The Birth of a Nation

The red Netflix envelope had sat on my shelf since early April. Dodger games, American Idol, and various other diversions had gotten in the way. But, on last Sunday afternoon, the Dodgers were getting knocked out of their shoes again by the Orange County Angels. The temperature outside was close to 100 degrees, but the central air conditioning in my living room was a Chilly Willy cool 70 degrees.

Yep, it was a perfect time to finally crack the envelope and watch D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation."

Long before I put this 1915 three-hour-plus silent epic on my Netflix queue, I had wanted to see this classic. Indeed, I tried a few years ago when the famous Silent Movie Theater attempted one more time to show it on their big screen. It was listed for barely minutes before an Al Sharpton-like protest put an end to that notion, just as similar plans a few years before had netted the same unfortunate result. From what I read, the only way anybody will ever get to see this movie is via their own home screening. And, I get the impression that anybody looking to buy the DVD will be destined to do so while wearing an overcoat and dark glasses.

In the sanctity of my own centrist living room, I was finally able to see what all the fuss was about. And, as I thoroughly expected, it is director D.W. Griffith's sequel to William Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing."

Yes, I am not Black. And, yes, none of my family was ever bound in chains, although one might argue that they were indeed slaves to tradition. And, yes, I really haven't ever been a victim of discrimination or hatred, although you should have heard some of the neighborhood comments about my childhood buck teeth or weight. But, as part of society, no, I pretty much got a hall pass thanks to my skin color and nationality. So, I might not be the ideal viewer to comment on whether "Birth of a Nation" is offensive. At the same time, I can look at it for what the movie is. A momentous film offering a viewpoint on a significant period of our country's history. And how different does that make "Birth of a Nation" from something like Oliver Stone's "Nixon," "All The President's Men," or, perish the thought, Steven Spielberg's ultra-revered "Schindler's List."

"Birth of a Nation" is about the Civil War and the Reconstruction period that followed. You follow a Northern family and a Southern family through these events and, naturally for dramatic purposes, they become intertwined. In epic scale, you see recreations of Civil War battles, many of which were filmed in the 1914 world of the San Fernando Valley. You see Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox. And then, Lincoln's call of an end to slavery, which is quickly followed by a great depiction of his assassination at Ford's Theater. That takes you through to the midway point of the movie, and is pretty impressive in its portrayal of real historic events.

But, that's not what pisses off all the protest groups and prevents this film from being publicly screened to this day.

For the second half of "Birth of a Nation," Griffith concentrates on the Southern family as it lives now in a world thrown upside down. Blacks are free. Blacks can now vote. And Blacks essentially control local governments. And, according to the script, mayhem and corruption ensues. There's one scene of some community meeting where rules and legislation is discussed while the predominantly Black forum spends their time carousing, drinking, and walking around without shoes. Everybody runs amuck, until the newly invented Klu Klux Klan rides to the rescue like John Wayne led the Calvary in countless other Westerns. End of movie. Almost. But, first, we see the two families one more time each surveying the mess around them and making the requisite "why can't we all get along?" notion. For good measure, Jesus Christ miraculously appears, perhaps on loan from Cecil B. DeMille.

Okay, so now I get what protest groups prevent us from seeing "Birth of a Nation" on a big screen where it belongs.

Well, sort of.

Yes, some of the Blacks are clearly stereotypes. Yes, some of their corruption is a little over the top. And the Klu Klux Klan is a bit laughable. But, at the same time, D.W. Griffith does credit a lot of historical sources for his script, including the then sitting President, Woodrow Wilson. And he does pop on a huge disclaimer at the very beginning of the movie. And, most importantly...


I am pretty sure that most of this is pretty darn accurate.

There are tons of history books out there that will back up the depictions in this movie. Yes, there was slavery in this country. And, yes, once it was abolished, there was a definitive (and over-the-top) reaction to it by the Blacks in the south. There was corruption. Let's face the facts. The way protest groups raise up against this film, you would think D.W. Griffith had tried to make "National Lampoon's Civil War."

As with everything in our society, all is depicted as black and white. Red and blue. Conservative and liberal. And none of it comes out the way it should be. Right down the heart of the plate. The middle. Where all opinions should reside comfortably.

Our lunatic politicians can talk and talk and talk till they are blue in the face (the only skin color that is truly 100% repulsive), but none of the issues are ever effectively dealt with it till they can be viewed from a moderate point of view. Because both sides don't get it.

I think about my shell of a hometown, Mount Vernon, New York. Once a wonderful quaint suburban city, Mount Vernon is now an urban armpit, ravaged by crooked politicians. And, guess what? It was equal opportunity corruption. First, it was an Italian (wink, wink)-dominated City Hall. After they skimmed the top and destroyed the bottom, the building was turned over to a bunch of equally evil Blacks and Haitians, who picked over what was left like vultures at a chicken farm. And, indeed, I now remember that, yes, I was an indirect victim of this.

After many years of working for a major accounting firm in Manhattan, my mother opted to make her last career choice by working closer to her Mount Vernon home. Through a friend, she would be the book keeper for a new bakery opening minutes from her apartment. She went through the process of quitting the Manhattan job and even set up the bakery office systems for a week or two. And, then, the bad news... The food license the owner applied for was denied. Because, in those days, the then-Mayor of Mount Vernon, Ronald Blackwood, had decided that new food licenses would only be issued to Black or Caribbean-born merchants. So, my mother was forced into an early and uneasy retirement. And, regretfully, for one isolated moment of time, I wish lynching was back in vogue. At least for Mayor Blackwood.
So, as it always seems to be, it's either one way or the other. Never the lane in between local and express.
We don't get to see "Birth of a Nation" anymore because there is an inability to accept viewpoints. And the issue is not what side the film comes down on. It's all about letting us make our own determination. And our own opinion. And allowing us to make intelligent choices. It's not whether D.W. Griffith is right or wrong. It should be about how we, as individuals, react to what he has to say.

So, somebody someplace somehow let us see "Birth of a Nation" the way it should be seen. And we'll make our own decisions accordingly. If it ever shows up here in Los Angeles up on that celluloid screen, I plan to be on the ticketbuyer's line.

As long as the theater is air conditioned.

Dinner last night: Pork chop with mustard cream sauce at Comme Ca in West Hollywood.