SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Proportional 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
Gene Stavis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 16 Jun 1994 14:21:50 PDT
text/plain (20 lines)
Cal -
<<Interesting how the defense of Griffith and BIRTH seems to keep slipping
from the clear historical fact that the film was objectionable in 1914.>>
I don't understand why you willfully misread what I said. To repeat, there
was SOME objection to the film in 1914 and, indeed ever since. But what film
that addresses a controversial subject does not engender some criticism? (see
previous messages)
You, on the other hand, seem to be ignoring the overwhelming acceptance of
the film by the considerable majority of those who saw it. Now, perhaps you
see this as "proof" of pervasive racism (and perhaps it is). But please try
to separate polemic from history (or at least label it as such.)
<<Similarly the discussion in 1994 keeps overlooking the historical fact
that the KKK had two incarnations: one lauded by BIRTH OF A NATION and
a second beginning in 1915 inspired by BIRTH OF A NATION.>>
Who has overlooked this fact? It was mentioned in my previous post. Could it
be that you have an axe to grind?
Geen Stavis - School of Visual Arts - NYC