'The Birth of a Nation' Takes Aim at 1915 Original
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.พ. 2016
- D.W. Griffith’s 1915 classic "The Birth of a Nation", which documents the birth of the Ku Klux Klan, revolutionized the film industry but was accused by some of having a racist storyline. Now, a new movie by Nate Parker with the same title takes aim at the original and it has been bought by Fox Searchlight for a record sum at the Sundance Film Festival. Mark Kelly reports.
Subscribe to the WSJ channel here:
bit.ly/14Q81Xy
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Follow WSJ on Facebook: / wsjvideo
Follow WSJ on Google+: plus.google.com/+wsj/posts
Follow WSJ on Twitter: / wsjvideo
Follow WSJ on Instagram: / wsj
Follow WSJ on Pinterest: / wsj
Don’t miss a WSJ video, subscribe here: bit.ly/14Q81Xy
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ratjSM
What sets this film apart from the original is that it's in color.
You guys should watch the sequel to the original Birth of a Nation.
+Michael Davenport The name of the movie is "Intolerance" and it was meant to be an apology of sorts for the offense Griffith caused with Birth of a Nation.
@@alishasalazar2897 "Intolerance" was not a sequel to "The Birth Of A Nation." It was an entirely different film with different characters, and a different plot. Actually, it was four different plots, because the film depicted four stories set in different periods of time and history, portraying Man's inhumanity to Man down through the ages.
The first story told of the fall of Babylon to the Persian armies thousands of years ago.
The second story was about two lovers who are among the French Protestants who were brutally slaughtered in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572.
The third story depicted the last few days in the life of Jesus Christ, leading right up to his crucifixion.
The fourth story, set in modern day America, showed the persecution of a married couple both by a criminal gang, which the husband had once belonged to, and by overzealous "reformers" who regard them as unfit parents for their baby. The husband is later falsely convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging, but he is proven innocent at almost the last moment, and the governor pardons him.
D. W. Griffith made this movie to show audiences how people can be destroyed by war and hatred, and to prove that he was not a hatemonger, as many people believed him to be because of his previous film, "The Birth Of A Nation."
While "Intolerance" was popular with the critics and is today considered one of Griffith's best, it was a flop at the box office. Moviegoers couldn't understand it because of the way the film kept switching back and forth between the four stories. Besides, very few people were interested in a flick that preached love, brotherhood, and tolerance, when the First World War was raging in Europe, and some Americans feared that the United States itself would soon become involved in the war.
The movie you're thinking of that was supposedly a sequel to "The Birth Of A Nation" may have been a World War One propaganda film called "Death Of A Nation" (1916, the same year "Intolerance" was released), which I presume featured characters who were descendants of the people from "The Birth Of A Nation." The movie showed the United States being invaded by a foreign army (allegedly representing the Germans) and taking it over, until they are defeated by the Americans.
@@alishasalazar2897 the sequel to Birth of a Nation is Fall of a Nation a 1916 silent film directed by the author of the Clansman Thomas Dixon. The film's been lost to history .
@@alishasalazar2897 No, it was not an apology at all. It was in pre-production before The Birth of a Nation was even completed.
@@ChannelBlaino Probably just as well.
This comment has been removed: Thank you to AI T for helping me out without vomiting up insults.
@Matthew Hawthorne What would YOU know about Native Americans? Hopefully you took a Native American class in college. They went through a lot and quite a bit was censored in grade school.
I haven't gone to college. But I've been told that these people went through hell and back, (Wounded Knee, The Holocaust, ) and I believe it.
Matthew Hawthorne You should read more, then. Word of mouth is not a good way to learn about the tragedy and the horror they were forced to face. Seriously, go to the library.
Good advice.
You been told? Research your own information before you post some ignorant shit like this!
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Two "Births" that had long painful labors, and delivered stillborns.
Both films should be quietly placed in museum collections.
It takes aim and misses.
This "remake" was so forgettable that it's embarrassing
So was the first it was boring too
@@teniellemountswilliams4295
The fist one was made more than 100 years ago. Of course it doesn't have the modern formula of making blockbusters.
So anyone watching it without have the socio-historical context in mind is gonna find it boring.
It would be like watching "Wives and Concubines" with the same mentality you watch "Captain America: Civil War".
It's not a remake in any way, shape or form.
@@EyeLean5280
So why does it have the exact same title? Why is this video saying "Takes aim at the 1915 original"?
Kinda implies that it's a remake, doesn't it?
Nate Parker's Birth of a nation was a great movie I enjoy it on a monthly basis
2:11 he has coronavirus
I thought the movie's title sounded a bit familiar...I wonder why he had to name it after such an unpleasant, racist movie? This video made a good point; the movie could be a sequel. Possibly a prequel.
I watched The Birth of a Nation (VHS?) when I was very young, so I do not remember very much. I remember it glorified the KKK. There were black face actors, jumping up and down. One scene had a black face chase a woman. A man in his magnificent KKK saved the damsel in distress...I think the movie was supposed to show the positive side to America's favorite hate group.
...And a black man just HAD to name his movie after it.
it was to reverse the thought of the original movie
If you watch the movie closely, you'll see actual black actors in some roles. But the villains were portrayed in blackface.
Probably just as racist if not more so than the original. Sounds like this guy was a mass murderer, probably shouldn't be a hero to anyone. This will be interesting, especially with all the black lives matter crap going on.
Just hope the focus is on the cause and not the killing, we saw a century after the emancipation with MLK that brute strength will only further separate the people.
+Noah Pope Definitely.
Mickey784cr are you crazy or just racist??? look at what whites but slave's through in this movie now emagine if it was you or if blacks were the slave owners and treated White's the way they treated us you ass would have snapped to SMFH the first one told what the white man wanted people to believe the new tells the dam truth!!!!!!!
@@mikelclark107 What an idiotic comment. You need some deep, deep, therapy and some history lessons, boy.
Poor Mickey - TRIGGERED snowflake.
It failed on an epic scale. LOL!
Scott Chappell only to white people
@@itsadrianmane Really? I suggest you take a look at the box office
lemme guess.. you're white aren't u?
@@itsadrianmane
Nah bro, I'm black and that movie was incredibly forgettable. Nobody thinks about that movie when they hear "The Birth of a Nation"
The original is better.
The original is more accurate.
No, it's a slew of Confederate lies.
The original will be a better movie.
Good exposure by WSJ of the contrast and purpose. The new film is sinister by glorifying mass murderer leader Nat and insurrectionists. Like John Brown he was a terrorist murderer that deserved the hanging both of them got! This is the distorted criminal view of radical black liberation theology that promotes and tries to justify murder!
The new film is terrible in doing this for it is dangerous propaganda, tries to justify anarchy, terrorism, insurrection and likely will incite a race war through black violence, and probably be the banner movie for the #blacklivesmatter radicals that justify killing cops and disturbing traffic, civil order, and political assemblies to demand by intimidation their distorted revolutionary view of a criminal payback for the past.
This is dangerous propaganda!
+blueridgewv No one says this about Spartacus. Enslaved people have every right to fight back. The only part of what they did you can find fault with is the killing of children, but at the same time the children of slaves were too born into slavery, often killed and sold and even beaten as infants. So, yeah, rebellion is fair. We constantly make films of ancient and Medieval armies to glorify them. How many times have you went to those trailers and condemned the raping and murdering of innocent peoples that those armies perpetrated?
+blueridgewv If you saw Jewd rebel aganist Nazis, would you say the same? Please think twice before you comment.
You know damn well the social implications this will convey in this day and age. You can make those statements against Nazis because there are no consequences against condemning them. They dont exist anymore. The history of slavery is deeply rooted within American culture and has led to extreme movements both past and present. Please rethink your comment before posting.
+blueridgewv Calm down, Herr Doktor Goebbels.
4 years later and that comment feels too close to home 😐
The original Birth of a Nation has lived on as a great work of art for over 100 years, and it is still a thrilling movie today. This new Birth of Nation is far more "racist" than anything seen in the original, and was a total failure artistically, financially, and was forgotten minutes after it was released