When discussing film history, it is impossible not to mention the Birth of a Nation in said discussion. It really was the first film to show the true power that cinema could have both as an artistic medium as well as its impact on the viewer’s opinions and viewpoints, as discussed by Leon F. Litwack in his essay on the film, as saying that Birth of a Nation revealed “the extraordinary power of cinema to ‘teach’ history and to reflect and shape popular attitudes and stereotypes” (Litwack, 137).
In it, legendary director D. W. Griffith wove a story based on the book The Clansman by Richard Dixon Jr. that while completely false, was presented as fact to the watching public, the function being to show the North the terrible crimes endured by the white man during the Reformation after Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and won the Civil War. Of course, the notion of such crimes is a complete fabrication, but this was presented as fact during Birth of a Nation, and unfortunately, this was eaten up by the public, who then too believed this to be true. To them, this racist notion proved to Northerners why the South did what they did to people of African descent, all the while affirming what the South already thought was reality. For a significant amount of the following decades, the film not only reinforced and justified racial stereotypes but created new ones as well. Not only this, but it also gave rise to one of the most infamous institutions in American history, The Ku Klux Klan. While it did not create the organization, it showed them as the heroes of the South and preservers of white integrity and allowed them to not only commit heinous acts while white folks averted their eyes, but allowed them to recruit a whole lot of people influenced by Birth of a Nation.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum of morals but also being manipulative, is John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln. While this film about the Great Emancipator is not about the presidential years of Abraham Lincoln when he was actually emancipating, it is more of a story of his character. This is especially of note, as the truth is stretched very far in this film as to the specifics of the crime the trial deals with, the centerpiece of the movie apart from Lincoln himself. However, historical accuracy is of little importance to the movie. What is important is maintaining the messianic nature that Lincoln held in the viewer, and even enhancing that viewpoint. It is shown that Lincoln by nature was a good person: compassionate, deeply caring, noble, and most importantly, having a strong sense of wrong and right; traits already known to the public but were shown in a new light. Lincoln was a theme of many plays, theater pieces, and movies at the time, and was made during a sort of Lincoln obsession that would shape the public's view of him, regardless of the true history.
Unfortunately, despite the Emancipator’s growing popularity, it did not do much to combat the racism brought about by Birth of a Nation years earlier, as the movie has little to do with race or slavery, just Lincoln’s character. At the time the movie was released in 1939, however, there was much it did in relevance to current events. In the depths of the Great Depression, and with a World War on the horizon with all the dangerous ideologies and factions associated with it, Lincoln stood as a message to Americans to stand tall and push on, as Lincoln had done at the end of the film. Be like Lincoln, and we will prevail and win through all trials our enemies can put us through.
Young Mr. Lincoln, while it had themes of morality, was ultimately a story about Lincoln that had these themes associated with it. On the other hand, the 1927 film The Jazz Singer was more of a theme with a story built around it. As such, the themes of The Jazz Singer are very important in understanding the film. It came around during the Roaring 20s, a time of unheard-of freedom and social change, and technological and ideological progression. As it dealt with these themes, it is seen as a progressive film for its time, telling the story of the son of a Jewish cantor who wanted to sing jazz, the hottest music at the time, instead of becoming a cantor like his father. While it doesn’t tackle themes of race and racism at all, jazz was an interracial medium, and could therefore be seen as promoting equality on some minor level, which even at that time was very uncommon. The film tackled themes of religion, especially in terms of religion’s place in an age of advancing technology, and old tradition versus new style.
The effect that The Jazz Singer had on cinema is cemented and firmly documented. It was the first “talkie:” the first movie with fully synchronized music and speech, that effectively changed the history of film as we know it forever. The effect it had on the culture of people watching it upon its release is a bit harder to say. It can be credited with exposing more people to these new, more accepting ideologies, but it wasn’t radically doing so. Jazz was immensely popular at the time, so it wasn’t exactly breaking new ground. However, it did do an excellent service of putting the two opposing sides in perspective, as well as having them confront each other head-on with their arguments for their own side; whether the father or son is right, whether the old or new is right. The son is quoted as saying “You’re of the old world,” a sentiment that meant the new world was fast approaching, whether the old world liked it or not.
The new world that followed could hardly be called a favorable outcome. The Jazz Singer showcased a cultural shift happening in the twenties, while The Grapes of Wrath is about an economic shift, and a drastic one at that: the Great Depression that shortly followed the Roaring 20s. The movie The Grapes of Wrath was based on a grounded story of farmers stuck in the middle of the Dust Bowl and was originally a novel by John Steinbeck that many thought promoted a communist message. A year later, despite the controversy, the movie of the same name was released in 1940, directed by John Ford, who had previously directed Young Mr. Lincoln. More than being about the Joad family, the movie was about the injustice of capitalism and how it failed so many people. However, there is one scene at the end of the film that not only differs from the original novel but takes its meaning in a different direction.
With a new ending provided by Twentieth Century Fox chieftain Darryl F. Zanuck and approved by Steinbeck, it was changed to an ending with an air of optimism for the future that had a more patriotic message than the books. Ma Joad says “We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe us out or lick us. We are the people.” Aside from the obvious connection to the United States Constitution line “We the people,” the time when this movie was released was a time of great uncertainty in the United States. We weren’t sure if we were going to war with the rest of Europe, and though we were through the worst of the Depression, it was still lingering. Despite all the hardships of the characters, and despite capitalism having failed the Joad family, which is a direct link to sentiments felt in the Great Depression, they say as Americans we can prevail, no matter what the foe is: whether it is Communism, Nazis, or our own economy and government. It’s a very similar theme to what the same director expressed in the conclusion of Young Mr. Lincoln, trying to dissuade fears of the public in trying times. This makes sense as The Grapes of Wrath was released only a year after Young Mr. Lincoln, 1940 and 1939 respectively.
Stuck on your essay?
