Read

Excluding perhaps The Eternal Jew (1940), it’s probably safe to say The Birth of a Nation (1915) is the most racist movie ever made. After all, this is the movie that portrays African-Americans as drunkards, idiots, and sex predators…and then presents the KKK as a band of heroic do-gooders.

Of course, that didn’t stop the film from enjoying runaway success or earning critical praise. As this was smackdab in the middle of the 1910s, chances are good it actually boosted the film’s success, especially in southern states. However, not everyone was thrilled with Birth’s offensive portrayal of black Americans. The NAACP staged protests across the country, and white activists like Jane Addams lambasted the film with a fiery vengeance. The film was even banned in multiple cities.

So how did D.W. Griffith react to these critics? Did he simply ignore their complaints, or did he laugh at their frustration? Well, the exact opposite was true. Griffith was actually shocked by their claims and was greatly upset people were so offended by his film. Why? Believe it or not, D.W. Griffith didn’t consider himself a racist.

Now, it goes without saying that Griffith was definitely a bigot. The man grew up in 19th century Kentucky, and his father actually served in the Confederacy during the Civil War. And by just watching The Birth of a Nation, it’s pretty evident Griffith held some pretty controversial beliefs.

But Griffith wasn’t a racist in the same way David Duke—former Grand Wizard of the KKK—is a racist. Griffith didn’t actively hate anyone, and in fact, he would later go on to preach the virtues of tolerance (we’ll get to that in just a moment). Like many everyday racists, Griffith didn’t understand his ideas were wrong or recognize his actions were harmful in any way. He was a lot like your elderly neighbor or grandmother who doesn’t realize that you just can’t use certain words anymore.

According to Bryan Curtis of Slate, Griffith wasn’t interested in “racial politics” and never campaigned against civil rights. In fact, Curtis argues that Griffith “didn’t have a coherent political idea in his head.” He was simply influenced by what he’d read or heard his entire life.

For example, the director learned about the Civil War from a Southern perspective and hired ex-Confederates to consult on his film. He based many of Birth’s most offensive scenes on political cartoons from the 1860s…cartoons drawn by southern racists. By basing his cinematic vision on biased resources, Griffith thought he was conveying actual history so when people accused him of racism, he was legitimately hurt. As critic Christopher P. Jacobs points out, Griffith saw The Birth of a Nation primarily as an “antiwar statement,” not a racist screed.

It’s also important to point out that Griffith was more concerned with telling an exciting story as opposed to spreading a political ideology. As Bryan Curtis once again points out in his Slate article, “the director chose stories not for their political content but for their potential to thrill audiences. In fact, just four years before Birth, he made a short film called The Rose of Kentucky (1911), in which evil Klansmen attack a white plantation owner who refuses to join their ranks…The film seems to directly contradict the heroic images of the Klan he presented in Birth…But it made for a great story, so he made it anyway.”

So how did Griffith respond to these accusations of racism—accusations that were correct but not in his own eyes? Well, by directing two new films, Intolerance (1916) and Broken Blossoms (1919). Split into four separate storylines, each one in a different period of history, Intolerance was a 3 ½ hour long sermon against the vices of bigotry and discrimination. And perhaps even more shockingly, Broken Blossoms was romance featuring a white woman and Chinese man. As film critic Roger Ebert points out, this might be “the first interracial love story in the movies…”

Of course, Ebert also points out that Griffith stuck his foot in his proverbial mouth. Not only was there “no touching” between the two leads, Griffith also cast a white man as the Asian hero. But in fairness, Broken Blossom’s depiction of interracial romance is a far cry from The Birth of a Nation’s lustful African-Americans hunting down virginal white women.

So do his latter films absolve Griffith of his cinematic sins? Absolutely not. Despite all its technical innovations, Birth is one of the most venomous, nasty, and dangerous movies ever put to celluloid. However, Intolerance and Broken Blossoms do shed an interesting light on D.W. Griffith as a human being. So perhaps he wasn’t a rabid racist. Perhaps he was just confused and ignorant, and maybe he felt a little remorse for his infamous movie after all.