SCREEN-L Archives

December 1999, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Kenneth Slack <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:27:57 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (135 lines)
It seems that there are some who feel that because a
person does something that can be considered
technically innovative, his use of that technique to
advance racism and hatred should not only be excused,
but ignored, if not ultimately rewarded! I suppose
after hearing Hitler speak, Germans should have
reasoned, "Okay, he did say some hateful things, but
he was so eloquent in saying them, that it would just
be so PC of us not to name a speech award in his
honor."

Of course human imperfection requires that we accept
some flaws in all of our heroes, and in anyone whom we
choose to honor. But what flaws will we accept? There
are some who can be impressed by editing technique and
photographic style, and dismiss the concomitant racism
with a "despite" and as "PC stuff."

The same people who pooh-pooh the parsing of
"personal" and "public" lives in politics, all of a
sudden become Enrico Fermi, able to split the atom of
"form and content" when it comes to film, in order to
simultaneously extol the form and avoid embracing the
content.

I am not here to condemn Griffith (not that I don't
condemn him; it just isn't my aim right now), nor to
deny the technical achievements of The Birth of a
Nation. I am here objecting to those who insist upon
minimizing the horror that this film visited upon
society. That horror has to have been minimized for
anyone to determine that the positives of Griffith's
work, should unquestioningly be considered to outweigh
the negatives. Producing a film glorifying, indeed
deifying the Ku Klux Klan, at a time when lynching was
an all too real threat to too many human beings, in
some minds, has to have been overshadowed by
Griffith's use of close-ups and fade--outs, for there
to be this current groundswell of disbelief that
Hollywood would dare question his worthiness of a
particular honor.

If any group of people realizes the  profound effect
and exorbitant power that film can wield over the
psyche of its audience, it has to be a film discussion
group like this one. Some may feel that Griffith's
contributions to the industry are such that any
attempts to honor him are reasonable. However, I would
advocate that when a person's contributions to the
industry are evaluated, those contributions include
the havoc wreaked upon the industry's audience.

Kenneth L. Slack


--- Sandy Camargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. It's the same PC stuff that
> makes students not want
> to read Chaucer because he is "sexist." Despite the
> obvious racism of many
> of his films, D. W. Griffith is the man who invented
> Hollywood. Still.
>
>         Sandy Camargo
>         Department of English
>         University of Missouri
>
> >from LA Times
>
(http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/19991218/t000115137.html):
> >
> >
> >
> > I have always admired the Directors Guild for
> acknowledging the importance
> >of D.W. Griffith with their award, and I am
> dismayed to hear they are
> >withdrawing it. A sign of maturity is the ability
> to acknowledge greatness
> >while not being blind to faults--Alfred Nobel
> invented dynamite, but his
> >name remains on the Peace Prize.
> >      However uncomfortable it may be, "The Birth
> of a Nation," beyond all
> >other films, established the feature film and made
> it possible for the
> >members of the guild to practice their craft.
> >      The man whose name they dishonor was full of
> contradictions; yes, he
> >made Hollywood's most racially explosive film, but
> he also made films
> >attacking racial prejudice. In one early Griffith
> picture, the Klan was the
> >villain and a black boy the hero.
> >      Whose name will replace Griffith's? Another
> pioneer director--John
> >Ford, perhaps?  No, like most of his generation, he
> revered Griffith. How
> >about a foreign name, a director of impeccable
> reputation: Carl-Theodore
> >Dryer? Not a bad idea.  Unfortunately, in a 1950s
> poll, Dreyer selected
> >"The Birth of a Nation" as the greatest film ever
> made.
> >
>          KEVIN BROWNLOW
> >
>          Photoplay
> >Productions
> >
>          London
> >Full Alert Film Review
> >http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/fafr.htm
> >
> >Funhouse
> >http://wlt4.home.mindspring.com/funhouse.htm
> >
> >----
> >For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> >http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu

ATOM RSS1 RSS2