British Film Institute (BFI) Discussion Thread

[IanSchultz23]

But seriously who is there right mind is gonna watch Birth of a nation more than a couple times in their lifetime? This is coming from a defender of the film.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

But seriously who is there right mind is gonna watch Birth of a nation more than a couple times in their lifetime? This is coming from a defender of the film.

I've seen it twice and I'm planning on buying it at some point, so that'll make it at least three watches for me once I get my hands on it. I have to confess, though, that I'm conflicted about this movie, which is probably why I haven't gotten around to buying it yet. It's a terrible masterpiece.

[Class316]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

But seriously who is there right mind is gonna watch Birth of a nation more than a couple times in their lifetime? This is coming from a defender of the film.

To be honest. There are very few movies I watch more than once or twice in 10-20 years. So to me that's not a "BOAN thing"

[Vidya]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

But seriously who is there right mind is gonna watch Birth of a nation more than a couple times in their lifetime? This is coming from a defender of the film.

I know, right? Who in their right mind would ever watch one of the greatest movies ever made more than twice?

[IanSchultz23]

It is a great film but has very little replay value for me and probably most people. In other news just watched my screener of Cry of the city it's absolutely fantastic and is one of the best BFI releases this year. Sadly it's a been low on the extras front.

[rapta]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

It is a great film but has very little replay value for me and probably most people. In other news just watched my screener of Cry of the city it's absolutely fantastic and is one of the best BFI releases this year. Sadly it's a been low on the extras front.

Glad to hear it. That's basically the only new title I was looking to buy this month (though might see if I can afford The Shop on the High Street and/or Early Murnau: Five Films). Waiting for HMV to add it to their site, as it should only be £10.99...

[IanSchultz23]

Murnau delayed till the 26th of September

[rapta]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

Murnau delayed till the 26th of September

Really? Have Eureka themselves said this? Doesn't say so on their own site nor Amazon...

[IanSchultz23]

Originally Posted by rapta

Really? Have Eureka themselves said this? Doesn't say so on their own site nor Amazon...

Yes got a email this morning

[rapta]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

Yes got a email this morning

Cheers for the heads-up! September obviously a busy month already but means I won't have to worry about it this month now. Fine by me!

Dammit, HMV just added Cry of the City but for some reason it's £12.99 rather than the usual £10.99 for non-Flipside titles. Wonder why this one is more expensive despite the lack of extensive extras? Are Fox charging more for licensing now or something?

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Vidya

I know, right? Who in their right mind would ever watch one of the greatest movies ever made more than twice?

On one level, I take your point.

But on another, you'd have to clarify 'one of the greatest films ever made'.

I suspect this would largely (and rightly) involve you invoking its groundbreaking and influential technique. But that's the problem. Just because you invented a particular style, and 'everyone does it like that now', doesn't make it an entertaining film so much as an important historical cinematic artefact.

It's like discovering the first writing that used lower case letters. It's important, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good read.

We should also be honest, that film-making styles change, as do viewing habits, and we are all influenced by what we consume. Almost every one of us here has been brought up on a diet of films and TV which influences our tastes. There's no shame in admitting that, whilst Birth of a Nation is both important and influential, it's not exactly an easy watch.

At over 3 hours long, and trying to propagate a world view which most will find repugnant, a lot of people will be less than disappointed if they never have to watch it again.

After all, there are plenty of other films out there to watch.

[Vidya]

Originally Posted by Pecker

On one level, I take your point.

But on another, you'd have to clarify 'one of the greatest films ever made'.

You're right. I don't believe I could make that claim about any piece of work. Forgive me if I came across as condescending. While I was trying to get a point across, my previous post was mostly in jest.

Originally Posted by Pecker

At over 3 hours long, and trying to propagate a world view which most will find repugnant, a lot of people will be less than disappointed if they never have to watch it again.

I would be disappointed if I knew that I could never see it again. Thank goodness for home video.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by Vidya

You're right. I don't believe I could make that claim about any piece of work. Forgive me if I came across as condescending. While I was trying to get a point across, my previous post was mostly in jest.



I would be disappointed if I knew that I could never see it again. Thank goodness for home video.

The technical and artistic achievements of this film from 1915 is incredible and is very much the forefather of modern American film as we know it. It's top-tier silent film-making, and as early as this too! Griffiths was ahead of his game in that regard.

The way the subject matter is handled is frankly, jaw-dropping in the 2nd half especially but depending on what angle you go from, it can be a bit of a social study. I was fascinated by the hypocrisy of Griffiths, with Intolerance as his following feature yet quite clearly his views as evidenced by Birth of a Nation are anything but tolerant. It's also, worryingly, all too relevant today with Trump and his supporters but fascinating how the fears of today and back then as evidenced in Birth of a Nation are, when you boil it down, identical. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

So yeah, a fascinating film on multiple levels. I don't see any shame in enjoying it on those terms. These things shouldn't be hidden away. With what's happening in the US today, perhaps it's all the more important to educate people and this shouldn't be hidden away as it shows up just how nasty people's fears can get when a race or nation is scapegoated.

[IanSchultz23]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

The technical and artistic achievements of this film from 1915 is incredible and is very much the forefather of modern American film as we know it. It's top-tier silent film-making, and as early as this too! Griffiths was ahead of his game in that regard.

The way the subject matter is handled is frankly, jaw-dropping in the 2nd half especially but depending on what angle you go from, it can be a bit of a social study. I was fascinated by the hypocrisy of Griffiths, peddling intolerance in his following feature yet quite clearly his views as evidenced by Birth of a Nation are anything but. It's also, worryingly, all too relevant today with Trump and his supporters but fascinating how the fears of today and back then as evidenced in Birth of a Nation are, when you boil it down, identical. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

So yeah, a fascinating film on multiple levels. I don't see any shame in enjoying it on those terms. These things shouldn't be hidden away. With what's happening in the US today, perhaps it's all the more important to educate people and this shouldn't be hidden away as it shows up just how nasty people's fears can get when a race or nation is scapegoated.

It's jaw-dropping no matter what angle you go to it with.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by IanSchultz23

It's jaw-dropping no matter what angle you go to it with.

I didn't say it wasn't. That point of view is borne through fear and sheer ignorance. One that should be shown and shamed for what it is.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

I was fascinated by the hypocrisy of Griffiths, peddling intolerance in his following feature yet quite clearly his views as evidenced by Birth of a Nation are anything but.

I'm guessing it's a typo, but you're actually spot on. I haven't seen the blu-ray of it, but on the Kino DVD I saw some years ago the end credits overlay a battle scene that looks like it's lifted from Birth of a Nation and it really puts a whole different spin on the "tolerance" concept Griffith has promoted for the duration of the movie. Yes, it's nicely wrapped in stories that make you feel for the protagonists (especially in the modern "Mother and the Law" segment), but you can just as easily see it as Griffith being of the opinion that the American Civil War was fought because the (wealthy) North was intolerant of the (poor) South - a narrative which feeds nicely into the whole "War of Northern Aggression" attitude that's still around in the South.

Griffith's father was an officer in the Confederate Army. It's not hard to imagine that he held very strong views about slavery and the American Civil War that differ from what most of us think about it.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

I'm guessing it's a typo, but you're actually spot on. I haven't seen the blu-ray of it, but on the Kino DVD I saw some years ago the end credits overlay a battle scene that looks like it's lifted from Birth of a Nation and it really puts a whole different spin on the "tolerance" concept Griffith has promoted for the duration of the movie. Yes, it's nicely wrapped in stories that make you feel for the protagonists (especially in the modern "Mother and the Law" segment), but you can just as easily see it as Griffith being of the opinion that the American Civil War was fought because the (wealthy) North was intolerant of the (poor) South - a narrative which feeds nicely into the whole "War of Northern Aggression" attitude that's still around in the South.

Griffith's father was an officer in the Confederate Army. It's not hard to imagine that he held very strong views about slavery and the American Civil War that differ from what most of us think about it.

Intolerance was very specifically designed to be a retraction/apology from Griffiths for Birth Of A Nation. It's no coincidence that that film with those themes was made so soon after BIRTH.

I've seen BIRTH more times than I care to remember, but always in an academic environment (as opposed to sitting down to it for entertainment purposes). We once screened it at the local art house cinema, but the film's rep still provokes such a reaction that we had protestors turn up on the night and stand outside of the cinema.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Intolerance was very specifically designed to be a retraction/apology from Griffiths for Birth Of A Nation. It's no coincidence that that film with those themes was made so soon after BIRTH.

I've seen BIRTH more times than I care to remember, but always in an academic environment (as opposed to sitting down to it for entertainment purposes). We once screened it at the local art house cinema, but the film's rep still provokes such a reaction that we had protestors turn up on the night and stand outside of the cinema.

I know that's what's usually said about Intolerance, but I don't buy it. And neither does Kevin Brownlow, apparently. This refers to an interview on the MoC disc, but like I said, I've only seen the US Kino DVD, so I can't say for sure. And, based on the article, Griffith had already finished "The Mother and the Law" segment by the time Birth of a Nation was released, so it can hardly have been made as a reaction to the reception of that movie (granted, adding the other segments and tweaking the original segment can change things, but it was clearly not intended as an apology to begin with).

(I just realized that you can interpret The Mother as the South, the meddling do-gooders as the North and the child as the slaves. Kinda chilling.)

It speaks to the power of Birth of a Nation (and film in general) that almost 100 years after its release a screening could still trigger such a response.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

I know that's what's usually said about Intolerance, but I don't buy it. And neither does Kevin Brownlow, apparently. This refers to an interview on the MoC disc, but like I said, I've only seen the US Kino DVD, so I can't say for sure. And, based on the article, Griffith had already finished "The Mother and the Law" segment by the time Birth of a Nation was released, so it can hardly have been made as a reaction to the reception of that movie (granted, adding the other segments and tweaking the original segment can change things, but it was clearly not intended as an apology to begin with).

Yeah, I've actually seen the Brownlow video, so not sure why this idea of it being a rebuttal has still stuck with me. I guess it's one of those "print the legend" type movie asides that sticks regardless of the actual facts!

[oddbox83]

Wasn't a typo as such, just a bit garbled as I struggled to put what I meant into words there. Amended now.