How is this movie not in the top 250

From...dusk...till...Dawn...?

[incredulous tone]

"Birth of a Nation" created cinema as we know it. The techniques used in "Potemkin" came from the study of "Birth of a Nation" and the director idolized Griffith. (The Russians of that time thought Griffith was a communist and invited him to come to Moscow to head the people's cinema.) There is no way it could equal much less surpass "Birth of a Nation." "Kill Bill" is not a copy of Kurosawa. It copied many other Asian films, but Kurosawa's were not among them. Popular culture almost never gets it right; that is why it is so fleeting. "Kill Bill" and the others on the list, will be replaced in time by some other hit movie that captures the popular imagination. That is what the "top 250" are - the latest hits. "Birth of a Nation" should not be on that list because it doesn't need to be, and because it is one for the ages. Despite its overtones of racism, its age, its state of disrepair, and the attacks against it - it remains the movie that created the language of cinema and one of the most engaging movies of all time.

Like real life, and like America itself, the film is intuitive, complex and contradictory. Racist, but at the same time with a deep humanity that (in moments) extends to the very blacks in the film that is also degrades. The film clearly yearns for a future where there is equality among races, but at the same time it is unconsciously prejudiced. It is difficult for Americans to confront and deal with this film because it is so much a reflection of American culture and attitudes both conscious and unconscious - even today.

One reason it is so hated by many people is summarized in the comment someone made to me after seeing it: "Even though I despise the racism of this film I could not help myself from wanting the KKK to win. For that reason alone I will do everything in my power to destroy the reputation of this evil film, and prevent it from ever being seen." A view that is contradictory as the film itself. One wonders if she wanted to destroy the film, or the emotions it brought up from her own psyche. Regardless, the comment speaks to the power of this film to move people - even 90 years after it was made.

[deleted]

Confederate myth? I see someone needs to go back and reread some more history. Yes, much of what is shown is an extreme exaggeration of fact, but truth is, in fact, shown in much of the film. It is exaggerated and a spin was given to it that to many of us today including me is simply disgusting to see. But underneath, it is still fact. I don't like it any more than you do. I am not a Confederate, I am not a southerner and I am not a DW Griffith fan. But I know the history of that period pretty well and much of what he shows is exactly as it happened.

I do not defend how he showed it, only defend that what he showed is, in many cases, true. Reconstruction era corruption in politics, racism, and KKK atrocities were rampant; so was racism perpetrated by always-free blacks against formery enslaved blacks or against darker-skinned blacks by those lighter in color or more educated; rapes were committed by both whites and blacks against white and black women (they considered that "activity" one of the spoils of war, as hard as it may seem to us today); by n and s whites against ill-educated white immigrants brought south to work the farms mostly abandoned by former white owners, by the blacks themselves against the illiterate (at least in English) newly arrived immigrants, etc.

Blacks did rampage thru the south killing whites, but they did the same to other blacks they found in outlying areas, unprotected by the relative safety of the city.

Lynchings happened both in the south and the north. And s. whites, whom n. whites were trying to control, often were beaten by black prisoners or even black passersby pulled off the street to do just that. They were most happy to perform that service I would imagine, considering the time and place.

The idea was to divide the populace and then conquer the scattered groups. It was supposed to happen that way and it did happen that way precisely because divide and conquer always does work. We as humans seem to have a failing in that area. We make ourselves feel better only by degrading someone else, who we perceive to be lower down the food chain than we are. Makes it easier to both hate and hurt someone, if we see them as lesser humans than we believe ourselves to be.

And, northern whites wanting power in the vacuum of the south thought that if they pushed uneducated and unprepared blacks to run for office in the "new south", when the blacks failed, as they could only do in the face of such things and as such things were set out for them, the whites could swoop in and take over, which is precisely what they did do. The s whites should have hated the n. whites not the blacks. Of course, they did hate the n whites, it's just that they hated the blacks even more.

And of course, it helps to further our own purpose and get everyone chomping at the bit and foaming at the mouth if we wrap our version of the truth in the flag or make it seem courageous or patriotic to hold those views. A lot of the iconography and symbolism shown in this movie, like in the propaganda film Triumph of the Will, functions this way. Make it seem patriotic to hate a group or to revere one group over the others and it suddenly does begin to happen in real life, much to no thinking person' surprise.

Just as there were black slaveowners in the south during the antebellum period leading up to the civil war, there were white lynchers during that and the post-civil war era. Both these things are true but I bet half of you didn't know about the first thing. Or that a lot of the lynchings you have heard about actually took place up north, not in the south, and took place not just after the war, but in the 1930s as a result of wage and labor disputes, prior to the formation of labor unions in this country.

As I said before, I don't defend the way in which he told his version of the truth but I do defend a lot of what he showed, because it did happen, and was therefore the crux of some of the hatred whites had against blacks. Of course, I defend the blacks and their right to be angry at whites for the injustices done to them, too. I understand these things in the proper perspective. But I would never deny that they had, in fact, happened or say that anyone who told the truth about them is racist simply for telling the truth.

Now, the film, to me, is racist. Period. But the fact that a lot of what he tried to show about that period did in fact happen, isn't racist in and of itself. That he shows them doesn't make the film racist. It's his interpretation of them and the way he showed them that does make it so. There is a HUGE difference.

I do also agree with the poster who said that because it is so repugnantly racist it didn't make the list. Didn't stop movies like An Affair to Remember from making a lot of top lists, though. And some of those scenes at the Catholic school in AATR, leading up to the concert the kids perform, are so racist, my husband turns off the tv when they are shown. And I don't blame him, either. I always look away and think, I cannot believe they just showed that but yep, they sure did.

I also DO NOT think the movie should be shown without the racist scenes or that it should be altered to remove them in any way. It would be like going back and changing dates on birth certificates to hide the fact that somebody in the family was born illegitemately.

Truth's truth. Learn from it and move on.

It was not the first feature film nor the first that was over 100 min. Many Italian epics that came prior to Birth of a Nation were over 100 min. - released prior to "Birth" Cabiria 1914 181 min, Quo Vadis? 1912 120 min. Scuola d'eroi 1913 108 - to name a few.

It doesn't matter what the filmmakers accomplished in terms of technology and early filmaking, they movie is extremely racist. Being in the top 250 is an honor, and we should not honor racism. Why don't we honor Hitler, for his perfection of the toothbrush style mustache? Or for his use of the Iron Cross(oh wait, I forgot, stupid skater kids already do that with their Independent style clothing)?

Dear God if you were alive, you know we'd kill you- Marilyn Manson

This movie should be in the BOTTOM 100. What a disgusting piece of sh*t. As someone said before, who the f uck honestly cares about technical achievements? All those Michael Bay/McG movies have special fx and explosions galore but that doesn't stop them from sucking. And no, Michael Moore films are not all well-crafted. Just look at Fahrenheit 9/11: there are no interviews w/ anyone pertinant to the matter, not Bush himself, no cabinet member, no two-bit mayor, not even those swept-up in controversy like the Dixie Chix. BfC was much more professional and much better made. It's follow-up was just lazy, pathetic crap.



Number 1, I order you to go take a number 2.