list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Birth of a Nation on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Birth_of_a_Nation/3386/default.aspx Title: The Birth of a Nation
Year: 1915
Director: D.W. Griffith
Plot: The most successful and artistically advanced film of its time, The Birth of a Nation has also sparked protests, riots, and divisiveness since its first release. The film tells the story of the Civil War and its aftermath, as seen through the eyes of two families. The Stonemans hail from the North, the Camerons from the South. When war breaks out, the Stonemans cast their lot with the Union, while the Camerons are loyal to Dixie. After the war, Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall), distressed that his beloved south is now under the rule of blacks and carpetbaggers, organizes several like-minded Southerners into a secret vigilante group called the Ku Klux Klan. When Cameron's beloved younger sister Flora (Mae Marsh) leaps to her death rather than surrender to the lustful advances of renegade slave Gus (Walter Long), the Klan wages war on the new Northern-inspired government and ultimately restores "order" to the South. In the original prints, Griffith suggested that the black population be shipped to Liberia, citing Abraham Lincoln as the inspiration for this ethnic cleansing. Showings of Birth of a Nation were picketed and boycotted from the start, and as recently as 1995, Turner Classic Movies cancelled a showing of a restored print in the wake of the racial tensions around the O.J. Simpson trial verdict. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 45
Number of Lists: 20
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:49:31 GMTThe Birth of a Nation1915D.W. GriffithThe most successful and artistically advanced film of its time, The Birth of a Nation has also sparked protests, riots, and divisiveness since its first release. The film tells the story of the Civil War and its aftermath, as seen through the eyes of two families. The Stonemans hail from the North, the Camerons from the South. When war breaks out, the Stonemans cast their lot with the Union, while the Camerons are loyal to Dixie. After the war, Ben Cameron (Henry B. Walthall), distressed that his beloved south is now under the rule of blacks and carpetbaggers, organizes several like-minded Southerners into a secret vigilante group called the Ku Klux Klan. When Cameron's beloved younger sister Flora (<a href="/players/P____45755/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mae Marsh</a>) leaps to her death rather than surrender to the lustful advances of renegade slave Gus (<a href="/players/P____43125/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Walter Long</a>), the Klan wages war on the new Northern-inspired government and ultimately restores "order" to the South. In the original prints, Griffith suggested that the black population be shipped to Liberia, citing Abraham Lincoln as the inspiration for this ethnic cleansing. Showings of <a href=/films/214493/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Birth of a Nation</a> were picketed and boycotted from the start, and as recently as 1995, Turner Classic Movies cancelled a showing of a restored print in the wake of the racial tensions around the O.J. Simpson trial verdict. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide45Tag Target (>10)20663http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t75594fbc0m.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Birth_of_a_Nation/3386/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/7/14/43050.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 7/14/2009 5:04:35 PM
Body: This blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Birth of a Nation This is the one. The icon of epic of the American silent film. Probably the oldest feature film to still be seen on "greatest of all time" movie list. Controversial in it's greatness and innovation of filmmaking vs. its rather racist sentiments and portrayals. It's long, over three hours. And it's really split into two parts. The first part did not seem overly controversial as what I was expecting. It was also probably the more boring of the two parts as well. Surprising since I think this part has more actual war scenes in it. The second part is the "reconstruction" and here is where the racist portrayals come in. A scene of black people who have been elected into congress eating chicken and watermelon during session and sitting there with their shoes off. That was from this movie wasn't it?? I hope I'm not getting it mixed up with anything I saw subsequently. I can't remember which part it was in, but the most interesting and exciting part of the movie is definitely the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Most people have seen what the Ford theatre looks like if they haven't already visited it (I have). You know what's going to happen, but because of that it's all the more tense. No matter what your feelings on anything else surrounding the film, it should be seen for this scene. The sight of Caucasian actors playing African American actors in blackface would be a bit jarring for most people in our current culture in itself I'm sure, but what makes it even more jarring is that there are several actors in this film who actually are African American. So to see the blackface actors playing amongst them is especially strange. It was kind of interesting to see how the KKK began and what some people's image of the reconstruction period was like. I wasn't there, so I don't really know. I'm sure there were certainly a lot of people who felt as though black carpetbaggers coming down south were evil people doing some amoral things. And perhaps they were sometimes. Obviously I'm not condoning any racism, but it's important to kind of understand how racism begins and operates if we are going to be able to deal with it. Rating: 8/10
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:04:35 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog7/14/2009 5:04:35 PMThis blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Birth of a Nation This is the one. The icon of epic of the American silent film. Probably the oldest feature film to still be seen on "greatest of all time" movie list. Controversial in it's greatness and innovation of filmmaking vs. its rather racist sentiments and portrayals. It's long, over three hours. And it's really split into two parts. The first part did not seem overly controversial as what I was expecting. It was also probably the more boring of the two parts as well. Surprising since I think this part has more actual war scenes in it. The second part is the "reconstruction" and here is where the racist portrayals come in. A scene of black people who have been elected into congress eating chicken and watermelon during session and sitting there with their shoes off. That was from this movie wasn't it?? I hope I'm not getting it mixed up with anything I saw subsequently. I can't remember which part it was in, but the most interesting and exciting part of the movie is definitely the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Most people have seen what the Ford theatre looks like if they haven't already visited it (I have). You know what's going to happen, but because of that it's all the more tense. No matter what your feelings on anything else surrounding the film, it should be seen for this scene. The sight of Caucasian actors playing African American actors in blackface would be a bit jarring for most people in our current culture in itself I'm sure, but what makes it even more jarring is that there are several actors in this film who actually are African American. So to see the blackface actors playing amongst them is especially strange. It was kind of interesting to see how the KKK began and what some people's image of the reconstruction period was like. I wasn't there, so I don't really know. I'm sure there were certainly a lot of people who felt as though black carpetbaggers coming down south were evil people doing some amoral things. And perhaps they were sometimes. Obviously I'm not condoning any racism, but it's important to kind of understand how racism begins and operates if we are going to be able to deal with it. Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/1/20/39718.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 1/20/2009 5:39:13 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Birth of a Nation is on the following AFI list: The Original Top 100 (#44) Netflix, as usual, supplied me with a DVD copy of this film, which is a good thing because I had no intentions of watching it until I discovered that it was on the Original AFI list. I didn't even add it to my queue until I reached its placement on the list. My disclaimer going into this entry is that my day job—you know, the one I shouldn't quit?—is working as a civil rights investigator for state government. In other words, I investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment. Thus, my make-up is generally anti-racist, anti-prejudice, anti- anything that would remotely fall into this category. Now, if you don't already know, The Birth of a Nation is a silent film by renowned filmmaker D.W. Griffith that was, essentially, propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, its release and widespread popularity actually incited the once-dormant Klan to renew its efforts in the budding twentieth century. Griffith himself was a descendant of a Confederate officer and, likely, had few objections to the content of this film. The film's release, way back when in 1915, resulted in controversy and protests by the NAACP and other civil rights groups. Thus, in truth, this film has never had any chance of being remotely liked by me because its racist content would overshadow any other notable element of its existence. I tell you, therefore, gentle reader, that the highest personal rating from my end that I planned to allow this film was a 6.5, between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining, which is kind of the threshold I use to evaluate the boundary between a film's artistic merit and its entertainment value. If the film were artistically mediocre or worse, the rating would decrease. So, the question remains, if the film contains racist content, how did it come to be an AFI movie? While I can't answer that question definitively, I can guess that, in 1997, the Institute wanted to acknowledge this film because it, literally, changed the face of cinema. It improved upon and employed movie-making techniques that hadn't been used by anyone, including Griffith himself, prior to that point. It was immensely popular, viewed by millions of Americans and has been dubbed cinema's first "blockbuster." And, when ignoring the racist parts of the film (which is hard but can be done to some extent), the story is actually quite epic, even romantic. In fact, I'm inclined to rate the film a 6.5 for its movie-making technique alone. The story spans three hours. The images trace the racist propaganda movement from slavery to post-Reconstruction. The first part of the movie focuses on two families at its core, a Southern family called the Camerons with its two parents and five children (three boys, two girls) and a Northern family, including an abolitionist and eventual Reconstructionist named Austin Stoneman (who was based on an actual Reconstruction leader), his daughter (Lillian Gish), his son, and his compatriots. The first part of the film shows how the Camerons enjoy their antebellum life with their "happy" slaves (who are predominantly white actors in black face). The Northern son is friends with the sons of the Camerons and comes to visit them, and through this man, the middle Cameron boy finds out about the sister and falls for her photograph. The abolition movement gains steam, however, and the film then depicts the events of the Civil War, and, in this part of the film, the message remains quite neutral, focusing more on the societal impact of war and the emotional division between brothers and friends. The three Cameron sons fight for the Confederacy, but only the middle son survives, and he ultimately meets Lillian Gish's character in a recovery hospital in Washington DC. They fall in love. Lincoln emancipates the slaves, Lee eventually surrenders to Grant, and Lincoln is assassinated. All of this, aside from the depictions of slaves and their eventual involvement in the civil war, is filmed with great resourcefulness and attention, given the fact that directors often only had one wind-up movie camera to work with. Griffith exacted care in photographing wide, panoramic scenes of battle and used different color camera gels to create moods, such as red for battle and white for surreality, that marked the first studies in cinematography. The musical soundtrack, the only sound for the film, featured various classical pieces from the Civil War and more contemporary eras. The costumes, at least of the Camerons and the Stonemans, were inaccurate but charming, and the actors seemed realistic and even devoid of some of the melodrama that characterizes many silent films. The second half of the film is where the entire thing relaxes into a category of technical historical landmark rather than a socially relevant, culturally important, or even great film. Griffith depicted post-Reconstruction as the fantasy nightmare of the racist, where freed blacks evolve from being sold on promises of forty acres and a mule and actually gain political power, covet white women, assume the aristocracy (de-gentrifying the Southern white), and harass the white citizenry. Black women are portrayed as manipulative connivers, black men are portrayed as animalistic characters consumed by lust, and any mixed race character is depicted as the worst of the lot, scheming to hold power in every area of society and politics. When the youngest Cameron sister falls off a cliff and dies after being pursued by a black man who wishes to marry her (or maybe worse), the middle Cameron son, who sees some black children playing in white bed sheets, hatches an idea: why not dress up in white hoods and, on horseback, take back the South their own way? Of course, the film glosses over any truly violent and, frankly, more accurate images, such as lynching and burning crosses, but the point the viewer is supposed to understand is that, with the rising threat of the "minority white" (words actually used in the cutouts), there was no choice but to stage another rebellion, one that the North and South can get behind together, through the work of the Klan, who are given the wash of heroes. In fact, the Lillian Gish character, formerly a staunch abolitionist and supporter of equality, "comes around" after her life is threatened by rioting black officers; her honor is threatened by the "mulatto" named Lynch, Stoneman's protégé, who has designs on marrying her; and after the Klan, including her former lover, comes in riding on horseback – the white knight scenario – and saves her and her father. The fact is, it's hard to view a film like The Birth of a Nation as a truly great film. A film can be innovative and significant to the evolution of cinema without being called "great." I don't think innovation itself automatically makes the whole project great; they are not overlapping in their definitions technically, and I don't see how one can hold The Birth of a Nation up as one of the greatest films ever. It's fair to call it a pinnacle in the evolution of film, but its questionable content, half of which is based on inaccuracy, fear, and hatred would seem, to me, to knock it down a few pegs from any greatness pedestal. The best-filmed scene in it was the assassination of Lincoln, which was accurately taken from historical accounts and paintings; was surprisingly gruesome and tense, even though I knew it was coming; and which had nothing to do with its racist message. Actually, the film was surprisingly sympathetic to Lincoln. I think the AFI realized, somewhere along the line, that technical achievement and greatness do not necessarily co-exist when it created the Revised list. On the anniversary list in 2007, the AFI dropped this film and instead acknowledged Griffith by including his Intolerance film, which he made, incidentally, in answer to the controversy surrounding The Birth of a Nation. I don't know if it was capitulation on their part or if, logically, the AFI arrived at the same conclusion I have: that a film is not necessarily great on technical and/or artistic merit alone, that informed this decision. In any event, and since the irony is not lost on me that I've watched this film on the very weekend preceding Martin Luther King Day and the inauguration of America's first black president, I'm proud of myself that I made it through the film without shutting it off in total disgust. After all, it's always good to have information about the enemy, and it's good to remember how far we've come, and how jarring certain images can be, and how no one benefits from hatred and ignorance. As time passes, perhaps the images of this film will be regarded merely as a quaint chapter in history, a turning point in nascent cinema. In the meantime, I'll give it the 6.5 for its technical achievement, which is anything but mediocre but far from a masterpiece, and it won't pass the test for obvious reasons. The Birth of a Nation has its place in American film history, but it has no place on the AFI list or in my movie collection.
]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:13 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts1/20/2009 5:39:13 PMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Birth of a Nation is on the following AFI list: The Original Top 100 (#44) Netflix, as usual, supplied me with a DVD copy of this film, which is a good thing because I had no intentions of watching it until I discovered that it was on the Original AFI list. I didn't even add it to my queue until I reached its placement on the list. My disclaimer going into this entry is that my day job&mdash;you know, the one I shouldn't quit?&mdash;is working as a civil rights investigator for state government. In other words, I investigate complaints of discrimination and harassment. Thus, my make-up is generally anti-racist, anti-prejudice, anti- anything that would remotely fall into this category. Now, if you don't already know, The Birth of a Nation is a silent film by renowned filmmaker D.W. Griffith that was, essentially, propaganda for the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, its release and widespread popularity actually incited the once-dormant Klan to renew its efforts in the budding twentieth century. Griffith himself was a descendant of a Confederate officer and, likely, had few objections to the content of this film. The film's release, way back when in 1915, resulted in controversy and protests by the NAACP and other civil rights groups. Thus, in truth, this film has never had any chance of being remotely liked by me because its racist content would overshadow any other notable element of its existence. I tell you, therefore, gentle reader, that the highest personal rating from my end that I planned to allow this film was a 6.5, between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining, which is kind of the threshold I use to evaluate the boundary between a film's artistic merit and its entertainment value. If the film were artistically mediocre or worse, the rating would decrease. So, the question remains, if the film contains racist content, how did it come to be an AFI movie? While I can't answer that question definitively, I can guess that, in 1997, the Institute wanted to acknowledge this film because it, literally, changed the face of cinema. It improved upon and employed movie-making techniques that hadn't been used by anyone, including Griffith himself, prior to that point. It was immensely popular, viewed by millions of Americans and has been dubbed cinema's first "blockbuster." And, when ignoring the racist parts of the film (which is hard but can be done to some extent), the story is actually quite epic, even romantic. In fact, I'm inclined to rate the film a 6.5 for its movie-making technique alone. The story spans three hours. The images trace the racist propaganda movement from slavery to post-Reconstruction. The first part of the movie focuses on two families at its core, a Southern family called the Camerons with its two parents and five children (three boys, two girls) and a Northern family, including an abolitionist and eventual Reconstructionist named Austin Stoneman (who was based on an actual Reconstruction leader), his daughter (Lillian Gish), his son, and his compatriots. The first part of the film shows how the Camerons enjoy their antebellum life with their "happy" slaves (who are predominantly white actors in black face). The Northern son is friends with the sons of the Camerons and comes to visit them, and through this man, the middle Cameron boy finds out about the sister and falls for her photograph. The abolition movement gains steam, however, and the film then depicts the events of the Civil War, and, in this part of the film, the message remains quite neutral, focusing more on the societal impact of war and the emotional division between brothers and friends. The three Cameron sons fight for the Confederacy, but only the middle son survives, and he ultimately meets Lillian Gish's character in a recovery hospital in Washington DC. They fall in love. Lincoln emancipates the slaves, Lee eventually surrenders to Grant, and Lincoln is assassinated. All of this, aside from the depictions of slaves and their eventual involvement in the civil war, is filmed with great resourcefulness and attention, given the fact that directors often only had one wind-up movie camera to work with. Griffith exacted care in photographing wide, panoramic scenes of battle and used different color camera gels to create moods, such as red for battle and white for surreality, that marked the first studies in cinematography. The musical soundtrack, the only sound for the film, featured various classical pieces from the Civil War and more contemporary eras. The costumes, at least of the Camerons and the Stonemans, were inaccurate but charming, and the actors seemed realistic and even devoid of some of the melodrama that characterizes many silent films. The second half of the film is where the entire thing relaxes into a category of technical historical landmark rather than a socially relevant, culturally important, or even great film. Griffith depicted post-Reconstruction as the fantasy nightmare of the racist, where freed blacks evolve from being sold on promises of forty acres and a mule and actually gain political power, covet white women, assume the aristocracy (de-gentrifying the Southern white), and harass the white citizenry. Black women are portrayed as manipulative connivers, black men are portrayed as animalistic characters consumed by lust, and any mixed race character is depicted as the worst of the lot, scheming to hold power in every area of society and politics. When the youngest Cameron sister falls off a cliff and dies after being pursued by a black man who wishes to marry her (or maybe worse), the middle Cameron son, who sees some black children playing in white bed sheets, hatches an idea: why not dress up in white hoods and, on horseback, take back the South their own way? Of course, the film glosses over any truly violent and, frankly, more accurate images, such as lynching and burning crosses, but the point the viewer is supposed to understand is that, with the rising threat of the "minority white" (words actually used in the cutouts), there was no choice but to stage another rebellion, one that the North and South can get behind together, through the work of the Klan, who are given the wash of heroes. In fact, the Lillian Gish character, formerly a staunch abolitionist and supporter of equality, "comes around" after her life is threatened by rioting black officers; her honor is threatened by the "mulatto" named Lynch, Stoneman's prot&eacute;g&eacute;, who has designs on marrying her; and after the Klan, including her former lover, comes in riding on horseback &ndash; the white knight scenario &ndash; and saves her and her father. The fact is, it's hard to view a film like The Birth of a Nation as a truly great film. A film can be innovative and significant to the evolution of cinema without being called "great." I don't think innovation itself automatically makes the whole project great; they are not overlapping in their definitions technically, and I don't see how one can hold The Birth of a Nation up as one of the greatest films ever. It's fair to call it a pinnacle in the evolution of film, but its questionable content, half of which is based on inaccuracy, fear, and hatred would seem, to me, to knock it down a few pegs from any greatness pedestal. The best-filmed scene in it was the assassination of Lincoln, which was accurately taken from historical accounts and paintings; was surprisingly gruesome and tense, even though I knew it was coming; and which had nothing to do with its racist message. Actually, the film was surprisingly sympathetic to Lincoln. I think the AFI realized, somewhere along the line, that technical achievement and greatness do not necessarily co-exist when it created the Revised list. On the anniversary list in 2007, the AFI dropped this film and instead acknowledged Griffith by including his Intolerance film, which he made, incidentally, in answer to the controversy surrounding The Birth of a Nation. I don't know if it was capitulation on their part or if, logically, the AFI arrived at the same conclusion I have: that a film is not necessarily great on technical and/or artistic merit alone, that informed this decision. In any event, and since the irony is not lost on me that I've watched this film on the very weekend preceding Martin Luther King Day and the inauguration of America's first black president, I'm proud of myself that I made it through the film without shutting it off in total disgust. After all, it's always good to have information about the enemy, and it's good to remember how far we've come, and how jarring certain images can be, and how no one benefits from hatred and ignorance. As time passes, perhaps the images of this film will be regarded merely as a quaint chapter in history, a turning point in nascent cinema. In the meantime, I'll give it the 6.5 for its technical achievement, which is anything but mediocre but far from a masterpiece, and it won't pass the test for obvious reasons. The Birth of a Nation has its place in American film history, but it has no place on the AFI list or in my movie collection. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/2/37861.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/2/2008 4:01:04 PM
Body: It’s already been called the most important civil rights film of the decade, but only time will tell if Milk has any real impact on the gay marriage issue or any other related civil rights matter. Obviously the film, which is set thirty years in the past, can be appropriated by the campaign to overturn Proposition 8, but if that campaign is successful, it will be difficult to prove with certainty Milk contributed to the end result. The Birth of a Nation may have inspired a reformation of the Ku Klux Klan and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner may have opened some minds to wider acceptance of interracial marriage (which had just recently been legalized). However, as Time magazine reported earlier this year, it’s quite rare for cinema to really change the world. A movie like Philadelphia easily gets moviegoers thinking about AIDS and discrimination, for instance, and Sicko exposes some of the supposed benefits of universal health care, yet most of these kinds of message films preach primarily to the choir. But at least five films have made an actual difference, either on a local or national level. Will Milk join the small group of movies detailed below? Victim (1961) Long before Milk, Philadelphia or even Cruising, this British thriller became the first motion picture in history to feature the word “homosexual.” At the time, same-sex acts were illegal in the UK, and so, even though the laws weren’t strictly enforced, the film was quite controversial (and it was banned in the U.S.). Still, this story of a closeted bisexual lawyer who becomes the target of an anti-gay extortion ring had a deep, lasting effect on the people in Britain, and it’s unofficially yet widely considered to have influenced both general acceptance of homosexuality and the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act, which legalized consensual same-sex relations across the pond (anti-sodomy laws in the States, on the other hand, were not completely eliminated until 2003). I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967) It may seem extremely tame by today’s standards (in the recent words of John Waters, it’s nothing more than a “limp dick and some ugly women naked.”), but this warmer-titled of Vilgot Sjoman’s I Am Curious films became infamous for its depiction of full frontal nudity and an oral sex act that could barely be called fellatio. After being banned in Massachusetts, where it was labeled pornography, it became the subject of an obscenity case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was ultimately determined not to be obscene. Once it could be freely distributed, it became a must-see, though many were disappointed with it, and it held the record for highest grossing foreign film in the U.S. for more than twenty years. More importantly, the Supreme Court decision was groundbreaking in terms of obscenity law, and the multi-billion dollar pornographic film industry of the 70s was able to happen as a result of this one little Swedish art film. The Thin Blue Line (1988) This Errol Morris film is considered one of the most influential documentaries of all time, for a couple of reasons. In addition to being significant to the craft of nonfiction cinema, it also had a direct effect on the freedom of one man. Rather than merely present the story of Randall Dale Adams, who was tried and convicted of murdering a Dallas police officer, Morris also investigates the case, with enough detail to convince viewers of Adams’ innocence. Following the release of the film, Adams was able to get his conviction overturned and eventually was released from prison. While rescuing one individual may not be the same as changing the world, The Thin Blue Line is considered one of the only motion pictures to be directly influential in bringing about some kind of change. JFK (1991) Oliver Stone’s controversial look at the Kennedy assassination didn’t exactly tell us who killed the president. It didn’t even convince everyone that Oswald wasn’t responsible. But despite all the controversy and negative reviews, JFK went on to be a landmark film for its cause, because it led to the passage of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992 (aka the JFK Act) and the formation of the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board. Officially, Congress was more annoyed by the conclusions of JFK than inspired by the film, but the result just goes to show (and Michael Moore likely was paying attention) that being a burden can be as worthwhile as being convincing. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Davis Guggenheim’s film of Al Gore’s Global Warming presentation didn’t bring about a lot of change or legislation in the U.S., but it did have a significant effect in terms of breaking ground on discussion of the issue. However, it was apparently instrumental in the passing of a law to curb greenhouse gases in California. Meanwhile, elsewhere, it has been employed in school curriculum and it certainly helped Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize. Because not all films can be as direct and quickly effect as The Thin Blue Line and JFK, though, we’ll need more than the past two years to fully see the difference made by this one. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/2/2008 4:01:04 PMIt’s already been called the most important civil rights film of the decade, but only time will tell if Milk has any real impact on the gay marriage issue or any other related civil rights matter. Obviously the film, which is set thirty years in the past, can be appropriated by the campaign to overturn Proposition 8, but if that campaign is successful, it will be difficult to prove with certainty Milk contributed to the end result. The Birth of a Nation may have inspired a reformation of the Ku Klux Klan and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner may have opened some minds to wider acceptance of interracial marriage (which had just recently been legalized). However, as Time magazine reported earlier this year, it’s quite rare for cinema to really change the world. A movie like Philadelphia easily gets moviegoers thinking about AIDS and discrimination, for instance, and Sicko exposes some of the supposed benefits of universal health care, yet most of these kinds of message films preach primarily to the choir. But at least five films have made an actual difference, either on a local or national level. Will Milk join the small group of movies detailed below? Victim (1961) Long before Milk, Philadelphia or even Cruising, this British thriller became the first motion picture in history to feature the word “homosexual.” At the time, same-sex acts were illegal in the UK, and so, even though the laws weren’t strictly enforced, the film was quite controversial (and it was banned in the U.S.). Still, this story of a closeted bisexual lawyer who becomes the target of an anti-gay extortion ring had a deep, lasting effect on the people in Britain, and it’s unofficially yet widely considered to have influenced both general acceptance of homosexuality and the 1967 Sexual Offenses Act, which legalized consensual same-sex relations across the pond (anti-sodomy laws in the States, on the other hand, were not completely eliminated until 2003). I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967) It may seem extremely tame by today’s standards (in the recent words of John Waters, it’s nothing more than a “limp dick and some ugly women naked.”), but this warmer-titled of Vilgot Sjoman’s I Am Curious films became infamous for its depiction of full frontal nudity and an oral sex act that could barely be called fellatio. After being banned in Massachusetts, where it was labeled pornography, it became the subject of an obscenity case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was ultimately determined not to be obscene. Once it could be freely distributed, it became a must-see, though many were disappointed with it, and it held the record for highest grossing foreign film in the U.S. for more than twenty years. More importantly, the Supreme Court decision was groundbreaking in terms of obscenity law, and the multi-billion dollar pornographic film industry of the 70s was able to happen as a result of this one little Swedish art film. The Thin Blue Line (1988) This Errol Morris film is considered one of the most influential documentaries of all time, for a couple of reasons. In addition to being significant to the craft of nonfiction cinema, it also had a direct effect on the freedom of one man. Rather than merely present the story of Randall Dale Adams, who was tried and convicted of murdering a Dallas police officer, Morris also investigates the case, with enough detail to convince viewers of Adams’ innocence. Following the release of the film, Adams was able to get his conviction overturned and eventually was released from prison. While rescuing one individual may not be the same as changing the world, The Thin Blue Line is considered one of the only motion pictures to be directly influential in bringing about some kind of change. JFK (1991) Oliver Stone’s controversial look at the Kennedy assassination didn’t exactly tell us who killed the president. It didn’t even convince everyone that Oswald wasn’t responsible. But despite all the controversy and negative reviews, JFK went on to be a landmark film for its cause, because it led to the passage of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992 (aka the JFK Act) and the formation of the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board. Officially, Congress was more annoyed by the conclusions of JFK than inspired by the film, but the result just goes to show (and Michael Moore likely was paying attention) that being a burden can be as worthwhile as being convincing. An Inconvenient Truth (2006) Davis Guggenheim’s film of Al Gore’s Global Warming presentation didn’t bring about a lot of change or legislation in the U.S., but it did have a significant effect in terms of breaking ground on discussion of the issue. However, it was apparently instrumental in the passing of a law to curb greenhouse gases in California. Meanwhile, elsewhere, it has been employed in school curriculum and it certainly helped Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize. Because not all films can be as direct and quickly effect as The Thin Blue Line and JFK, though, we’ll need more than the past two years to fully see the difference made by this one. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/17/36462.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/17/2008 4:01:03 PM
Body: At various turns, Abraham Lincoln (1930), D.W. Griffith’s first and most notorious sound film, comes off as the legendary director’s W.– the story of a simple, silly good ole boy’s rise to the U.S. Presidency. Walter Huston portrays young Abe as a tough but bumbling doof, romantic daydreamer and idle underachiever. Even his bride-to-be, Mary Todd, curses him as a “country baboon” at one point. But the rest of the film illustrates every last Honest Abe tall tale. Well, in that sense, it’s a lot like W., too: When in presidential mode, Huston’s Lincoln is as uncanny a reproduction of a national myth as Josh Brolin’s George W. Bush is of a national disgrace. At other moments, Abraham Lincoln is Griffith’s Nixon, a strong example of a film director tempering his political convictions in order to embrace an unlikely subject. The filmmaker who re-invigorated the Ku Klux Klan with Birth of a Nation treats the Great Emancipator as a complex, admirable character. Early on, Griffith establishes wild young Lincoln as the hardiest fighter, drinker and railsplitter in Illinois. He’s a brash man’s man but gets all goofy and impulsive around his first great love, society girl Anne Rutledge (Una Merkel) . Griffith presents this historically contested relationship (no solid evidence of the affair with married Rutledge exists) as the experience that sobered Abe into mature leadership. Anne’s sudden death from typhoid sends Abe into a depressed stupor from which he emerges sounding like a far-seeing prophet. During Lincoln’s rise as a self-taught Illinois lawyer and legislator, he catches the eye of feisty debutante Mary Todd (Kay Hammond), whose society matchmakers are steering her toward powerhouse Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas. “A lot of people seem to think a man named, uh, Abraham Lincoln is going even further than Mr. Douglas,” Mary says. Her friend shrieks,”Why Mary Todd, have you gone crazy? You compare an unknown cornfield lawyer with a brilliant, cultured gentleman like Stephen A. Douglas?” (This is screenwriting for our times: transparent as a Baggie.) But no one is more down on Lincoln than old Abe himself: “[I] got less property and owe more debts than anybody that ever run for legislature.” When Ms. Todd aggressively pursues him, he panics: “That woman scares me… smart as pepper and pretty, too.” Even at the wedding, when advised to take a drink to calm his nerves, he frets, “My legs are too frightened to pay any attention to liquor.” After triumphing at the famed Lincoln-Douglas debate on the abolition of slavery, Lincoln nevertheless loses the race for Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate to Democratic incumbent Douglas. He remains wracked with self-loathing. “I’m 50 years old… a failure at everything. If I died today, nobody’d ever know I’d lived.” A moment later a Republican party representative reports that the debates have made Lincoln a national figure and asks that he become the party’s candidate for president. Tensions in the South are “boiling over” as Abe puts it, illustrated by a brief scene of a dashing Virginian of Rhett Butler looks and Ashley Wilkes manners exhorting a pro-slavery mob. The man declares personal war on “every abolitionist who dares defile the soil of Old Virginia!” “Who’s that?” says a bystander. “Oh, that’s the actor John Wilkes Booth. He can’t act, but the women don’t know it.” Griffith shows a nice bit of narrative economy by indicating Lincoln’s election victory through a simple, quiet closeup of Mary’s hand scratching out the word “Passenger” on a luggage tag and replacing it with “President” in her dainty script. Abe laughs warmly offscreen, and we see his hand pat Mary’s. “Awww, Mary…” In Abraham Lincoln, the president’s advisers oppose his drumbeat to civil war (like the lefties, moderates and traditional conservatives who questioned Bush’s Iraq War) and attempt to control him (like Bush’s neocon puppetmasters): “Then we agree… that we must yield to the demands of the South and evacuate Fort Sumter. We agree that our president must be firmly guided by us. We must make every effort to control his inexperienced judgment.” Abe’s not having it. He steps up and asserts his role as the decider: “I will shoulder all responsibility,” he says, ordering relief troops to Fort Sumter in preparation for a Confederate assault. Griffith’s, Huston’s and cinematographer Karl Struss’s finest moment in the film lingers on Lincoln’s grave reaction after having just signed a request for 75,000 troops to kick off the war. A daugerrotype come to chilling life. Speaking of: Huston’s resemblance to Lincoln grows more astonishing as he “ages” decades, adopting the famous jawline beard and stovepipe hat. (Good thing, since, in an early scene where Abe seduces Ms. Rutledge, Huston wears heavy silent movie eyeliner and lipstick that evoke his granddaughter Anjelica Huston circa 1988.) The screen Mary Todd Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant are also shocking photocopies of the originals. Abraham Lincoln is remembered as one of Griffith’s worst films because of its stilted dawn-of-the-talkies dialogue and staging, but I found it to be at least as dynamic and diverting a political cartoon as Oliver Stone’s latest historical tossed salad. Kill the sound and you’ll catch some signature Griffith moments of visual play, like the montage of marching boots, cavalry and cannons assembling for war in an insane rush. His whip pans to visual punchlines pack as much wit and electricity as John Ford’s. Griffith’s legacy lies in these scattered contributions to film grammar and the art of historical pageantry, not his politics or historical accuracy. Oliver Stone is staring at a similar, enviable fate. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/17/2008 4:01:03 PM At various turns, Abraham Lincoln (1930), D.W. Griffith’s first and most notorious sound film, comes off as the legendary director’s W.– the story of a simple, silly good ole boy’s rise to the U.S. Presidency. Walter Huston portrays young Abe as a tough but bumbling doof, romantic daydreamer and idle underachiever. Even his bride-to-be, Mary Todd, curses him as a “country baboon” at one point. But the rest of the film illustrates every last Honest Abe tall tale. Well, in that sense, it’s a lot like W., too: When in presidential mode, Huston’s Lincoln is as uncanny a reproduction of a national myth as Josh Brolin’s George W. Bush is of a national disgrace. At other moments, Abraham Lincoln is Griffith’s Nixon, a strong example of a film director tempering his political convictions in order to embrace an unlikely subject. The filmmaker who re-invigorated the Ku Klux Klan with Birth of a Nation treats the Great Emancipator as a complex, admirable character. Early on, Griffith establishes wild young Lincoln as the hardiest fighter, drinker and railsplitter in Illinois. He’s a brash man’s man but gets all goofy and impulsive around his first great love, society girl Anne Rutledge (Una Merkel) . Griffith presents this historically contested relationship (no solid evidence of the affair with married Rutledge exists) as the experience that sobered Abe into mature leadership. Anne’s sudden death from typhoid sends Abe into a depressed stupor from which he emerges sounding like a far-seeing prophet. During Lincoln’s rise as a self-taught Illinois lawyer and legislator, he catches the eye of feisty debutante Mary Todd (Kay Hammond), whose society matchmakers are steering her toward powerhouse Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas. “A lot of people seem to think a man named, uh, Abraham Lincoln is going even further than Mr. Douglas,” Mary says. Her friend shrieks,”Why Mary Todd, have you gone crazy? You compare an unknown cornfield lawyer with a brilliant, cultured gentleman like Stephen A. Douglas?” (This is screenwriting for our times: transparent as a Baggie.) But no one is more down on Lincoln than old Abe himself: “[I] got less property and owe more debts than anybody that ever run for legislature.” When Ms. Todd aggressively pursues him, he panics: “That woman scares me… smart as pepper and pretty, too.” Even at the wedding, when advised to take a drink to calm his nerves, he frets, “My legs are too frightened to pay any attention to liquor.” After triumphing at the famed Lincoln-Douglas debate on the abolition of slavery, Lincoln nevertheless loses the race for Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate to Democratic incumbent Douglas. He remains wracked with self-loathing. “I’m 50 years old… a failure at everything. If I died today, nobody’d ever know I’d lived.” A moment later a Republican party representative reports that the debates have made Lincoln a national figure and asks that he become the party’s candidate for president. Tensions in the South are “boiling over” as Abe puts it, illustrated by a brief scene of a dashing Virginian of Rhett Butler looks and Ashley Wilkes manners exhorting a pro-slavery mob. The man declares personal war on “every abolitionist who dares defile the soil of Old Virginia!” “Who’s that?” says a bystander. “Oh, that’s the actor John Wilkes Booth. He can’t act, but the women don’t know it.” Griffith shows a nice bit of narrative economy by indicating Lincoln’s election victory through a simple, quiet closeup of Mary’s hand scratching out the word “Passenger” on a luggage tag and replacing it with “President” in her dainty script. Abe laughs warmly offscreen, and we see his hand pat Mary’s. “Awww, Mary…” In Abraham Lincoln, the president’s advisers oppose his drumbeat to civil war (like the lefties, moderates and traditional conservatives who questioned Bush’s Iraq War) and attempt to control him (like Bush’s neocon puppetmasters): “Then we agree… that we must yield to the demands of the South and evacuate Fort Sumter. We agree that our president must be firmly guided by us. We must make every effort to control his inexperienced judgment.” Abe’s not having it. He steps up and asserts his role as the decider: “I will shoulder all responsibility,” he says, ordering relief troops to Fort Sumter in preparation for a Confederate assault. Griffith’s, Huston’s and cinematographer Karl Struss’s finest moment in the film lingers on Lincoln’s grave reaction after having just signed a request for 75,000 troops to kick off the war. A daugerrotype come to chilling life. Speaking of: Huston’s resemblance to Lincoln grows more astonishing as he “ages” decades, adopting the famous jawline beard and stovepipe hat. (Good thing, since, in an early scene where Abe seduces Ms. Rutledge, Huston wears heavy silent movie eyeliner and lipstick that evoke his granddaughter Anjelica Huston circa 1988.) The screen Mary Todd Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant are also shocking photocopies of the originals. Abraham Lincoln is remembered as one of Griffith’s worst films because of its stilted dawn-of-the-talkies dialogue and staging, but I found it to be at least as dynamic and diverting a political cartoon as Oliver Stone’s latest historical tossed salad. Kill the sound and you’ll catch some signature Griffith moments of visual play, like the montage of marching boots, cavalry and cannons assembling for war in an insane rush. His whip pans to visual punchlines pack as much wit and electricity as John Ford’s. Griffith’s legacy lies in these scattered contributions to film grammar and the art of historical pageantry, not his politics or historical accuracy. Oliver Stone is staring at a similar, enviable fate. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/32116/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/4/2008 3:59:32 AM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. [/quote] Since this is a contrarian-type group, I'll just say that I put Shakespeare in Love well above Saving Private Ryan (just another war movie) and Life Is Beautiful (comedian tries to get serious about the Holocaust but goes seriously wrong - put if it moved you, then it becomes a worthy movie). The Thin Red Line and Elizabeth are off on some other, orthogonal axes.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:59:32 GMTjoem18bTop 57/4/2008 3:59:32 AM[quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. [/quote] Since this is a contrarian-type group, I'll just say that I put Shakespeare in Love well above Saving Private Ryan (just another war movie) and Life Is Beautiful (comedian tries to get serious about the Holocaust but goes seriously wrong - put if it moved you, then it becomes a worthy movie). The Thin Red Line and Elizabeth are off on some other, orthogonal axes. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/32099/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/3/2008 7:32:53 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise.
]]>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:32:53 GMTindieabby88Top 57/3/2008 7:32:53 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/31611/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/24/2008 2:02:06 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful.
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:02:06 GMTleeroy711Top 56/24/2008 2:02:06 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/31610/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/24/2008 1:43:17 PM
Body: [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won.
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:43:17 GMTRisseladaTop 56/24/2008 1:43:17 PM[quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/31491/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: laylor
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/21/2008 1:41:01 AM
Body: Ok, my first post and here I go: Jacob's Ladder I first watched this film in the early 90's when I was a kid and found it incredibly boring. I watched it again in my mid 20's (so recently) and understood a lot more of the film but still found it boring. Some great performances and imagery but ultimately, unsatisfactory. The ending was a real let down, as well. Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle. Honorable Mentions: The English Patient, American Beauty, Flashdance, and The Lord of the Rings.
]]>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:41:01 GMTlaylorTop 56/21/2008 1:41:01 AMOk, my first post and here I go: Jacob's Ladder I first watched this film in the early 90's when I was a kid and found it incredibly boring. I watched it again in my mid 20's (so recently) and understood a lot more of the film but still found it boring. Some great performances and imagery but ultimately, unsatisfactory. The ending was a real let down, as well. Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle. Honorable Mentions: The English Patient, American Beauty, Flashdance, and The Lord of the Rings. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_Most_Important_American_Films_Ever_Made/190/27076/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: dunedonkey
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/8/2008 11:21:35 AM
Body: Not my favorite. Not the best...but...The MOST IMPORTANT and WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT?Rules/Guidelines:YOU CAN'T GIVE MORE THAN 5. Five is the absolute limit.IMPORTANT means it had a profound impact on the film industry, on art, on social change, on mankind.My choices:Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith):The first American epic. It was longer than any film and invented the "feature-length" film.The single most controversial American film ever made. Some credit it with reinvigorating the KKK and inspiring a new wave of racism to take hold in the US.It proved that film could be as important a social medium as an entertainment medium.The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola):No film epitomizes the golden age of American cinema more than this film.This film pioneered the frontier of American epics and changed the face of American filmmaking on an artistic level, giving American film it's first ever unique look and feel.Star Wars: A New Hope (George Lucas):This film redefined the Hollywood genre with groundbreaking special effects, mass appeal. This was the first American blockbuster.For better or for worse, this film sent Hollywood into spiraling into the 80s with summer special effects blockbusters driving much of it's annual revenue.2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick):It was so technologically advanced, it inspired everyone to start looking into their own future with a different light.Few realize that this film kicked NASA into high gear propelling our space program into the forefront of the Cold War.Citizen Kane (Orson Welles):It wasn't just the greatest American film ever made, it was the first American film that proved that film was a legitimate art form and not just an entertainment medium.Orson Welles was 26 when he made it. Seriously. 26.
]]>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:21:35 GMTdunedonkeyTop 54/8/2008 11:21:35 AMNot my favorite. Not the best...but...The MOST IMPORTANT and WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT?Rules/Guidelines:YOU CAN&#39;T GIVE MORE THAN 5. Five is the absolute limit.IMPORTANT means it had a profound impact on the film industry, on art, on social change, on mankind.My choices:Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith):The first American epic. It was longer than any film and invented the &quot;feature-length&quot; film.The single most controversial American film ever made. Some credit it with reinvigorating the KKK and inspiring a new wave of racism to take hold in the US.It proved that film could be as important a social medium as an entertainment medium.The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola):No film epitomizes the golden age of American cinema more than this film.This film pioneered the frontier of American epics and changed the face of American filmmaking on an artistic level, giving American film it&#39;s first ever unique look and feel.Star Wars: A New Hope (George Lucas):This film redefined the Hollywood genre with groundbreaking special effects, mass appeal. This was the first American blockbuster.For better or for worse, this film sent Hollywood into spiraling into the 80s with summer special effects blockbusters driving much of it&#39;s annual revenue.2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick):It was so technologically advanced, it inspired everyone to start looking into their own future with a different light.Few realize that this film kicked NASA into high gear propelling our space program into the forefront of the Cold War.Citizen Kane (Orson Welles):It wasn&#39;t just the greatest American film ever made, it was the first American film that proved that film was a legitimate art form and not just an entertainment medium.Orson Welles was 26 when he made it. Seriously. 26. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176180607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1002

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT71601691002Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/racism/MemberTagFilms.aspxracism
Number of films tagged: 800

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 136

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT80069136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/western/MemberTagFilms.aspxwestern
Number of films tagged: 93

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:09:54 GMT9364136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/epic/MemberTagFilms.aspxepic
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:37 GMT6358104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/history/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistory
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT99948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/based-on-a-book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbased-on-a-book
Number of films tagged: 173

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 278

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:52:06 GMT17337278Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/long/MemberTagFilms.aspxlong
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 63

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:36 GMT533563Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/silent/MemberTagFilms.aspxsilent
Number of films tagged: 311

Number of people who tagged: 34

Number of times used: 192

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:08 GMT31134192Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/south/MemberTagFilms.aspxsouth
Number of films tagged: 144

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 40

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT1442340Tag