The Birth of a Nation made its debut at a special preview on January 1, 2015 in Riverside, California. Griffith led an advertising campaign that boasted of the film’s cost, extras, and even the number of live musicians in the accompanying orchestra. The hoopla resulted in rave reviews of the film:
"The next day The Riverside Daily Press praised the work, noting that the audience applauded ‘long and loud’ when Walthall thrust the flag into the mouth of a cannon. The article also remarked that Griffith had ‘treated his subject fairly. It is not overdrawn. It is a picture of true conditions that were brought on by the ‘carpet baggers’ following the assasination of President Lincoln” (Lenning, 2004).
Likewsie, The Riverside Enterprise commented:
“No photo-play of its proportions has been so enthusiastically applauded in this city…”
However, the reporter did note:
"The next day The Riverside Daily Press praised the work, noting that the audience applauded ‘long and loud’ when Walthall thrust the flag into the mouth of a cannon. The article also remarked that Griffith had ‘treated his subject fairly. It is not overdrawn. It is a picture of true conditions that were brought on by the ‘carpet baggers’ following the assasination of President Lincoln” (Lenning, 2004)."
A pamphlet distributed by the Progressive Party (Middleburg, 1965).
The Los Angeles chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) immediately asked for the film to be censored. The papers picked up on this, with one reviewer complaining, “And now…comes the protest of the darkies and the interferences of the police” (Kingsley 1915). In the end, the kerfuffle was dismissed as being more about swaying votes in an upcoming election than any genuine concerns over racist content.
Once the film premiered in New York on March 3rd, “the educated and refined” audiences Griffith so desperately wanted found:
“The film had ‘the force of a whirlwind… [leaving] the spectator breathless’ and that ‘the big racial question … no longer burns’” (The New York American, 1915).
For all accounts and purposes, Griffith’s film was a triumph. Massive war scenes, an unattainable heroine, and relentless advertising overshadowed any need for historical accuracy. It was only four months after the film originally screened that an editorial in The New York Globe questioned the film’s racist overtones:
“The questions sufficiently answer themselves, and when they are answered there is no reason to ask the further question of whether it is desirable, for purely sordid reasons, to exhibit such a moving-picture film as the so-called The Birth of a Nation” (The New York Globe, 1915).
Griffith was incensed, with one phrase in particular:
“Without wishing to tell any newspaper its business, permit me to suggest that a cub reporter in one hour could find out that this attack is an organized effort to suppress a production which was brought forth to reveal the beautiful possibilities of the art of motion pictures and to tell a story which is based upon truth in every vital detail… I demand to know the authority upon which you base your intimation that this work of art has been exhibited ‘for purely sordid reasons’” (Griffith, 1915).
Post protest at Richelieu Theater, San Fransisco (KTVU, 1980)
Excerpt from Griffith’s monograph “The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America” (1915).
At this point, certain scenes were cut from the film, including one with President Lincoln sending freedmen to Liberia and a love scene between Senator Stoneman and the housekeeper.
In response, Griffith added a notecard to the beginning of the film:
(Griffith, 1915)
However, the film was now politicized. The NAACP protests and half-hearted censorings continued throughout the film’s theater run, but contrary to popular belief, there was never a general consensus the work was racist or inappropriate.
“The general public couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about. What now seems racist - especially since the Civil Rights movement – did not appear offensive or even unfair at the time. To most viewers, it was no more than teaching history with lightning” (Lenning, 2004).