Well, I didn't start this discussion on "Birth of a Nation". I have been simply trying to conduct a dialogue with other serious people in this corner of the Net. I certainly wish we could leave this topic behind. I assure you it is not at the top of my priorities. <<But does the general acceptance, of, say, Basic Instinct, mean that we can, in future, laud it formally, without examining the cultural attitudes and fears it represents?>> Surely you're not serious. Where have I even approached <<lauding 'Birth' formally without examining the cultural attitudes and fears it represents>>? My whole point has been that it must be seen in its context. Accepting it or rejecting it uncritically and for political motives does not serve any but the most partisan political purpose. <<Have you seen Cabiria, which I believe I mentioned yesterday? A far more dynamic and complex film, both narratively and formally.>> Yes, I have been seeing "Cabiria" and "Salammbo" and "Quo Vadis" and all of the "Maciste" films for over 30 years. You may consider that they are dynamic. To me, they are static, lacking in the most advanced film techniques of the early teens and far behind the contemporary work of Griffith and other contemporaries in structure, cinematography, psychology and all the other elements which, for me, define the art of film. But, of course, that is my opinion. What is not my opinion is the near-universal regard in which "Birth" is held by the widest spectrum of theorists and historians despite attempts at modern revisionism. Sure, it has been over-praised; sure, it is not the lonely masterpiece some claim; sure, its racial views are objectionable today. But to disregard it as you imply is, as I have said before, insupportable. "Cabiria" and the other Italian spectacles are feature-length and are impressive in some ways, but an acceptable substitute for studying Griffith and "Birth"? It is simply insupportable. Where is there any critical basis for this view? Gene Stavis - School of Visual Arts, NYC