Talk:The Birth of a Nation

landmark film of technical virtuosity?
The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history, lauded for its technical virtuosity.

Excuse me, what? How is that the first thing we say (in Wikipedia's own voice!) about the movie? Surely the film is much more notable for its grotesque racist imagery than its "technical virtuosity". I'm gonna rewrite that section unless I get an objection. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The film is most notable for its technical impact, and how it shaped the evolution of the medium. This is why the film is remembered, its racism is incidental. There were many racist films around at the time, but they have fallen to the wayside of history because they aren't noteworthy in other respects. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know a source saying that the "racism is incidental".
 * It would be like saying: Hitler is remembered for his initial military successes his landmark Blitzkrieg, and the rest is only incidental. There were many fascist around at the time, but they have fallen to the wayside of history because they aren't noteworthy in other respects. 2003:C5:8710:2800:C059:5A9A:3440:5B24 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this isn't a case where an otherwise "normal" film happens to have scenes involving a crude racial caricature. It's a film that revolves around celebrating the KKK as saviors of the "white South" from terrifying and imbecilic hordes of freedmen. Racism is fundamental to the plot. The fact it's also regarded as a technical marvel is important in explaining reasons why it's still watched today, but I don't think it's incorrect to say it's better known for its racism than for the specific techniques Griffith used in filming it. --Ismail (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Its enduring legacy enabled the film to retain its relevance, which has brought it into conflict with modern attitudes and mores. It's not remembered because it is racist, it is deemed racist because it is remembered. A similar thing is starting to happen to Gone with the Wind. It's not as though the article whitewashes the controversy—the entire third paragraph of the lead is devoted to it—but I would say the balance is correct and roughly mirrors that of Britannica, which is written by an author of books about cinema and a professor of journalism. Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There was already some conflict with the "attitudes and mores" of many citizens in 1915 though, hence why Griffith was upset that the film was being boycotted and censored. And something can have an enduring legacy in more ways than one (e.g. the part the film played in boosting the image of the Klan.) I'm not saying the article is whitewashing the controversy, just that writing "its racism is incidental" is an odd claim to make for a film that revolves around defending white supremacy, and that when the film has been brought up in pop culture over the past few decades it's more often for its racism than for its technical aspects. --Ismail (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that sentence should read something like The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history, lauded for its technical virtuosity and simultaneously condemned for its overt racism. As someone who was a film history & criticism student, the film was technically groundbreaking. I write as someone who wanted to throw my keys at the screen the first time I saw the really offensive parts. But I challenge anyone who disagrees with its technical brilliance to present examples of others who were doing the same in 1915. Who else hired had a score composed, contracted with regular theaters (not nickelodions), & hired orchestras, let alone the advances in editing technique, the composition of long & mid shots and closeups? Let's acknowledge that the film was both offensive and technically brilliant. Peaceray (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think changing the sentence to something like you proposed is a good idea. As I said, it's regarded as a technical marvel, but its racist content is what gets discussed more in pop culture, so both ought to be given due prominence in opening the article. --Ismail (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if I remember correctly, this film was one of the main reasons the KKK was catapulted back into the mainstream, with its numbers peaking at 2.5 million in 1925. This film, while very technologically marvelous for the time, should first and foremost be known for the incredible damage it did to race relations and the boosting of the KKK. 50.24.177.242 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think de-emphasizing its technical innovations in favor of its sociological impact creates a bias. I think that both should be given equal weight. I oppose removing technical virtuosity from that sentence and support adding and simultaneously condemned for its overt racism. Peaceray (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Accolades" subsection is nonsensical
I removed the "Accolades" subsection on the grounds that its only cited source explicitly states that the relevant "accolade" is in fact not an endorsement. This was reverted with the note that "inclusion in the library of congress is an honor," a statement which is directly contradicted by an official statement from the Library in the cited article.

I'm taking this to the talk page to avoid revert warring, but I simply don't see how a section consisting of an uncited statement and a statement that contradicts its own citation adds anything of value to the article. Ambisinistral (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a misreading of the sources, which indicate the film is historically very important. Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An "accolade" isn't necessarily an "endorsement", it can be any type of meritorious acknowledgement, which being selected for preservation in the National Film Registry clearly is. I recall in the distant past that this section of film articles was renamed to "Accolades" from "Awards and honors" precisely for this reason. Look through the film articles you will see that it is common for NFR nominations to be listed under "Accolades". In any case, the section also includes the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, which certainly ranks as an achievement and you clearly shouldn't have deleted this. Your edit appeared to advance your personal point of view, and was rightly reverted IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody-least of all me-is saying it's not morally repugnant, but it is still universally recognized as a cinematic milestone. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Improvements to the article
I am posting this text, which, although it is very complete, well referenced and written, has some minor problems that need to be corrected. First, there are passages without references, this is most noticeable in the sections "Consequences", "White House showing", "New opening titles on re-release", "Accolades" and "In popular culture". Second, the "Plot" section should not have a reference by default since the source is in the film itself, but what I don't understand is why there is one in the second paragraph and in the rest there is none, in this case either a reference should be put in the whole section or not at all, and third and last, reference 40 of the New York Times does have an elence for it to be added. For the moment I will not do a GAR because the article is very complete but even so these errors should be corrected. So I call who was the one who nominated the article to review it. 2801:1CA:E:1411:DD57:CBA6:D356:E047 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)