----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dan Streible writes: "Ailes replied (paraphrasing here): "Well, I don't know if Griffith was a conservative or not. But he made a great film. Of course in this day of political correctness a lot people don't even want the movie shown, just because of some racial images. But it was a different time. A person can help the times they live in." It was as if he had said, "Boys & girls: if you don't know who Adolf Hitler was you should. He was a great, great orator." Quite an apologia. Quite a repesentation of the nature of the film. I'm still amazed at the staying power of BIRTH as a historical touchstone and the willingness of white men to continue proudly defending its representation of race." I'll assume the accuracy of the paraphrase, which is not at all out of line for Ailes (Rush Limbaugh's producer, among many other things), but it doesn't sound to me so much that he's "proudly defending its representation of race" as offering the kind of weak-kneed apology that he (and Rush) would never tolerate in someone who sought to point out mitigating factors of race, class or sex in someone else's behavior. (Eg, The Weather Underground couldn't help the times they lived in.) On the other hand, the point is one that continually comes up in discussion about Griffith, well as Leni Reifenstahl, Richard Wagner, D.H. Lawrence, Ezra Pound, and other artists who have been important, influential, and--yes-- "great" in some way, but who often spoke, thought, and acted in despicable ways. As far as I'm concerned, BIRTH OF A NATION is an "important" film in many ways and should be seen by many people, but always with the contextual understanding of Griffith's blatantly racist appeals. The film shouldn't be banned, but the racism should not be overlooked either. I think Ailes' *real* offense is typical of those who slap the "politically correct" label on any protest of elements that the right wants to ignore or shout down (not that the left can't be guilt of similar simplistic argument). By dismissing the racial factor as unworthy of discussion, Ailes tries to naturalize racism and put it beyond the pale of discussion, leaving "art" a purified form that exists far above the political realm (which is certainly not true). It also presents history as an uncontested set of events in which people were pre-determined to act in a certain way because of their historical context--quite an argument for a conservative to make, especially one who espouses the ideals of individual liberty and choice! I think the point is that Griffith, while constrained in certain ways by history--as all of us are, also *could* help his beliefs and behavior--as all of us do. He *chose* to act and think in a particular way and make a film that is both great and loathsome as a result. Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)