iffy....
a bit more info about birth of a nation....the film has always been celebrated as a cinematic triumph of early film making....
when will you and putz boy realize that you can't shape history to suit your needs just as you cannot shape the present day....
stung by criticisms that the second half of his masterpiece was racist in its glorification of the
Ku Klux Klan and its brutal images of blacks, Griffith tried to make amends in
Intolerance (1916), which criticized prejudice. And in
Broken Blossoms he told perhaps the first
interracial love story in the movies—even though, to be sure, it's an idealized love with no touching....
One famous part of the film was added by Griffith only on the second run of the film
[43] and is missing from most online versions of the film (presumably taken from first run prints.)
[44]
These are the second and third of three opening title cards which defend the film. The added titles read:
A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE: We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue – the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word – that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare
and
If in this work we have conveyed to the mind the ravages of war to the end that war may be held in abhorrence, this effort will not have been in vain.
Various film historians have expressed a range of views about these titles. To Nicholas Andrew Miller, this shows that "Griffith's greatest achievement in
The Birth of a Nation was that he brought the cinema's capacity for spectacle... under the rein of an outdated by comfortably literary form of historical narrative. Griffith's models... are not the pioneers of film spectacle... but the giants of literary narrative."
[45] On the other hand, S. Kittrell Rushing complains about Griffith's "didactic" title-cards,
[46] while Stanley Corkin complains that Griffith "masks his idea of fact in the rhetoric of high art and free expression" and creates film which "erodes the very ideal" of "liberty" which he asserts....
the term Chelsea fetus was run in the new your post and has since been changed by their editors....
once again you show how blatantly stupid you are...
what a putz and I don't think your jewish.....
Chelsea's "baby"? Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's follow the NY Times style guide and only refer to it as Chelsea's fetus....
