From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Birth of a Nation has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2018 Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 8, 2010, February 8, 2012, February 8, 2015, and February 8, 2018.
Current status: Good article


Edits to the lead by Kanefo

Kanefo has repeatedly added substantial content about the KKK to the lead of the article. The purpose of the lead is to provide a concise overview of the article's content and summarise the film's notability. While the The Birth of a Nation did bolster KKK recruitment, that is only a small part of the film's notability. The film's place in history owes more to how it shaped the film industry, and that should be the primary focus of the lead. The content that has been added is overly detailed and disproportionate. Moreover, as MOS:LEAD points out, the lead should not contain material that is not already included in the main body of the article because it is supposed to be a summary. I note Kanefo is a newly registered editor, but if this disruption continues then we will have to consider some kind of sanction. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC) reply

landmark film of technical virtuosity?

The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history, [1] [2] lauded for its technical virtuosity. [3]

Excuse me, what? How is that the first thing we say (in Wikipedia's own voice!) about the movie? Surely the film is much more notable for its grotesque racist imagery than its "technical virtuosity". I'm gonna rewrite that section unless I get an objection. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The film is most notable for its technical impact, and how it shaped the evolution of the medium. This is why the film is remembered, its racism is incidental. There were many racist films around at the time, but they have fallen to the wayside of history because they aren't noteworthy in other respects. Betty Logan ( talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, I don't know a source saying that the "racism is incidental".
It would be like saying: Hitler is remembered for his initial military successes his landmark Blitzkrieg, and the rest is only incidental. There were many fascist around at the time, but they have fallen to the wayside of history because they aren't noteworthy in other respects. 2003:C5:8710:2800:C059:5A9A:3440:5B24 ( talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, this isn't a case where an otherwise "normal" film happens to have scenes involving a crude racial caricature. It's a film that revolves around celebrating the KKK as saviors of the "white South" from terrifying and imbecilic hordes of freedmen. Racism is fundamental to the plot. The fact it's also regarded as a technical marvel is important in explaining reasons why it's still watched today, but I don't think it's incorrect to say it's better known for its racism than for the specific techniques Griffith used in filming it. -- Ismail ( talk) 04:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Its enduring legacy enabled the film to retain its relevance, which has brought it into conflict with modern attitudes and mores. It's not remembered because it is racist, it is deemed racist because it is remembered. A similar thing is starting to happen to Gone with the Wind. It's not as though the article whitewashes the controversy—the entire third paragraph of the lead is devoted to it—but I would say the balance is correct and roughly mirrors that of Britannica, which is written by an author of books about cinema and a professor of journalism. Betty Logan ( talk) 06:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
There was already some conflict with the "attitudes and mores" of many citizens in 1915 though, hence why Griffith was upset that the film was being boycotted and censored. And something can have an enduring legacy in more ways than one (e.g. the part the film played in boosting the image of the Klan.) I'm not saying the article is whitewashing the controversy, just that writing "its racism is incidental" is an odd claim to make for a film that revolves around defending white supremacy, and that when the film has been brought up in pop culture over the past few decades it's more often for its racism than for its technical aspects. -- Ismail ( talk) 07:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that sentence should read something like The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history, lauded for its technical virtuosity and simultaneously condemned for its overt racism. [a] As someone who was a film history & criticism student, the film was technically groundbreaking. I write as someone who wanted to throw my keys at the screen the first time I saw the really offensive parts. But I challenge anyone who disagrees with its technical brilliance to present examples of others who were doing the same in 1915. Who else hired had a score composed, contracted with regular theaters (not nickelodions), & hired orchestras, let alone the advances in editing technique, the composition of long & mid shots and closeups? Let's acknowledge that the film was both offensive and technically brilliant. Peaceray ( talk) 04:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah I think changing the sentence to something like you proposed is a good idea. As I said, it's regarded as a technical marvel, but its racist content is what gets discussed more in pop culture, so both ought to be given due prominence in opening the article. -- Ismail ( talk) 13:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Notes

  1. ^ With a footnote to an appropriate source — there should be plenty.

References

  1. ^ "The Worst Thing About 'Birth of a Nation' Is How Good It Is". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on May 20, 2014. Retrieved May 19, 2014.
  2. ^ "The Birth of a Nation (1915)". filmsite.org. Archived from the original on September 3, 2011.
  3. ^ Niderost, Eric (October 2005). "'The Birth of a Nation': When Hollywood Glorified the KKK". HistoryNet. Retrieved June 7, 2021.

"Accolades" subsection is nonsensical

I removed the "Accolades" subsection on the grounds that its only cited source explicitly states that the relevant "accolade" is in fact not an endorsement. This was reverted with the note that "inclusion in the library of congress is an honor," a statement which is directly contradicted by an official statement from the Library in the cited article.

I'm taking this to the talk page to avoid revert warring, but I simply don't see how a section consisting of an uncited statement and a statement that contradicts its own citation adds anything of value to the article. Ambisinistral ( talk) 11:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That is a misreading of the sources, which indicate the film is historically very important. Rjensen ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
An "accolade" isn't necessarily an "endorsement", it can be any type of meritorious acknowledgement, which being selected for preservation in the National Film Registry clearly is. I recall in the distant past that this section of film articles was renamed to "Accolades" from "Awards and honors" precisely for this reason. Look through the film articles you will see that it is common for NFR nominations to be listed under "Accolades". In any case, the section also includes the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, which certainly ranks as an achievement and you clearly shouldn't have deleted this. Your edit appeared to advance your personal point of view, and was rightly reverted IMO. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Nobody-least of all me-is saying it's not morally repugnant, but it is still universally recognized as a cinematic milestone. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:The_Birth_of_a_Nation&oldid=1204059238"