...yet I still give it an 8/10 for all of the ground that it broke.

When it was released in 1915, the Hollywood movie industry was still in its infancy as movie makers such as DeMille had only been there about a year or so. Most movies were made on the East coast and used artificial lighting which often gave the films a very flat look.

Most filmmakers would film outside until the late afternoon and then close up shop. Griffith however liked to use lighting just as the sun was going down as it gave everything a soft glow. These scenes looked better than anything you could have achieved in a set with artificial lighting in those days.

The battles scenes also looked very good, like a lot of care was taken to set them up and make them as realistic as possible. This kind of an epic was rare for the times and must have surprised most movie goes who were more used to short films that were often shot on sets with artificial lighting.

Some of the innovations of BOAN (it should be noted that while Griffith didn't originate all of the techniques used in BOAN, he was the first to integrate them all so seamlessly in a feature-length film) included night-time photography-Billy Bitzer achieved by firing magnesium flares into the night for the split-screen sequence of the sacking of Atlanta, being the first film to have an original score, the first film to employ hundreds of extras for the battle scenes, flashbacks and parallel editing, and extensive use of close-ups, long shots, dissolves, etc. to heighten the impact of the story.

It's not fair to other films and filmmakers to say this film and this film alone changed movie history but it's definitely on the short list of films that did along with DeMille's "Squaw Man" released the previous year which is remembered as Hollywood's first feature length film, even though it is not. That honor goes to Helen Gardner's "Cleopatra" made in 1912.

Then there are the features of the story that give this film a well-deserved bad rap for having revived the KKK. ' There is the Austin Stoneman character who is biracial and wants to rule the South with an iron fist. He sets himself up as some kind of alternate President during reconstruction. Where was the real president, Andrew Johnson? Locked in a broom closet? This character was supposed to be a thinly veiled caricature of Thaddeus Stevens.

Since white Confederates have their civil rights suspended during this time, the state houses of the south are shown packed with the absolutely worst stereotypes of black men, with them eating, drinking liquor, and taking their shoes off and putting their feet on their desks during the chaotic legislative sessions. They are also shown as sex-mad for Caucasian females, the biracial Austin Stoneman included. Let's just say that the story is as subtle as a sledge hammer, but when you realize that its contemporaries considered a guy in a cape with a long mustache tying virgins to railroad tracks to be high drama, the actual message of BOAN may be hogwash, but the complexity of the story telling and the sophistication of the acting is to be admired.

That's why I recommend it in spite of the point of view of the script. Sorry for the long review, but a long film often requires one.

First, I want to point out that just about every nation on Earth has struggled with racism and this review is not intended to slam the USA. Second, though this film was one of the very earliest full-length films and it has absolutely amazing battle scenes and production values, you cannot admire them and turn a blind eye to the rest of the film.

I just read an idiotic review on IMDb that indicated they liked the film and it was essentially true! Huh?! I am an American History teacher and I can assure you this "true" movie is complete hogwash and a horrible testimony to our country at the time that this WAS widely regarded as truth.

Here's the problem--nearly all the black roles are played by white people in black makeup. And, when the South loses the war, these "uppidy black folk" then run amok trying to rape the white women, subvert the rule of law and spend most of the time eating watermelons and dancing to banjo music (I kid you not--this REALLY is in the film). So, according to D. W. Griffith's view of the Reconstruction Era is that the blacks took control of the legislatures and went mad with power until the honorable KKK came to the rescue!!! The most awful scene involves sweet and innocent Lillian Gish being repeatedly approached for sex by a black man. He will not take "no" for an answer and eventually she jumps to her death rather than to be defiled by a Negro! My heart cringes just writing this!

So, my overall verdict is this is a horrid film with wonderful production values. Also, and this may sound stupid I know, I recommend you DO watch this film! First, because how can you know about how far we have come as a people without knowing our past. Second, the idea that repellent images and movies should somehow be censored is repugnant--burying your head in the politically correct sand is just silly. But, for the love of God, DON'T TAKE THIS TO BE FACTUAL! If you do, I feel very sorry for you. And if you know someone who takes this for truth, set them straight.

FYI--When this movie debuted, the KKK was practically dead in America. Thanks, at least in part, the KKK soon became one of the strongest political forces in the country--all the way through the 1920s. This is sad but true.

Saw 'The Birth of a Nation' for quite a few reasons. One was that it was directed by DW Griffith, the more that has been seen of his recently he and his work became more interesting. He made a lot of very good to classic films, short and feature. Lillian Gish was one of the greatest silent film actresses, who never failed to move me, and there was a reason as to why she was a Griffith regular. Also wanted to see what caused so much controversy and still does was as bad as all that.

After seeing it, 'The Birth of a Nation' is pretty difficult to rate and review with me being so conflicted on it. While appreciating that 'The Birth of Nation' was/is ground-breaking and that it is of historical importance, the second part really ruins the promise that the first half showed so it was very difficult for me to get much out of it. It is very easy to see why the film is so controversial and why it is considered offensive. While it is one of Griffith's most historically interesting films, it is also his most divisive by far and one of his worst in my view.

'The Birth of a Nation' still looks great, Griffith's films always were extremely well made technically, some of the camera shots innovative and unlike what was seen before at the time. Gish is typically wonderful, the poignancy brought to her relatable role being quite powerful. The rest of the cast are also on fine form, especially Mae Marsh and Robert Harron.

Griffith's direction is masterful and technically more than efficient, well certainly in the first part and keeps the second from being unwatchable (along with the acting). The first part of 'The Birth of a Nation' is absolutely brilliant, very compelling and epic as well as moving.

Which is why it is so regrettable that the second part feels like a different film and difficult to sit through. It is with the rescue and from that point on that 'The Birth of a Nation' falls downhill badly, despite the production values and acting still being so top notch. It is not just one-sided, but it is also blatantly racially offensive now and even for the time, which has always been the biggest criticism directed towards the film. It takes a lot for me to be offended by a film but even when judging it for the time and accepting that racism is far from gone today, that didn't stop me from feeling uncomfortable with the portrayals of the supporting characters in the second part (African Americans portrayed negatively and a notorious group in history treated as heroes). It may be based on objectionable source material, but this was a rare example of a film that would have been much better straying away from it and not true to it.

All that being said, that is sadly not all with 'The Birth of a Nation's' criticisms with the second part. Its pacing is very pedestrian and from the rescue onwards the story is badly over-stretched even for a film intended to be epic. What started off so rivetingly became a test for endurance where the eventually excessive length was felt. The characters completely lose their dimension and go from complex to one-dimensional stereotypes and the melodrama gets very over the top and downright silly.

Overall, brilliant first part but the second is a mess. 5/10