• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

sapien85

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
5,427
Going through the AFI's greatest 100 American movies list and got to this not realizing who he was. So this guy made a movie about intolerance a year after making a movie glorifying the KKK? Pretty mind blowing.
 

louisacommie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,571
New Jersey
Didn't he also do a direct sequal to birth called death of a nation but its a lost film with no surviving copy.

Edit : Lost film was called the fall of a nation " and was directed by someone else

He trash anyway
 
Last edited:

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
20,711
Going through the AFI's greatest 100 American movies list and got to this not realizing who he was. So this guy made a movie about intolerance a year after making a movie glorifying the KKK? Pretty mind blowing.
Hold your horses OP. Per Wiki:

It was not, however, an apology, as Griffith felt he had nothing to apologize for;[4]in numerous interviews, Griffith made clear that the film's title and overriding themes were meant as a response to those who he felt had been intolerant of him in condemning The Birth of a Nation.

He's still trash.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Hold your horses OP. Per Wiki:

He's still trash.
Yeah, I learned a lot about Griffith while getting my Minor in Media Arts. The guy was a brilliant technical director, but he supposedly was taken aback at efforts to censor his work, and when Intolerance bombed in the box office, he was financially and mentally ruined. None of his future pictures would be as good as Intolerance, nor would any make the kind of money he made with The Birth of a Nation. He remained a household name with regards to the Hollywood directors and superstars of the time, but he was quickly forgotten by the average moviegoers.
 

Akira86

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,589
intolerance was less an apology and more an explanation.

life is hard and good people deserve better by making bad people work to make life more comfortable.
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,205
It's a shame that he is forever tainted by Birth of a Nation, because Intolerance is actually pretty damn good.
 

massoluk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,586
Thailand
I was under the impression that Birth of a Nation is a racist ass movie and Intolerance is akin to guy screaming SJW is out to censor him over his racist ass movie
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
I was under the impression that Birth of a Nation is a racist ass movie and Intolerance is akin to guy screaming SJW is out to censor him over his racist ass movie
It is. The film is "why are you Blacks picking on me? Waaaaaaah. You guys are so intolerant, I make movie they can learn from!"
Yeah, I learned a lot about Griffith while getting my Minor in Media Arts. The guy was a brilliant technical director, but he supposedly was taken aback at efforts to censor his work, and when Intolerance bombed in the box office, he was financially and mentally ruined. None of his future pictures would be as good as Intolerance, nor would any make the kind of money he made with The Birth of a Nation. He remained a household name with regards to the Hollywood directors and superstars of the time, but he was quickly forgotten by the average moviegoers.
LOL This is good to hear. He should have telegram'd the Klan his GoFundMe address.
 

gigaslash

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,122
I haven't rewatched Intolerance in years but I remember how blow away I was the first time I saw it. An incredible achievement of the early era of cinema.
 

Blackpuppy

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,205
Why is it a shame? That movie revived America's #1 terrorist organization. He deserves it, fuck him and his mama.

He died penniless and forgotten. So Karma had his way with him.

In fact, the premise for Sunset Boulevard was inspired by the writer noticing a shabby-looking regular in a Hollywood bar and someone telling him it was DW Griffith.
 

Heromanz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,202
You mean the movie in which the main character does Asian face I don't know what you call it I don't know what you call it was really bad.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,621
The thing I always find most fascinating about Birth of a Nation is that the Civil War costumes used in the movie were actual real Civil War uniforms

You mean the movie in which the main character does Asian face I don't know what you call it I don't know what you call it was really bad.
That was Broken Blossoms
 

shnurgleton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,864
Boston
I enjoyed shooting guys on the decaying set of this movie in LA Noire

Also yeah I watched birth of a nation and I would watch this movie. Disgusting subtext notwithstanding, it is historically important. It belongs in a museum
 
Last edited:

Denamitea

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,709
Yep, he made Intolerance after Birth of a Nation in response to what he thought was intolerance to his racist beliefs. A lot of people, even at the time, hated Birth of a Nation and thought it was overtly racist. DW Griffith apparently had no idea people would think a movie starring the KKK would be seen as hateful. So, in shock, he makes an even bigger more ludicrous epic about how mean people were to him and his racist beliefs.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
LOL This is good to hear. He should have telegram'd the Klan his GoFundMe address.
The KKK had no interest in him. Despite the reason for it's creation, Intolerance wasn't a film they wanted. It was a film beloved and respected and enjoyed by the Hollywood elites and no one else. He was essentially undone by The Birth of a Nation, and he never recovered from it's success. Karma is a bitch.
 

Window

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,284
Great movie.

Don't think I can ever watch Birth of a Nation though. More so after having seen Black KKKlansman.

Yep, he made Intolerance after Birth of a Nation in response to what he thought was intolerance to his racist beliefs. A lot of people, even at the time, hated Birth of a Nation and thought it was overtly racist. DW Griffith apparently had no idea people would think a movie starring the KKK would be seen as hateful. So, in shock, he makes an even bigger more ludicrous epic about how mean people were to him and his racist beliefs.
That may have been the motivation for making the film but I think it's hardly apparent in the actual content of the film. It's not really about intolerance towards racism.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,621
Yep, he made Intolerance after Birth of a Nation in response to what he thought was intolerance to his racist beliefs. A lot of people, even at the time, hated Birth of a Nation and thought it was overtly racist. DW Griffith apparently had no idea people would think a movie starring the KKK would be seen as hateful. So, in shock, he makes an even bigger more ludicrous epic about how mean people were to him and his racist beliefs.
Going by accounts of people who knew him, Griffith was a dope who did not have any kind of politically-minded sensibilities. Which is not to say he wasn't racist of course, but I think Birth of a Nation was him regurgitating stories he grew up with, without any thought as to what this film was going to do in the real world.
 

Metallix87

User Requested Self-Ban
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
10,533
Going by accounts of people who knew him, Griffith was a dope who did not have any kind of politically-minded sensibilities. Not to say he isn't racist, but I think his attachment to Birth of a Nation was fueled by his regurgitating stories he grew up with.
I mean, The Birth of a Nation was based on a book and play. The play was very successful. I honestly doubt Griffith really put any real thought into it beyond that, given what I learned about his politics (or general lack of interest in politics).
 

-shadow-

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,110
The Birth of a Nation is really only worth watching / owning if you're a film historian.

I recently watched it for the first time and thought it was a terrific film, but I'm not oblivious to the problems that it has. I do think it has its value even as a non historian, but of course with a critical eye on it, especially regarding the subject matter. I think Ebert said it best: "It is a great film that argues for evil."

I'm interested in reading the book some day to see how much of it has been translated onto the film. It should be an interesting, and most likely very tough, read.