https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hol...otests-1203519

A recently settled situation here in Orange County.

A descendent of Cecile B DeMille made the largest single endowment contribution to Chapman University and also donated hundreds of historic marketing pieces. Two posters for the DW Griffith film Birth of a Nation were on display in the film school and came under fire, and after a lot of talk were taken down and returned to the donors.

I think the university did about as good as can be done when things like this come into question. I like how it was handled as a faculty vote and not just seized by one individual or group. Very democratic.

But what started all this? It was all started by that thing that started it all. That thing that started all of Hollywood: Birth of a Nation. Firstly, I must say, those are the most benign BOAN posters I’ve ever seen. Most examples feature an actual Klansman in full costume on a horse carrying a burning cross. The posters that were removed reveled absolutely nothing about the movie. One would have to be a student of early cinema to even know what the poster means and represents. What does it represent? It represents a blockbuster movie full of racial stereotypes. A film that reveals the flagerant racism held by its director who was a founding father of Hollywood Cinema.

The article points out that faculty will continue to screen and study the film, and I think that’s good. These removal things on campus always bug me because they feel like people are taking away the opportunity to have a conversation. At neighboring UC Irvine the American flag was taken down a few years ago in a unilateral move without much discussion. Apparently it represented a threat to certain individuals, but that threat wasn’t worthy of conversation, the flag just needed to be removed right away and so it was. I like how this was handled a lot more.

I get it if you don’t want to pass the poster in the hall every single day. But you can’t erase history. You can’t pretend to be a filmmaker and be ignorant of the sorts of films that were made during its inception.

So I offer this thread as a place to have a conversation about history. I don’t like hiding history. Let’s use this moment as a time to discuss film history, Griffith, early-Hollywood, etc. Have you seen Birth of a Nation? What did you think? I’ve seen it only once and I found it overlong. Has anyone seen Griffith’s follow up film Intolerance? I’ve had it on DVD for years and have never watched it.

Here is Roger Ebert’s lengthy review from a modern perspective. Part of his weekly Great Movies column, I think it was originally published in two parts.
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/g...-a-nation-1915

I agree that it was handled appropriately and that they made the right choice. Yeah, those posters aren’t as provactive as the ones featuring a hooded klansman or John Wilkes Booth. But just the giant bolding of “Birth of a Nation” SEEMS like a racist statement. Like it’s insisting or insinuating that the KKK and white supremacy is what this nation should be about.
As long as they don’t ban it, the film and all its aspects can still be discussed.
I’ve seen BOAN, and after all the hype and the controversy I found it incredibly boring.
”Intolerance” was way better. The ancient epic storyline was my favorite, the one with the girl who aspires to battle.

Another angle I have with this is out in the real world you are going to encounter crazy stuff. One day you will encounter the DVD cover of Birth of a Nation, or see its poster online. Sheltering in the bubble isn’t doing them favors.

It’s a campus of 10,000, having a poster up there isn’t going to desensitize or inoculate society either.

i watched the movie for the first time in the summer of 2017, followed by the 2016 version that is also troublesome (but for different reasons). I’m big on pushing people to watch Citizen Kane, in part because of the innovations it made to filmmaking, but largely because it’s a great film. The original BOAN was innovative for its time, but it’s also a slog of a watch. I can’t imagine watching it a second time (and I love silent films).

As you said in your OP, I think it’s less a matter of people running into something than it is making people walk by it every day.

What?

You can’t be a film student and ignore innovative films that may have subject matter that is out of step with the twenty first century.

Counterpoint: Sure you can. At this point those innovations have been absorbed into the collective film vocabulary. The influence of films will continue to be felt after the films themselves are forgotten.

I think the problem is that some people try to be slick with their racism instead of open about. Just look at a lot of these YouTube personalities who enable and show sympathy for white nationalists. But their nit racist.
So I wouldn’t put it past someone to have ulterior motives in putting up those posters. And you’d think in the Trump/“there’s good people on both sides”/Alt-Right era, putting these posters up would be a bad idea. I probably wouldn’t have in this particular situation.

Also, whether it’s the Klansman poster or just the title, it’s still film history right? So by that logic they would both be okay? Would it still be an example of denying history?

It could be argued that in the real world there will be nothing they can do about it. They may encounter the Birth of a Nation DVD on a shelf at Amoeba Music and there will be nothing they can do about it. They won’t be able to force the store to remove it from their shelves. I mean they could try to, but then they’re just being assholes. They’ll just have to deal.

You’re imagining a world where there will be DVD sections in five years, let alone DVD sections with Birth of a Nation that 18-22 year olds are looking through.

They might run into an 8-Track of the soundtrack to Boss ********** also, but chances aren’t great.

Funny enough when I first heard there was a controversy about a film poster I was sure it was going to be Boss N.

Yeah, whatever, no dvd stores. You’re evading my point on a technicality. That’s why I said Amoeba, I guarantee they will still be around for many years. I stand by my example. They may encounter it in the real world. And when they do they won’t be able to wish it away the way they were able to in college.

I hear you, but counterpoint:

This isn’t our Scarface posters we bought at the mall. These are posters from 1915. These belonged to Cecile B DeMille. I just read a Babe Ruth uniform from 1930 sold for over $5 million. The film school I went to had original matte paintings from Wizard of Oz on public display. If, in the future, it was determined that the depiction of little people in that film was offensive, I wouldn’t want those treasures removed from being available for viewing. These are Crown Jewels.These are priceless artifacts. The school just gave them away.

I’m not trying to be an asshole, just having a friendly debate.

Also, I don’t have a crystal ball, but returning the item may carry negative consequences with what is their one time biggest single donator to their endowment. Potentially big price to pay to make a handful of teens happy.

I agree with this. Unless it was a condition of the donation that the BOAN poster was displayed, just take it down, House it the permanent collection and put up another poster like Intolerance.

Giving it back seems like an overstep.