THE BIRTH OF A NATION: Griffith Scholar William M. Drew

Following is an email conversation between Griffith Scholar William M. Drew and myself which took place after the publication in a Toronto paper of an all too typical article on THE BIRTH OF A NATION.

1. Jan. 8, 2005. 12:34 PM

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 silent movie The Birth of a Nation conquered a new frontier of filmed storytelling, but generated a powerful backlash for its portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan as the valiant heroes of the U.S. Civil War.

A confederacy of Klansmen

GEOFF PEVERE <http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=970599109774&ce=Columnist&colid=969907620784>
ARTEFACTS

Among the many places in America where the Ku Klux Klan rode to the rescue 90 years ago, perhaps the most conspicuous was the White House.

In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson insisted on it. He'd been hearing about this "photoplay," directed by the already-famous David Wark Griffith, that people across the country were lining up to pay the unprecedented sum of $2 a head to see.

The year also marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the War Between the States, and popular interest in the still-vivid event was high.

The photoplay was called The Birth of a Nation. It was about how the post-Civil War American South had been saved from rapacious carpetbaggers and marauding former slaves by the Ku Klux Klan.

It was the first nationwide sensation in the history of moving pictures and it made something new of its actors - Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish and Henry B. Walthall - something that would soon come to be called "stars."

It conquered a new frontier of filmed storytelling, a frontier comprised of rhythmic editing; the calculated alteration of camera positions, from the intimate close-up to the panoramic battle sequence; visual compositions in depth and the manipulation of primal emotional response.

This movie juxtaposed the historical with the personal, letting a story of lovers torn apart by war unfold against a backdrop that included dramatic recreations of real events, such as General Lee's surrender at Appomattox and John Wilkes Booth's assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

Said actor Walter Huston years after first seeing it, "It made the blood tingle."

The Birth of a Nation created an appetite for cinematic spectacle that still enthralls us.

In the wake of its success, which alerted people like the young mogul-to-be Louis B. Mayer to the potential of producing features like Birth on an assembly line, the nickelodeon era was over and the day of the movies as a mass attraction was established.

President Wilson joined millions of Americans in being impressed. After emerging from the sweeping, three-hour epic (based on two novels by the bestselling white supremacist Thomas Dixon), the president offered what may rank as the first blockbuster blurb: "This is history written with lightning," he is alleged to have said.

To the extent that it scorched wherever it struck, Griffith's pioneering long-form feature (previously, the longest American movie, also from Griffith, had run four reels, or 40 minutes) was like American history disgorged by a flamethrower.

The story of two families, one Northern and one Southern, whose fates would be fused together then ripped apart by the Civil War and its aftermath, Griffith's silent movie was the most significant event in American popular culture of its day.

This film consolidated just about every narrative and stylistic development in the barely two-decade-old medium into a powerful and propulsive experience.

It also single-handedly redefined the business and established movies as the century's most influential form of mass communication. All we know of movie culture today began with The Birth of a Nation.

But Wilson's legendary assessment was also a masterstroke of political doublespeak, because lightning can dazzle but also destroy.

Almost immediately after Birth began a commercial run that would continue in one fashion or another into the early years of the sound era - the most popular silent film ever made, it eventually reaped an astounding $60 million (in pre-Depression U.S. dollars) on a $110,000 investment - Griffith's vision of the South ravaged by Reconstruction generated a massive backlash.

Led primarily by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the anti-Birth movement decried the film's sensational depiction of freed black slaves as lazy, lecherous, ignorant and vindictive.

In one sequence, the virtuous "Little Sister" (Mae Marsh) of the once-genteel, Southern aristocratic Cameron family is driven to suicide by a lust-crazed black soldier (a white actor in blackface). Another features the spectacle of a state assembly dominated by blacks guzzling booze, gnawing fried chicken and plopping dirty bare feet onto desks (images Griffith drew from racist editorial cartoons of the Reconstruction period).

Not surprisingly, the NAACP and its supporters sought to block the film's release.

As aesthetically and technically groundbreaking as it was, The Birth of a Nation is virulent and unequivocal in its depiction of the former Confederacy (for which Griffith's father fought as a colonel) as a fallen Eden beset by black devils and sneering Yankee exploiters.

In the movie's climactic moment - which must have had audiences cheering, crying and howling - the humiliated Cameron patriarch holds a pistol over his only living daughter's head as black soldiers attempt to pound their way into the cabin where a small group of white people have barricaded themselves against the dark hordes.

This man is ready to sacrifice his own child if the brutes get in, but then a sound is heard - or, to be precise, is suggested by Griffith's evocative editing. It's horses. It's a rescue. It's the arrival of the Ku Klux Klan. In the nick of time.

For the rest of his life, Griffith claimed not to understand what upset so many people about the movie. As far as he was concerned, he was simply chronicling his personal experience listening to his parents describe the deprivations that had befallen his childhood home of Kentucky during Reconstruction.

In 1930, at the time he was making his penultimate movie - a historical biopic of Lincoln - the 55-year-old Griffith filmed an interview defending The Birth of a Nation. Clearly well-rehearsed, conducted over cigarettes by Abraham Lincoln star Walter Huston in a plush sitting room, the interview ran prior to the film in a fresh commercial release.

In this interview, Griffith - who had not had a successful film in nearly a decade - defends the movie's heroic portrayal of the KKK.

Wistfully, he claims the Klan had "a purpose" in those days, that it "saved the South."

The great contradiction of Birth, between the monumental nature of its expressive achievement and the reprehensible message it expressed, has always tempered its historical status.

Over the years, many have attempted to either defend Griffith or mitigate his prejudice by insisting he be granted consideration in context - that is, as a 19th-century sentimentalist and southerner for whom the post-Civil War south really seemed a ravaged place saved by the KKK. But it's simply impossible today to watch the film and not be appalled.

In his Griffith entry in the most recent edition of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, David Thomson calls the movie's racial politics "embarrassing."

In 1915, the Ku Klux Klan, which had originally formed as a secret society dedicated to exacting vigilante justice against what it saw as the enemies of the defeated South, was a moribund, depleted and antiquated organization. That changed with the movie's release. In Georgia alone that year, KKK ranks ballooned to 8 million, and 22 Klan-related lynchings took place. This is historical fact. But it is also something else: The birth of history as something shaped by the movies.

While Griffith's film proved an effective recruitment campaign for a reborn Klan in throughout the 1920s, the popular image of the organization itself tarnished immediately. It would seem that the backlash, combined with the growing civil rights consciousness of the 20th century, prevailed.

Few, if any, heroic portrayals of the hooded, white vigilantes followed. If anything, the image that stuck was one of irredeemable ugliness. The Klan became the symbol of white Southern race hatred, and the figure of the hooded Klansman was invariably associated with burning crosses, redneck ignorance and gruesome lynchings.

By 1939, the year that Gone With the Wind was released, the most popular and eagerly anticipated American movie since The Birth of a Nation conspicuously omitted the KKK subplot in Edna Ferber's original novel.

Birth of a Nation's "history written with lightning" struck the KKK only once. The fire burned bright but left only ashes.

Sources: The Film Encyclopedia, by Ephraim Katz.; Griffith Masterworks, Kino on Video (DVD); The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, by David Thomson; The Silent Cinema, by Liam O'Leary; The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood, by David Thomson.

gpevere@thestar.ca <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>

=======================================================

2. Not sent--draft

Geoff Pevere is a writer from whom I expect better than we received in his piece on D. W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION which is replete with errors, not the least of which is ascribing to Edna Ferber the authorship of Margaret Mitchell's novel GONE WITH THE WIND.

We are also told that Griffith had not made a sucessful film in nearly the decade from 1920 to 1930. That era includes both WAY DOWN EAST (1920) and ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1922) which were huge popular hits and a number of other pictures that not only did respectably at the box office but also still hold up today, one of which is SALLY OF THE SAWDUST (1925) with Carol Dempster and W. C. Fields which Griffith produced for Paramount, bought back when they wanted to tamper with it and released to resounding success through United Artists.

We are told that Woodrow Wilson is alleged to have said, "This is history written with lightning." The implication is that he might not have. Left out is that Wilson was an historian of that period and ably qualified to speak. Lenin described THE BIRTH OF A NATION as "An express train among pushcarts." But then the Russians were not deflected by skin color. They saw the film for what it truly is, a depiction of class struggle. Had the revolution failed they would all have been hung as outlaws instead of remembered as heroes.

I had great difficulty presenting this film until I read Seymour Stern's excellent in-depth study of the picture in FILM CULTURE magazine. Not only did Stern traces the creation of the picture he also traced the roots of the slave trade, established that the South knew slavery could not continue and that the impetus to end it faster than the south could handle came from an industrialized north looking to create wage earners who could spend money on the products they were creating. Stern also established that the money to industrialize the North came from the sale of slaves to the South.

Pevere writes, "In his Griffith entry in the most recent edition of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, David Thomson calls the movie's racial politics 'embarrassing.'" What is embarassing about them? No one who takes the time to investigate the issue would find them so. Contemporary film writing is all too often sophomoric at best.

Scott Simon in THE FILMS OF D. W. Griffith, writes, "As anyone who sits with an audience through the film in the 1990s recognizes, its return as formalist masterpiece or even as visceral adventure is possible only in the imagination."

Not when I screen it.

In 1980 I brought Bernard B. Brown to Toronto for three days. Among Mr. Brown's accomplishments, which included directing the recording of the sound on THE JAZZ SINGER (1927), introducing multi-track recording, ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL (1939), receiving eleven Academy Award nominations for film and film sound as well as two Oscars, being head of sound at Warner Brothers and then at Universal until he retired, teaching film and film sound at UCLA and playiung tennis with Charlie Chaplin, among Mr. Brown's considerable accomplishments was the fact that he played first violin in the orchestra at Clune's Auditorium ion Los Angles from the premiere of THE BIRTH OF A NATION (as THE CLANSMAN) through 365 performances.

With Mr. Brown as my mentor (by the way as far as popular success goes, I had only three people come out over the three days Mr. Brown was in this city. The event was a huge popular failure) with Mr. Brown as my mentor I studied in depth film and film sound at a level no one else in the world ever has.

Shortly after I was invited to screen the film for 500 grade thirteen students. Their teachers told me not to be disturbed by their reactions to the film as they would talk and laugh throughout the picture (doing that at all the films they were shown). "Not today," I said.

Three hours later those young people were applauding and cheering. They had said not a word to each other during the length of the film. "I don't understand," said their teachers, "they have never done that before."

I was also invited to present the film, with my score, for The Toronto Film Society. Barry Hayne. a University of Toronto Film Studies teacher, was head of the Silent Series. I arrived to find out the projector they gave me ran faster and the tape recorder slower. There was no way to synchronize the film and taped score.

On reflection I realized I could run parts of the film in silence and use the monitor speaker in the projection booth to synch up the score. I sweat blood. The screening was at the Ontario Institute for Studies auditorium which seats hundreds. At the end of the film this modern day audience was reacting as wildly as audiences had when the picture first exploded across screen. Barry Hayne came charging into the both shourting, "REG! THAT SCORE IS BRILLIANT! I ESPECIALLY ADMIRED YOUR INSPIRED USE OF SILENCE!"

The brilliance was Griffith's. I was just following his cues.

A few days ago Martin Knelman wrote singing the praies of Garth H. Drabinsky, a man whose chief claim to fame is that he took the movies back to the shoebox cinemas David Wark Griffith lifted thenm out of with this film.

At the time Drabinsky's CINEPLEX first opened I spoke for the first time with Miss Lillian Gish, the star of THE BIRTH OF A NATION. "Theatres have shrunk," she told me. I thought of Garth's 25, 50 and 100 seat cinemas and said, "Yes." "My last film, Robert Altman's THE WEDDING, opened in a 500 seat theatre," she said. "That is a big theatre," I thought to myself wopndering what she was complaining about. Then she said, "My pictures opened in 5,000 seat cinemas."

Yes and that began with THE BIRTH OF A NATION. While Geoff does mention that THE BIRTH OF A NATION eventually reaped an astounding $60 million (in pre-Depression U.S. dollars) on a $110,000 investment and that people across the country were lining up to pay the unprecedented sum of $2 a head to see the film he does not explain that $20 in 1915 amounts to $200 a seat today. No other film maker, excepting one, has taken his risk nor surpassed his success.

That one other was Metro Studio head Richard Rowland who produced, against the advice of his board of directors, the Rex Ingram, June Mathis Rudolph Valentino film, THE FOUR HOPRSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1920), the only film to surpass THE BIRTH OF A NATION in box office success in the silent period.

When I brought in a 16mm print, obtained from Charles Vesce in New York, one of the longest establkished and most reputable suppliers of great films in America, I heavily researched the music for the film which not only estyablished Valentino as a star (the first great star) but also introduced to the world the Argentine Tango.

Ed Jull, of the Toronto Film Society, told me the TFS had screened the film long ago and that musicians in the audience had claimed the music for the film was not "on the beat."

I inited your film writers to see the presentation. They did not come. One person who did come was John Roberts P.C., our Minister of Culture under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Another was an old Argentine couple. "The music! The music!" said the woman. "You had that score on the beat all the way," said her husband who added, "We are going to send Argentine people here."

THE BIRTH OF A NATION remains the single greatest work in the history of world cinema. It established forever the art and the business of motion pictures. It presents the only honest and accurate picture of the American Civil War and the Aftermath of Reconstruction from the point oif view of the American White South. We are not asked to agree with that moment. Certainly, we should not. But to color that moment with the popular prejudsices of our own time is a far greater sin.

As well, THE BIRTH OF A NATION is the only motion picture that allows us to see and understand the depth of the wound at the heart of the American soul.

========================================================================

3.Your piece on THE BIRTH is replete with errors not the least of which is crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE WIND.

Lenin described THE BIRTH as "an express train among pushcarts." But then, the Russians were not distracted by the color issue and saw the struggle in the film for what it really is.--Reg

========================================================================

4. Thanks for keeping my posted on my mistakes. Apart from the Edna Ferber fuckup -- my dumb fault entirely -- how else was I remiss?

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Geoff Pevere
Sent: 1/9/2005 11:56 AM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Your piece on THE BIRTH is replete with errors not the least of which is
crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE
WIND.

Lenin described THE BIRTH as "an express train among pushcarts." But
then, the Russians were not distracted by the color issue and saw the
struggle in the film for what it really is.--Reg
=========================================================================

5.Plenty. I run the risk of looking hysterical by listing them.--Reg

----- Original Message -----

From: Pevere, Geoff <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>

To: 'Reg Hartt ' <mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>

Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:33 AM

Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Thanks for keeping my posted on my mistakes. Apart from the Edna Ferber fuckup -- my dumb fault entirely -- how else was I remiss?

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Geoff Pevere
Sent: 1/9/2005 11:56 AM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

=====================================================

6. You? Hysterical? Perish the thought.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Pevere, Geoff
Sent: 1/9/2005 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Plenty. I run the risk of looking hysterical by listing them.--Reg

.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pevere, Geoff <<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>>
To: 'Reg Hartt ' <<mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Thanks for keeping my posted on my mistakes. Apart from the Edna Ferber
fuckup -- my dumb fault entirely -- how else was I remiss?

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Geoff Pevere
Sent: 1/9/2005 11:56 AM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Your piece on THE BIRTH is replete with errors not the least of which is

crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE
WIND.

Lenin described THE BIRTH as "an express train among pushcarts." But
then, the Russians were not distracted by the color issue and saw the
struggle in the film for what it really is.--Reg
====================================================

7.And then you called her a liar! Just kidding.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Pevere, Geoff
Sent: 1/9/2005 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

One of my favourite moments showing THE BIRTH OF A NATION was when I was
introducing it at Innis College as part of my series there. A number of
people called me a liar. Jane Jacobs was in the audience. She got up and
said, "He is telling you the truth."

----- Original Message -----
From: Pevere, Geoff <<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>>
To: 'Reg Hartt ' <<mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

You? Hysterical? Perish the thought.

-----Original Message----- -----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Pevere, Geoff
Sent: 1/9/2005 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Plenty. I run the risk of looking hysterical by listing them.--Reg

.

----- Original Message -----
From: Pevere, Geoff < <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>
<<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>> >
To: 'Reg Hartt ' < <mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>
<<mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>> >
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Thanks for keeping my posted on my mistakes. Apart from the Edna Ferber

fuckup -- my dumb fault entirely -- how else was I remiss?

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Geoff Pevere
Sent: 1/9/2005 11:56 AM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Your piece on THE BIRTH is replete with errors not the least of which is

8. Reg,

What a pal. Thanks.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: lettertoed thestar
Cc: T. Casey Brennan; Simon Waegemaekers; Sharif Khan; rob salem; richard ouzounian; Robert Fulford; michael valpy; Murray Glass; liz braun; john tutt; john bentley mays; jim slotek; julian grant; John Ferri; JBeck6540@aol.com; jadams@globeandmail.ca; hanna fisher; martin goodman; Gino Empry; George Anthony; editor@boxmagazine.com; Ryan Burt; bruce macdonald; al aronowitz; Roger Ebert; Geoff Pevere; ed jull

Sent: 1/10/2005 1:40 PM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Geoff Pevere is a writer I enjoy reading. His piece on THE BIRTH OF A
NATION in Saturday's STAR was so full of errors however that I am forced
to speak.

While it is true that THE BIRTH OF A NATION was the first film to be
shown at The White House this was not because then President Woodrow
Wilson was curious to see the film. He had been asked by The Reverend
Thomas Dixon, whose book THE CLANSMAN the film was adapted from, to
look at the picture. Wilson was in mourning for his first wife and did
not want to be seen in public. For that reason and that reason alone the
film was taken to the White House.

It began showing in Los Angeles on February 8 under the title THE
CLANSMAN (this title was used throughout the film's Los Angeles run).
Wilson knew nothing of the film until he was contacted by Dixon. He
agreed to see the film because long before at a moment he needed a hand
Dixon's was the one that reached out.

The White House screening took place on February 18, 1915. The film did
not open to the public in New York until March 3, 1915.

After seeing the film it is reliably reported Wilson, an American
historian and highly qualified to pass judgement, said, "It is like
history written with Lightning. My only regret is that it is all so
terribly true." Later, when the feces hit the fan Wilson, ever a
politician, retracted the remark. J. P. Tulmuty, Wilson's chief public
relations adviser, wrote, "The President was entirely unaware of the
character of the play before it was presented, and has at no time
expressed his approbation of it. Its exhibition at the White House was a
courtesy extended to an old friend."

In doing research on this film and the rest of Griffith's work I
obtained copies of the autobiographies of D. W. Griffith, cameramen
Billy Bitzer, and Karl Brown, and actressess Miriam Cooper and Lillian
Gish as well as an extensive list of books devoted to Mr. Griffith, the
best of which is Richard Shickel's . The best exploration of the film
remains Seymour Stern's for FILM CULTURE in 1965.

Geoff tells us that in the decade between 1920 and 1930 Griffith had no
commercial successes. The reverse is true. He had huge hits with WAY
DOWN EAST and ORPHANS OF THE STORM (the two pictures he self-produced).
The films he made for both Paramount Pictures and United Artists did
respectable business. I was surprised to discover, reading Shickel's
book that Griffith withdrew from film making not because his pictures
were not popular but because he got tired of producers mucking them up.
This continues to frustrate serious film artists. Animation director
Chuck Jones told me the most common thing he heard from producers was,
spoken as one word, "That'snewtakeitout."

THE BIRTH was not the most popular film of the silent era. Rex Ingram's
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE holds that honour. I built up a
score for that film from the Argentine Tango. Ed Jull, of the Toronto
Film Society, told me when the TFS screened the film years before
musicians in the audience complained the soundtrack was not "on the
beat." At a screening of THE FOUR HORSEMEN one man said to me, "You had
that score on the beat all the way through. I am going to send Argentine
people here."

Geoff winds up crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's
GONE WITH THE WIND. Mitchell described THE BIRTH as "the only honest
film about the American Civil War and the Aftermath of Reconstruction."
Its honesty lies in showing that period from the point of view of the
White South. The wounds from that time have still not healed. THE BIRTH
OF A NATION, more clearly than any other film, shows why they exist.

THE STAR has not always been so unkind to Griffith and his film. Urjo
Kareda, one of the most astute critics the paper enjoyed, wrote "D. W
Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION is not only the oldest film in town but
quite the best as well."

There is so much misinformation (and deliberate slander) about Griffith
and his work that it pains me to see Geoff write so sloppily about what
is, after all, the most important film ever made.

One writer, Scott Simon, in his THE FILMS OF D. W. GRIFFITH, writes that
whatever power the picture had to move an audience it does not have that
power today.

Well, it all depends on how it is presented.

It is not generally known that however great the advances were that
Griffith made in film technique with this film (and they are
considerable) the true power of the film rose from the special music
score Griffith had created for the picture. In 1980 I brought to Toronto
Bernard B. Brown who played first violin in the orchestra which
accompanied the film throughout its Los Angeles run. In 1927 Mr. Brown
directed the sound recording on THE JAZZ SINGER. He got eleven Academy
Awards and two Oscars for his work with film and film sound which he
taught at UCLA when he retired from the film industry. After consulting
with him I built a score for the film. When I screened the picture to
The Toronto Film Society a few years back the audience went wild.
University of Toronto Film Prof Barry Hayne came charging up to me
shouting, "That score is brilliant!" The brilliance was Griffith's.

I have also presented the film to hundreds of high school students whose
teachers were astonished to see them so caught up in the picture's
power. The kids were more astute than the adults. They were amazed to
find out how vulnerable we all are to mass media manipulation (which is
why I continue to show the film).

David Wark Griffith singlehandedly lifted motion pictures up from shoe
box theatres and transformed the medium into the art form of our time.
Garth Drabinsky, whom Martin Knelman praises regularly, singlehandedly
took it back to the shoeboxes. That $2 a seat audiences paidd to see
this film would be $200 a seat today.

Griffith deserves better, way better, than the sophmoric and hysterical
piece Geoff delivered up. Lillian Gish informed me that Griffith had no
idea his film would lead to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan and
personally felt that no matter what it had achived it was not worth the
price of a single lynching. It must have been a source of great horror
and pain to see such diabolical fruit fall from his work.

As Richard Shickel writes, "We have new ways of seeing and and thinking
and perhaps even being which literally did not exist until [Griffith]
began his work. And began that chain of artistic invention which has
enabled us to see the world through fresh eyes, in a new light."

I will be presenting THE BIRTH OF A NATION again in a few weeks to mark
the 90th anniversary of the picture. Come. See. Learn. Perhaps together
we can get the movies out of the shoe boxes Drabinsky stuffed them into.
And perhaps Geoff can get "on the beat."--Reg Hartt (416-603-6643)
=====================================================

9.If the best friend I ever had wrote misinformation about you I would take him/her to task for it. Most especially so if you were not able to do it for yourself. --Reg

----- Original Message -----

From: Pevere, Geoff <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>

To: 'Reg Hartt ' <mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:51 AM

Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Reg,

What a pal. Thanks.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: lettertoed thestar
Cc: T. Casey Brennan; Simon Waegemaekers; Sharif Khan; rob salem; richard ouzounian; Robert Fulford; michael valpy; Murray Glass; liz braun; john tutt; john bentley mays; jim slotek; julian grant; John Ferri; JBeck6540@aol.com <mailto:JBeck6540@aol.com>; jadams@globeandmail.ca; hanna fisher; martin goodman; Gino Empry; George Anthony; editor@boxmagazine.com; Ryan Burt; bruce macdonald; al aronowitz; Roger Ebert; Geoff Pevere; ed jull

Sent: 1/10/2005 1:40 PM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

10.Yeah, you're a prince.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Pevere, Geoff
Sent: 1/10/2005 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

If the best friend I ever had wrote misinformation about you I would
take him/her to task for it. Most especially so if you were not able to
do it for yourself. --Reg

----- Original Message -----
From: Pevere, Geoff <<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>>
To: 'Reg Hartt ' <<mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Reg,

What a pal. Thanks.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: lettertoed thestar
Cc: T. Casey Brennan; Simon Waegemaekers; Sharif Khan; rob salem;
richard ouzounian; Robert Fulford; michael valpy; Murray Glass; liz
braun; john tutt; john bentley mays; jim slotek; julian grant; John
Ferri; JBeck6540@aol.com <<mailto:JBeck6540@aol.com>> ;
jadams@globeandmail.ca; hanna fisher; martin goodman; Gino Empry; George
Anthony; editor@boxmagazine.com; Ryan Burt; bruce macdonald; al
aronowitz; Roger Ebert; Geoff Pevere; ed jull

Sent: 1/10/2005 1:40 PM
Subject: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Geoff Pevere is a writer I enjoy reading. His piece on THE BIRTH OF A
NATION in Saturday's STAR was so full of errors however that I am forced

to speak.

While it is true that THE BIRTH OF A NATION was the first film to be
shown at The White House this was not because then President Woodrow
Wilson was curious to see the film. He had been asked by The Reverend
Thomas Dixon, whose book THE CLANSMAN the film was adapted from, to
look at the picture. Wilson was in mourning for his first wife and did
not want to be seen in public. For that reason and that reason alone the

film was taken to the White House.

It began showing in Los Angeles on February 8 under the title THE
CLANSMAN (this title was used throughout the film's Los Angeles run).
Wilson knew nothing of the film until he was contacted by Dixon. He
agreed to see the film because long before at a moment he needed a hand
Dixon's was the one that reached out.

The White House screening took place on February 18, 1915. The film did
not open to the public in New York until March 3, 1915.

After seeing the film it is reliably reported Wilson, an American
historian and highly qualified to pass judgement, said, "It is like
history written with Lightning. My only regret is that it is all so
terribly true." Later, when the feces hit the fan Wilson, ever a
politician, retracted the remark. J. P. Tulmuty, Wilson's chief public
relations adviser, wrote, "The President was entirely unaware of the
character of the play before it was presented, and has at no time
expressed his approbation of it. Its exhibition at the White House was a

courtesy extended to an old friend."

In doing research on this film and the rest of Griffith's work I
obtained copies of the autobiographies of D. W. Griffith, cameramen
Billy Bitzer, and Karl Brown, and actressess Miriam Cooper and Lillian
Gish as well as an extensive list of books devoted to Mr. Griffith, the
best of which is Richard Shickel's . The best exploration of the film
remains Seymour Stern's for FILM CULTURE in 1965.

Geoff tells us that in the decade between 1920 and 1930 Griffith had no
commercial successes. The reverse is true. He had huge hits with WAY
DOWN EAST and ORPHANS OF THE STORM (the two pictures he self-produced).
The films he made for both Paramount Pictures and United Artists did
respectable business. I was surprised to discover, reading Shickel's
book that Griffith withdrew from film making not because his pictures
were not popular but because he got tired of producers mucking them up.
This continues to frustrate serious film artists. Animation director
Chuck Jones told me the most common thing he heard from producers was,
spoken as one word, "That'snewtakeitout."

THE BIRTH was not the most popular film of the silent era. Rex Ingram's
THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE holds that honour. I built up a
score for that film from the Argentine Tango. Ed Jull, of the Toronto
Film Society, told me when the TFS screened the film years before
musicians in the audience complained the soundtrack was not "on the
beat." At a screening of THE FOUR HORSEMEN one man said to me, "You had
that score on the beat all the way through. I am going to send Argentine

people here."

Geoff winds up crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's
GONE WITH THE WIND. Mitchell described THE BIRTH as "the only honest
film about the American Civil War and the Aftermath of Reconstruction."
Its honesty lies in showing that period from the point of view of the
White South. The wounds from that time have still not healed. THE BIRTH
OF A NATION, more clearly than any other film, shows why they exist.

THE STAR has not always been so unkind to Griffith and his film. Urjo
Kareda, one of the most astute critics the paper enjoyed, wrote "D. W
Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION is not only the oldest film in town but

quite the best as well."

There is so much misinformation (and deliberate slander) about Griffith
and his work that it pains me to see Geoff write so sloppily about what
is, after all, the most important film ever made.

One writer, Scott Simon, in his THE FILMS OF D. W. GRIFFITH, writes that

whatever power the picture had to move an audience it does not have that

power today.

Well, it all depends on how it is presented.

It is not generally known that however great the advances were that
Griffith made in film technique with this film (and they are
considerable) the true power of the film rose from the special music
score Griffith had created for the picture. In 1980 I brought to Toronto

Bernard B. Brown who played first violin in the orchestra which
accompanied the film throughout its Los Angeles run. In 1927 Mr. Brown
directed the sound recording on THE JAZZ SINGER. He got eleven Academy
Awards and two Oscars for his work with film and film sound which he
taught at UCLA when he retired from the film industry. After consulting
with him I built a score for the film. When I screened the picture to
The Toronto Film Society a few years back the audience went wild.
University of Toronto Film Prof Barry Hayne came charging up to me
shouting, "That score is brilliant!" The brilliance was Griffith's.

I have also presented the film to hundreds of high school students whose

teachers were astonished to see them so caught up in the picture's
power. The kids were more astute than the adults. They were amazed to
find out how vulnerable we all are to mass media manipulation (which is
why I continue to show the film).

David Wark Griffith singlehandedly lifted motion pictures up from shoe
box theatres and transformed the medium into the art form of our time.
Garth Drabinsky, whom Martin Knelman praises regularly, singlehandedly
took it back to the shoeboxes. That $2 a seat audiences paidd to see
this film would be $200 a seat today.

Griffith deserves better, way better, than the sophmoric and hysterical
piece Geoff delivered up. Lillian Gish informed me that Griffith had no
idea his film would lead to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan and
personally felt that no matter what it had achived it was not worth the
price of a single lynching. It must have been a source of great horror
and pain to see such diabolical fruit fall from his work.

As Richard Shickel writes, "We have new ways of seeing and and thinking
and perhaps even being which literally did not exist until [Griffith]
began his work. And began that chain of artistic invention which has
enabled us to see the world through fresh eyes, in a new light."

I will be presenting THE BIRTH OF A NATION again in a few weeks to mark
the 90th anniversary of the picture. Come. See. Learn. Perhaps together
we can get the movies out of the shoe boxes Drabinsky stuffed them into.

And perhaps Geoff can get "on the beat."--Reg Hartt (416-603-6643)
=======================================================

11. Dear Mr. Hartt:

I don't know why you sent this particular article to me, but you might be interested in an anecdote of my own.

Several years ago, I was teaching a course on Griffith at Columbia College in L.A.. As any course on Griffith must, I included a showing of BIRTH OF A NATION. I happen to have a beautiful, complete version with an excellent orchestral score.

The class included a couple of b;lack students. After the showing, one of them came up to me and said, "Mr. Glass, I hated some of the basic stories in the film, but I couldn't help rooting for the Klan as they were riding to the rescue of the beseiged people in the cabin!"

Murray Glass

-------------- Original message from "Reg Hartt" <rhartt4363@rogers.com>: --------------

Geoff Pevere is a writer I enjoy reading. His piece on THE BIRTH OF A NATION in Saturday's STAR was so full of errors however that I am forced to speak.

While it is true that THE BIRTH OF A NATION was the first film to be shown at The White House this was not because then President Woodrow Wilson was curious to see the film. He had been asked by The Reverend Thomas Dixon, whose book THE CLANSMAN the film was adapted from, to look at the picture. Wilson was in mourning for his first wife and did not want to be seen in public. For that reason and that reason alone the film was taken to the White House.

It began showing in Los Angeles on February 8 under the title THE CLANSMAN (this title was used throughout the film's Los Angeles run). Wilson knew nothing of the film until he was contacted by Dixon. He agreed to see the film because long before at a moment he needed a hand Dixon's was the one that reached out.

The White House screening took place on February 18, 1915. The film did not open to the public in New York until March 3, 1915.

After seeing the film it is reliably reported Wilson, an American historian and highly qualified to pass judgement, said, "It is like history written with Lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true." Later, when the feces hit the fan Wilson, ever a politician, retracted the remark. J. P. Tulmuty, Wilson's chief public relations adviser, wrote, "The President was entirely unaware of the character of the play before it was presented, and has at no time expressed his approbation of it. Its exhibition at the White House was a courtesy extended to an old friend."

In doing research on this film and the rest of Griffith's work I obtained copies of the autobiographies of D. W. Griffith, cameramen Billy Bitzer, and Karl Brown, and actressess Miriam Cooper and Lillian Gish as well as an extensive list of books devoted to Mr. Griffith, the best of which is Richard Shickel's . The best exploration of the film remains Seymour Stern's for FILM CULTURE in 1965.

Geoff tells us that in the decade between 1920 and 1930 Griffith had no commercial successes. The reverse is true. He had huge hits with WAY DOWN EAST and ORPHANS OF THE STORM (the two pictures he self-produced). The films he made for both Paramount Pictures and United Artists did respectable business. I was surprised to discover, reading Shickel's book that Griffith withdrew from film making not because his pictures were not popular but because he got tired of producers mucking them up. This continues to frustrate serious film artists. Animation director Chuck Jones told me the most common thing he heard from producers was, spoken as one word, "That'snewtakeitout."

THE BIRTH was not the most popular film of the silent era. Rex Ingram's THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE holds that honour. I built up a score for that film from the Argentine Tango. Ed Jull, of the Toronto Film Society, told me when the TFS screened the film years before musicians in the audience complained the soundtrack was not "on the beat." At a screening of THE FOUR HORSEMEN one man said to me, "You had that score on the beat all the way through. I am going to send Argentine people here."

Geoff winds up crediting Edna Ferber with writing Margaret Mitchell's GONE WITH THE WIND. Mitchell described THE BIRTH as "the only honest film about the American Civil War and the Aftermath of Reconstruction." Its honesty lies in showing that period from the point of view of the White South. The wounds from that time have still not healed. THE BIRTH OF A NATION, more clearly than any other film, shows why they exist.

THE STAR has not always been so unkind to Griffith and his film. Urjo Kareda, one of the most astute critics the paper enjoyed, wrote "D. W Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION is not only the oldest film in town but quite the best as well."

There is so much misinformation (and deliberate slander) about Griffith and his work that it pains me to see Geoff write so sloppily about what is, after all, the most important film ever made.

One writer, Scott Simon, in his THE FILMS OF D. W. GRIFFITH, writes that whatever power the picture had to move an audience it does not have that power today.

Well, it all depends on how it is presented.

It is not generally known that however great the advances were that Griffith made in film technique with this film (and they are considerable) the true power of the film rose from the special music score Griffith had created for the picture. In 1980 I brought to Toronto Bernard B. Brown who played first violin in the orchestra which accompanied the film throughout its Los Angeles run. In 1927 Mr. Brown directed the sound recording on THE JAZZ SINGER. He got eleven Academy Awards and two Oscars for his work with film and film sound which he taught at UCLA when he retired from the film industry. After consulting with him I built a score for the film. When I screened the picture to The Toronto Film Society a few years back the audience went wild. University of Toronto Film Prof Barry Hayne came charging up to me shouting, "That score is brilliant!" The brilliance was Griffith's.

I have also presented the film to hundreds of high school students whose teachers were astonished to see them so caught up in the picture's power. The kids were more astute than the adults. They were amazed to find out how vulnerable we all are to mass media manipulation (which is why I continue to show the film).

David Wark Griffith singlehandedly lifted motion pictures up from shoe box theatres and transformed the medium into the art form of our time. Garth Drabinsky, whom Martin Knelman praises regularly, singlehandedly took it back to the shoeboxes. That $2 a seat audiences paidd to see this film would be $200 a seat today.

Griffith deserves better, way better, than the sophmoric and hysterical piece Geoff delivered up. Lillian Gish informed me that Griffith had no idea his film would lead to the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan and personally felt that no matter what it had achived it was not worth the price of a single lynching. It must have been a source of great horror and pain to see such diabolical fruit fall from his work.

As Richard Shickel writes, "We have new ways of seeing and and thinking and perhaps even being which literally did not exist until [Griffith] began his work. And began that chain of artistic invention which has enabled us to see the world through fresh eyes, in a new light."

I will be presenting THE BIRTH OF A NATION again in a few weeks to mark the 90th anniversary of the picture. Come. See. Learn. Perhaps together we can get the movies out of the shoe boxes Drabinsky stuffed them into. And perhaps Geoff can get "on the beat."--Reg Hartt (416-603-6643)

===========================================================

12. 2nd response. You are Jewish. I am Irish Catholic. The Ku Klux Klan hated Jews and Irish Catholics as much as it did Blacks. I think that gives both of us a slightly better perspective dealing with the issues this film raises.--Best, Reg Hartt

----- Original Message -----

From: mglass@att.net <mailto:mglass@att.net>

To: Reg Hartt <mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:51 PM

Subject: Re: THE BIRTH OF A NATION

Dear Mr. Hartt:

I don't know why you sent this particular article to me, but you might be interested in an anecdote of my own.

Murray Glass

================================================================

13. Wow - great piece of writing. I really appreciate all the knowledge you have brought to this film. I hope to make it down in a few weeks to catch it!

Thanks again,

Happy New Year!

TOOTS CAPITAL

Val Dooley

Director of Communications

Tel: 416 488-9649

Fax: 416 488-8173

val@tootscapital.com <mailto:val@tootscapital.com>

www.tootscapital.com <http://www.tootscapital.com/>

Let US toot YOUR horn!

============================================================

14. Reg,

Thought you might be interested.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: ReelDrew@aol.com
To: gpevere@thestar.ca
Sent: 1/11/2005 3:52 AM
Subject: on maligning D. W. Griffith

Dear Geoff Pevere,

In your zeal to denigrate D. W. Griffith and "The Birth of a Nation,"
you are guilty of several gross errors and untruths. As a film
historian who has for years attempted to bring recognition to Griffith's
relevance as a great artist (among my publications is the 1986 book, "D.
W. Griffith's 'Intolerance': Its Genesis and Its Vision"), I have had to
continually respond to those who, under the guise of presenting facts,
consistently perpetrate myths and outright falsehoods about the
director. The apparent objective is to unmask Griffith as an
evil-minded racist who caused great harm to American society, and in the
service of such an endeavor accuracy is of no concern whatever. I do
not believe these inaccuracies and misstatements are all accidental
slip-ups but represent a calculated effort on the part of these critics
to justify censorship and military occupation, things which they would
normally oppose After a lifetime of battling people such as yourself, I
am frankly sick and tired of the controversy and am presently debating
with myself whether I should even bother to respond to your reckless
disregard for the truth. Nevertheless, I will point out several gross
errors in your article:
1. Margaret Mitchell, not Edna Ferber, was the author of "Gone With
the Wind." This bizarre inaccuracy has already been pointed out on the
newsgroup, alt.movies.silent. It seems to be typical of your approach
to scholarly research in general.
2. You state that the longest American film made prior to "The Birth
of a Nation" was a four-reel film by Griffith running 40 minutes
(presumably, you mean the 4-reel "Judith of Bethulia" which, at the
proper projection speed, runs about one hour). In fact, most of the
early American features of 1912, 1913 and 1914 were five or six reels in
length. The first full-length US feature, "Richard III" (1912), the
rediscovery of which received great publicity some years ago, was 5
reels in length; Helen Gardner's "Clipart" (1912) was 6 reels. In 1914,
Mack Senate's famous comedy feature, "Tile's Punctured Romance," was 6
reels, as was the "The Squaw Man," co-directed by Oscar Capful and Cecil
B. demise. Other films demise directed that year, such as "The
Virginian," were 5 reels long. In the case of Griffith, the four reels
of "Judith," his final film for Biography (filmed in 1913, released in
1914), was a compromise between the studio's insistence on shorter films
and his desire to expand with longer films. After that, Griffith left
Biography and, in partnership with the Aitken brothers, formed his own
company for the purpose of making feature films. In 1914, he directed
the following four features prior to "The Birth of a Nation": "The
Battle of the Sexes" (5 reels), "The Escape" (7 reels), "Home, Sweet
Home" (6 reels), "The Avenging Conscience" (7-8 reels). I believe the
longest American feature released in 1914 may have been Selig's version
of the famous Western story, "The Spoilers," 9 reels in length or nearly
two hours running time at silent speed. 1914 also saw the release of
the first Canadian feature, "Evangeline," produced by Bioscope at 5
reels. (It was also shown widely in the US.) I guess you simply didn't
bother to look up the acknowledged facts in making your statement that a
four reel film was the longest American feature prior to "The Birth."
3. You state that "The Birth" was the most popular film of the entire
silent era. This may be more excusable than the others, but it is still
something which has long been refuted by more scholarly studies. The
biggest box office hit of the whole silent period was King Vidor's World
War I epic, "The Big Parade," released in 1925. "The Birth" was the
single most popular American film of the 1910s, no question about that,
but the exaggerated claims of how much money it made and how many people
saw it stem from the Griffith company's publicity department and the
film's various distributors over the years. Initially, it was an
understandable way of attracting favorable publicity and increasing its
box office pull during its later revivals. More recently, however, it
has been used as a tool against Griffith and the film by those who, by
accepting the inflated numbers, now assign the film to the central
position in American race relations, in effect, making Griffith
responsible for the entire course (in a negative sense) of the black
experience in much of the 20th century.
4. This leads to your most egregious misstatement, one that is
absolutely unforgivable. You write that, in the year of 1915,
membership in the revived Klan in the state of Georgia alone suddenly
"ballooned to 8 million, and 22 Klan-related lynchings took place. This
is historic fact." Er--not quite. In 1915, the total population of
Georgia was between two and three million people. 50 years later, the
state's population was just under four million. It has only been in
recent years that Georgia's population reached and then surpassed eight
million. As for the figures regarding the number of Klan members in
the US in the period beginning in 1915, membership grew slowly; it was
only in 1920 and 1921, following the breakdown of Progressivism in World
War I and the Red Scare, that the Klan emerged as a powerful
organization in the US. Even so, it never attained 8 million members
nationwide, much less in the state of Georgia. In 1921, it was
estimated that over 100,000 people had joined the Klan; at its peak of
popularity in the mid-20s, membership is estimated to have been 6
million for the entire country. After that, however, it quickly
declined after a series of scandals and widespread corruption brought
upon them well-merited scorn.
The attempt to blame the whole thing on Griffith, which, as the title
of your article suggests, seems to be your main point is excessively
misleading and simplistic. The immediate spark that brought the Klan
back into existence in Georgia was the sensational Leo Frank case which
raged in Georgia throughout 1913 and 1914, climaxing in his lynching in
1915. A Jew from the North, he had been falsely accused of raping and
murdering a young girl named Mary Phagan. Ironically, the real culprit
was a black man who falsely implicated Frank. Members or supporters of
Frank's lynch mob, calling themselves the Friends of Mary Phagan, soon
started a new Ku Klux Klan, which first appeared in Georgia in November
of 1915. However, they were only a minor organization at that time.
Had the United States managed to stay out of involvement in World War I,
the new KKK would probably have gotten nowhere. What provided the shot
in the arm to turn them into a national phenomenon was the hatreds and
repressive climate spawned by World War I and the reaction to the
demands for greater equality by minorities and labor. The KKK rode the
wave of this reactionary mood for several years, not because of
Griffith's film (which, in 1920, when the Klan began its first major
recruiting drive, had not been screened for several years) but because
of the right-wing climate of the time. However, most people these days,
instead of undertaking a sophisticated examination of the social,
economic and political strains that gave rise to the revived KKK, prefer
a simple demonization of D. W. Griffith. That Griffith had earlier
directed a film in 1911, "The Rose of Kentucky," which depicted the Klan
as heavies, and that his pleas for tolerance in "Intolerance" (1916) and
"Broken Blossoms" (1919) were totally opposed to the kind of bigotry
embodied by the revived KKK is something his critics now choose to
forget.
The myths, exaggerations and total fabrications have had their effect
of erasing Griffith's reputation in his own country. It was 30 years
ago that his centennial was widely observed here and a postage stamp
issued in his honor. Griffith was largely revered as, in the words of
Orson Welles, "the premier genius of our medium." Sadly, with the
passing of the "Griffith generation" (those directors from Allan Dwan
and King Vidor to Orson Welles and John Huston who were most directly
influenced by him) as well as close associates like Lillian Gish, there
were elements who emerged that were bent on destroying him. They have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, symbolized several years ago by
the Director's Guild of America dumping their DWG lifetime achievement
award amidst a torrent of anti-Griffith invective justifying the move.
In his own country, Griffith is now largely remembered, not as the
visionary who transformed an art worldwide but merely as the "racist"
who allegedly poisoned American race relations. His detractors never
mention his criticism of the capitalist system in his films, his
championship of women, the poor, the Native Americans, his opposition to
war, the death penalty and (in a number of films) racism. Instead, they
have created a monster bearing no resemblance to the real individual.
In order to create this unlovely, fanciful portrait, they will not
hesitate to make up any story, circulate any outrageous claim. A number
of years ago, a writer named Homer Croy wrote a fictionalized account of
Griffith's life in which he included an invented tale and character, a
black maid of Griffith's who was allegedly so offended by "The Birth"
that she angrily departed his service. Although this incident never
took place nor did the woman even exist, the story of Cora the black
maid who stood up to the nefarious Griffith was related as fact in a
widely-seen PBS documentary on black filmmakers and has continued to
circulate ever since, despite my own efforts to point out the falsity of
this anecdote. I would be typing a far longer letter than this if I
were to point out the errors and outright lies that inevitably crop up
in articles, books, documentaries etc. intending to malign Griffith. In
fact, I have never yet seen an article slamming Griffith over "The
Birth" without its including at least one or two such falsifications.
The beleaguered few who still try to uphold his reputation are, by
contrast, usually much more accurate.
As to why people persist in this pattern of distortion instead of
relating the simple facts, I believe it is largely because they
subscribe to the same kind of "noble lie" advanced by the Straussian
neocons to justify such actions as the US conquest of Iraq. After all,
if the goal is the lofty one of creating a democratic Middle East or a
racially egalitarian society, why bother with a little thing like the
truth? So go ahead--repeat the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and was in league with Al Qaeda--and that Griffith was the
main source of all of America's racial problems and that his film led to
hundreds of people being killed. (I've done considerable research in
the papers of that period, and I've yet to uncover a single instance of
a showing of "The Birth" provoking a lynching or a deadly race riot.
The violence it caused was mainly in the form of scattered fist fights
and vandalism during the course of protest demonstrations.
Significantly, no one has ever sought reparations because of some
supposed harm done to them or their family because of the release of
"The Birth.") However, if Griffith's enemies have their way, the film
may finally lead to bloodshed--any individual publicly showing "The
Birth" in the US today runs the risk of being killed. Just last year,
when Charlie Lustman announced his intention of screening "The Birth"
for one night only at his Silent Movie Theatre in Los Angeles, his life
was threatened and protestors spoke of burning down the theatre.
Thus, Griffith's foes through their litany of errors and falsehoods
have succeeded in creating such a climate of fear that it is virtually
impossible now to have even a limited public screening of the film. And
they have so tarnished Griffith's name that few people here are even
willing to discuss any of his work with the blending of sympathy and
objectivity that is essential to all valid aesthetic criticism. That in
discrediting the film's depiction of history in favor of a rosy picture
of the Reconstruction era they are also trying to justify military
occupation is perhaps another reason for their persistence. In their
heart of hearts, they know "The Birth of a Nation" is essentially
truthful in its portrayal of the harshness of a civilian population
being subjected to military rule. The nagging feeling that many of
these critics have that Griffith's film IS valid is one reason they are
driven to such frenzies. An outrageously foolish distortion of
historical reality would hardly arouse such fierce opposition for such a
long time. It is the truth which hurts--and the truth which must be
suppressed. There is no such thing as a "nice" military occupation--as
is being demonstrated once again in the US aggression in Iraq and was
also true in the defeated South in the 19th century.
Given my great respect for Canada and Canadians, I am sorry to see
that even a Canadian publication has signed on to the mountain of
misinformation that has destroyed D. W. Griffith's reputation in his own
country. Griffith was very much a friend of Canada and in the mid-20s
made a speech in the Canadian parliament in which he urged them to
develop their own film industry independent of both Hollywood and
Britain. However, it appears that the use of a common language,
English, facilitates the spread of the anti-Griffith propaganda since it
is largely in the non-English-speaking world (countries like France and
Japan) that Griffith is now most highly regarded.
Perhaps this letter has been another exercise in futility on my part.
But in closing, I'm providing a link to my own online article on
Griffith which, I believe, places his achievements in the proper
perspective. The URL is: <http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>> It is part of my series
of articles on great silent film directors representing every inhabited
continent of the globe at: <http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>> I have also included some
of Griffith's anti-war statements in my online "pamphlet," "Hollywood's
Answer to War," at: <http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>>

Sincerely,
William M. Drew
PS. The photo used to accompany your article is from Griffith's "Abraham
Lincoln," not "The Birth of a Nation." Yet another error.

=========================================================

15. I am. Thanks. I understood THE FOUR HOSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE to be the only film that surpassed THE BIRTH at the box office. Had someone else written a letter to the editor I would not have. We both know you are not a member of any "conspiracy" or "cabal." You have too much integrity for that kind of silliness. The fact that you are your own person is why I read you.

I once heard a priest deliver a sermon that was 100% anti-Christ. I asked him, "Do you know what you just said?" He turned to a woman and asked. "Did I say that?" "You could not have," she said, "but it sounded like you did." Shortly after I got the heave from that church. I stopped going to churches a lonng time ago.

For me, Griffith is the only way out. You have not done what I have done. By that I mean not only the on the road presentations to packed cinemas across the country at premium prices only to have them come to an abrupt end because the fellow who ran Ottawa's Towne Cinema slandered you from coast to coast (John Tutt, of Waterloo's Princess Cinema, was told by this man, "I can't believe you still do shows with Reg Hartt?" John replied, "The audience loves him. His shows fill the theatre.") nor have you tried to work with Famous Players or Cineplex Odeon only to discover if I do I will wind up owing more money than I make.

You have not researched a film like THE BIRTH, THE FOUR HORSEMEN, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, METROPOLIS, etc., created a bitching score for it, watched the current generation go nuts over the film (due to the music which causes them to see the film in a new and exciting way) and then seen your labours dismissed by the so-called intellegentsia (which is rarely intelligent) all the time watching people like NFB vet Doug Eliuk, Hanna Fisher and John Roberts (our Minister of Culture under Trudeau) applaud your efforts.

You have not seen the smarmy, dismissive smiles on the faces of many in the film community who say, "Well, if you go there, you have to listen to him," only to have the very great pleasure of hearing a Jane Jacobs, a Tibetan Lama, a host of others say, "The best part of these programs is what you bring to the table."

Don't get me wrong. I am not bowed under by those who dismiss my work. I am carried up by those who, without being told, recognize a value in it..

No, you have not done that. But you have done things I do not know of that have been equally frustrating for you.

I have always wanted to make films. I don't want to make a film and, at the last moment, have the money men say, "Well, you can not do that." So I chose the hard path.

The first time I was asked to speak in school extemporaneously I saw a word coming out that carried the penalty of a trip to the office and the strap. I accepted the penalty. To my surprise I did not have to pay it.

The next day a fellow who hated me used the same word. He got the strap. I was furious. I asked the teacher why he was being punished and I had not been. "Are you trying to make me look like teacher's pet?!" I asked.

"I watched you choosing. I watched you accepting the responsibility of your choice. You were right. He was just walking through the door you opened." I was told.

Griffith lifted movies up out of the Nickelodeon. There may well have been other features before him. He was the first to charge $2 $200 today) a seat for a movie. He did that because he saw no other way to quickly pay back the money his producers were hounding him for (the top price for a live play was $2.50. He figured if they'd pay $2.50 for George M. Cohan they'd pay $2 for him).

What people pay for movies today is the same as the 5cents they paid yesterday. Garth Drabinsky singlehandedly took the movies back to where they were before Griffith.

Anyway, live is short. I don't care to rant at someone I care about (and I am not ranting).

One time I showed Eisenstein's TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD (1927) with a purely perfunctory music track. One fellow came up to me and said, "You can do a better job than that." I did not get angry with him because he was right. At that moment he gave me the kick in the ass I needed to do the job right. That week I went to work creating a new score for the film. I was forced to stretch myself and it was a good thing.

There is much in the piece you sent that I did not know (especially about the KKK). Thanks.

You have no idea how much of a joy it is to open the paper and discover you talking about things no one else in this country does. When we make mistakes we give our enemies the ammunition they need to dismiss us. Your worst mistake in the Griffith piece was crediting Edna Ferber for Margaret Mitchell's work because that is the one that most obviously shows the error.

That is why it is important to be "on the beat." Obviously, The Toronto Film Society does not give a damn about being on the beat. Neither do most folk in the film scene. But the kids who line up across the country for my programs (and once in a while in the United States) walk out saying, "I did not know this much fun was allowed." (A kid actually said that).

Here's one I just got for Sunday's KID DRACULA show:

hi Reg,

i was at the showing of Kid Dracula last night (which was
awesome by the way) and i just wanted to thank you for
sharing your thoughts with us when the movie was over.
besides being entertaining i thought you made a lot of very
interesting and valid points that really got me thinking. my
boyfriend and i were talking about many of the things you
said long after we left your place. although i throurouly
enjoyed the show, the highlight of the night was definately
your talk at the end. i have to tell you that i admire your
openess and honesty, but most of all your willingness to pass
on your knowledge and opinions to others. i was wondering if
you could email me the names of the three books you
mentioned are worth reading. i tried as hard as i could to
remember them, but my short term memory doesn't tend to
be very reliable... especially when i'm stoned. i also wanted to
ask you what the lifetime membership to the Cineforum is all
about and if you play the same movies every sunday (i really
want to see Dark Side of Oz sometime soon). anyway, thanks
again for sharing your thoughts and i hope i get to hear more
of what you have to say sometime soon.

cheers,
Christina

March marks the 90th anniversary of THE BIRTH OF A NATION. I have been acquiring Griffith titles (including the Biograph shorts few of which I have seen). Would you like to join me in honouring this much maligned man? Remember. THE BIRTH OF A NATION was an independent film. Griffith is the father of that too. The only future I can see for the serious film artist is the path Griffith walked. He "four-walled" (rented outright) The Liberty Theatre for THE BIRTH. Chaplin four-walled THE GEORGE M. COHAN THEATRE for CITY LIGHTS. Chaplin was told silent films were old hat. No one wanted to show his film. He gambled on himself. After a few weeks those who had turned their noses at his silent film were begging to be let play it. The fellow who made BILLY JACK did the same.

I once saw a dog get run over by a car. I went to where it ran to hide (I was amazed it had not been killed as both the fronmt and rear wheels passed over it) and offered it my hand, palm down, saying over and over, softly, "It is okay." The dog snapped its jaws shut on my hand (which I expected it to do). I did not expect it to do that so gently there was only a slight dent from one tooth on a finger. Then it stopped barking and let me help it.

I doubt sincerely Norman Jewison could do that. I am one of a kind. So are you. The kind we are one of is very rare. Life only makes one model of each.

There is no such thing as an "hysterical person." I saw, peripherally, an old man get roughed up by two young men on Yonge street. I was on the west side. He was on the east. He got angry. They passed by. No one but myself saw what had happened. The sleepwalkers woke up to his rage ("hysteria") and got scared. A police car stopped. The old man was roughly handled and shoved in the back of the car. I crossed the street saying to one of the cops, "Can I talk with you? "Mind your own business," I was told. "I am minding my own business. I saw what happened." At that they listened, got the old man out of the police car, apologized for handling him so roughly and took him into a coffee shop. I learned the need to do that from Doris Mehegan (who ran THE SPACED OUT LIBRARY, now THE JUDITH MERRIL COLLECTION).

Yesterday, at 5am, I heard the sound of someone being beaten in front of this house. I woke up, stumbled to the window (without my glasses) and at once called 911. It turned out to be the police catching a suspect. It was a pretty horrendous sight. More horrendous was the emergency operator's dismissive voice as if them doing that somehow made it okay to beat this man to a pulp. Every once in a while the veil lifts and we see we are living in a police state (as all states are).--Reg

----- Original Message -----

From: Pevere, Geoff <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>

To: 'rhartt4363@rogers.com' <mailto:'rhartt4363@rogers.com'>

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:24 AM

Subject: FW: on maligning D. W. Griffith

Reg,

Thought you might be interested.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: ReelDrew@aol.com <mailto:ReelDrew@aol.com>
To: gpevere@thestar.ca <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>
Sent: 1/11/2005 3:52 AM
Subject: on maligning D. W. Griffith

Dear Geoff Pevere,

=====================================================

16. If you want to astonish the person who wrote you accusing you of belonging to a conspiracy thank him for the info. There's certainly a lot there to be thankful for.--Reg

----- Original Message -----

From: Pevere, Geoff <mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>

To: 'Reg Hartt ' <mailto:rhartt4363@rogers.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:01 AM

Subject: RE: one of a kind

Reg,

Thanks for this. And, by all means, carry on.

Not that you need me to tell you that...

best,

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Reg Hartt
To: Pevere, Geoff
Sent: 1/11/2005 10:08 AM
Subject: one of a kind

I am. Thanks. I understood THE FOUR HOSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE to be the
only film that surpassed THE BIRTH at the box office. Had someone else
written a letter to the editor I would not have. We both know you are
not a member of any "conspiracy" or "cabal." You have too much integrity
for that kind of silliness. The fact that you are your own person is why
I read you.

I once heard a priest deliver a sermon that was 100% anti-Christ. I
asked him, "Do you know what you just said?" He turned to a woman and
asked. "Did I say that?" "You could not have," she said, "but it sounded
like you did." Shortly after I got the heave from that church. I stopped
going to churches a lonng time ago.

For me, Griffith is the only way out. You have not done what I have
done. By that I mean not only the on the road presentations to packed
cinemas across the country at premium prices only to have them come to
an abrupt end because the fellow who ran Ottawa's Towne Cinema slandered
you from coast to coast (John Tutt, of Waterloo's Princess Cinema, was
told by this man, "I can't believe you still do shows with Reg Hartt?"
John replied, "The audience loves him. His shows fill the theatre.") nor
have you tried to work with Famous Players or Cineplex Odeon only to
discover if I do I will wind up owing more money than I make.

You have not researched a film like THE BIRTH, THE FOUR HORSEMEN, THE
PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, METROPOLIS, etc., created a bitching score for it,
watched the current generation go nuts over the film (due to the music
which causes them to see the film in a new and exciting way) and then
seen your labours dismissed by the so-called intellegentsia (which is
rarely intelligent) all the time watching people like NFB vet Doug
Eliuk, Hanna Fisher and John Roberts (our Minister of Culture under
Trudeau) applaud your efforts.

You have not seen the smarmy, dismissive smiles on the faces of many in
the film community who say, "Well, if you go there, you have to listen
to him," only to have the very great pleasure of hearing a Jane Jacobs,
a Tibetan Lama, a host of others say, "The best part of these programs
is what you bring to the table."

Don't get me wrong. I am not bowed under by those who dismiss my work. I
am carried up by those who, without being told, recognize a value in
it..

No, you have not done that. But you have done things I do not know of
that have been equally frustrating for you.

I have always wanted to make films. I don't want to make a film and, at
the last moment, have the money men say, "Well, you can not do that." So
I chose the hard path.

The first time I was asked to speak in school extemporaneously I saw a
word coming out that carried the penalty of a trip to the office and the
strap. I accepted the penalty. To my surprise I did not have to pay it.

The next day a fellow who hated me used the same word. He got the strap.
I was furious. I asked the teacher why he was being punished and I had
not been. "Are you trying to make me look like teacher's pet?!" I asked.

"I watched you choosing. I watched you accepting the responsibility of
your choice. You were right. He was just walking through the door you
opened." I was told.

Griffith lifted movies up out of the Nickelodeon. There may well have
been other features before him. He was the first to charge $2 $200
today) a seat for a movie. He did that because he saw no other way to
quickly pay back the money his producers were hounding him for (the top
price for a live play was $2.50. He figured if they'd pay $2.50 for
George M. Cohan they'd pay $2 for him).

What people pay for movies today is the same as the 5cents they paid
yesterday. Garth Drabinsky singlehandedly took the movies back to where
they were before Griffith.

Anyway, live is short. I don't care to rant at someone I care about (and
I am not ranting).

One time I showed Eisenstein's TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD (1927) with
a purely perfunctory music track. One fellow came up to me and said,
"You can do a better job than that." I did not get angry with him
because he was right. At that moment he gave me the kick in the ass I
needed to do the job right. That week I went to work creating a new
score for the film. I was forced to stretch myself and it was a good
thing.

There is much in the piece you sent that I did not know (especially
about the KKK). Thanks.

You have no idea how much of a joy it is to open the paper and discover
you talking about things no one else in this country does. When we make
mistakes we give our enemies the ammunition they need to dismiss us.
Your worst mistake in the Griffith piece was crediting Edna Ferber for
Margaret Mitchell's work because that is the one that most obviously
shows the error.

That is why it is important to be "on the beat." Obviously, The Toronto
Film Society does not give a damn about being on the beat. Neither do
most folk in the film scene. But the kids who line up across the country
for my programs (and once in a while in the United States) walk out
saying, "I did not know this much fun was allowed." (A kid actually said
that).

Here's one I just got for Sunday's KID DRACULA show:

hi Reg,

i was at the showing of Kid Dracula last night (which was
awesome by the way) and i just wanted to thank you for
sharing your thoughts with us when the movie was over.
besides being entertaining i thought you made a lot of very
interesting and valid points that really got me thinking. my
boyfriend and i were talking about many of the things you
said long after we left your place. although i throurouly
enjoyed the show, the highlight of the night was definately
your talk at the end. i have to tell you that i admire your
openess and honesty, but most of all your willingness to pass
on your knowledge and opinions to others. i was wondering if
you could email me the names of the three books you
mentioned are worth reading. i tried as hard as i could to
remember them, but my short term memory doesn't tend to
be very reliable... especially when i'm stoned. i also wanted to
ask you what the lifetime membership to the Cineforum is all
about and if you play the same movies every sunday (i really
want to see Dark Side of Oz sometime soon). anyway, thanks
again for sharing your thoughts and i hope i get to hear more
of what you have to say sometime soon.

cheers,
Christina

March marks the 90th anniversary of THE BIRTH OF A NATION. I have been
acquiring Griffith titles (including the Biograph shorts few of which I
have seen). Would you like to join me in honouring this much maligned
man? Remember. THE BIRTH OF A NATION was an independent film. Griffith
is the father of that too. The only future I can see for the serious
film artist is the path Griffith walked. He "four-walled" (rented
outright) The Liberty Theatre for THE BIRTH. Chaplin four-walled THE
GEORGE M. COHAN THEATRE for CITY LIGHTS. Chaplin was told silent films
were old hat. No one wanted to show his film. He gambled on himself.
After a few weeks those who had turned their noses at his silent film
were begging to be let play it. The fellow who made BILLY JACK did the
same.

I once saw a dog get run over by a car. I went to where it ran to hide
(I was amazed it had not been killed as both the fronmt and rear wheels
passed over it) and offered it my hand, palm down, saying over and over,
softly, "It is okay." The dog snapped its jaws shut on my hand (which I
expected it to do). I did not expect it to do that so gently there was
only a slight dent from one tooth on a finger. Then it stopped barking
and let me help it.

I doubt sincerely Norman Jewison could do that. I am one of a kind. So
are you. The kind we are one of is very rare. Life only makes one model
of each.

There is no such thing as an "hysterical person." I saw, peripherally,
an old man get roughed up by two young men on Yonge street. I was on the
west side. He was on the east. He got angry. They passed by. No one but
myself saw what had happened. The sleepwalkers woke up to his rage
("hysteria") and got scared. A police car stopped. The old man was
roughly handled and shoved in the back of the car. I crossed the street
saying to one of the cops, "Can I talk with you? "Mind your own
business," I was told. "I am minding my own business. I saw what
happened." At that they listened, got the old man out of the police car,
apologized for handling him so roughly and took him into a coffee shop.
I learned the need to do that from Doris Mehegan (who ran THE SPACED OUT
LIBRARY, now THE JUDITH MERRIL COLLECTION).

Yesterday, at 5am, I heard the sound of someone being beaten in front of
this house. I woke up, stumbled to the window (without my glasses) and
at once called 911. It turned out to be the police catching a suspect.
It was a pretty horrendous sight. More horrendous was the emergency
operator's dismissive voice as if them doing that somehow made it okay
to beat this man to a pulp. Every once in a while the veil lifts and we
see we are living in a police state (as all states are).--Reg

----- Original Message -----
From: Pevere, Geoff <<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>>
To: 'rhartt4363@rogers.com' <<mailto:'rhartt4363@rogers.com'>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:24 AM
Subject: FW: on maligning D. W. Griffith

Reg,

Thought you might be interested.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: ReelDrew@aol.com <<mailto:ReelDrew@aol.com>>
To: gpevere@thestar.ca <<mailto:gpevere@thestar.ca>>
Sent: 1/11/2005 3:52 AM
Subject: on maligning D. W. Griffith

Dear Geoff Pevere,

relevance as a great artist (among my publications is the 1986 book, "D.

W. Griffith's 'Intolerance': Its Genesis and Its Vision"), I have had to

continually respond to those who, under the guise of presenting facts,
consistently perpetrate myths and outright falsehoods about the
director. The apparent objective is to unmask Griffith as an
evil-minded racist who caused great harm to American society, and in the

service of such an endeavor accuracy is of no concern whatever. I do
not believe these inaccuracies and misstatements are all accidental
slip-ups but represent a calculated effort on the part of these critics
to justify censorship and military occupation, things which they would
normally oppose After a lifetime of battling people such as yourself, I

am frankly sick and tired of the controversy and am presently debating
with myself whether I should even bother to respond to your reckless
disregard for the truth. Nevertheless, I will point out several gross
errors in your article:
1. Margaret Mitchell, not Edna Ferber, was the author of "Gone With
the Wind." This bizarre inaccuracy has already been pointed out on the
newsgroup, alt.movies.silent. It seems to be typical of your approach
to scholarly research in general.
2. You state that the longest American film made prior to "The Birth
of a Nation" was a four-reel film by Griffith running 40 minutes
(presumably, you mean the 4-reel "Judith of Bethulia" which, at the
proper projection speed, runs about one hour). In fact, most of the
early American features of 1912, 1913 and 1914 were five or six reels in

length. The first full-length US feature, "Richard III" (1912), the
rediscovery of which received great publicity some years ago, was 5
reels in length; Helen Gardner's "Clipart" (1912) was 6 reels. In 1914,

Mack Senate's famous comedy feature, "Tile's Punctured Romance," was 6
reels, as was the "The Squaw Man," co-directed by Oscar Capful and Cecil

B. demise. Other films demise directed that year, such as "The
Virginian," were 5 reels long. In the case of Griffith, the four reels
of "Judith," his final film for Biography (filmed in 1913, released in
1914), was a compromise between the studio's insistence on shorter films

and his desire to expand with longer films. After that, Griffith left
Biography and, in partnership with the Aitken brothers, formed his own
company for the purpose of making feature films. In 1914, he directed
the following four features prior to "The Birth of a Nation": "The
Battle of the Sexes" (5 reels), "The Escape" (7 reels), "Home, Sweet
Home" (6 reels), "The Avenging Conscience" (7-8 reels). I believe the
longest American feature released in 1914 may have been Selig's version
of the famous Western story, "The Spoilers," 9 reels in length or nearly

two hours running time at silent speed. 1914 also saw the release of
the first Canadian feature, "Evangeline," produced by Bioscope at 5
reels. (It was also shown widely in the US.) I guess you simply didn't
bother to look up the acknowledged facts in making your statement that a

four reel film was the longest American feature prior to "The Birth."
3. You state that "The Birth" was the most popular film of the entire

silent era. This may be more excusable than the others, but it is still

something which has long been refuted by more scholarly studies. The
biggest box office hit of the whole silent period was King Vidor's World

War I epic, "The Big Parade," released in 1925. "The Birth" was the
single most popular American film of the 1910s, no question about that,
but the exaggerated claims of how much money it made and how many people

saw it stem from the Griffith company's publicity department and the
film's various distributors over the years. Initially, it was an
understandable way of attracting favorable publicity and increasing its
box office pull during its later revivals. More recently, however, it
has been used as a tool against Griffith and the film by those who, by
accepting the inflated numbers, now assign the film to the central
position in American race relations, in effect, making Griffith
responsible for the entire course (in a negative sense) of the black
experience in much of the 20th century.
4. This leads to your most egregious misstatement, one that is
absolutely unforgivable. You write that, in the year of 1915,
membership in the revived Klan in the state of Georgia alone suddenly
"ballooned to 8 million, and 22 Klan-related lynchings took place. This

is historic fact." Er--not quite. In 1915, the total population of
Georgia was between two and three million people. 50 years later, the
state's population was just under four million. It has only been in
recent years that Georgia's population reached and then surpassed eight
million. As for the figures regarding the number of Klan members in
the US in the period beginning in 1915, membership grew slowly; it was
only in 1920 and 1921, following the breakdown of Progressivism in World

War I and the Red Scare, that the Klan emerged as a powerful
organization in the US. Even so, it never attained 8 million members
nationwide, much less in the state of Georgia. In 1921, it was
estimated that over 100,000 people had joined the Klan; at its peak of
popularity in the mid-20s, membership is estimated to have been 6
million for the entire country. After that, however, it quickly
declined after a series of scandals and widespread corruption brought
upon them well-merited scorn.
The attempt to blame the whole thing on Griffith, which, as the title
of your article suggests, seems to be your main point is excessively
misleading and simplistic. The immediate spark that brought the Klan
back into existence in Georgia was the sensational Leo Frank case which
raged in Georgia throughout 1913 and 1914, climaxing in his lynching in
1915. A Jew from the North, he had been falsely accused of raping and
murdering a young girl named Mary Phagan. Ironically, the real culprit
was a black man who falsely implicated Frank. Members or supporters of
Frank's lynch mob, calling themselves the Friends of Mary Phagan, soon
started a new Ku Klux Klan, which first appeared in Georgia in November
of 1915. However, they were only a minor organization at that time.
Had the United States managed to stay out of involvement in World War I,

the new KKK would probably have gotten nowhere. What provided the shot
in the arm to turn them into a national phenomenon was the hatreds and
repressive climate spawned by World War I and the reaction to the
demands for greater equality by minorities and labor. The KKK rode the
wave of this reactionary mood for several years, not because of
Griffith's film (which, in 1920, when the Klan began its first major
recruiting drive, had not been screened for several years) but because
of the right-wing climate of the time. However, most people these days,

instead of undertaking a sophisticated examination of the social,
economic and political strains that gave rise to the revived KKK, prefer

a simple demonization of D. W. Griffith. That Griffith had earlier
directed a film in 1911, "The Rose of Kentucky," which depicted the Klan

as heavies, and that his pleas for tolerance in "Intolerance" (1916) and

"Broken Blossoms" (1919) were totally opposed to the kind of bigotry
embodied by the revived KKK is something his critics now choose to
forget.
The myths, exaggerations and total fabrications have had their effect
of erasing Griffith's reputation in his own country. It was 30 years
ago that his centennial was widely observed here and a postage stamp
issued in his honor. Griffith was largely revered as, in the words of
Orson Welles, "the premier genius of our medium." Sadly, with the
passing of the "Griffith generation" (those directors from Allan Dwan
and King Vidor to Orson Welles and John Huston who were most directly
influenced by him) as well as close associates like Lillian Gish, there
were elements who emerged that were bent on destroying him. They have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, symbolized several years ago by
the Director's Guild of America dumping their DWG lifetime achievement
award amidst a torrent of anti-Griffith invective justifying the move.
In his own country, Griffith is now largely remembered, not as the
visionary who transformed an art worldwide but merely as the "racist"
who allegedly poisoned American race relations. His detractors never
mention his criticism of the capitalist system in his films, his
championship of women, the poor, the Native Americans, his opposition to

war, the death penalty and (in a number of films) racism. Instead, they

have created a monster bearing no resemblance to the real individual.
In order to create this unlovely, fanciful portrait, they will not
hesitate to make up any story, circulate any outrageous claim. A number

of years ago, a writer named Homer Croy wrote a fictionalized account of

Griffith's life in which he included an invented tale and character, a
black maid of Griffith's who was allegedly so offended by "The Birth"
that she angrily departed his service. Although this incident never
took place nor did the woman even exist, the story of Cora the black
maid who stood up to the nefarious Griffith was related as fact in a
widely-seen PBS documentary on black filmmakers and has continued to
circulate ever since, despite my own efforts to point out the falsity of

this anecdote. I would be typing a far longer letter than this if I
were to point out the errors and outright lies that inevitably crop up
in articles, books, documentaries etc. intending to malign Griffith. In

fact, I have never yet seen an article slamming Griffith over "The
Birth" without its including at least one or two such falsifications.
The beleaguered few who still try to uphold his reputation are, by
contrast, usually much more accurate.
As to why people persist in this pattern of distortion instead of
relating the simple facts, I believe it is largely because they
subscribe to the same kind of "noble lie" advanced by the Straussian
neocons to justify such actions as the US conquest of Iraq. After all,
if the goal is the lofty one of creating a democratic Middle East or a
racially egalitarian society, why bother with a little thing like the
truth? So go ahead--repeat the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and was in league with Al Qaeda--and that Griffith was the
main source of all of America's racial problems and that his film led to

hundreds of people being killed. (I've done considerable research in
the papers of that period, and I've yet to uncover a single instance of
a showing of "The Birth" provoking a lynching or a deadly race riot.
The violence it caused was mainly in the form of scattered fist fights
and vandalism during the course of protest demonstrations.
Significantly, no one has ever sought reparations because of some
supposed harm done to them or their family because of the release of
"The Birth.") However, if Griffith's enemies have their way, the film
may finally lead to bloodshed--any individual publicly showing "The
Birth" in the US today runs the risk of being killed. Just last year,
when Charlie Lustman announced his intention of screening "The Birth"
for one night only at his Silent Movie Theatre in Los Angeles, his life
was threatened and protestors spoke of burning down the theatre.
Thus, Griffith's foes through their litany of errors and falsehoods
have succeeded in creating such a climate of fear that it is virtually
impossible now to have even a limited public screening of the film. And

they have so tarnished Griffith's name that few people here are even
willing to discuss any of his work with the blending of sympathy and
objectivity that is essential to all valid aesthetic criticism. That in

discrediting the film's depiction of history in favor of a rosy picture
of the Reconstruction era they are also trying to justify military
occupation is perhaps another reason for their persistence. In their
heart of hearts, they know "The Birth of a Nation" is essentially
truthful in its portrayal of the harshness of a civilian population
being subjected to military rule. The nagging feeling that many of
these critics have that Griffith's film IS valid is one reason they are
driven to such frenzies. An outrageously foolish distortion of
historical reality would hardly arouse such fierce opposition for such a

long time. It is the truth which hurts--and the truth which must be
suppressed. There is no such thing as a "nice" military occupation--as
is being demonstrated once again in the US aggression in Iraq and was
also true in the defeated South in the 19th century.
Given my great respect for Canada and Canadians, I am sorry to see
that even a Canadian publication has signed on to the mountain of
misinformation that has destroyed D. W. Griffith's reputation in his own

country. Griffith was very much a friend of Canada and in the mid-20s
made a speech in the Canadian parliament in which he urged them to
develop their own film industry independent of both Hollywood and
Britain. However, it appears that the use of a common language,
English, facilitates the spread of the anti-Griffith propaganda since it

is largely in the non-English-speaking world (countries like France and
Japan) that Griffith is now most highly regarded.
Perhaps this letter has been another exercise in futility on my part.
But in closing, I'm providing a link to my own online article on
Griffith which, I believe, places his achievements in the proper
perspective. The URL is: <http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>>
< <http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/dwgriffith.html>> > It is part of my series

of articles on great silent film directors representing every inhabited
continent of the globe at: <http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>>
< <http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/pioneers.html>> > I have also included
some
of Griffith's anti-war statements in my online "pamphlet," "Hollywood's
Answer to War," at: <http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>>
< <http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>
<<http://www.gildasattic.com/answer.html>> >

Sincerely,
William M. Drew
PS. The photo used to accompany your article is from Griffith's "Abraham

Lincoln," not "The Birth of a Nation." Yet another error.

=======================================================

17. Reg,