“I Shut Off My Pen Light For This?!?”: Afterbirth of a Nation
By Sexual Correspondent Andrea (AJ) Plaid and Guest Contributor Fiqah
Fiqah:All right, full disclosure. I loathe Birth of a Nation. L-O-A-T-H-E, my friends. In my short time on this planet, I have been forced to endure two (!) viewings of the flick–twice the Recommended Lifetime Limit for Black people. The last time I watched this film in its entirety was in college for a film class. Attending the screening was mandatory: you could not pass this class unless you watched it. Please believe me when I tell you that if my professor had not essentially dangled that tasty degree carrot in front of me, I would never have watched this movie again. I got through it by taking extremely-detailed notes: not my usual style (I am a scrawly doodler) but I wanted to make sure that I would never, ever have to refer back to anything in that movie that would require me to watch it again for as long as I lived. After it was done, I wrote a paper contrasting the placement of female archetypes in the film, collected my “A”, and put all the unpleasantness behind me.
So when Latoya posted about Rebirth of a Nation, I was quite intrigued and more than a little excited. “A remix of that piece of racist cinematic self-flagellation?” thought I. “What a concept! I am SO down! Put me in the game, coach!“ I skipped my happy ass on down to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), where I met up with the always fabulous Mizz AJ Plaid. As the theater filled (Fridays at MoMA are free, so it was packed), AJ and I chatted about what we hoped the film would showcase. What was a remix in relation to a film, anyway? How would DJ Spooky’s take be viewed in a post-Obama context? Why the hell don’t the people behind us just sit closer together instead of carrying on a fifteen-minute shouting conversation across a row of empty seats? Answers to all these questions were delivered swiftly.
Andrea: DJ Spooky’s conceit: a director is a type of DJ, remixing reality. In D.W. Griffiths’ case, he remixed the ugly, lethal reality of the Ku Klux Klan into a hero’s narrative, that of the white-supremacist group saving The White Race from the emancipated Blacks and biracial folks. Furthermore, we’re still seeing the rippling damage from that piece of work to this day, not only in film but in various interactions between Blacks and Whites.
The master mixer does damage to his project by overstating the obvious. And what I mean by overstate is: moving geometric shapes framing certain characters and gestures; red-tinting war and rioting scenes; the trip-hop soundtrack. That ^%&%$ trip-hop soundtrack.
Spooky should have lost the trip-hop and the triangles and remixed Birth… with current examples of the images it spawned, e.g. the scene in which a white woman leaps off a cliff to avoid the sexual advances of a Black(faced) man and its direct descendent in 1992’s Last of the Mohicans. And splice that with news footage of how the Black rapist still plays in the popular imagination (most famously Bush the Elder’s use of Willie Horton). After all, the original was a 3-hour epic…mess.
Such length offers such a perfect opportunity.
Fiqah: From my notes–”About 15 minutes in, I realize with mounting horror that this supposed remix is actually a play-by-play retelling of the original with little innovation. This is Birth of a Nation.”
Some other observations:
- My stomach starts to ache as I realize that the man sitting directly behind me is laughing at all the slave caricatures on view for “comic” relief. He’s particularly happy about a shucking-and-jiving scene in the slave quarters. I take a TUMS.
- From my notes: “Okay, Spooky, all your ass has to say about the slave workday is that it was a 7 to 7 with a two hour break? Really, Spooky? Did we forget that these were UNPAID hours? SIDE-EYE!”
- From my notes: “Lydia. Oh shit. He left in Lydia. And with a dry-ass voice over about slave rape. Like it’s just some footnote instead of being so prevalent that it changed the way we all look. This is some bullshit.”
- From my notes: “Remix my ass. This is like what happens when you unclog a backed-up toilet and it belches.”
- From my notes: “Ya know, I’m starting to think that there aren’t a lotta anti-racists in this crowd.”
- Someone actually fetches the usher and makes AJ shut off her pen! I’m so irritated. Tattling! I take another TUMS.
- From my notes: “Okay. People. You are watching a propaganda film. For the Klan. Stop oohing and aahhing.”
- From my notes: “Oh, a Confederate soldier got bayoneted. Cry me a river.”
- From my notes: “DAMMIT, Spooky! Speak up!”
- From my notes: “Okay, Black people in charge are NOT interested in ‘getback’. So funny how that racist projection persists even today, especially with Black POTUS.”
- From my notes: “Are these people laughing at Mammy?! SIDE-EYE!!!!”
I have to admit that at this point, I put my pen away. I know, y’all – I dropped the ball. But the point was, I didn’t HAVE to take notes. I wasn’t watching a retelling, repositioning, or re-anything. I was essentially watching some Cliffs Notes, trip-hoppy nonsense that may have been more aptly titled Afterbirth of a Nation.: Same Shit, Different Decade. And maybe I‘ve been in the anti-racist echo chamber for too long, but I really did not expect the audience‘s reaction.
Andrea: About that audience…and the turning off of my pen light. Fooligans.
Fiqah: OKAY? Outrageous. And I knew when that [woman] got up that she was gonna “tattle.”
Andrea: Gurl, so missed the rising of that woman. But again, it was cool that the audience was drinking and eating and laughing at Mammy and the dancing Negroes. But my pen light was a problem.
Fiqah: AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! The tying and whipping of Black folks onscreen passed without comment. But your pen was a problem. Anyway, when you said to that [woman] behind us when she asked would the pen always be on, “Yea,” I was TOO happy.
Andrea: But back to the audience–serious disconnect with what Spooky was tryna get at–film manipulates reality–and the audience’s reaction to seeing Mammy (laughter), the whipping, (nada), and my pen (tattling). It’s as if the (mostly) white audience proved his point..
Fiqah: But yeah, it was like watching the White audience react was part of the art experience. Because when we all sat down, I didn’t see fellow film attendees as a potential lynch mob. But after all that, when those lights went up…Oh, wow.
…
Fiqah: Let’s say not active participants. But if something obviously racist and unjust was happening these people would let it. They would not speak up or out. Collusion is…I dunno.
Andrea: But they were active–active in participating in the laughter at racist imagery. Or acting out in a racist manner, like Miss Tattle-tale.
Fiqah: My soul felt flattened by the end, ironed out by the undeniable presence of post-Obama entrenched racism.
Andrea: Like my pen light was that big of a distraction to the film experience.
Fiqah: Seriously. If you were White she woulda let it be–I truly feel that. Plus people next to me were texting through whole film, with LCD devices, and no one said a word.
Andrea: Of course, because her brain would have said, “Oh, journalist or film student taking notes. Not defiant Negress giving her attitude. But her mind didn’t say, “Negress who is a journalist or film student taking notes.”
Fiqah: I was annoyed that you were called out. Seriously, next time, we are playing dumb.
Andrea: No, next time, I should tell whoever that I’m a film critic taking notes.
Fiqah: Yes.
I mean, they swallowed all of it: the racist caricaturing (seriously, EVERY slave-era caricature was on display in Birth of a Nation: the genteel Southern family wrenched from their lives of comfort by this pesky, divisive war; the erosion of White privilege – and therefore, the breakdown of the social order, ‘cause you know Black folks can’t be trusted to govern ourselves., and the necessary violent reinstitution of White order via the Klan).
SIGH.
On the upside, whenever the audience would laugh at something blatantly racist, Andrea would exclaim “What the HELL?!“ and/or huff loudly and collapse in her chair, which made me chuckle. Seriously, in a difficult situation, you want to have an AJ with you…
Still, by the time the film ended (longest two hours of my life) I had developed what I was sure were permanent cases of roaring agita, twist-mouth, and side-eye.
Andrea and Fiqah: Sorry, Spooky–your remix is just a little bit too much like history on repeat.
—
Latoya’s Note
I also received this review from reader Qispoon:
Creating a trip hop soundtrack to the flick, turning the screen red when the Klan shows up and superimposing thin white animated lines to highlight and isolate certain images onscreen like the stitching on a hipster T-shirt do not a remix make.
The kid gloves that critics seem to wear when dealing with this project says much more interesting and troubling things about where the intellectual/arty class is with Art and Race in this country than That Subliminal Kid’s freshman undergraduate treatment of the material. Because the one thing DJ Spooky is very good at is promoting his brand. People want him – or someone just like him – to exist so badly because he’s the got all the trappings of the person-of-color artist of the moment.
Granted, DJ Spooky’s genius is that he also tapped into our desire to see “Birth of a Nation” not just torn down and put in its place, but remade for our times. He just didn’t have the chops to pull it off. Where he fell short of showing, he tried to make up for in telling. But he knows telling is lame so he has someone else – the PBs narrator — do it for him.
I went to see the screening because over the years a number of (Black) writers and artists I know have offered similar critiques of DJ Spooky’s rise to fame. It may be easy to write this off as professional envy – but frankly every ethnic group, Asian, Latino, etc., has their own version of the DJ Spooky Effect – an artist who is very good at gaming the system and is rewarded for it.Easily the strangest aspect of “Rebirth” is the didactic, PBS-style scaffolding around and within the piece in which the voice-over narrator explains to us the clever thing Spooky is doing as a DJ to disrupt the propaganda of the original film. Indeed, he keeps reminding us what a genius Spooky instead of letting the piece speak for itself. But that’s the problem – the narrator has to do this heavy lifting because otherwise the piece itself would collapse in a milk toast heap. My friend and I joked how great it would be if we had such a narrator following us around letting folks know how amazing we were.
Ultimately, you can’t grudge the Kid for his success – he’s just hustling like anyone else. But you can take the apparatus that props him up to task. “Rebirth of a Nation” proves not only does the emperor have no clothes, he practically begs to be dethroned. Will someone please remix the remix?
Image Credit: Rebirth of a Nation Ad/Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Stories such as this one and the one below
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Conservative+Free+Republic+blog+free+speech+flap+after+racial+slurs+directed+Obama+children/1782375/story.html
show us that racism is alive and well in 2009.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:52 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
To tell ya the truth, I AM glad we have Birth of a Nation– to reminds us of how ugly racism was back then.
I also watched this film– for an African American Film History class. My professor was black, and like 98% of the class was black (I was the only “brown” student in class and there was only one white student as well).
When we watched the movie, the whole class kept roaring with laughter. They jeered at the white characters and they hooted. It was quite amusing, actually. A lot of students shouted at the screen, which was sometimes irritating because I WANTED to watch the movie!
The white student (and I) didn’t laugh, jeer or hoot at the movie. I remember feeling shocked and appalled at the movie. I didn’t find anything funny, but I could understand why everyone else (black students) found it funny– outrageous and so deeply offensive that you can’t help but laugh at how stupid it is.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 10:58 am ¶
Iggles wrote:
I will not see this film under any circumstances. I was curious to see the audience feedback and I am sickened by it!
I saw Birth of a Nation in college. It was a horrible experience. I never hated anything as much as I hated watching this racist piece of crap. The movie has a disgusting history similar to the N word.
How anyone could laugh at the blackface and racist characters, dialogue, and plot is beyond me. I understand they we all respond to things differently, but this is really beyond the pale. BofN is not a joke because this film was served as revisionist history. It was a tool to help white immigrants assimilate to whiteness by taking part in the racist attitude necessary to be “one of the boys”.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:09 am ¶
Iggles wrote:
Rob Schmidt – Holy crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just read that link you posted. I am so mad I am shaking. How dare they???? >:o
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:15 am ¶
Rana wrote:
Thank you!!! I saw this at the MoMa and WALKED OUT because I felt that it insulted my intelligence and insulted me as a Black woman.
I am actually about to write to Paul Miller myself. He really thinks that he was doing something…he did NOTHING to “remix” this film. He simply reproduced the main narrative.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:23 am ¶
Erica wrote:
I can’t believe you got tattled on over a penlight. Not just because it’s so stupid and petty and “put you in your place” behavior… but really, this is a film you would really WANT to be distracted from, isn’t it?
And who in their right mind would LAUGH at Birth of a Nation? Even if you’re ignorant enough to believe racism is all history, it isn’t funny history.
I’d call it surreal if it weren’t too damn real.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:54 am ¶
blip wrote:
Fiqah: My soul felt flattened by the end, ironed out by the undeniable presence of post-Obama entrenched racism.
______________________________
Don’t you mean post-BUSH racism? All of it built up in the eight years prior to Obama. It sickens me when folks lay this shit at Obama’s feet when he’s only been in office…what? Five months?
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:57 am ¶
Beth wrote:
@Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist!
Yikes! I’m sorta surprised that students laughed at “Birth of a Nation” in that context. I’ve heard of professors in film classes not putting in enough effort to highlight the racism of the film, the way the film came out of a racist body of lit, and the way that its propaganda spurred the reformation of the klan, but I guess I figured that in an AfAm studies class of any kind the students would figure who f-ed up the film is. (”Birth of a Nation” does have some film innovations in terms of camera work and editing, so sometimes film folks w/o a critical eye towards race are sloppy about putting it into context and dealing with its racism.) What did the professor say/do in response to the students laughing? Even if it was that sort of nervous, “wtf is this?” laughter, it is a bit curious.
I’m in grad school for AfAm lit. Although I’m game for teaching the whole tradition, the late 19th century is particularly interesting for me. I guess if I ever was to show “Birth of a Nation,” I would want to figure out how to ground it in a way that students wouldn’t laugh at at–maybe have them look at Ida B. Wells stuff on lynching and/or some AfAm lit of the period as well. I think it is an important film to show the ways in which art isn’t always progressive (ie, that it can be racist & propaganda), pop culture isn’t necessarily harmless, and the active efforts to malign black people in this country following the war through the 20th C (students often think that slavery ended, & then everything was easy for black folk).
Sorry to get so off-track of the post. I saw portions of Spooky’s remix on video and wasn’t sure quite what to make of it. Your thoughts are really helpful.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 12:13 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:
Wow. Qispoon really summarized what made me anxious about this project in the first place. Not the remix, but the remixer.
Unfortunately, as per the Awesome Audience at the MoMA, it seems that Spooky’s inability to fully articulate a challenging critique via remixing just transformed “Birth . . .” back into a good time, all-family romp for a crowd that might have been too ashamed to LOL had it been billed as part of a series called The No Good Very Bad History of Racist Cinema in America. That might have given one less license to ill (outwardly at least).
I really wish I’d seen this. On the other hand, roaring agita, twist-mouth, and side-eye sound painful.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Wow, thanks to everybody for the feedback! I’m gonna go ahead and address everybody individually; AJ will be along presently.
@Rob Schmidt: I saw that story yesterday. Appalling, but I’m glad that I read it all the same. Thank you for linking it.
@Iggles: I totally feel you. If I could find a way to successfully petition the permanent retirement of BoAN, I would. And yes, that’s exactly why Griffiths created the film. A key foreshadowing moment in BoAN was Griffiths assertion that “the introduction of the African to American shores laid the seeds of national tragedy.” HERE was something that DJ Spooky could have used and actually built a smart, solid and cogent case around in terms of historical revisionism. But he didn’t, and I suspect he didn’t because other (better) critiques of the BoAN already had, and he was doing something “new” and as a result, the finished product suffered. Lottttta ego-trippin’.
@Rana: And thank you for the kind words. We noticed quite a few people walked out after the first half hour or so, and if I didn’t love this site so much I would’ve too! Now, there was no way for us to determine why they walked out, but it’s a safe bet that quite a few were offended.
@DIMA!: The main problem with choosing to see BoNA as a window into this country’s collective racist past is that the film resonates with people today. Everyday, ordinary people were in that theater with us as we watched the remix. The “good” Negroes – happy slaves, Mammy – were used as comic effect. In fact, they were the film’s SOLE intentional comic effect. And people, right now, in 2009 in New York City, laughed. They also identified with the protagonist – the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. As Qispoon stated, DJ Spooky just reiterated the original’s points. Those stereotypical depictions, those caricatures – Mammy, Jezebel, The Brute, The Coon – have never really gone away. (See how they’ve evolved here: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/menu.htm)
@Erica: Yeah. Tattling. It was definitely a “how DARE you!” tactic. Between her, the film, and the audience I was popping TUMS like a madwoman. Definitely surreal.
@Beth: Oh, I dunno. When a coupla Confederate soldiers were bayoneted, I threw my head back and cackled. It wasn’t intentionally comic…but it was most certainly relief. Regarding showing the film, my professor would pause the film at key points and show various images: photos of a lynching, newspaper clipping details, photos of slaves with scars, in shackles, photos of racist Jim Crow era memorabilia, and other visceral imagery. Basically, they were the visual equivalent of a good, hard slap so that no one made the mistake of falling into the seductive imagery of the film. I think that’s a responsible way to do it. Good luck to you!
@blip: Ummm…nowhere in that statement did I say that I expected President Obama to wave his magic presidential wand and end what is in fact centuries – not presidential terms – of American racism. The point was that many people are under the impression that the election of a Black POTUS has ushered in a new era of “post-racialism” in this country; the audience’s reaction to the film we watched illustrated that this was not the case.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 1:48 pm ¶
Robin wrote:
Haha, I’m SO glad you reviewed this piece. I can’t believe he’s still performing it. I saw DJ Spooky perform this piece in Providence about five or six years ago and had exactly the same reaction. 1) it’s crap, 2) he did nothing to remix , recontextualize or comment upon the original film. 3) my god this film is so offensive, why are we being subjected to it again with the useless trappings of hipster culture thrown in? I feel so validated now in hating that piece.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶
loquanda wrote:
The Movement by Laraine Hansbury is all I want to say. Read it and weep.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶
Arabi wrote:
Whats wrong with laughing? Is that not the appropriate response when confronted with the ridiculous. Like any genre which works off hyperbole, fantasy and base passions, propaganda is fraught with comedic moments, equal parts slapstick , caricature and toilet joke. The CARICATURES, while meant to be taken serious by those indoctrinated into the ideology of white supremacy, are comical to the rest of us.
The fact is, as serious as the subject matter and what not, this is no longer the 19th century and if anything we should be able to laugh at the foibles of our ancestors. At the same time, I think that the influence and presumed continuity between Birth of a Nation and the present state of affairs may be overstated.
Hell, if one was ignorant of the circumstances of its making, you could almost be forgiven for thinking D.W. Griffith had produced a satire.
Though its not.
I do wonder what sort of affect Spooky’s version had on those who had never seen it before?
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
I saw the movie in bits and pieces, not all of it. I see why some teachers make it mandatory, as I am fascinated by this movie.
This movie is terrible. It is. However, that is what makes it so intriguing to me. There are people who believe this is happening AS WE SPEAK in the white house and D.C. I also see why some people laughed. It’s sad to some, irritating to most, and funny to others that someone would be so blinded by fear that they would assume so much of another group.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶
itsdebatable wrote:
@Arabi
I think the discomfort or anger people (myself included) have with the laughter is the fact that when a person hears another person laughing at a film in which a white person in black face is portraying a horrible stereotype/ caricature that largely is still believed today, there is no way to be sure whether the person is amused at the inherent idiocy that would compel the filmmaker to use it, the accepted racism of the past, or if he is laughing because he believes the stereotype/caricature still holds true. Either way, it’s an uncomfortable position to be in.
P.S. sorry bout the run on, but I’m late to work!
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
Fiqah wrote: “If I could find a way to successfully petition the permanent retirement of BoAN, I would.”
Really? So no one should EVER see this movie, under any circumstances?
I’ve read enough of your stuff here at Racialicious to know that you can’t possibly advocate for ignoring history and racist past. You even reference the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia in your last posting.
So… a clarification and explanation, please?
Would the world be a better place if, right now, we could banish Birth of a Nation to eternal exile? (Not it’s effects and legacy, though… just its future.)
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
Critics have placed this film in such a light that the pure racism of it is completely overshadowed. Media has painted Birth as this quintessential “evil” movie- and by playing the “there is no good without evil” card, the existence of this film is justified in that we can’t have only good movies that show good, we need good movies that show bad as well. I can rock with that in theory, because I am a firm believer in both sides of the spectrum, but clearly here is a piece that has much more ugly untruth at the heart of it that needs to be completely addressed. Hitler was evil, Mein Kampf was certainly evil, yet everyone went out of their to make sure people knew that the Holocaust was wrong. Where is that response for Birth? Slavery was wrong, IS wrong. Racism was wrong, IS wrong.
@Andrea, I would not hesitate to say that the pen light takedown was simply because all the post-everything art heads are clearly inept at dealing with REAL life issues; basically, they were saying, “Turn off you light because we know you came here to start something. Now excuse us while we laugh because we like to pretend we are so very enlightened when in actuality, we’re just as bad as Thomas Dixon himself.”
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
Also: fabulous alternative to Birth of a Nation: Eyes on the Prize. Saw it in second grade. Will NEVER forget.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@A.D. Nix: Yes, Qispoon handled this really well (I wonder where they are?) The Spookster failed…unless, of course, the goal was to make my soul heart. If so, then good job. ::: eye roll :::
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@Brandon:
I appreciate your feedback. You raised some good points. I’d rather not get into a “but where’s the line?” discussion about censorship here as those always derail, but I understand where you’re coming from. (For the record, if BoAN was roundly banned, the KKK wouldn’t disapper…but they WOULD have to find something else to show to folks they recruit.)
I’d like to just point out here that
a.) I did mention – repeatedly – that I hate BoAN like a preacher hates the devil and
b.) I do not have the power to wave my hands and poof! BoAN is gone. In an open and civil society NO person should have this power. And yes, this film is often viewed as important by anti-racists because it offers a look at our racist past, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.
But here’s where things get tricky. Consider this. About ten years ago, there was a concerted effort made by Black people to “reclaim” Jim Crow-era racist memorabilia that featured some of those caricatures that you’ll find on Dr. Pilgrim’s site. This reclamation involved buying racist memorabilia and taking these images out of the hands of possible racists. Ironically, the movement was SO successful that it inspired modern-day production of things like Tom soup ladels and Mammy cookie jars – effectively perpetuating what it had sought to kill and bury. (Moral of the story? As the great Audre Lorde famously stated, “[t]he master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” SIGH.)
I can’t make BoAN or the racism that made it possible go away. Whatever I or anyone else feels, the film is not going anywhere. And that, more than the film itself, is what saddens me. It’s been said many, many times that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. What happens when we know our history, and it repeats anyway?
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 6:49 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Fiqah
Great post, this sounds like a first-year art student’s vanity project.
I was curious as how you knew the audience “identified” with the protagonist? Is it just because some of them laughed at some scenes? Or because only a few people walked out? I’ve seen BOAN, thought it was appalling and dreadful, didn’t laugh, but didn’t walk out either – so would that make me look like I was enjoying it?
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:13 pm ¶
H. wrote:
While I think your reactions to the film sound completely valid, I think it’s important to recognize that laughter isn’t only a natural reaction to things that people find amusing–it’s a natural reaction to things that people find ridiculous or that make them uncomfortable. And while there were probably people in that room with you who were laughing because they thought the slave caricatures were funny, there were likely others who were laughing because they thought it was so absurd that something like that was ever found funny, and others who were laughing because the idea that such a thing used to be so acceptable made them uncomfortable enough that they didn’t know how else to react. While it may be true that the people in the crowd seemed totally happy to go along with what everybody else was doing and that’s a problem in and of itself, I think it’s also problematic to make assumptions about why people are laughing. It’s not always–and maybe not even most of the time–because they think what they’re watching is funny.
I’ve watched Birth of a Nation, or clips from it, a couple times in academic settings–either film studies classic or ethnic studies classes. I’ve found that the default reaction on the part of people of all races is to laugh at the blatant racism–not because it’s funny, but because it’s ridiculous and discomforting. The good part about watching it that setting is that everybody has the chance to sit around and discuss it, and it quickly becomes clear that almost nobody’s laughter is from true amusement. Birth of a Nation, for that reason, probably works better in an academic setting than an “entertainment” one–it’s hard for me to see the point of putting such a loaded film out there without any discussion to go along with it.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 8:44 pm ¶
distance88 wrote:
I’m a bit disappointed by the apparent failure of Spooky’s efforts here. Based on his whole body of work, my guess is his heart was in the right place and he just failed pretty hard in the execution. He’s done some really good work with a lot of great artists–Chuck D, Ursula Rucker, & Saul Williams to name a few…
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:02 pm ¶
Pheagan wrote:
Jeez, I’m sorry you had to see that film AGAIN after you made such a point not to have to. And it’s a pity this was such a missed opportunity. But your review was pretty hilarious. Fooligans is my new word now.
Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 11:31 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
Fiqah: Thanks for your response. And yes, it is complicated.
I didn’t realize that people celebrate this film for its content, or that they celebrate the film and ignore its content. The criticism of the film that I’ve seen has been spot on in identifying the racism and its legacy.
Why can’t everyone see this?
I guess that another thing I’m struggling with is the idea that anyone who is capable of watching a three hour silent film that is approaching 100 years old would find anything positive about the racist content. I like to think that anyone who would watch this film would be enlightened enough to see its problems. Otherwise, they can go and see Transformers.
But I guess I’m wrong. And you should never underestimate people’s prejudices.
Anyway, I’ve never actually seen the whole film. I’m a huge film buff and I work in anti-prejudice… but I have avoided this film because I don’t want the unpleasant experience of viewing it.
I think it might be time, though. As awful as it might be, I feel like I should see it.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 9:48 am ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
Hey everyone! I second Fiqah with the many thanks for your comments. (And thank you, Fiqah, for responding to them.) Let me address some of them.
@H–thanks for your response about laughter. However, I’ll reiterate what itdebatable said because it’s a great response to what you said:
I think the discomfort or anger people (myself included) have with the laughter is the fact that when a person hears another person laughing at a film in which a white person in black face is portraying a horrible stereotype/ caricature that largely is still believed today, there is no way to be sure whether the person is amused at the inherent idiocy that would compel the filmmaker to use it, the accepted racism of the past, or if he is laughing because he believes the stereotype/caricature still holds true. Either way, it’s an uncomfortable position to be in.
I do think that a discussion should have accompanied the film. But, as I stated in the OP, Birth of a Nation is a 3-hour film. To me, instead of re-showing the darn flick, editing in, say, contemporary news and film footage that echoes the racist imagery or even have some variation of the voiceover/talking head giving an exposition on why, say, film critics constantly state the film is a “classic” while excluding that this “classic” is a pro-Klan propaganda piece, may have been more interesting–and, if done right, may not need a discussion afterwards.
@Phegan–at Racialicious, we aim to keep you informed and improve your vocabulary.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 10:00 am ¶
Joseph wrote:
Um, AJ? I am trying to read this post and your pen light is really distracting so could you…?
::ducks::
Seriously folks, I am almost more interested in the audience dynamics you described than in the project itself, which seems flawed for all the reasons you describe. But… am I being too Utopian in asking if perhaps that was part of what Miller intended? To expose the reactions of a largely white art crowd in a hallowed (i.e. white, western) museum space? I didn’t see it (mostly because you told me not to bother) so I am not suggesting this as an alternate reading. I’m just asking you, as people who did, what do you think he was trying to do with this project?
@Qispoon
“frankly every ethnic group, Asian, Latino, etc., has their own version of the DJ Spooky Effect – an artist who is very good at gaming the system and is rewarded for it.”
Yup. This.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:55 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
@Joseph–Okay, if the audience reaction was a point, then an more intriguing approach would be to “remix” the original footage with various audience reactions and post-showing interviews with the members who laughed asking why they laughed. (Preferably with a hidden camera and mic.)
I don’t think you’re being utopian at all. It’s just that the film as presented didn’t lend itself to your question or that possible interpretation. If DJ Spooky’s narrator said, “If you find yourself identifying with the protagonist(s) or laughing with/at the images in this film, ask yourself why.” Then I could see your perspective and yeah, Fiqah and I could riff on that. But this film was such a mess that it’s really hard to see exactly what the point of this project was.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
@Joseph–About the pen light: I feel like taking a photo of it to show how distracting it really is.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
If you take a photo of the pen light, just be sure not to use flash photography, please. We don’t need that added distraction. Thank you.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
Daniel Jimenez wrote:
Some critics say that without Birth of a Nation we wouldn’t have modern films. They state that it introduced filming techniques that made possible for the medium to advance. Well, I don’t know if it is true or not, as I have little background in film studies. Nevertheless, lets say that it is true, that Birth of a Nation is key in the development of modern cinema. Is it possible to hate and condemn its racist content and at the same time admire the art and technique? Is being able to do so a privileged reaction, or is this ambivalence just a human reaction?
As a side note, I find this quote about The Last of the Mohicans unfair:
Andrea said: “the scene in which a white woman leaps off a cliff to avoid the sexual advances of a Black(faced) man and its direct descendent in 1992’s Last of the Mohicans”
Why the expression “sexual advances”? They were unwanted sexual advances: rape. And he was going to kill her afterwards, as he had vowed to eliminate the descendents of the girl’s father. In addition, this blond girl (Alice) was in love with a Mohican (Uncas), so I don’t think the suicide was about race. I believe that the scene was problematic because it implied that “a decent woman” was better dead than raped. But even then, she had witnessed how her beloved Uncas was killed in front of her, and that may also explain why she committed suicide. A suicide for love is potentially problematic too, but in a different way.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 2:11 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
@Brandon–I know how to take a photo of a pen light using its light, a timer, and a tripod. Thanks.
@Daniel–I’ll go back and re-watch the movie since it’s available online and reconsider my opinion. But if watching it I feel myopinion still stands, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 2:55 pm ¶
Brandon wrote:
AJ, before you watch the movie again, I suggest checking out Roger Ebert’s review of the film for his Great Movies series. His review celebrates the achievements and bemoans the content. It is longer than most of his reviews.
Also, I remember him saying somewhere that his criteria for inclusion in the Great Movies series is that it’s a movie he can’t imagine never seeing again. Somewhere he said that Birth of a Nation is the lone exception to this criteria.
Anyway:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030330/REVIEWS08/303300301/1023
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 4:49 pm ¶
AJ Plaid wrote:
@Brandon–Not to be snotty–and I have to chalk up your statement to my not being clear on which movie I told Daniel to reconsider–but I was referring to Last of the Mohicans, which is available on Hulu, not Birth of a Nation. And, actually, I have read Ebert’s critique on the latter film a while ago. Again, thanks.
Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@AJ #28
Gotcha. Well put. I don’t doubt you (or Fiqah) I was just asking because that is a special interest of mine. Sometimes the audience reaction is more rich for me than the content of the work. Especially when it is designed to provoke.
I think referring to reviews of the original film kind of misses the point of the work, and your subsequent disappointment with it: Rebirth was intended to be a new work, made using the old film. It seems that it failed because it didn’t do that. My question is, if the original work is so painful for so many people, then why show it again unless it was for a new purpose? I guess I am still unclear what Spooky meant to do beyond the simplest version of his concept. Were there artist notes or a program where he made some sort of statement about what he was going for? I don’t doubt you that it failed but I am curious about what he intended.
Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 12:51 am ¶
Davey wrote:
For what it’s worth, a lot of people snicker at silent dramas because the melodrama appears so comparatively hoaky and over-the-top and the acting style is so different from our own. After some adjustment, I found it fascinating; directors used the silent medium to sculpt performances out of their actors. Part of the laughing I see at silent films infuriates me because it’s laughing at the past for having taking place so long ago, it’s a smug assumption that we’re more sophisticated than those rubes, and we’re not. But you were there and would know the specific quality of the laughter.
I’ve always opted out of seeing Birth of a Nation. But I have seen three or four other Griffiths, most notably Intolerance on the big screen, which just astonished me. Yes, it’s his big “proof that I’m not a racist” movie about intolerance that manages to never mention intolerance against African Americans, and in one plot it seems pretty intolerant of female activists. But I left the theater emotionally devastated and feeling that no one knew how to use a camera as well as Griffith and what a pity it was that filmmakers could no longer use casts of thousands or build absurdly huge city sets. That’s part of the reason I avoid Birth of a Nation; I don’t want someone that brilliant with a camera talking to me about race, particularly as poisonously as he did. Not that I think it would make me join the Klan, of course.
Incidentally, Birth of the Nation is up on Netflix’s Watch Instantly feature.
Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 9:03 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@AJ: Hey, lady! Thanks so much for addressing the points above and contributing brilliantly to the discussion (natch!).
SIGH.
@All: Several posters here have asked how AJ and I were able to infer from the audience’s reaction that many viewers were empathizing with the protagonist and flat-out loving the racist caricature parade. I didn’t mention this in the write-up, but several audience members vocalized dismay when Confederate soldiers were killed in a battle scene, and when former slave owners were shackled and mocked by their former slaves (to then be “rescued” – comically, of course – by Mammy and crew). Oh, and my personal favorite: when the KKK saved the day a the film’s end, there was applause. Clapping and laughter. Yes.
The laughter was neither derisive nor stilted. It was appreciative.
Look, I know that the idea of people enjoying blatant racism is uncomfortable. But that is what happened. AJ and I interpreted what was happening all around us correctly, so I’d appreciate it if going forward there are no further attempts to reframe our experience as “not really racism.” I know that’s not what some of the comments intended. But that’s what is happening, and you need to be aware of it.
Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 12:17 pm ¶