Re: 'Birth of a Nation' Showing Canceled
Ron Turner
>of the controversial 1915 D.W. Griffith film, "The Birth of a Nation,"
>after receiving threats and complaints.
>
Where are those "artist" celebs who whine about censorship when ya need them?
>The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which
>had protested the planned showing, said the movie "poisoned racial
>relationships in America for nearly a century." The group called the
>cancellation a victory for it and other community organizations.
This why I don't respect the NAACP anymore. It's become such a joke. Nothing
more than a bunch of civil rights racketeers. Not like the guy was holding a
KKK rally or anything. He was going to show a classic film and talk about how
racist it was. Duh.
******************************************
my blog: http://naughtypundit.blogspot.com
3finger
edonline <edonlineSPAMOUT!@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/9364695.htm
>
> Posted on Tue, Aug. 10, 2004
>
> 'Birth of a Nation' Showing Canceled
>
> Associated Press
>
> LOS ANGELES - The owner of a silent movie theater canceled a screening
> of the controversial 1915 D.W. Griffith film, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> after receiving threats and complaints.
>
> Charlie Lustman, owner of the Silent Movie Theatre, said he worried
> that customers and 92-year-old organist Bob Mitchell, who provides
> musical accompaniment for the theater's films, would have to cross
> picket lines to see Monday's scheduled show.
>
> "The Birth of a Nation" is a movie about the Civil War that portrays
> blacks as would-be rapists and stereotyped buffoons.
>
> Although considered a technical masterpiece and the forerunner of
> modern filmmaking, it has also been denounced for its blatantly racist
> message.
>
> The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which
> had protested the planned showing, said the movie "poisoned racial
> relationships in America for nearly a century." The group called the
> cancellation a victory for it and other community organizations.
>
> Lustman said he had planned to focus on the film's role pioneering
> cinematography techniques and would have put its message in context by
> including a debate and a presentation by a film scholar either before
> or after the show.
As a liberal African-American who's also a film buff, this sucks big
time. I know that this is a polaraized society, but I'd like to think at
this point that we can appreciate the artistic achievements of such a
film while separating that from the content itself. Those who condemn
the censorship of the government and corporate America should be pissed
off by this as well.
--
3finger
Chicago Cubs, Back-to-Back World Champions ... 1907,1908
Otter
wrote:
>>The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which
>>had protested the planned showing, said the movie "poisoned racial
>>relationships in America for nearly a century." The group called the
>>cancellation a victory for it and other community organizations.
>
>This why I don't respect the NAACP anymore. It's become such a joke. Nothing
>more than a bunch of civil rights racketeers. Not like the guy was holding a
>KKK rally or anything. He was going to show a classic film and talk about how
>racist it was. Duh.
Agreed. Next thing we'll have the police protesting the showing of
Keystone Kops shorts.
-Otter
William
D.W. Griffith was the first director to make extensive use of what
today is considered basic film language (closeups, tracking shots,
zooms, etc). Cancelling this movie in the name of "racial
relationships" makes about as much sense as cancelling a production of
Othello because it shows a black guy being set up to murder his white
wife.
I think the NAACP has a lot more important things to worry about than
a 90-year-old movie. Then again, it's a lot easier to blame a piece of
celluloid for your problems then to actually try and solve them.
Argyle
Can "Cabin in the Sky" be far behind? How 'bout GWTW? Although, IMO, that
wouldn't be a great loss.
Argyle
On 11-Aug-2004, 3finger <cubf...@NOSPAMNOSMAPearthlink.net> wrote:
> As a liberal African-American who's also a film buff, this sucks big
> time.
>I know that this is a polaraized society, but I'd like to think at
> this point that we can appreciate the artistic achievements of such a
> film while separating that from the content itself.
I couldn't agree more! Just because someone watches/appreciates the movie
doesn't make them a racist.
Argyle
On 11-Aug-2004, William...@excite.com (William) wrote:
> D.W. Griffith was the first director to make extensive use of what
> today is considered basic film language (closeups, tracking shots,
> zooms, etc). Cancelling this movie in the name of "racial
> relationships" makes about as much sense as cancelling a production of
> Othello because it shows a black guy being set up to murder his white
> wife.
>
> I think the NAACP has a lot more important things to worry about than
> a 90-year-old movie. Then again, it's a lot easier to blame a piece of
> celluloid for your problems then to actually try and solve them.
Ouch!
lilandorth
> >LOS ANGELES - The owner of a silent movie theater canceled a screening
> >of the controversial 1915 D.W. Griffith film, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> >after receiving threats and complaints.
> >
>
> Where are those "artist" celebs who whine about censorship when ya need them?
>
No kidding...I am an old film buff and if we threw out every old movie
that we have decided is not politically correct in 2004 TCM would be
out of business. Although Birth of a Nation is one of the most
obvious examples of negative portrayal of African Americans...most
mainstream Hollywood films in that era (and the decades after) used
black actors for eye-rolling, watermelon-eating mammies, maids and
butlers. I cringe times when seeing that portrayal in an great old
film...and don't even get me started on the portrayal of women in the
same flicks!
The point is, these movies reflect the cultural values at the time and
we need to keep that in mind when watching them. I wish these
protesters would find something REAL to do with their lives.
Elizabeth
Peej
wrote:
Remember Song of the South, the award winning film that is now locked
forever in the Disney vaults. I'm surprised that Show Boat never was
banned.
Peej
"Life is strange but I like it that way."
Deborah G. Buckner
Hattie McDaniel (who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her
portrayal of Mammy in GWTW) was sharply criticized by the NAACP for
playing maid roles in the movies. She was deeply hurt, felt "betrayed
by her own people" and believed, to the best of her ability, that she
brought good character and value to the roles she played, working to
promote her race through the best career she could make. She once said,
"I can play a maid for $700 a week, or I can be a maid for $7 a week."
Deb
Argyle
On 11-Aug-2004, Peej <pee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Remember Song of the South, the award winning film that is now locked
> forever in the Disney vaults. I'm surprised that Show Boat never was
> banned.
>
> Peej
I would think the NAACP would be more up in arms about the current crop of
African Americans playing druggies, murders, and every sort of criminal one
can think of on TV and the Cinema, rather than a 90 year-old movie! (I'll
bet MSN Word would have fun with that sentence!)
The NAACP has definitely have outlived its usefulness!
RitchChristopher
>forever in the Disney vaults
You'll be pleased to know that "Song of the South"...Uncle Remus, Brer Rabbit,
Brer Fox, and Brer Bear will finally be released on DVD before Christmas.
Viv
<d...@thebucknerhomealone.com> wrote:
>Hattie McDaniel (who won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her
>portrayal of Mammy in GWTW) was sharply criticized by the NAACP for
>playing maid roles in the movies. She was deeply hurt, felt "betrayed
>by her own people" and believed, to the best of her ability, that she
>brought good character and value to the roles she played, working to
>promote her race through the best career she could make. She once said,
>"I can play a maid for $700 a week, or I can be a maid for $7 a week."
>
>Deb
Oh bless her heart, that is a great quote. There were so few options
open to black people in those days, she took the best one she could
find. If she hadn't, the world would never have known of her and her
wonderful talent. And that would have been a definite loss to us all.
Alpha
"Viv" <dontw...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:olrkh0pm6r6f7s7qo...@4ax.com...
Agreed. It is HER speech on the stairs at the end of "Gone with the Wind"
which deliveres that film's emotional knockout punch. I mist up every time
I see it.
As far as "Birth of a Nation" is concerned, do these protesters REALLY think
that your average silent film fan is a murderous racist just waiting to be
unleashed by the right 89 year old film?
KAR
"lilandorth" <ec...@edzone.net> wrote in message
news:700aaed.04081...@posting.google.com...
> naughty...@aol.com (Ron Turner) wrote in message
news:<20040810235004...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> > >LOS ANGELES - The owner of a silent movie theater canceled a screening
> > >of the controversial 1915 D.W. Griffith film, "The Birth of a Nation,"
> > >after receiving threats and complaints.
> > >
> >
> > Where are those "artist" celebs who whine about censorship when ya need
them?
> >
>
> No kidding...I am an old film buff and if we threw out every old movie
> that we have decided is not politically correct in 2004 TCM would be
> out of business. Although Birth of a Nation is one of the most
> obvious examples of negative portrayal of African Americans...most
> mainstream Hollywood films in that era (and the decades after) used
> black actors for eye-rolling, watermelon-eating mammies, maids and
> butlers.
Of course BOAN used white actors in blackface for the eye-rolling,
watermelon-eating mammies maids and butlers (as well as the black rapists,
carpetbaggers and thugs).
I also think the cancellation was unfortunate, but BOAN is not a movie with
a negative black portrayal in it. BOAN is a brilliantly made film based
entirely on an untenable premise that was not entirely acceptable when the
film was made which is now not at all acceptable. Restating that I'm
utterly opposed to the cancellation of the film (even the worst minded art
deserves to be seen, discussed and dismissed for what it says, if
necessary), BOAN is an extremely unique work because its extreme technical
modernism is in such stark contrast with its antediluvian morality. Beyond
which, most people (perpetual racist trolls excluded) agree that slavery is
the great scourge of the American Experience. This film just gets that part
SO wrong. So wrong. And moreso than any other serious-minded American film.
(It is problematic in the way that Leni Reifenstahl's films are -- they are
brilliant, but of course, extoll the virtues of the Aryan Race and the Third
Reich.)
I still think it is inexcusable to excise films that were made from an
historical consideration of the art form.
KAR
"Deborah G. Buckner" <d...@thebucknerhomealone.com> wrote in message
news:10hkouc...@corp.supernews.com...
I don't know about the sharp criticism by the NAACP of Hattie McDaniel
although I do suspect there was criticism of the kinds of roles she was
relegated to playing. Can you be more specific about that?
I do know that McDaniel was not invited to the GWTW premiere in Atlanta.
(two sources below)
*When Gone With the Wind premiered in December of 1939, many of the stars
were present for its unveiling. But none of the African American performers
had been invited to join the party in still-segregated Atlanta. When
Hattie's picture appeared on the back of a movie program, the Atlanta
society had a fit, ordering that the programs be destroyed and new ones
printed. Mammy's portrait was replaced eventually with Alicia Rhett as India
Wilkes. http://members.aol.com/ttelracs/Hattie.htm
*When her portrayal of "Mammy" in Gone With the Wind earned her the Oscar as
best supporting actress in 1939, the first Academy Award given to a black
actor, McDaniel entered Hollywood's elite circle of luminaries.
Nevertheless, she did not transcend the battleground of racism. She was
disdained by many blacks for her role in this film, which glorified the "Old
South." And she experienced further humiliation when studio
executives-unwilling to upset the Southern code of segregation and eager to
stage the movie's debut at a place that served as one of the story's
backdrops--would not allow her to attend the film's extravagant premiere in
Atlanta. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1546/is_2_15/ai_62024116
>
> Deb
>
Deborah G. Buckner
Here's one of many links on the subject:
http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/tt_070.asp
Just Google Hattie McDaniel and Walter White NAACP. You'll find many
references to it.
I first learned of it when I saw a one-woman show based on her life,
called "Hi, Hat Hattie." That prompted me to head to the library and
find a biography of her, Hattie: The Life of Hattie McDaniel, by
Carlton Jackson which dealt with the criticism she received from Walter
White of the NAACP.
Deb
Tina
>D.W. Griffith was the first director to make extensive use of what
>today is considered basic film language (closeups, tracking shots,
>zooms, etc). Cancelling this movie in the name of "racial
>relationships" makes about as much sense as cancelling a production of
>Othello because it shows a black guy being set up to murder his white
>wife.
Wasn't he also gay?
::::::Tina::::::
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend, to the death, your right
to say it." - Voltaire
William
> On 11-Aug-2004, Peej <pee...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Remember Song of the South, the award winning film that is now locked
> > forever in the Disney vaults. I'm surprised that Show Boat never was
> > banned.
> >
> > Peej
>
> I would think the NAACP would be more up in arms about the current crop of
> African Americans playing druggies, murders, and every sort of criminal one
> can think of on TV and the Cinema, rather than a 90 year-old movie!
Well, who the hell is going to come to D.W. Griffith's defense? It's a
lot easier to beat up a dead white guy than the live ones making
millions peddling "thug life" fetishism to gullible morons.
Maybe if they'd actually seen the movie and witnessed how African
Americans are manipulated by white racists, they'd get a clue. Instead
they shoot the messenger. You can't begin to understand your past
unless you take the good with the bad. Those who control the past
control the living present, and therefor the future. Wishing it away
into the cornfield for fear of offending people is the cowards way
out.
Ambassador of Sanity
Wow, this is the most obvious case of bullshit I've ever read. Calling
"Birth of a Nation" merely a "negative portrayal of African-Americans"
is like calling the KKK a group that would like to advance white
people. It's true, but it doesn't even start to scratch at the surface
of the hate.
Ambassador of Sanity
Fascinating. Judging by your post above, I'm assuming you've never
had any usefulness.
John Savard
part:
>> I would think the NAACP would be more up in arms about the current crop of
>> African Americans playing druggies, murders, and every sort of criminal one
>> can think of on TV and the Cinema, rather than a 90 year-old movie!
>Well, who the hell is going to come to D.W. Griffith's defense? It's a
>lot easier to beat up a dead white guy than the live ones making
>millions peddling "thug life" fetishism to gullible morons.
In general, when I see crime shows on TV, usually they have white people
portraying the criminals even when they're shown committing crimes that are
usually much more likely to be committed by blacks.
For example, the muggers who menaced Kirsten Dunst's character in the original
Spider-Man movie.
That's just *one* example, but lots of TV shows take the safe politically-correct
way in these situations.
So it's hard for me to think that the NAACP has lots to complain about. It is
very seldom that movies and TV shows today -
* which are primarily intended for viewing by whites
* present black people portraying criminals who are, clearly and unambiguously,
the 'bad guys', who the audience is led to hate and despise.
That is what one would expect the NAACP to be "up in arms about" in current
movies, and in fact they do object to such portrayals of blacks. What they find
threatening is when *white* people see reinforced in movies (in addition to the
news, of course, which is bad enough but unavoidable) negative stereotypes about
black people.
They want white people to be consistently shown an image of black people as being
educated law-abiding middle-class citizens, as many black people are, because
wrong thinking by whites is a threat to blacks.
The movie "Birth of a Nation", which shows the Ku Klux Klan as a legitimate
defender of Southern women against black rapists, still has the potential of
arousing attitudes in whites harmful to black people even today. It has this
potential because, unfortunately, there _is_ a real problem out there of rapes
committed by some black men, growing up in the slums and joining gangs. Even if
most of the victims are black women, since some are white women, it is in no way
unusual that the white community will refuse to tolerate this.
The ever-present danger, of course, is that the misdeeds of a few people who have
succumbed to the evils of poverty will reflect on other innocent black people.
The NAACP is an organization run by black people for black people; black people
are its constituency. So it may well be that they only address those portions of
the black problem that are "safe" and uncontroversial - among blacks.
The advancement of African-Americans will also require addressing the crime
problem of the inner cities. This means waging war on black criminals. But some
people see the War on Drugs as a war on blacks, period, and they, unfortunately,
have some justification.
Because when it comes to stopping a black male teenager in the slums from dealing
drugs, it's all stick and no carrot: unless he has a real opportunity of getting
an honest job that will pay enough so that he can *get married*, risk doesn't, in
general, stop living organisms from ensuring their survival, including
post-generational survival, in whatever ways remain open to them.
Fix the economy. Ensure there are real jobs out there for everyone. And in case
you don't know what a real job is, a real job is a job that lets a man support a
family.
The few who remain who seek to make easy money through crime can then be dealt
with as harshly as you wish, and no one will weep for them, and there will not be
enough of them to cause a real problem.
The trouble is, of course, if the NAACP talked too much about the economy,
suggesting the *government* ought to be responsible for seeing to it that there
were jobs for people, instead of letting the free-enterprise chips fall where
they may, people would probably say they were a bunch of Commies.
Far better to stick to being irrelevant priests of political correctness... until
water eroding stone improves the attitudes of white people so that they can
finally dare to speak about the real problems.
The real problem, though, isn't that today's "blaxploitation" movies give black
kids in the slums wrong ideas that they wouldn't get from their daily life. At
least the NAACP has sense enough to realize that, even if pretending it was might
win points from a few white people.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Argyle
On 11-Aug-2004, ritchchr...@cs.com (RitchChristopher) wrote:
> You'll be pleased to know that "Song of the South"...Uncle Remus, Brer
> Rabbit,
> Brer Fox, and Brer Bear will finally be released on DVD before Christmas.
But will it be available in this country. It's available from England now
at outrageous prices.
Peej
>William Garner wrote:
>>D.W. Griffith was the first director to make extensive use of what
>>today is considered basic film language (closeups, tracking shots,
>>zooms, etc). Cancelling this movie in the name of "racial
>>relationships" makes about as much sense as cancelling a production of
>>Othello because it shows a black guy being set up to murder his white
>>wife.
>
Why isn't the NAACP against Rap movies or thug movies, etc. They show
the black community in a much worse light then Birth of a Nation Does.
And yes, I have seen the movie.
Tina
>
>>William Garner wrote:
>>>D.W. Griffith was the first director to make extensive use of what
>>>today is considered basic film language (closeups, tracking shots,
>>>zooms, etc). Cancelling this movie in the name of "racial
>>>relationships" makes about as much sense as cancelling a production of
>>>Othello because it shows a black guy being set up to murder his white
>>>wife.
>>
Peej wrote:
>Why isn't the NAACP against Rap movies or thug movies, etc. They show
>the black community in a much worse light then Birth of a Nation Does.
>And yes, I have seen the movie.
>
I didn't write that post......
But I *did* ask if DW Griffith was gay though...
Peej
>
>I didn't write that post......
>
>But I *did* ask if DW Griffith was gay though...
>
>
>::::::Tina::::::
Sorry, bad editing on my part.