Released: March 1915

Director: D.W. Griffith

Rating: N/A

Run-Time: 3 hours

Cast:
Lillian Gish: Elsie
Mae Marsh: Flora Cameron
Henry B. Walthall: Col. Ben Cameron
Miriam Cooper: Margaret Cameron
Ralph Lewis: Austin Stoneman
George Siegmann: Silas Lynch

During the very early years of film, namely between the 1890s and 1927, films were silent, with the exception of music.  Early on, films were generally a minute long and had somebody playing a piano off to the side of the screen.  It was a very new invention that spread like wildfire.  Nobody had ever seen anything quite like it.  During the early days of the 20th century, we began to see actual feature-length films with real movie stars.  During the subsequent years and events including World War I, films had been used for propaganda world-wide.  I’m getting ahead of myself here, but the use of film would become extremely important.  One of the earliest feature films is also one of the most notorious in film history: D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.  Released in March of 1915, The Birth of a Nation was one of the first truly “narrative” films ever created.  But it was also 3 hours long, which was completely unheard of.  It was a Civil War epic.  But the film was notoriously controversial for it’s portrayal of African-Americans during the Reconstruction.

The story of The Birth of a Nation follows two families caught on opposite sides during the Civil War.  I’m not going to really get into the story, because that really isn’t why I’m doing this.  This isn’t so much of a review of a film, as it is an analysis of the effect that the film had on political and racial issues.  This isn’t normally something I would ever consider doing for this website, but considering the film turns 100 next month, I feel it’s the perfect time to do this.  I should tell you that this film is public domain so it is available everywhere, should you choose to view it.  Being a film buff, I had heard about The Birth of a Nation, but had never actually seen it.  I talked to some people, and they had never heard of it.  Why not?  This is one of the most controversial films ever conceived.  The first thing I’m going to do is discuss the film itself and its merits.  Being released in 1915, The Birth of a Nation is first and foremost a silent movie.  No dialogue save the actual text that appears on the screen.  The music is mostly a combination of classical music.  The first thing you will notice is the picture quality.  It’s black and white, has a lot of scratches and artifacts.  This is 1915, so film-making was still pretty rudimentary.  The other thing you will notice is that during certain scenes, the tint of the screen will change color.  It’ll go from a sepia-toned color to red or green or blue.  It did that to really accentuate the mood.  The Birth of a Nation is actually one of the very first movies to do anything like that.  It was also the first to actually use night-shots.  The film was pretty revolutionary as far as filming techniques go.  It’s use of panning camera shots and still-shots had never really been done before.

For a movie that’s a century old, the acting is actually really good.  Lillian Gish’s Elsie and Henry B. Walthall’s Col. Ben Cameron stand out.  Again, this is a silent movie, so all the story-telling has to be done using body language.  Lillian and Henry are absolutely incredible in their roles.  In fact, most of the actors did a real great job.  The only one that really overdid it was Mary Alden as Lynch’s housekeeper.  That was unintentionally hilarious and over-the-top.  Overall, though, the quality of the acting is quite high.  The first half of the film is a Civil War drama with some pretty decent battle sequences.  Again, that’s not something that had been attempted yet.  The second half that tells the story of the Reconstruction is where people start having problems with the movie, and rightly so.  Basically, the film portrays the African-Americans as brutes who are laying waste to the white man’s world in the South.  A few things should be mentioned.  One:  This never happened.  Two:  D.W. Griffith did employ actual African-Americans to star in his movie, BUT, he took a number of his white actors and painted them up to look like African-Americans, poorly I might add.  If you compare the two, it’s very obvious who is actually black and who’s painted.  Our structure is very different from that of an African-American, so I’m not entirely sure how Griffith managed to get away with that.  The technique was used to allow white actors to portray black roles, but it’s known as a very racist technique in this day and age.  The film also portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as good guys and saviors.  The reality was that these guys were terrorists and scumbags.

It is very, VERY obvious that The Birth of a Nation is a racist movie.  There’s absolutely no question about it.  When it was released in 1915, not even 60 years had passed since the end of the Civil War.  Naturally, racial tensions were extremely high.  The NAACP, which was formed in 1909, had attempted to get the film banned.  The film actually caused a number of protests and riots in major cities across the country.  It certainly didn’t help that Nation was largely inspired by the play, The Clansman, by Thomas Dixon, Jr.  That book, combined with The Birth of a Nation inspired a second Ku Klux Klan movement during the 20s.  The Birth of a Nation was also the first movie to be screened at the White House.  The film was clearly historically inaccurate, but that didn’t stop white supremacists from using it as a recruiting tool and propaganda against minorities, mainly African-Americans.  Despite the fact that The Birth of a Nation was revolutionary for its time in terms of film-making techniques, it was also reviled as a very racist picture.  D.W. Griffith was also painted with the racist brush.

D.W. Griffith was born to Mary Perkins and Jacob “Roaring Jake” Griffith in 1875.  His father, Jacob Griffith was a colonel in the Confederate Army during the Civil War, so Griffith was there during the Reconstruction.  He had produced short films before 1910, but The Birth of a Nation was his largest success, but he was frustrated by the criticism that was leveled at him for Nation.  In response, he crafted Intolerance.  He eventually would co-found United Artists with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks.  Griffith’s legacy is still being felt around the world.  Today, people are still absolutely enraged at the film, and the idea that some people would even consider even playing pieces of it in classrooms.  The fact that a movie like this can still piss people off a century AFTER it was released speaks to the film-making mastery of the man who made it.  From what I’ve read, D.W Griffith had no personal politics to speak of, so I can’t say for certain that he was racist, even though some of his movies clearly were.

While some of today’s films deal with racism in certain ways, none of them were really flat-out prejudicial the way The Birth of a Nation was.  I’m going to be honest here: I think that The Birth of a Nation is a good movie.  Is it enjoyable?  Not particularly, especially if you’re sensitive to racism.  I certainly don’t begrudge people who refuse to see this movie, because it is blatantly offensive.  I look at the film as a piece of cultural history, regardless of its inaccuracies.  It’s a significant film in the way that it pioneered techniques that are used by film-makers all over the world.  It had some really great performances and helped usher in a new era of film-making.  So, from a technical standpoint, it’s an amazing achievement in film.  Narratively, not so much.  The inaccuracies and portrayal of the African-Americans and the KKK are too much to ignore.  I’m not going to give The Birth of a Nation a score, because the film itself and the reactions to it speak for themselves.  There’s really not a whole lot I can say that can do it justice.  The film is in the public domain so you can watch it anywhere for very little, if not for free, but it is also available on DVD and Blu-Ray.  There is also the issue of censorship when it comes to movies like this, but that is another post for another day.

Released: October 2014

Director: Gary Shore

Run Time: 92 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Cast:
Luke Evans: Vlad
Sarah Gadon: Mirena
Dominic Cooper: Mehmed
Charles Dance: Master Vampire

Vampire movies have been a staple of the horror genre for nearly a century.  Nosferatu and Dracula were among the first.  Dracula took the world by storm, featuring a great performance by Bela Lugosi as the titular character.  Many different actors have played the count over the decades.  Obviously, Bela Lugosi was the first, then Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman, Gerard Butler, and Thomas Kretschmann.  The latest actor to play the character is Luke Evans, who played Bard in The Hobbit, and Ian Shaw in Fast and Furious 6.  The character of Dracula is a fascinating one, as he is based on the historical figure of Vlad Tepes III, otherwise known as The Impaler.  So, why is Dracula such a great character?  In part, because of Bram Stoker.  He based his story of Dracula on actual figure and turned him into a vampire.  It’s not surprising given the stories of Vlad’s brutality.  Last year, we got a new Dracula film starring Luke Evans.  So, how did turn out?

Dracula Untold opens as Vlad and a small company of his best men discover the helmet of Turkish scout.  Coming to the conclusion that the helmet got washed downstream from a nearby mountain, Vlad and company investigate.  They come upon a cave that houses a terrifying secret: A vampire.  Racing home to his family, he consults a monk about the monster.  He feels that his people have enough to fear from the Turks, led by newly crowned sultan, Mehmed.  When Mehmed’s messengers show up at Vlad’s doorstep demanding 1,000 boys to be recruited into Mehmed’s army, Vlad slaughters the messengers.  In doing so, he saves his only son from being enslaved.  But he also brings war to his own country.  Fearing that he’s outnumbered, Vlad returns to the cave where he found the demon to gain the power to destroy the Turks.

I was going in with some reserve watching Dracula Untold.  Why?  The last Dracula film that I saw and reviewed on this site was Dario Argento’s Dracula.  That film is quite possibly one of the worst Dracula movies I had ever seen.  You can read my review of that film by clicking on the reviews tab at the top of the page.  I say some, because when I heard that Luke Evans was going to play the character, I was intrigued.  I liked Luke Evans in some of his previous movies.  He’s gotten to the top of the heap rather quickly.  He has a tendency to play dark brooding characters.  He’s good at it, so Dracula seemed like a natural fit.  Then I found out that Dracula Untold was going to be rated PG-13.  That pretty much scared me off from seeing the film in theaters.  Did they not know how terrible PG-13 horror movies are?  Not only that, but also a PG-13 vampire movie?!  Horror fans don’t need to be reminded of how terrible the Twilight films are.  Here’s the thing:  Dracula Untold is NOT a horror movie.  I know what you’re thinking:  A non-horror Dracula movie?!  Believe it or not, yes.  This is more of an origin story about the character, and as a result, has a kind of superhero-vibe about the whole thing.  Yes, the character did monstrous things when he was human, but this new film paints him in a fairly different light.  We get to see him as a family man who loves his wife and son and is willing to do whatever it takes to protect them, even if it means becoming a creature of the night.

When I saw I, Frankenstein when it came out, I was severely disappointed in it.  It was a total wreck that disrespected the story, the character and was an overall mess.  I’m glad to see that Dracula Untold handles its characters much better.  If you know your history, then you would know that Vlad was a very brutal man, impaling his enemies on giant spikes.  The stories say he did that to thousands of people, even though the actual number might not be that high.  But he was also a great leader and well-respected, as well as feared.  Dracula Untold definitely touches on certain aspects of the historical period.  Be warned, this is a fantasy-action film, so liberties were obviously taken.  The action in the film is pretty darn good.  We have some pretty decent sword fights, but the meat of the action takes place after Vlad becomes a vampire.  When he uses his new abilities, he becomes a force of nature.  Basically, the only things that he’s vulnerable to are sunlight and silver.  Luke Evans did an amazing job bringing this character to life, particularly when he’s with his wife and son.  He gives the character a sense of responsibility and humility that plays to the character’s strengths.  The rest of the cast is also good.  Dominic Cooper plays Mehmed, the newly crowned sultan who has known Vlad since they were children.  Mehmed is a bit of mustache-twirling kind of villain, though.  Cooper does a good job, anyway.  Sarah Gadon plays Vlad’s wife, Mirena.  She’s the one character in the film that keeps Vlad from going over the edge.  Even though she knows what he’s become, she has faith that he can fight it.  The one character that didn’t get as much attention but is clearly important is the master vampire, played by Charles Dance.  We don’t know much about him aside from the fact that he sold his soul to a demon for ultimate power, but was tricked and got trapped in a cave.  So, he offers Vlad a way to defeat his enemies.  This isn’t the first time Charles Dance played a vampire.  He played a vampire lord in Underworld: Awakening with Kate Beckinsale.  He’s great at playing villains and mysterious characters.

The visual effects in this film are astounding.  The scenery, even though it’s CG, is spectacular.  It gives you a sense of grandeur that can only be offered to someone of Vlad’s stature.  One of the most spectacular elements of the movie, is Vlad’s ability to control bats.  He uses this to full effect on Mehmed’s army, and it is something to behold.  The battles are epic and brutal for a PG-13 film.  The sword fights are well-choreographed.  It’s a dark film, given the subject matter, but it IS a movie about Dracula.  It has to be dark.  These ARE vampires, I can tell you that.  They have fangs, they turn into bats, and they don’t friggin’ sparkle when hit by sunlight.  They disintegrate.  Luke Evans definitely commands the screen as Vlad.  The film isn’t perfect, though.  Because the film is so short, it pretty much eschews any development for characters that aren’t Dracula.  There’s also the whole bit where he can turn back into a human being after 3 days of resisting his thirst for blood.  Uh….okay.  That’s odd, and I’m not quite buying it.  Outside of that, though, it’s a solid action flick.  I really dig the fact that while the filmmakers were clearly influenced by Stoker’s book and the historical figure, they took the character in a different direction.  It’s a direction that I think will serve the character in future installments, which I’m sure there will be.  Overall, it’s a very solid action flick that’s one of the better Dracula films of the past 20 years.  I’d recommend a rental at least, despite its problems.  8.5/10.  I like it.

Anybody who knows me and my taste in movies can tell you this: I’m a huge fan of the Alien films.  Even Alien Resurrection, which I consider to be the weakest of the bunch and not really deserving of the name.  It was still a good time, though.  But, I digress.  I love the Alien films, because they are fantastic examples of movie-making.  While Alien 3 certainly had its issues in front and behind the camera, it was no less a gritty and hard-hitting film.  These movies gave us a very unique and terrifying monster in the xenomorph: a creature that gestates inside a living host, and kills said host when it’s born by bursting its way through the host’s ribcage.  It’s certainly gruesome, and it was one of the most memorable scenes of the original film.  The original Alien was a run-away hit with a claustrophobic atmosphere and horrific situations.  The second film, Aliens, was less of a psychological thriller and more of an action film, even though it retained some of the elements of the first.  Directed by James Cameron, Aliens was a phenomenal success and an incredible sequel.  Actress Sigourney Weaver was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of Ripley in the film.  That’s not something to be taken lightly, as the Academy tends to snub science fiction and fantasy films.  Alien also inspired books, novels, and video games throughout the years.  The franchise remains, to this date, one of the most popular movie franchises in the world.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because recently, director Neill Blomkamp released concept art for a defunct project.  That “defunct” project could possibly become another Alien film.  The art-work that was released is extraordinary.  It features the likeness of Sigourney Weaver as Ripley and Michael Biehn as Hicks.  There are also drawings of an Alien Queen and a ship that bears an uncanny resemblance to the derelict that was featured in the first film.  I’m going to link below this paragraph so you can this stuff out for yourselves.  It’s great stuff.  Now, keep in mind, that Blomkamp did these on his own without the studio’s knowledge.  He was kind of playing around with the concept as well developing it seriously.  All this comes as Neill Blomkamp prepares to release his latest film, Chappie.

Possible Alien Sequel Concept Art from Neill Blomkamp

If Neill Blomkamp gets approval from Fox Studios for a new Alien film, I’d be very excited.  Why?  Neill Blomkamp is one of my favorite new directors.  His work on District 9 and Elysium are simply astounding.  The man knows his science fiction, and knows how to get his actors to really deliver.  Another reason is that he showed Sigourney Weaver, who appears in Chappie, the artwork and she seems genuinely intrigued.  While I personally think that Ripley’s story has run her course, I’m still game for her appearing in one more film, especially if it sidesteps the third and fourth movies.  That would make a lot of people happy.  If there’s a director that could actually make this work, it would be Blomkamp.  I think he would be the right person to put in the director’s chair.  Ridley Scott, who directed the original Alien and Prometheus, is at work on a sequel to Prometheus as well as a sequel to Blade Runner.  So, he’s out of the running.  James Cameron?  He’s hard at work at writing and developing the sequels to Avatar.  Neill Blomkamp is the logical choice for this job, if Fox goes for it, and I think they would be stupid not to.  The Alien series suffered some drawbacks, not just from Alien 3 and Resurrection, but also from the lackluster Alien Vs. Predator spin-offs.  Prometheus was based in the same universe, but only had a passing connection to Alien.  Which is a shame, because the concept for Prometheus started out as a direct prequel to Alien.  Prometheus wasn’t a bad movie.  I loved it.  It was different, but it was visually spectacular and had some great ideas.  But the story and plot were all over the place.  My hope is that Fox contacts Neill Blomkamp and green-lights his Alien project.  The last film in the series was Alien Resurrection and that was back in 1997.  That was almost 20 years ago.  I think there is still a vested interest in the franchise.  Mainly because we’ve seen a couple of Alien videogames released in the past couple of years.  Granted Aliens: Colonial Marines was a bit of a joke for those of you who play video games, but Alien: Isolation was a fantastic comeback for the video game franchise.  Like Star Wars, I think there’s a great deal of possible stories to be told in the Alien universe.  It’s dark, dirty, and scary.  That’s exactly what an Alien film should be.  Whether or not Fox goes for it, I don’t know, it’s way too early to tell.  But the potential is huge.  What would I like to see?  Oh, the possibilities are endless.  I might make a follow-up post to share some of my ideas, but I’m going to wait and brainstorm it.  Any thoughts on this?  Good, bad: What say you?