silverautumn
BrentonFilm Critic: Opinion versus What’s Good
April 19th 2010 20:17
So I recently had an internal battle over my opinon on a certain film. I viewed D. W. Griffith’s film ‘masterpiece’ The Birth of a Nation. After three hours of amazing storytelling technique and blatant racism I just couldn’t figure out what I thought of the film.
Is it good?
I feel like film critic should boil down to this simple question. But in the case of The Birth of a Nation the answer gets more complicated.
Just to give a little background, The Birth of a Nation is a silent picture from 1915 directed by D. W. Griffith. It’s based on the novel The Clansman by Tomas F. Dixon Jr. If you haven’t guessed already it’s a film about the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.
So my first answer to the question: Is it good?
Yes, it’s good. It’s good if you filter out the content. The way in which the story is told laid the foundation for almost all future film narrative. The use of wide shots and close-ups were revolutionary. The battle scenes had me wondering if this was really filmed in 1915. The main characters were introduced in such a way that I cared what happened to them…even if they were wildly racist.
Which brings be to my next answer.
No, it’s not good. How can something so clearly racist be considered good? There were so many times during this movie when I said, “man that’s so wrong” that it can’t be right. I mean, one of the narrative slides was this: The helpless white minority.
Wait, what (wtf)? Really?
So I guess in the case of a film like this the answer must be yes and no. After writing this I feel the need to pick up some literature on the subject of contradicting film critic. Any suggestions?
Is it good?
I feel like film critic should boil down to this simple question. But in the case of The Birth of a Nation the answer gets more complicated.
Just to give a little background, The Birth of a Nation is a silent picture from 1915 directed by D. W. Griffith. It’s based on the novel The Clansman by Tomas F. Dixon Jr. If you haven’t guessed already it’s a film about the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.
So my first answer to the question: Is it good?
Yes, it’s good. It’s good if you filter out the content. The way in which the story is told laid the foundation for almost all future film narrative. The use of wide shots and close-ups were revolutionary. The battle scenes had me wondering if this was really filmed in 1915. The main characters were introduced in such a way that I cared what happened to them…even if they were wildly racist.
Which brings be to my next answer.
No, it’s not good. How can something so clearly racist be considered good? There were so many times during this movie when I said, “man that’s so wrong” that it can’t be right. I mean, one of the narrative slides was this: The helpless white minority.
Wait, what (wtf)? Really?
So I guess in the case of a film like this the answer must be yes and no. After writing this I feel the need to pick up some literature on the subject of contradicting film critic. Any suggestions?
| 83 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
As for literature on the moral and ethical implications of being a film critic? I say "Whatever!" The more amoral you can be as an objective viewer the more enlightened you become as a subjective writer (he says contentiously)
Comment by silverautumn
Cinema Three
Projecting Projectionist - Film Reviews from a Small Town Theatre Employee
I know its good- there's nothing wrong with looking into the dark parts of life. It's what makes life interesting. But I don't have to like it. I understand it's advantages, see the good and even appreciate the beauty. But would I buy the dvd? No.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile