User reviews

The first half of this movie, if sold as a finished product by itself, would be remembered alongside movies like The Jazz Singer. A technical landmark that mostly holds up but is held back by some cringe-inducing elements of the time. The reality is that Birth of a Nation keeps going after the assassination of Lincoln. And in the second half, the intent of the film becomes one with the text and the reality of what you're watching becomes impossible to ignore. D. W. Griffith has famously claimed that he had no ill intent in making the movie, but after having seen it, Griffith was either lying or so monumentally blind to his own prejudices that he should never have been allowed out of the house.

This movie is not anti-Union, it is not pro-Antebellum south. It is anti-Black. The movie frames the ending of slavery as the beginning of the end for civilized society in the south, brought about by a conspiracy of carpet-baggers and scheming mulattos and blacks. The answers to this issue are redemptive violence by the Klu Klux Klan and a return to the master-servant relationship of slavery. The movie frames "the loyal soul" blacks who accepted their ownership and didn't want slavery to end as the redeemable memebers, while those that welcomed the end of slavery did so entirely to then turn that systemic violence back against the whites.

I genuinely do not believe that you can understand how malicious and hateful this movie is if you haven't seen it. One can have it described to them, one can know the individual scenes of hatred within, but until one has experienced the slow, pernicious leaking of racial hatred firsthand, it can't sink in how contemptible this movie is.

Technically important? Yes, nobody is denying that. Even as the movie's message becomes more and more evil, it is shot with a competency and ambition that it would take the rest of the industry decades to catch up to. It is worthy of preservation in that regard. But it is also entirely indicitave of the era that a movie which makes such strides (and was the first film to see great success in America and be played in the white house) is a movie which frames the idea of a white man being expected to shake a black man's hand as an indignity which exceeds lynchings and enslavement.

This is some incredible movie making. The skill involved is simply incredible. But the racism overwhelms it during the second part. It is very hard to watch. It should not be negated or forgotten. Neither its genius nor its abhorrence.

As I read these comments on this most controversial film, what is coming across is a surfeit of emotion that any film rarely engenders. I wonder if any of our modern films will be able to evoke such passionate response 90 years from now and the fact is, I think not. Yes, the film is racist. Yes, the film is a watershed for cinema. And no matter what you think of it, it's still got people stirred up, ready to scream and yell and be appalled, disgusted, outraged, etc. Can there be any doubt as to its greatness if it still has such a life today? Its greatness certainly doesn't lie in its subject matter, but in the fact that this silent film can provoke such reactions in a generation weaned on computer graphic images, a generation that views the silents much as they view watching a parade of fossils drift by. I am literally stunned by the power of a piece of film to move so many so long after it came into the world. Perhaps its greatest lesson is the impact films have on us and our society and how powerful those moving images can really be. Something tells me that 90 more years will go by and this message board--if it's still here--will be still be getting impassioned opinions from those who have just seen Birth of a Nation. My word--what immortality!

I've heard about this film most of my life, and talked about it, and taught about it - but only recently watched the whole thing. Much to my surprise it was riveting, beautiful and emotionally soaring in places, the cinematography is breathtaking (particularly in light of every other film that had been made to that point), and there was even subtle touches of nuance amidst the spectacle. The themes and propaganda are indeed nauseating, and the revisionist history is hard to watch - but it is impossible not to get caught up in the story, and even begin to care for the characters.

This is a film that must be seen, if for no other reason than to witness the power that cinema provided for propaganda - allowing perception & opinion to become shared reality. We tend to forget how much films have shaped our concept of history & reality, and this film did a lot to justify segregation and perpetuate racism far beyond it's own shelf life.

It's fascinating watching a 100 year old movie that was made 50 years after the Civil War, When the film came out in 1915, the war was still fresh on the minds of the filmmakers and the audience, who was going to the movies at that time. Watching the film today it seems like those two things mesh together and you are watching a living, breathing history lesson, regardless of authenticity from the source material.

Note* - the film is based on the book "The Clansman" written by Thomas Dixon JR, a North Carolina Baptist Minister in 1905.

The film covers the Emancipation Proclamation, the War, the Assassination of Lincoln, Reconstruction and black males getting the right to vote, which for timeline purposes, the women's right to vote (white or black), wouldn't happen until the actual release of this film, four years later in 1919. It also tells the story about how the original Klu Klux Klan was formed in the 1870s and why Griffith and the film fell under such scandal, because he painted a picture justifying a false need for the Klan, in fact, the KKK had been all but vanquished until the release of this film and it would influence the second arrival of the Klan and the, all too familiar nightmares we would know of in the 20th Century. The film is a discomforting juxtaposition of history. The use of white-actors with black make-up and the use of the "N" word is unnerving, but the film does show you how far we have come today and the important lessons that have been learned since then.

The most recognizable face in the film is Lillian Gish. The actor playing Abraham Lincoln is dead on perfect (Joseph Hanebery). This film is clearly an epic for the time it came out, but I worry that the need to establish a connection to the book for accuracy (?), makes the film slow in parts. It is groundbreaking and introduces film techniques that are still in use today. It is an amazing achievement for 1915 and despite the film's inaccuracies and backwards depiction of a dark part of our history, it is something that needs to be seen. It also has a wild ending that I wasn't expecting.

7.6 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB

A lot of people see this film as an artistic triumph. But the fact that it's well made doesn't redeem the underlying message. You can say that it was a different time... make excuses for it... But there are some films that are best viewed as a regrettable part of American history.

This film is quite simply a justification for the genocide and subjugation of African Americans and a recruitment video for the KKK. It warps history and attempts to manipulate the audience into believing offensive racial stereotypes to justify white supremacy. It romanticizes plantation slavery in the south, when in fact it was a time of suffering for many. Most of the black characters in this movie are just white men in black-face, portraying extremely offensive racial stereotypes. It ignores the fact that many white individuals did not live this lifestyle, and lived in poverty during this time (another HUGE cause of the Civil War which is virtually ignored today)and instead tries to rally whites to it's cause by referring to it as an ideal time.

The class I watched this with ALL thought it was ridiculous and completely offensive, regardless of race and gender. Granted... in 1915, it was a different time and a different culture. They viewed this film as a piece of art. But we're in 2009. Racial relations have changed. There is still an undeniable racial divide, but it is nowhere near the levels found before the first World War. It's time we stopped making excuses for films like this. This is nothing more than well made KKK Propaganda presented under the guise of history. I give it the 1 it truly deserves as a film that still exists in our society. However, I will give it this... Despite it's problems, it is important to watch this film from an academic standpoint: the ONLY reason being to understand our artistic history and the mistakes made. It should be viewed as a marker for how far we've come, and how far we still need to go to achieve true equality.

This is a film which every movie buff really does need to see, for two reasons. 1) It shows how far the movie making process has come, and gives us all a way to truly appreciate some of the other early films, and how far the moviemaking technology advanced between 1915 and the 1930's. and 2) It also allows us the chance to appreciate just how conflicted our society has always been, not just today. Many of the other reviewers have labeled this film as racist garbage, but it truly does represent one group's view of society at the time, and gives us a great way to understand some of the driving factors behind the race relations problems we would have later. In particular, during the Civil Rights battles that would take place during the 1950's and 60's in the deep South.

The film is the story of two families, one Northern and one Southern, and how their lives would be intertwined during and after the Civil War. It focuses on two sons who fought in the war, and the effects their fighting would have on their families, mostly focusing on how one son would go on to be the founder of what we now know as the Klu Klux Klan. What I found most interesting is that a group we now speak of in such evil tones are represented in the movie as the defenders of all that is good and holy. When put in it's historical context and we realize that President Woodrow Wilson talked about the movie in such high praise, it gives us a real appreciation for how the world we live in has changed.

In particular, though, pay attention to the battle scene in the movie. What seems to us to be extremely simple special effects, were the highest technology available at the day, and viewed by the public as an incredible work of storytelling. When taken in context, you can only be impressed by Griffith's storytelling abilities, no matter what you thought of the story.

While the movie is no great work by today's standards, and I actually found it very hard to watch considering it's simple style as compared to today's movies, I think this is a movie you definitely must see. It gives one a real appreciation for how far movie-making technology has advanced, and makes us realize just how much different our society is now than we were just one century ago.

I've read a few of the 10's at this site and am a little surprised at the pass given to this monument to slavery, racist bigotry, and violence. "Birth of a Nation" is a national cinematic embarrassment. That it is well crafted is moot. If this were a movie that glorified rape or child sexual abuse, but was well crafted, well directed, and had outstanding performances in it, would we be discussing it's virtues as a fine piece of film making? I don't think so.

Consider this: Nazi Germany committed mass murder against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, and political enemies. The plunder and suffering inflicted against these people ripples through our culture to this day. The fact that Leni Riefenstahl's cinematography in "Triumph of the Will" was "groundbreaking" is kind of beside the point!!!

I find the intellectual airy fairy commentary in the 10's section of the reviews here to be disturbing. Frankly, I think you people should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting this disgraceful homage to slavery and murder. Slavery is at the very least murder of the soul. But we all know that was the least of it's offenses.

"The Birth of a Nation" is a bad film because it promotes a reprehensible ideology. The merits of it's production values are irrelevant. And not that it should make a difference but for the record, I am a white male southerner.

The conventional wisdom about "The Birth of a Nation" is that it represents an impressive and innovative display of cinematic skill that was unfortunately wasted on a story that promotes a bizarre and disturbing point of view. While that is certainly true in a general way, it might also be something of an oversimplification.

It really is almost like two different movies. The first part, which takes place in the era before and during the Civil War, contains little objectionable material, and it deserves praise both technically and for the acting. The second part, set in the reconstruction era, contains almost all of the disturbing material, and it also is really not all that great in terms of cinematic quality.

Then also, the degree to which "The Birth of a Nation" may have influenced the development of cinema has very likely been overstated . The controversy that it generated may very well have helped it to remain better known than other films of the era that were equally innovative and/or lavish, or nearly so.

If the movie had ended shortly after the memorable and well-crafted Ford's Theater scene, the anti-war sentiment and similar themes would remain the main focus, since the effects of war on families and individuals is depicted convincingly and thoughtfully. In that case, its occasional lapses would possibly at the worst be called "dated", given the quality of the rest of this part of the movie.

The second half, though, is completely unfortunate in almost every respect. Not only does it promote a distorted viewpoint, but the story becomes labored, and the characters lose their depth and become more one-dimensional. The purely technical side, such as the photography and the use of cross-cutting, might still be good, but much of the rest of it loses its effectiveness.

Perhaps more importantly, it really seems rather difficult to justify the credit that this one film gets in the development of cinema. There had already been numerous feature-length movies, and most of the techniques that Griffith used were also in use by others. He may well have been ahead of the pack in terms of appreciating their possibilities, but that does not mean that cinema would not have developed as it did without this particular movie.

Just as one example, the Italian epic "Cabiria", from the previous year, has the same kind of lavish scale, is quite resourceful in its techniques, and is quite entertaining, without causing so much controversy.

Other early feature-length films also include some creative efforts to adapt film-making techniques to longer running times and more complex stories. Finally, many short features from the pre-Griffith era experimented with the same kinds of techniques that he later would use systematically. There's no denying Griffith's considerable technical skill, but others of the era also deserve some credit, even if they and their works were less controversial, and are now largely forgotten as a result.

This film was and will always be controversial, as the American Civil War is today. It is difficult to have a neutral analysis of the conflict and the period of reconstruction that followed, and I am not going to be the one who has not even studied US history to make this analysis. Nor did I read Thomas Dixon's "The Clansman" to find out if the film is fair in its adaptation to the screen and if the book shares the political and social vision that the film expresses. The film is divided into two parts. The first, quite consensual, follows the Civil War until Lincoln's death. The second part follows the following years and the first movements of the Ku Klux Klan.

Of course, the film is partial and is not politically correct ... expresses an opinion about the conflict and the years that followed, claiming that there were political mistakes and that too much power was given to blacks, that in a sense freedom was confused with permissiveness and that values, mentality and pride of the southern white class were little taken into account by Union policies. The birth of the Ku Klux Klan, in turn, is portrayed as a consequence, a reaction of a slice of southern white society that felt threatened by new order of things. This is what the film supports, I don't know if it was so.

In the film's script, two families portray the divided country: on the one hand the Stonemans, with a strong political influence in Washington, and on the other the Cameron, who own a plantation in South Carolina. The families have a friendly relationship, and these ties they are not broken by war. Proof of this is mutual assistance on the battlefield. Another interesting detail is to see how Lincoln, despite being the leader of the winning faction, was portrayed as someone very respected by southerners. Each family suffers losses and dangers during the conflict but it is still at war that Ben Cameron falls in love with Elsie Stoneman. In the second part of the film, Ben is an increasingly dark and worried man, and he is the one who founds the KKK to protect those he sees exposed to the abuses of the newly freed blacks. Some scenes are strong, like the attempted rape of Ben Cameron's younger sister, which ends in the worst way and is easily one of the most dramatic moments in the film. In a way, the little girl was the portrait of innocence in this film, and dies almost like a martyr.

Technically, the film is extraordinary. Whether you like the story told or not, it was a milestone in cinema with several important technical advances for art. The battles of the war are reconstructed with great realism. The cinematography and filming were particularly brilliant, as well as the historical reconstruction, done with great realism and rigor both in the costumes and the sets. Hundreds of costumes dressed up were part of this filming, which must have been an effort and marked the beginning of cinema as an entertainment industry. The music that accompanies the entire film is marked by diverse leitmotives, which were extracted from the nationalist and confederate national anthems, as well as from several well-known melodies of classical music.

...yet I still give it an 8/10 for all of the ground that it broke.

When it was released in 1915, the Hollywood movie industry was still in its infancy as movie makers such as DeMille had only been there about a year or so. Most movies were made on the East coast and used artificial lighting which often gave the films a very flat look.

Most filmmakers would film outside until the late afternoon and then close up shop. Griffith however liked to use lighting just as the sun was going down as it gave everything a soft glow. These scenes looked better than anything you could have achieved in a set with artificial lighting in those days.

The battles scenes also looked very good, like a lot of care was taken to set them up and make them as realistic as possible. This kind of an epic was rare for the times and must have surprised most movie goes who were more used to short films that were often shot on sets with artificial lighting.

Some of the innovations of BOAN (it should be noted that while Griffith didn't originate all of the techniques used in BOAN, he was the first to integrate them all so seamlessly in a feature-length film) included night-time photography-Billy Bitzer achieved by firing magnesium flares into the night for the split-screen sequence of the sacking of Atlanta, being the first film to have an original score, the first film to employ hundreds of extras for the battle scenes, flashbacks and parallel editing, and extensive use of close-ups, long shots, dissolves, etc. to heighten the impact of the story.

It's not fair to other films and filmmakers to say this film and this film alone changed movie history but it's definitely on the short list of films that did along with DeMille's "Squaw Man" released the previous year which is remembered as Hollywood's first feature length film, even though it is not. That honor goes to Helen Gardner's "Cleopatra" made in 1912.

Then there are the features of the story that give this film a well-deserved bad rap for having revived the KKK. ' There is the Austin Stoneman character who is biracial and wants to rule the South with an iron fist. He sets himself up as some kind of alternate President during reconstruction. Where was the real president, Andrew Johnson? Locked in a broom closet? This character was supposed to be a thinly veiled caricature of Thaddeus Stevens.

Since white Confederates have their civil rights suspended during this time, the state houses of the south are shown packed with the absolutely worst stereotypes of black men, with them eating, drinking liquor, and taking their shoes off and putting their feet on their desks during the chaotic legislative sessions. They are also shown as sex-mad for Caucasian females, the biracial Austin Stoneman included. Let's just say that the story is as subtle as a sledge hammer, but when you realize that its contemporaries considered a guy in a cape with a long mustache tying virgins to railroad tracks to be high drama, the actual message of BOAN may be hogwash, but the complexity of the story telling and the sophistication of the acting is to be admired.

That's why I recommend it in spite of the point of view of the script. Sorry for the long review, but a long film often requires one.

Oh. My. God! I rented this movie out of curiosity; I honestly thought it would be so dated that it couldn't be truly offensive. The blacks in this movie are portrayed as simple-minded, violent children. There is not one sympathetic black character. The movie tells the story of the Civil War and Reconstruction from the point of view of the white supremacists. The disenfranchised whites suddenly find themselves at the mercy of the black voters, jurors, legislators and business owners running the show. Lillian Gish plays the daughter of a white politician who is the "leader" of the blacks, a "Radical" who believes not only that blacks and whites are equal but also that blacks will and should take over from the whites, using violence if necessary. Gish's fiance forms the Ku Klux Klan to end the anarchy, and when she finds out what he does she ends their engagement (though she won't "tell" on him 'cause she's a lady and a good daughter of the South). Later she is at the mercy of her father's mulatto henchman, an evil character with political ambitions of his own, who gets drunk and tries to persuade her to marry him and be the "queen" of his black nation, while dozens of blacks riot outside. Of course her fiance, along with dozens of other Klansmen, ride triumphantly to her rescue and trounce the rioters. Then the blacks are intimidated into giving up their political power and peace is restored, and Gish and her fiance marry and live happily ever after. Just appallingly offensive stuff. Yeah, it's historically significant and it's well-made (it's kind of long, and tends to be slow until the second half of the story), but WOW.

Ultimately it's just so sad in the way it's so matter-of-fact. Sure, the idea of a population of uneducated, unsophisticated people being in charge is worrisome, but this movie jumps to conclusions about how their society would immediately collapse into anarchy, and that all blacks (and mulattoes) are dangerous, violent people with political agendas. You want to write a big check to the NAACP or the Southern Poverty Law Center (they fight the Klan) after seeing this movie.

Lillian Gish never married; she said the only man she ever loved was D.W. Griffith. After I saw this movie I lost all respect for her.

After continually hearing about this movie, I had to watch it for myself to see what it was all about. I regret every minute I wasted on this pathetic movie. It was nothing more than a propaganda movie for the KKK. Historically inaccurate ... hell, "inaccurate" is putting it mildly. Basically, it was 3 hours of 'oh woe is me, the white man is being subjugated by the big bad black man!'.

Half the movie was spent fighting the urge to put my head through the wall, and the other half was spent laughing at the stupidity. And no, this was NOT a comedy! The author was dead serious(ly a nutjob).

The acting was terrible. The majority of actors were white men in black-face, who did an outstandingly terrible job of acting like black men. There were plenty of times I was left scratching my head, wondering if some of them were even supposed to be black characters.

The women were piteous nitwits, the men pompous simpletons. Not one person in this movie was portrayed as having more intelligence than a pumpkin. But oh boy were they overflowing with bravado! It's sad to know that so many people actually thought like this. Even more sad that in 2013, so many people STILL think like this. We see the evidence of it every day with conservatives - especially southern conservatives. I'm beginning to wonder if this movie is some sort of playbook for racist Republicans (aka Teabaggers). They all seem to love revisionist history, and this movie is rife with it! I don't recommend this movie to anyone, unless you're a glutton for punishment. 1/10 stars (if I could have given fewer, I would have!)

I can completely understand your frustration with this movie. It's no secret that it's a racist film and did result in the revival of the KKK. But you have to understand what life was like back then. In 1915, nobody had ever seen a movie like this. Not just in terms of production, but in terms of editing, length, casting and attention to detail. It was the first time in history where a ton of effort was ever put into a motion picture. When "The Birth of a Nation" came out, people began to take film much more seriously and wanted to see more high quality movies when it was brand new.

As for the racism, it was sadly a product of its time, but that's not to say people didn't find it offensive in 1915. Plenty of African Americans were outraged over this movie and tried to have it banned. The KKK would even use this film as a recruitment tool up until the 1970's, although this wasn't the intention of its director D. W. Griffith. He probably had no idea that people would be outraged over this movie, but I don't think he intentionally tried to offend a lot of people, he just wanted to make a movie that people would remember and hoped to impress as well as shock. He did just that, Birth of a Nation is certainly impressive and shocking.

It is offensive by today's standards and obviously a movie you could not make today. But I do believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression and I don't believe in censorship. This film should be shown in all film classes so we can not only understand how the first big budget film was made, but to understand what racism was like in 1915. I am strongly against banning this movie because it's essentially the same as pretending the racial prejudices never existed, but the views expressed in this movie does not represent me as a person. I only appreciate the art and attention to detail that was put into this movie. It is nothing short of groundbreaking and way ahead of its time regardless of it being the most politically incorrect movie in history. You should definitely watch the movie as long as you are prepared to be shocked and see film history.

You can pass on this one. It's supposedly a key movie in movie history but I don't see it that way. The second intertitle is "The bringing of the African to America planted the first seed of disunion." Interesting way to blame "the Africans." I had only seen parts of this but wanted to watch it all in view of the controversy. Seeing it buttresses my view that it is racist and that racism was alive and well on 1915. The heroes are the Clansmen for goodness sakes. Sadly racism is still alive.

This racist film doesn't warrant in-depth critique. And it is amazing that it still gets high praise and occasional parenthetical criticism. While Griffith was an innovator in visual storytelling, he was clearly no more than a stone-cold racist, who filled the silver screen with lies and hatred. It is no wonder that studies showed that in many areas where "The Birth of a Nation" was shown, racist attacks against African-Americans increased sharply.

Griffith was nothing better than a racist savage who knew how to make movies. And those who praise him and make excuses for his cinematic bigotry simply prove how strong Racism continues to be in the world today.

Perhaps it is fitting that the first American Masterpiece, is also one of the most controversial films ever made.

D. W. Griffith may not have invented every single technique used in Birth of a Nation (that is a hotly debated topic, since other filmmakers were also experimenting with similar techniques at around the same time), but he nonetheless provided a seemless use of closeups,panning shots, cross cutting and other devices we now take for granted, and put them in a package that made it seem like it was *the* natural way for a director to tell a story in film. And in fact it has been the natural way directors have told stories for the last 87 years.

It's unfortunate that the visionary scope of this picture has been overshadowed of late by the rising tide of Political Correctness in America. There is no doubt that bad racial stereotyping occurs throughout the movie. And our vantage point from the present can easily see that the Ku Klux Klan are not the right people to set up as "saviors" of the ways of the Old South.

But to appreciate this movie, one must watch with the hindsight of history. Griffith was the son of a confederate solder, the War Between the States was still within living memory for many Americans in 1915. And let's face it... Reconstruction was deliberately demeaning and punishing to the South. This was not Lincoln's fault at the film clearly states, but it was the policy of the Union towards the South after his death. The resentment of this treatment was still alive in Griffith and many others living in the early 20th century.

If one can put the subject matter into the context of the times the film was made, they will find a stirring melodrama with tremendous scope, and the Birth of modern movie making.

The impact that THE BIRTH OF A NATION has had on the motion picture industry is undeniable. D.W. Griffith revolutionized filmmaking technique with the use of the dramatic close-up and cross-cutting as well as other visual devices. The result is a film with a profound emotional impact. Depending on your particular point of view, that emotional impact could range from exhilaration or outrage.

It has been said that Griffith thought he was making a progressive representation of African-Americans compared to THE KLANSMAN, the novel by Thomas Dixon from which the film was based. How naive can someone be? Far from being an accurate representation of African-Americans, this film sought to destroy their image. Black people are depicted as lazy, animal-like creatures. The worst image were those of mulattoes, that here shown as savage people, whose only desire was to rape white virgins. Of course in the end of the picture, the white people are "saved" at the end by the Klu Klux Klan. It's no wonder that the KKK used the film for fundraisers.

One good thing that came out of this film is that African-Americans realized the impact that motion pictures can have on people. This prompted the newly formed National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other groups to protest the film. This lead to the making of THE BIRTH OF A RACE, which was touted as an answer (or antidote) to THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Unfortunately, it was a failed attempt, because the producers of BIRTH OF A RACE needed white money to complete the extremely expensive film, which meant there would be many compromises. It has been estimated that the film (with numerous cost overruns) cost in excess of one million dollars or roughly eight times the budget of BIRTH OF A NATION. The result was a film that dramatized the experience of immigrants to this country, but with African-Americans virtually absent from the finished product.

Even today, some scholars look at THE BIRTH OF A NATION on purely its technical merits, but fail to address the film from a political standpoint. This is very shortsighted. Film is a medium which can have a profound impact on society. Its dramatic presentation and its subsequent socio-political impact go hand in hand. This is true of all films, whether they are dramas, comedies or action films. THE BIRTH OF A NATION promoted a racist view of African-Americans that would be felt for many years afterward. Some would argue that its impact is still felt today.

This is one of the longest, most boring, and most dull movie I have ever seen. Everything in this film is way longer than it needed to be. The first 25 minutes are completely unnecessary and it was like the director was blind during the directing of the movie. How could one not see that the same scenes were used over and over again and added absolutely nothing to the story. I cannot even say how many times I must have zoned out or pleaded for this soul crushingly dull film to be over. I believe that you must watch the whole film to give a fair opinion, but this one really tested the limits of my philosophy.

As I've said before this film is unbelievably long, 3 hours to be exact. 3 hours when it should have been 2 hours tops. Each scene takes an excruciating amount of time to watch. Such as the ten minute long battle of Gettysburg. Or the 10 minute long watch these soldiers march out of town. Or the first 25 minutes of the film basically being people walking around.

It disgusts me that this film has a 6.9 rating currently on IMDb. This is the most racist film ever created and alongside that it is boring. Birth of a Nation has many plot holes, the music is completely out of touch with on-screen events, and it's very clearly propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan.

This movie is good to know about for historical context. Do not watch it though. This skull numbingly boring film is not worth your time.

I am a Ph.D. candidate in American History. I show BOAN (as does most American history professors) to my undergrads. Not only is it an accurate portrait of the propaganda being written in the 1870s, but it is a primary source document on how people in the 1870s and 1910s saw African Americans. Anyone wonder why the Civil Rights movement happened, or why lynchings happened, or why ML King, Jr.was assassinated? Well, watch BOAN and you'll get an insight into that most American of institutions, racism. Why is there racial hatred today, because of the rhetoric of hate by the people who made BOAN and the people who are depicted in it. If they affect you still, shouldn't know what they said? Especially if you find it abhorrent, watch it. It is also a good reminder of how distorted history can be made to look legitimate on celluloid.