Description

Based on a play called "The Clansmen," D.W. Griffith's three-hour Civil War epic traces the development of the Civil War itself, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan through the lives of two families. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

Content and Form Inseparable
This DVD is a fabulous teaching tool. The old 16mm image and sound are rendered as clear as possible through this format. As a scholar of history and film, I always find it amusing to remind my students that film is a vehicle, that it is not historical fact, and that it was made for entertainment. This movie was popular BECAUSE of its form AND content. This visually overwhelming film spit audiences' racist sensibilities right back at them, pleasing a population living a full 70 years after Reconstruction failed. (the klan and northern political reconciliation assured this failure as well as the possibility of a film like "Birth") The interesting (sad?/hilarious?) thing is that people still respond to this film like it's a history book--which indicates the levels of racial and sectional venom that continue to poison our society 85 years after the film's release and 135 years after the end of the Civil War. For incisive criticism of this provacative movie as a cultural text, type it's title or Griffith, along with your subject heading of interest, like "race," "reconstruction," or "civil war," into an article database at your local library. There are hundreds of reviews and critical analyses by folks who actually know something about film, theater, mass culture, the book the movie was based on, Gish, Griffith, black-face performance, white womanhood, the klan, broad-based protest against the film, American social history, etc. Happy reading.

The Birth of Seventh Art and history written in lightning
Silent motion picture historical epic, about a Southern family's experiences during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction, based on two novels and a play by Thomas Dixon. The movie costed 110.000 $ and was a big box-office hit, (10.000.000 $ in its time, about 1 billion $ today !!) but it also inspired race riots , protests, boycotts and eventually a move toward film censorship laws. Released in 1915, this film was directed by D. W. Griffith and is notable for its radical technical innovations. The Birth of a Nation is considered among the most important and influential films ever made, for its success established not only the feature-length film but also the Hollywood star system ,Griffith as the leading motion-picture producer of the time and motion pictures as an art form for cultured spectators, stunning audiences with its dazzling spectacle of a still-recent event. Until Griffith's time, motion pictures had been short, rarely exceeding one reel; episodic rather than dramatic; and poorly produced, acted, and edited. Griffith's films were frequently several hours in length, contained powerful dramatic situations and vivid characters, and were produced with technical virtuosity. Besides that's why he is often called The Father of the Motion Picture.

Unlike most of his predecessors, Griffith used in Birth a variety of camera angles and close-ups, for dramatic emphasis and moved the camera close to the action, using many separate shots with flashbacks, which for purposes of clarification of plot or characterization, introduce scenes antedating those already shown. He was one of the first to use a technique called crosscutting( parallel editing), which involves switching back and forth between different story lines to achieve suspense, and an other called fade-out, a transition from one scene to another by the gradual disappearance of the first scene from the screen. Griffith's extensively collaborator and legendary cameraman Billy Bitzer did a great work, so did Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Miriam Cooper, Henry B. Walthall and other great actors under Griffith's direction that emphasized an intimate, restrained style of acting suitable for camera close-ups.

The film is also notable for the enormous controversy it aroused because of its "racist" portrayal of African Americans, except the faithful servants, and its very pro southern view of Civil War and Reconstruction era. Griffith traces the disastrous effects of Civil War through the lives of two friendly associated families, Camerons from South and Stonemans from North, divided now by war's storm. When Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall) returns to the South after the Civil War, he feels that the region is being torn apart by carpetbaggers and black people in positions of power, like Silas Lynch the mullato lieut. Governor of S. Carolina, backed from Radicals (Congress's main political force) and their leader Austin Stoneman (a character merely inspired from radical Edwin Stanton), head of Stonemans's House, who promote complete equality between blacks and whites and the crash of South's white dominion.

After Abraham Lincoln's assasination (truthfully depicted), who stood against the severe treatment toward Southern States, Radicals can easily carry out their plans. Meanwhile a love affair flourishes between Ben and Elsie Stoneman(Lilian Gish), Stoneman's daughter. After a black man (Gus) attacks his little sister (Mae Marsh), Ben organizes the Ku Klux Klan, a name adapted from the Greek word kuklos ("circle"), and with his companions rise the ancient Scotland's "flaming cross", to restore law and order in the South, (...) protecting racial purity. A controversial cause in its own time and repugnant decades later in modern Hollywood. Lynch betrays Stoneman and uses his power to force his daugter Elsie to marry him and plans to turn the South in to a "Black Empire". Elsie resists, defending her "white woman's pride", in a scene where Gish gives a great performance. Finally after an epic ride of Ku Klux Klan's cavalry, and the disarmament of the black federal troops Ben saves his beloved Elsie from Lynch's hands and sets an and to anarchy and oppression. President Woodrow Wilson was so impressed with this version of the Reconstruction that he said it was "like history written in lightning.".

IMHO Birth's portrayal of African Americans is no more racist or stereotypical than this of other national groups often harshly humiliated from the US Motion Picture Industry's products, such as the Germans, the Indians, the Japanese, the Russians, the Romans etc., yet none received so much criticism. Before condemning D. W. Griffith that offered a biased view of black people and glorified Ku Klux Klan, we should consider that he was the son of a ex-Confederate Colonel and he grew up attending stories about the Civil War, the South's humiliation during Reconstruction's era, and Klan's rebelion. Therefore, he saw these historical facts through a southern perspective and put all his ideological passion in his work. So, what? As an artist, he had any right to express his beliefs, controversial or not, and anybody can disagree with him using arguments . Intolerance (1916) was Griffith's statement of feeling persecuted for his beliefs.

Just About Brilliant
Using the KKK as heroes is in astonishingly poor taste. Even then, in much lass enlightened times, Griffin was taken to the woodshed and taken to task. Griffin responded by partially redeeming himself with the overly ambitious Intolerance. That said, the movie itself is brilliantly made. The acting, cinematography, direction and story are perfect. Definately a must watch for anyone interested in film as art or craft.

The best film ever made...
This film is not "deeply disturbibg" or is it "only for film historians", people who wrote bad reviews on this dvd, obviously are not inteligent enough, and the film went over thier heads as it would if a 3 year old were watching it.

This film is a classic, not just for it's AMAZING filmography, whcih was new at the time, and still is breathtaking today, but because of the "controverisal" subject matter, which wasn't so controversial at the time of it's release.

This dvd must be watched, and is hard to review, but it is a classic, and when it's over, you'll find yourself pushing the play button again and warching it twice in a row!

This film will do one of two things it will either move you and make you realzie this was along with Gone With The Wind, one of the best film of all time, or it will go right over your head, and you'll yell "racism", and just blow it off, and not even realize it's a classic. This film is more likely to appeal however to people who tend to gravitate towards listening to jazz and classical music, people more sophistocated and who liek fine wines and live a more luxurious or should I say cultured lifestyle.

I wish this film weren't so forgotten by today's filmgoers!
I am one of the rare people in my generation who loves silent movies. This ranks among my top three favorites. It is a classic story of the Civil War, told from the South's point of view (controversial at the time and still so today). "Birth of a Nation" tells the story of two families, one from the North and the other from the South, whose friendships and loves are tested by the war and its tragic aftermaths.

One of the greatest actors of all time, Henry B. Walthall, portrays Ben Cameron (The Little Colonel) with both physical and romantic grace. His character is a soldier, a son, a brother, an avenger, and a lover. He plays each of these sub-roles with dignity and skill not seen much in Hollywood these days. A beautiful and delicate Lillian Gish plays Elsie Stoneman, the woman he loved without even meeting her at first. Mae Marsh is delightful and tragic as the ill-fated Flora, Ben's little sister. Other noteworthy performances given are Joseph Henabery as an uncanny and kindhearted Abraham Lincoln; Ralph Lewis as the stubborn and powerhungry Austin Stoneman; the classic beauty Miriam Cooper as Margaret Cameron; and George Siegmann as the mulatto villain Silas Lynch.

This film has romance, action, drama, and even some bits of humor as well. If you're ever in the mood for a film which touches the heart as well as the mind and body, then please search out "Birth of a Nation". You'll be so glad you did. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

If I could give it zero stars I would have.
This is easily the worst film I have ever seen. I had to see this film for my US History Course, and I was absolutely stunned by its racial stereotypes and historical inaccuracies. Those who feel that the film's racist content must be viewed in a historical perspective are way off base. Racism was as unacceptable then as it is today. This movie made me physically ill and I sincerely hope that none of have to be subjected to it.

If Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan made movies...
I was curious about this movie. Everyone's heard of it, and when the AFI put it on their list, I decided to check it out. I honestly thought it would be dated and boring, offensive only to activists or Politically Correct Police.

Oh. My. God!! The movie tells the story of the Civil War and Reconstruction from the white supremacists' point of view, defending "civilization" (that word and "civilized" are used a lot) from the freed blacks running amok. The whites find themselves outnumbered and suddenly disenfranchised by black voters, jurors, legislators and business owners. The movie portrays blacks as something like mentally-challenged children hostile to all whites and with a tendency to violence towards women.

There are no sympathetic black characters. The story concerns two white families. Stoneman is a white "Radical" who believes that whites and blacks are equal; he has a mulatto partner (his name is Lynch) who has political ambitions. Stoneman has a daughter Elsie, played by Lillian Gish, who is engaged to a son of the other family. The son helps to found the Ku Klux Klan, and when Elsie finds out what the Klan does, she breaks off their engagement. You know how a lot of silent films have a scene where the heroine is tied to the railroad tracks or in front of a buzzsaw blade? Well, without giving away a lot of the ending, there's a scene where Lynch gets drunk and holds Elsie captive, trying to get her to agree to marry him, so she can be the "queen" of his Black Nation; meanwhile the blacks outside are rioting. Will our heroine be rescued? There's a big, climactic scene with dozens of Klansmen riding to the rescue. Oh. My. God!!

I have to say it gets five stars for historical significance, and five stars for being well-made (it's a long movie, and some parts are kinda slow, with the story not really building until the second half, after Abraham Lincoln dies). But the content is so jaw-droppingly offensive that it pulls the score down. This movie will make you want to write a big check to the NAACP or the Southern Poverty Law Center immediately afterwards. END ... Read more

Description

Two of the best small independent feature films of the 1930s and both influences on Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane." In "The Sin of Nora Moran" (1933, 64 min.), Nora, convicted of murder, is facing death by electrocution. Her life is replayed in a series of flashbacks involving those who knew her in this complex, yet emotionally powerful story starring Zita Johann, wife of John Houseman, soon to be Welles' partner in the Mercury Theater. "Prison Train" (1938, 63 min.) also embodies the best qualities of the low-budget film with its tight story of a train transporting prisoners to the infamous Alcatraz. With great characters and the taut action driving the film, "Prison Train" stars Linda Winters, who three years later under her own name,Dorothy Comingore, played the role of Susan Alexander Kane. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Odd Film but Innovative for its Time
The Sin of Nora Moran is an odd film about a woman (Zita Johann) who is about to be put to death for killing a man. The story is told through Nora's dreams, as she lapses into unconsciousness while awaiting her fate. Additional parts of the story are told by the district attorney (Alan Dinehart) who was involved in her case as he talks with the wife (Claire Du Brey) of Moran's lover (who is also the governor, played by Paul Cavanagh). The film uses the `narratage' technique first used the same year by Preston Sturges in `The Power and the Glory' which consists of voice-over narration and flashbacks and flashforwards. The film gets even more complex, with flashbacks within flashbacks, flashfowards within flashbacks, etc. Some of the visual techniques are quite impressive for 1933. An interesting story with an odd ending. The acting seems strangely unemotional considering the plot of the film or, perhaps, that was the point. Some of the conversations in the flashbacks indicate that the characters have been reliving the story again and again. Perhaps they are now devoid of most of their previous feelings. This film also includes several brief appearances from silent film legend Henry B. Walthall ("The Little Colonel" in Birth of a Nation) as Father Ryan. It runs a very fast-moving 65 minutes. An extra film is included with this DVD release. ... Read more

Description

When Hollywood was mostly orange groves, Fort Lee, New Jersey wasa center of American film production: D. W. Griffith made many one-reel Biographdramas, Mack Sennett appeared in his first film, Pearl White endured the Perils ofPauline, and Mary Pickford and Theda Bara starred in early features. By the mid-teens, a dozen major movie studios were operating across the Hudson River from Manhattan's Washington Heights. Using rare photographs, almost-complete versions of such films as Edison's "Rescued from an Eagle's Nest" and Biograph's "The Curtain Pole," and poignant footage from 1935 of the great glass studios in ruins, this comprehensive collection also features D. W. Griffith's "The New York Hat," featuring Mary Pickford and Lionel Barrymore. Maurice Tourneur is represented by the once-lost 1917 feature "A Girl's Folly," in a half-hour abridgement with views of the glass stages, rotating sets, tank for water effects, projection room, and crews at work, and his enchanting hour-long 1914 feature, "The Wishing Ring," taken in the village environs as well as in the Paragon Studio. Variety wrote that "the whole atmosphere of the tale is light and as graceful as a minuet and colored with the nicety of a pastel,"and this tinted print has a charming digital stereo score by the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

My Introduction To Silent Films.
My introduction to silent films occured at a most unlikely place, a pizza parlor in Greenville SC. This was back in the early 1960's when silent films were first being rediscovered. More often than not they were used to get laughs like on a TV show popular at the time called FRACTURED FLICKERS or at this pizza parlor where 8mm abridged versions of old silent movies were shown while an employee played barber shop quartet standards on an upright piano. The prints were of poor quality and usually the action was too fast but it didn't matter to me because I was hooked. Seeing this documentary took me back to those days which is not surprising since it dates from 1964. Back then programs dealing with silent movies used bad prints at the wrong speed with inappropriate background music, cartoon sound effects, and well meaning but condescending narration. This is not to say that BEFORE HOLLYWOOD is of no interest. Quite the opposite, it was fascinating to see rare footage of the early days in Fort Lee captured on film. Most of it was taken from a 1935 documentary GHOST TOWN: THE STORY OF FORT LEE. It was also interesting to see virtually complete versions of Edwin S. Porter's RESCUED FROM AN EAGLE'S NEST with D.W. Griffith as an actor and the Griffith directed THE CURTAIN POLE featuring Mack Sennett and Florence Lawrence which I had heard about for years but had never seen. The documentary was originally made for TV and is slightly abridged with all the commercial breaks intact and runs about 45 minutes. To fill out the DVD there is the 1912 Biograph short THE NEW YORK HAT with Mary Pickford and Lionel Barrymore, surviving excerpts from the 1917 feature A GIRL'S FOLLY which shows a Fort Lee studio at work giving us a rare glimpse into how silent movies were actually made. This was directed by Maurice Tourneur as was THE WISHING RING, a totally charming complete feature from 1914 which rounds out the program. There is also a printed insert from Fort Lee film historian Richard Koszarski which contains additional background information. An absolute must for anyone interested in film history and an excellent example of how far we have come in our view of and our restoration of silent films.

A Mixed Bag
The documentary Before Hollywood there was Fort Lee shows some of the films which were made at the pioneering studio in New Jersey. It also describes something of the history of the place, how it came into being and how it declined. Unfortunately the version of the documentary on the DVD has been abridged. It thus provides snippets of information skating quickly on to the next topic. A good deal of the running time is taken up with stills from various Fort Lee productions. It also contains nearly complete versions of some Biograph shorts including the Lonely Villa, the Curtain Pole and Rescued from the Eagle's Nest. It is good to see these early D. W. Griffith films, but I would much rather have seen complete versions without the voiceover commentary. The upshot is that although the documentary shows numerous examples of films made at Fort Lee, it provides little in the way of information about the studio. The DVD does provide an insert essay written by Richard Koszarski, providing in its few pages more actual information than the documentary. It thus rather shows up the inadequacies of the documentary.

The DVD contains three further films made at Fort Lee. The New York Hat (1912) is one of the best of the Biograph films, starring a young Mary Pickford and Lionel Barrymore long before he became the crusty old gent familiar from so many films from the thirties and forties. It is a great film, but silent film fans will probably already have it, as it is available on at least two other DVDs. A Girl's Folly (1917) is a very interesting and enjoyable film. Unfortunately the version available on the DVD has been abridged running for just under 30 minutes. It may well be that this is the only version that survives. If so, it is a great pity, for it is clear from the abridgement that this was a fine film. It is the story of a country girl who tries her luck in the movies. During the course of her adventures, the viewer sees some fascinating glimpses of movie studio life in the 1910s. The story is easy enough to follow, but it is quite obvious that large chunks are missing. The tinted print is generally fairly good, with some occasional and quite severe print damage.

The film which makes this DVD worthwhile is the Wishing Ring (1914). Directed by the great Maurice Tourneur, it is set in early 19th century England, telling the story of the son of an earl who after getting himself kicked out of school and falling out with his father, finds himself working as a lowly gardener. Here he meets and falls in love with the parson's daughter. This is an accomplished film, sweet and romantic, with good acting and production values. The tinted print is very good, clear and sharp with hardly any damage. The Mont Alto Orchestra score is full of tunes associated with England. The score and the playing of Mont Alto really fits the action. At times they even deliberately play excruciatingly badly when, for instance, the action includes a character who can't play the piano. This musical effect is well done and makes for an unusual experiment, which for the most part works very well. This DVD is something of a mixed bag, but is worth getting for the Wishing Ring alone. Silent film fans should not be disappointed. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Where Are My Family Jewels??
The search for the crown jewels of the czar continues! Meanwhile, the true identity of the Whispering Shadow grows foggier by the minute! Just who IS he?? Is it Professor Strang (Bela)? The odd Mr. Steinbeck? Someone else? There are many suspects in this last half of the story and those wacky jewels just keep hopping along, winding up with almost everyone at least once! Can Foster and inspector Raymond solve the mysteries before it's too late? Watch and see...

The sinister Professor Strang--Bela Lugosi no less
Actually the good (or is he good?) professor is the focal point of this serial. Basic plot line has the young hero tracking down his brother's murderer who is known as the whispering shadow; and it sure as heck looks like Professor Strang is one and the same. One little difficulty, our hero falls in love with the professor's daughter while he's trying to prove that her dad is a criminal mastermind. I don't think I'm spoiling the plot for anybody if I suggest that maybe Bela isn't the bad guy after all, although he does a darn good job of trying to convince us he is!

The other review here complains about the long flashbacks. Don't forget, this is a 13 chapter serial which was originally shown one chapter a week over a three month period, so the flashbacks are obviously necessary. And no, they should not be edited out for today's audiences...we serial fans want them exactly as they were.

btw, I do suggest viewing this serial a chapter a day, or at least no more than three chapters a day. That way, you will get more out of it with less feeling of repetition.

Weak Plot, Weak Acting
A rather weak 12-episode serial (228 minutes) starring Bela Lugosi. Lugosi plays Professor Strang, the strange owner of a wax museum, who is accused of being the "Whispering Shadow" that has been terrorizing the drivers of a storage warehouse in search of some priceless jewels. Aside from a few of the veteran actors (Lugosi, Henry B. Walthall of Birth of a Nation fame, and Karl Dane, who was excellent in silent films like The Big Parade), the acting in this serial is pretty bad (comical at times). The epsiodes do not flow together very well (a lot of long flashbacks are used which was probably very appropriate when it was first released, but are quite redundant in video form). The numerous silent fist fighting scenes are odd (where did the sound go?) and tiring. Karl Dane is genuninely comical in his role as the dopey radio dispatcher. Unfortunately, Shadow would prove to be his last acting credit as he would commit suicide the next year (his thick Danish accent getting in the way of employment in the Talkies era). It's interesting to watch those old vehicles in the car chasing scenes. I am the worst at whodunnits, but I was able to guess the Shadow's identity by the second episode. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

If I could give it zero stars I would have.
This is easily the worst film I have ever seen. I had to see this film for my US History Course, and I was absolutely stunned by its racial stereotypes and historical inaccuracies. Those who feel that the film's racist content must be viewed in a historical perspective are way off base. Racism was as unacceptable then as it is today. This movie made me physically ill and I sincerely hope that none of have to be subjected to it.

If Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan made movies...
I was curious about this movie. Everyone's heard of it, and when the AFI put it on their list, I decided to check it out. I honestly thought it would be dated and boring, offensive only to activists or Politically Correct Police.

Oh. My. God!! The movie tells the story of the Civil War and Reconstruction from the white supremacists' point of view, defending "civilization" (that word and "civilized" are used a lot) from the freed blacks running amok. The whites find themselves outnumbered and suddenly disenfranchised by black voters, jurors, legislators and business owners. The movie portrays blacks as something like mentally-challenged children hostile to all whites and with a tendency to violence towards women.

There are no sympathetic black characters. The story concerns two white families. Stoneman is a white "Radical" who believes that whites and blacks are equal; he has a mulatto partner (his name is Lynch) who has political ambitions. Stoneman has a daughter Elsie, played by Lillian Gish, who is engaged to a son of the other family. The son helps to found the Ku Klux Klan, and when Elsie finds out what the Klan does, she breaks off their engagement. You know how a lot of silent films have a scene where the heroine is tied to the railroad tracks or in front of a buzzsaw blade? Well, without giving away a lot of the ending, there's a scene where Lynch gets drunk and holds Elsie captive, trying to get her to agree to marry him, so she can be the "queen" of his Black Nation; meanwhile the blacks outside are rioting. Will our heroine be rescued? There's a big, climactic scene with dozens of Klansmen riding to the rescue. Oh. My. God!!

I have to say it gets five stars for historical significance, and five stars for being well-made (it's a long movie, and some parts are kinda slow, with the story not really building until the second half, after Abraham Lincoln dies). But the content is so jaw-droppingly offensive that it pulls the score down. This movie will make you want to write a big check to the NAACP or the Southern Poverty Law Center immediately afterwards. END ... Read more

Description

One of the most important and technically advanced films of all time, famed American film pioneer, D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is well renowned not only for its brilliant cinematography, innovative editing, and superb acting, but also because of its racist portrayal of African Americans and sympathetic depiction of the Ku Klux Klan. Featured on AFI’s list of "Best Films of the 20th Century." Includes collectible poster ... Read more

Reviews (3)

The Gish/Hanson Version Rules
I have seen two motion picture renditions of the Hawthorne classic, this one starring Colleen Moore in her final role and the 1926 silent classic starring Lillian Gish and Lars Hanson. This 1934 film is very different than the silent version. The courtship between Hester Prynne and Pastor Dimmesdale that made up a major portion of the Lillian Gish version is skipped entirely. The absence of this background causes the scene where Prynne receives her 'A' to be less dramatic. Henry B. Walthall plays Roger Prynne in both of these films. As a Walthall fan, I was happy to see the silent star have much more significant air time here than in the 1926 film. Walthall is seen right from the beginning and his character is given the opportunity to explain his feelings more than in the earlier rendition. Roger Prynne "Chillingworth," who makes Hester promise not to admit to being his wife, almost shows sympathy towards Hester's plight. Still, Roger will not grant her request to leave Pastor Dimmesdale (played by Hardie Albright) to his own personal guilt. Roger insists on sadistically contributing to the adulterer's slow torment. As the other reviewers have noted, the Laurel and Hardy wannabe team of Alan Hale and some other guy really fall flat. It is not that humor was inappropriate for the Scarlet Letter. The silent film had Karl Dane as the dopey fellow who speaks to his prospective wife through a courtship trumpet only to get slapped for his "unbridled passions" when he steals a kiss before he leaves. This humor worked because it was subtle. Many of the early talkies offered comedy relief which was often excessive. The Scarlet Letter of 1934 is another example. Despite the silly humor, it is not a bad film. The acting is very good. It is just not an emotionally powerful film like the Gish/Hanson version.

Proves that comedy has no place in The Scarlet Letter
The very first adaptation of The Scarlet Letter was a silent picture released in 1926, but this 1934 version is the first to feature sound. That and the great disservice it does to the underlying story are its only claims to fame. The original novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the most respected, best-known works of literature to ever grace the printed page, and this adaptation of that great novel is exceedingly strange. Certainly, The Scarlet Letter is a somber, contemplative story, but that is where it's all-too-human heart lies. The makers of this film, for reasons I fail to comprehend, chose to add comedy to the production, thereby producing one of the weirdest movies I have ever suffered through. With a length of sixty-eight minutes, it naturally glosses over much of the emotional and plot-driven wonders of the novel, but its own scarlet sin is the inclusion of a number of entirely purposeless scenes designed to produce laughs. I think I am safe in saying that The Scarlet Letter and comedy do not and certainly should not go hand in hand. We get only the most basic of outlines of Hester Prynne's sin and subsequent life bearing the scarlet letter. The casting of 20s flapper Colleen Moore to play Hester seems to be something of a mistake to my eyes, as I never really saw her as the Hester Prynne I have known fairly well for a number of years now. Arthur Dimmesdale comes across pretty well, although we have no sign until the very end of any of the self-flagellating punishments he inflicted upon himself as penance for the sin he was too cowardly to acknowledge. Henry B. Walthall reprises his 1926 role as Roger Chillingworth, but the depth of his own iniquity is never really laid bare, although we are privy to his plans regarding the unfortunate Mr. Dimmesdale. The child who played Pearl was very good, though, and helped make up for some of the larger faults of the other character representations.

Two things ruined this movie for me. One is the awful cattiness of the women in the community; early on, we are treated to a number of "in my day" or "they should have let us women take care of Hester's punishment" speeches; while those kinds of thoughts or expressions probably do apply here, there is far too much of it in the movie. What I really hated was the addition of a duo of dolts adding a Laurel & Hardy aspect to the movie. First they exchange smart remarks and the little guy finds himself supporting a heavy wagon on his back while his partner putters around interminably with a grin on his face, but later on the two become involved in a romantic triangle of sorts. The big guy takes it upon himself to tell the little guy's chosen sweetheart just how much the little guy loves her; he does this by whispering back and forth to her through a marriage trumpet-naturally, the rather undesirable woman thinks the big guy is the prospective bridegroom-this Three's Company-esque situation only gets worse when both men accidentally see a pair of her "nethergarments" lying about. This scene and these silly actors have no place at all in Nathaniel Hawthorne's remarkable story, and such inane, totally out-of-place comedy totally destroys the serious mood surrounding the Reverend Dimmesdale's overbearing guilt and Hester's praiseworthy steadfastness and struggle.

This movie completely fails to capture the passion and emotion of the story it proposes to tell. Without the needless comedy, it would be woefully incomplete yet watchable; with the ill-fated attempts at humor, it is hardly worth watching at all.

Colleen Moore and Alan Hale make it watchable...
Colleen, more famous as a silent film star (Lilac Time, Ella Cinders), does the best she can with this dried out piece of toast of a movie. But to be honest, this just wasn't the role for her. In her last film, Colleen still has it, but Hester Prynne was not the role best suited to her talents.

Several comedic elements were added to a story usually known for it's depressing overtones, and there is a sense of "abridgedness" running through the uneven film. Produced in 1934, some of the uneveness and choppy style can be blamed on early sound film production, but not all.

Alan Hale is in good form as a comedic character, in a style he would use throughout his career. Other such Hale efforts can be seen in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", and "The Sea Hawk", both with Errol Flynn.

Colleen shines in just about anything, if you can find one of her films. "Lilac Time", "Ella Cinders", and "The Sky Pilot" are all good choices. Some of her best work was in comedies.

Overall, this isn't as bad a version of "The Scarlet Letter" as some make it out to be, but it is also not a masterpiece.

***NOTE: Colleen Moore was the first film star to popularize the "flapper" look in the 1920's, most notably with her bobbed, pageboy/dutchboy hairstyle. A shrewd investor, she went on to write a book on how women could invest in the stock market. Colleen also designed a world-class dollhouse now housed in a Chicago museum. ... Read more

Reviews (97)

Content and Form Inseparable
This DVD is a fabulous teaching tool. The old 16mm image and sound are rendered as clear as possible through this format. As a scholar of history and film, I always find it amusing to remind my students that film is a vehicle, that it is not historical fact, and that it was made for entertainment. This movie was popular BECAUSE of its form AND content. This visually overwhelming film spit audiences' racist sensibilities right back at them, pleasing a population living a full 70 years after Reconstruction failed. (the klan and northern political reconciliation assured this failure as well as the possibility of a film like "Birth") The interesting (sad?/hilarious?) thing is that people still respond to this film like it's a history book--which indicates the levels of racial and sectional venom that continue to poison our society 85 years after the film's release and 135 years after the end of the Civil War. For incisive criticism of this provacative movie as a cultural text, type it's title or Griffith, along with your subject heading of interest, like "race," "reconstruction," or "civil war," into an article database at your local library. There are hundreds of reviews and critical analyses by folks who actually know something about film, theater, mass culture, the book the movie was based on, Gish, Griffith, black-face performance, white womanhood, the klan, broad-based protest against the film, American social history, etc. Happy reading.

The Birth of Seventh Art and history written in lightning
Silent motion picture historical epic, about a Southern family's experiences during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction, based on two novels and a play by Thomas Dixon. The movie costed 110.000 $ and was a big box-office hit, (10.000.000 $ in its time, about 1 billion $ today !!) but it also inspired race riots , protests, boycotts and eventually a move toward film censorship laws. Released in 1915, this film was directed by D. W. Griffith and is notable for its radical technical innovations. The Birth of a Nation is considered among the most important and influential films ever made, for its success established not only the feature-length film but also the Hollywood star system ,Griffith as the leading motion-picture producer of the time and motion pictures as an art form for cultured spectators, stunning audiences with its dazzling spectacle of a still-recent event. Until Griffith's time, motion pictures had been short, rarely exceeding one reel; episodic rather than dramatic; and poorly produced, acted, and edited. Griffith's films were frequently several hours in length, contained powerful dramatic situations and vivid characters, and were produced with technical virtuosity. Besides that's why he is often called The Father of the Motion Picture.

Unlike most of his predecessors, Griffith used in Birth a variety of camera angles and close-ups, for dramatic emphasis and moved the camera close to the action, using many separate shots with flashbacks, which for purposes of clarification of plot or characterization, introduce scenes antedating those already shown. He was one of the first to use a technique called crosscutting( parallel editing), which involves switching back and forth between different story lines to achieve suspense, and an other called fade-out, a transition from one scene to another by the gradual disappearance of the first scene from the screen. Griffith's extensively collaborator and legendary cameraman Billy Bitzer did a great work, so did Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Miriam Cooper, Henry B. Walthall and other great actors under Griffith's direction that emphasized an intimate, restrained style of acting suitable for camera close-ups.

The film is also notable for the enormous controversy it aroused because of its "racist" portrayal of African Americans, except the faithful servants, and its very pro southern view of Civil War and Reconstruction era. Griffith traces the disastrous effects of Civil War through the lives of two friendly associated families, Camerons from South and Stonemans from North, divided now by war's storm. When Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall) returns to the South after the Civil War, he feels that the region is being torn apart by carpetbaggers and black people in positions of power, like Silas Lynch the mullato lieut. Governor of S. Carolina, backed from Radicals (Congress's main political force) and their leader Austin Stoneman (a character merely inspired from radical Edwin Stanton), head of Stonemans's House, who promote complete equality between blacks and whites and the crash of South's white dominion.

After Abraham Lincoln's assasination (truthfully depicted), who stood against the severe treatment toward Southern States, Radicals can easily carry out their plans. Meanwhile a love affair flourishes between Ben and Elsie Stoneman(Lilian Gish), Stoneman's daughter. After a black man (Gus) attacks his little sister (Mae Marsh), Ben organizes the Ku Klux Klan, a name adapted from the Greek word kuklos ("circle"), and with his companions rise the ancient Scotland's "flaming cross", to restore law and order in the South, (...) protecting racial purity. A controversial cause in its own time and repugnant decades later in modern Hollywood. Lynch betrays Stoneman and uses his power to force his daugter Elsie to marry him and plans to turn the South in to a "Black Empire". Elsie resists, defending her "white woman's pride", in a scene where Gish gives a great performance. Finally after an epic ride of Ku Klux Klan's cavalry, and the disarmament of the black federal troops Ben saves his beloved Elsie from Lynch's hands and sets an and to anarchy and oppression. President Woodrow Wilson was so impressed with this version of the Reconstruction that he said it was "like history written in lightning.".

IMHO Birth's portrayal of African Americans is no more racist or stereotypical than this of other national groups often harshly humiliated from the US Motion Picture Industry's products, such as the Germans, the Indians, the Japanese, the Russians, the Romans etc., yet none received so much criticism. Before condemning D. W. Griffith that offered a biased view of black people and glorified Ku Klux Klan, we should consider that he was the son of a ex-Confederate Colonel and he grew up attending stories about the Civil War, the South's humiliation during Reconstruction's era, and Klan's rebelion. Therefore, he saw these historical facts through a southern perspective and put all his ideological passion in his work. So, what? As an artist, he had any right to express his beliefs, controversial or not, and anybody can disagree with him using arguments . Intolerance (1916) was Griffith's statement of feeling persecuted for his beliefs.

Just About Brilliant
Using the KKK as heroes is in astonishingly poor taste. Even then, in much lass enlightened times, Griffin was taken to the woodshed and taken to task. Griffin responded by partially redeeming himself with the overly ambitious Intolerance. That said, the movie itself is brilliantly made. The acting, cinematography, direction and story are perfect. Definately a must watch for anyone interested in film as art or craft.

The best film ever made...
This film is not "deeply disturbibg" or is it "only for film historians", people who wrote bad reviews on this dvd, obviously are not inteligent enough, and the film went over thier heads as it would if a 3 year old were watching it.

This film is a classic, not just for it's AMAZING filmography, whcih was new at the time, and still is breathtaking today, but because of the "controverisal" subject matter, which wasn't so controversial at the time of it's release.

This dvd must be watched, and is hard to review, but it is a classic, and when it's over, you'll find yourself pushing the play button again and warching it twice in a row!

This film will do one of two things it will either move you and make you realzie this was along with Gone With The Wind, one of the best film of all time, or it will go right over your head, and you'll yell "racism", and just blow it off, and not even realize it's a classic. This film is more likely to appeal however to people who tend to gravitate towards listening to jazz and classical music, people more sophistocated and who liek fine wines and live a more luxurious or should I say cultured lifestyle.

I wish this film weren't so forgotten by today's filmgoers!
I am one of the rare people in my generation who loves silent movies. This ranks among my top three favorites. It is a classic story of the Civil War, told from the South's point of view (controversial at the time and still so today). "Birth of a Nation" tells the story of two families, one from the North and the other from the South, whose friendships and loves are tested by the war and its tragic aftermaths.

One of the greatest actors of all time, Henry B. Walthall, portrays Ben Cameron (The Little Colonel) with both physical and romantic grace. His character is a soldier, a son, a brother, an avenger, and a lover. He plays each of these sub-roles with dignity and skill not seen much in Hollywood these days. A beautiful and delicate Lillian Gish plays Elsie Stoneman, the woman he loved without even meeting her at first. Mae Marsh is delightful and tragic as the ill-fated Flora, Ben's little sister. Other noteworthy performances given are Joseph Henabery as an uncanny and kindhearted Abraham Lincoln; Ralph Lewis as the stubborn and powerhungry Austin Stoneman; the classic beauty Miriam Cooper as Margaret Cameron; and George Siegmann as the mulatto villain Silas Lynch.

This film has romance, action, drama, and even some bits of humor as well. If you're ever in the mood for a film which touches the heart as well as the mind and body, then please search out "Birth of a Nation". You'll be so glad you did. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Weak Plot, Awesome Fighting Scenes!
Although silent goddess Clara Bow headlines the cast, I was surprised how limited her role in this movie was. The plot she is tied to is very weak and I don't think the conclusion helps it too much (Clara's character leaving the war and her love interest changing his affections so effortlessly once he returned home). Her sexy image is really toned down as well. One scene has her luring her drunken boyfriend (a very funny drunken boyfriend) from a Paris night club in a skimpy number. The dress didn't fit the character's girl-next-door image at all.

The real storyline is between pals Jack Powell and David Armstrong (played expertly by Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen). Anyone interested in the First World War will find this film a real treat! The training scenes I found particularly interesting. Then there are the many aerial fighting scenes. They are so well done they look like documentary footage. Scenes shot from the pilot's point of view put the viewer right into the action! Scenes like these make the "two guys in love with the same girl" plot seem so insignificant.

You also get two brief but excellent performances by a very young Gary Cooper and an aged Henry B. Walthall from Birth of A Nation fame. Although only 49 in this film, Walthall does an amazing job portraying a crippled old man grieving the departure of his son.

An Oscar First
"Wings" is one of the best silent films ever made. It deservingly became the first movie to win the Oscar for Best Picture (1927-1928). It stars Clara Bow, Charles Rogers, and more, including a cameo appearance by then-unknown Gary Cooper. This film was ahead of its time with its visual effects, cinematograghy, and plot. Few other films at the time successfully made such elaborate scenes realistic looking. They obviously made great use with the technology that they had then. Few films were able to take a chain of events and spread them out to keep the audience's interest for over two hours. This plot is brilliant! It explores two friends who travel to Germany to fight WWI. Little do they know is that they left the same girl behind in the US. The drama and the war theme combine beautifully, keeping the emotion intact. The lucky charms add an added interesting touch. The acting is wonderful. Clara Bow, the 1920's "It"-girl(and the Marilyn Monroe of the 1920's), beautifully and emotionally plays her role as a woman left behind by her "friend" fighting in the war who struggles to get him to realize that she's in love with him. The men who play the soldier friends add their own harsh was realisms into the film. Such performance the movie its added enjoyment. "Wings" is a great movie for those looking for war sequences. Even those not interested in silent movies will enjoy this. Those who watch it will easily figure out why this movie is a classic.

Great Movie-Shame You Can't Own it
Apparently it is out of print in VHS and unavailiable in DVD. Inexcusable. Paramount needs to get with the program. Wings is extremely important as film history and is also a great movie on its own. One of the last great silents. The aerial acrobatics are worth watching just in themselves. The story isn't the stuff of genius. Basic love triangle stuff. The genius is in how the story is told, the perfect acting and the several fascinating scenes throughout the movie. I really can't recommend renting or buying a used vhs copy of Wings highly enough.

A bit above average, I guess.
Well, here is exactly the type of silent film that most people do not watch nowadays; it's neither a comedy like the Charlie Chaplin movies, nor a horror film like Nosferatu. This, instead, is a typical American action/drama flick, with ample quantities of both.

It certainly suffers at times for being a silent film; dialogues have to be displayed on the screen, and this happens quite often because the story here is sometimes quite complex. Not only do the characters talk a lot, but the story also often requires some explaining, and some of the explanations can be quite long.

The action sequences are not as "big" as in they would be in movies today, but they are a lot more impressive in their own way. I was just amazed at how they could have shot some of those sequences; I got the impression that the person who was shooting was probably in quite a lot of danger, because I knew that they could not have used special effects in 1927; what I was seeing was the real thing. It was quite exhilirating to see those old, unsafe, WW1 planes in the air. I do not think that any director today would be crazy enough to duplicate something like this with real planes, so this is probably the only chance anyone has to see these planes in action, and feel like you're right in the thick of a dogfight.

That having been said, the film does stretch out for a bit too long sometimes. It never really gets boring, but it never really gets particularly interesting for most of the movie either. Most of the time, it's just entertaining enough to keep you watching it.

The reason I gave it a "4" is because the ending, when it comes, is quite good (don't let anybody spoil it for you; watch for yourself), and also because of the action sequences. The film is also quite funny in a few spots, notably in any scene with the patriotic Dutch aviator (I wish we had seen more of him), and in the Paris "drunken man" scene.

Overall, not a bad movie, and one that I know others may like more than me; so go ahead and see it (don't forget, though; it's 131 minutes)!

Luminescent Wings
This exceptional film is indeed long overdue for its DVD release. (Paramount Home Video, get on the ball!)

Like Eric Player, I saw this film many years ago, and it too is one of those rare flicks that remains imprinted on one's memory.

I don't know if any of my fellow reviewers have seen this film as it was meant to be seen -- in a pristine restored print, shown on an actual movie screen with live organ accompaniement.

And Not on VHS tape (yuchh)!!!

I live in the Washington DC area, which also happens to have, outside of Hollywood, two centers of film preservation and restoration: the Library of Congress Motion Picture archives, and the American Film Institute.

Some 15 - 20 years ago, I attended a screening through the AFI, as part of its great classics film festival, and was blown away by this presentation.

The quality of the restored print was so startingly crisp that it looked as if it was shot the day before.

No need to expound further upon the performances, nor the plot, save to say that Wings just about has everything that makes a special film great.

Incidentally, the always handsome Charles Buddy Rogers had a special regard for this film, and often in his later years, accompanied Wings when it was shown at festivals and college film classes.

Rogers lived into his early nineties -- the last surviving star of the film -- and died just around 5 years ago! ... Read more