'm sure there were more examples, it's just that I'm not great at remembering.

[drednm]

Keaton took extraordinary chances in his comedies and Lloyd (with part of his hand missing from an on-set explosion) was totally amazing. Nothing slowed these guys down. Then there's Gloria Swanson in MALE AND FEMALE with a real lion on her bare back in a fantasy sequence.