One quick thing about BIRTH OF A NATION that has come up as an attempted "Gotcha!"

Basically, it's:

"But if it's so pro-Confederate, why does the film portray Abraham Lincoln so positively?"

And to answer that, you need to know who Griffith's target audience was.

It wasn't Southerners who drank the Lost Cause Kool-Aid.

BOAN was designed to win over NORTHERNERS. Look at the way everything is framed: we are introduced to the Antebellum South as if we were taking a guided plantation tour. This movie was for outsiders.

The entire purpose and idea of the picture was to join and support the multitudes of pro-Confederate activists who wanted to make sure that the Lost Cause myth was accepted in the North.

So, why were white Northerners treated flatteringly? BECAUSE THEY WERE THE TARGET AUDIENCE.

Griffith doesn't get off the hook with the nonsensical "He was a Southerner, he couldn't help making the movies he did" defense.

Richard Norman was a white Southerner born in the 19th century in a former Confederate state. Here's the leading lady of his only surviving film:

Norman Studios made THE FLYING ACE, which featured Kathryn Boyd and other notable black performers. The characters were portrayed as glamorous and heroic.

It's endlessly ironic that people defend DW Griffith's abusive stereotypes with... more stereotypes.

So, once more for everyone in the back:

Being Southern did not/does not equal accepting the Lost Cause myth. It certainly does not compel a filmmaker to make a love letter to the KKK.

I mean, for heaven's sake, people.

And while we're at it, Griffith never apologized for BOAN and continued to perpetuate nasty racist stereotypes and attempt to undermine black civil rights activism in his pictures well after BOAN.

Thread on racism in ONE EXCITING NIGHT: https://twitter.com/MoviesSilently/status/1273258472021217280

Not many people talk about ONE EXCITING NIGHT because it is none of those things.

Is it exciting? It is not.

Does it take place during one night? It does not.

But the boredom is punctuated by jaw-dropping racism and special dog-whistles.

Always, ALWAYS ask yourself who the target audience is whenever you want to examine a movie critically.

It's the only way to really understand its message, good, bad or evil.

None of this information is new. It has been screamed from the rooftops since 1915. It's just that a majority of film historians chose to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU!" instead of doing their jobs.

Remember: Paying lip service to a racist filmmaker and the movie that literally revived the KKK is absolutely NOT the price for entry if you want to study silent films.

There are thousands of wonderful pictures waiting for you. Why waste one second on BOAN?

It's convenient to credit one film and one filmmaker with everything.

Griffith did not invent the closeup. He did not invent the narrative film. He did not invent the race to the rescue.

BOAN was not the first film shown at the White House. It was not the first feature.

But the goalpost moving is epic.

"It was the first film shown at the White House!"

No.

"It was the first feature shown at the White House!"

No.

"... It was the first--"

Look, if you have to massage facts this much to get a "first" then maybe something else is behind it.

I was researching the "telephoning for help, cross-cutting between victim and would-be rescuer" trope that was pioneered in France but popular and reused the world over, including in Griffith's early pictures.

Even though there were several French examples that predated Griffith, one piece I read still credits him with the invention of the race to the rescue because, I kid you not, the door was placed upstage instead of stage right, which increased the tension.

So, this is the level of delusion we're dealing with. If there's evidence that someone else did something first (and there always is) the goal is carefully moved until it fits Griffith.

Never assume that anyone pro-Griffith is arguing in good faith. I cannot tell you the number of times someone has sidled up to me on Twitter and been like "Oh yeah, it's racist... (looks around) but he did invent the race to the rescue."

But the problem with this logic is, where do we stop?

If Griffith races to the rescue are more sophisticated than the French pioneers, Lois Weber's race to the rescue in SUSPENSE is miles ahead of what Griffith ever accomplished. Does she get to snatch the title of first?

Anyway, if you want to see a Griffithite in the wild, stick around, they usually come sniffing about every few weeks. I continue to publicly engage with them for the same reason that a mother cat brings live mice home to her kittens: a training demonstration.