Here are two perspectives on teaching the film "Birth of a Nation,"
borrowed from H-Film.
=====================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 00:00:25 -0600
Sender: History of film discussion list <H-FILM@UICVM.BITNET>
Subject: H-FILM Digest - 17 Dec 1993 to 18 Dec 1993
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 07:09:38 -0600
From: "Steven Mintz, U. Houston" <HIST4@Jetson.UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Teaching "Birth of a Nation"
From: Harriet.Margolis%vuw.ac.nz@UICVM.UIC.EDU
>When you teach courses on film history or social aspects of film,
>do you screen "Birth of a Nation"? Do you find it sufficient to
>preface the screening of the film with a sort of warning (e.g. "gross
>distortion of historical facts," "offensive," etc.) and balance it
>with critical essays (for example, by Everett Carter, John Hope Franklin,
>or Jack Temple Kirby)--or do you lecture about the film, but avoid
>showing it in its entirety. And how do you deal with students who
>respond to the film in an inappropriate manner (cloaked in anonymity
>in a darkened classroom)?
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>Steve Mintz, hist4@jetson.uh.edu
Oddly enough, I can't remember any past experience with BIRTH, although we
must have used it in the '70s in Intro courses. I haven't taught it in the
States because there's never been enough time to spend on it--I think of it
as requiring beaucoup time before and after explaining why it's important
(and I _do_ think it's important). I wanted to use it in the Intro here,
which takes the form of a Hist/Crit survey, but my colleagues say that it's
a bad idea. The tutor who will be assisting me is not happy with the idea,
especially placing it near the beginning (since we're following
chronology), saying it will be a damper, and the course won't recover. New
Zealanders are said to have special feelings about racism, but I'm too new
yet to know what this means. So I guess I'll use BROKEN BLOSSOMS instead,
and do a tie-in w. a NZ film of the '50s that has a similar theme.
One of my colleagues here, someone from the States originally, who
teaches US history, shows either part of BIRTH or the parts of ETHNIC
NOTIONS that deals w. BIRTH.
However, I do expect to teach BIRTH in the future, for various
reasons, among which I'll mention the following. I think the racism is so
obvious that it can function in a Brechtian fashion. That Griffith was
"guilty" of this film undermines the "great Man" theory. That our
perceptions can change so much over a century shows the relativity of
perception and cultural ideas; given that our students are usually so young
and lacking in such a perspective, I see this potential observation as
worth the risks.
I am curious to know how people would deal with ugly lurkers in the
audience.
Harriet
Dr Harriet Margolis
Department of Theatre & Film
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O.Box 600 Wellington, New Zealand.
Telephone 64-4 4715359, Facsimile 64-4 4955090
====================================================================
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 14:50:42 -0600
From: "Steven Mintz, U. Houston" <HIST4@Jetson.UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Teaching "Birth of a Nation"
From: Gary Daily <HIDAILY%ruby.indstate.edu@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
> >When you teach courses on film history or social aspects of film,
> >do you screen "Birth of a Nation"? Do you find it sufficient to
> >preface the screening of the film with a sort of warning (e.g. "gross
> >distortion of historical facts," "offensive," etc.) and balance it
> >with critical essays (for example, by Everett Carter, John Hope Franklin,
> >or Jack Temple Kirby)--or do you lecture about the film, but avoid
> >showing it in its entirety. And how do you deal with students who
> >respond to the film in an inappropriate manner (cloaked in anonymity
> >in a darkened classroom)?
> >Steve Mintz, hist4@jetson.uh.edu
>
That our
> perceptions can change so much over a century shows the relativity of
> perception and cultural ideas; given that our students are usually so young
> and lacking in such a perspective, I see this potential observation as
> worth the risks.
> I am curious to know how people would deal with ugly lurkers in the
> audience.
>
> Dr Harriet Margolis
> Department of Theatre & Film
>From Gary W. Daily
This summer will be my 20th year of offering a course titled "Women
and Afro-Americans in the Movies." This course is offered through
the History Dept. and is cross-listed for credit in Africana Studies
and Women's Studies. "The Birth of a Nation" is *always* the first
film screened. (I see absolutely no way this monumental primary
historical source can be left out, avoided, or ignored.) In teaching
the film, the controversy surrounding the movie in the past and the
present is always discussed. I introduce the class to the ever
expanding "dark and bloody ground" of Reconstruction historiography
and comment on the major (truly revolutionary) developments in the
historical study of slavery. Students read contemporary
reviews/responses (Du Bois & Griffith). In their viewing and
discussion of "Birth...", the BIG questions are foremost: What did
Griffith, his critics, and most importantly, his audiences "know"
about slavery and Reconstruction in 1915? Was the conventional
historical wisdom in regard to these topics overturned or reinforced
by "Birth..."?
The racist details in the film usually arouse some attention in the
class, but, unfortuanately, no great sucking in of breath in
righteous shock. Nothing I would call "inappropriate." In fact, what
is inappropriate is the lack of response to the film on so many
levels. My students have a difficult time in transporting themselves
into the era that would view and make Griffith's work the first
blockbuster movie--technically, artistically, and commercially. But
then, isn't this also the weakness of most of the scholarly studies
of movies that venture to ask questions about the relationship
between the movies of the past and their contemporary audiences?
gary w. daily
Indiana State Univ.
Dept. of History
hidaily@ruby.indstate.edu