Blog Outline

To fully understand the message in Bamboozled, you must first understand the history of film. This blog will start with a short history of the film business and the uprising of a young director named D.W. Griffith. Once the history of film is understood, you will understand how and why D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation became so wildly popular despite it's explicitly racist depiction of African Americans. Once the film was released, the damage to the black image in America had been done and it continues to be felt today. Bamboozled brings back the history of black images in film and it has one simple message, has anything really changed since 1915.

The history of film and the beginning of D.W. Griffith

The Kinetescope, invented by Thomas Edison in 1891, is the first device able to capture a moving image. But it wasn't until 1895 when Louis Lumiere invented the Cinematographe that the moving picture industry began. During the early years, movies were still trying to hit main stream and no film before 1915 resembles the complicated films we see today with close-ups, epic panoramas, detailed story lines etc... Most films were short, no more than 10 minutes and usually consisted of continuous straight on long shots, much like the audience's point of view at a play. The moving picture industry at this time had no where near the popularity that it has today.



In 1907, a struggling young actor and playwright named D.W. Griffith moved to New York. His love had always been for theater but he soon found himself acting in the motion picture business. In 1908, the Biograph motion picture company's chief director became ill and Griffith was asked to fill in. Over the next 5 years, he directed hundreds of films for them, all the while developing new techniques in editing and shooting films that would redefine the motion picture industry. His innovations in lighting, camera angles, and editing intensified the drama and emotion in his films and helped audiences connect with his characters. Nearly all of his films up to 1913 were one reelers(10 minutes or less) but Griffith believed the motion picture industry should have feature length films(60 minutes or longer). He left Biograph because of this and started a new company with Harry Aitken. He took all of his actors and actresses with him and moved to California (Drew p 1). In 1914 he directed the very popular feature film The Avenging Conscience but his next film would surpass all of his previous works and change the motion picture industry, and America, forever.

Birth of a Nation

"It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true"

Woodrow Wilson on Birth of a Nation.

On February 3, 1915, Los Angeles was treated with the film premier of an epic, three hour long spectacle called The Clansman. It's initial response was masterpiece by audiences and critics alike. Never before had a film been this epic or popular and that premier is widely considered the beginning of the modern motion picture industry. The film later opened in New York where it was given it's new title, Birth of a Nation, and soon afterward was privately screened in the White House where Woodrow Wilson allegedly gave his approval (which he later denied). The film later went on to gross an estimated $18 million dollars, a record for motion pictures that would last until 1937 (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves). The film was beloved by nearly everyone for it's beautiful scenery and brilliant film making. D.W. Griffith used all of his techniques he had learned about film and used them to tell a story like it had never been told before. The only problem was that the story he was telling was false.



The screenplay for Birth of a Nation was adapted from Thomas F. Dixon's novel, The Clansman. Knowing that, it's easy to see where the racist depiction of blacks in the movie came from. Blacks were shown as savage, sex-craving people who needed to be controlled by the Ku Klux Klan for the protection of white women in the South. The movie glorified the KKK and seemed to justify their actions by portraying a false history that seemed real to many people. But how does a blatantly racist movie become so popular?

One answer to that question is the film was way ahead of it's time when it comes to film techniques and use of the cross-cut. When we watch the film today, we don't even notice these cuts, but back in 1915, that technique was new and it awed audiences. Another reason the film's popularity took off is that many Americans did not see the racism in the film. 1915 was only 50 years after the Civil War and many people had the same opinion on race as the film. Griffith himself didn't even see how it was racist. He believed he was telling the truth about history. His reaction to the film, and America's reaction, just shows "how racist America could be without even knowing it" (Roger Ebert). It's sad but true. The main reason this racist film became so popular is that much of America was still segregated so opinions on the black race were never formed. We all know about the Jim Crow laws in the south which separated blacks from whites, but the rest of the country was still very segregated as well. Segregation led to many people learning about the issue of race from school or other media sources. Unfortunately, many people formed opinions on the black race from this film that helped lead America to a racist future.

The years between Birth of a Nation and Bamboozled

Because of Birth of a Nation, film became the dominant medium and movie theaters were built across the nation. The film demonstrated the power of a well made film and the influence film has on America. The Ku Klux Klan was revived because of this film and their numbers grew 20 times because of it. Their numbers didn't drop significantly until the late 1920's but their views on race still influenced some Americans well into the 1960's and still do today. As time went on, racism in film still existed, but in ways that were hard to notice to the people of those times. No longer was the image of the savage blacks deemed appropriate. However, it was acceptable to make new black stereotypes such as whites in black face during minstrel shows that were popular in the 40's and 50's. As time passed, blacks gained more and more power in Hollywood to the point where films were beginning to be written and directed by blacks. By the new millennium, race was a major issue and there was zero tolerance for negative stereotypes. But is it possible that stereotypes are still very prevalent in our society and is it possible that we see them all of the time without even noticing them? Spike Lee raises this question in the most satirical fashion in his film Bamboozled.

Bamboozled

I assume all who are reading this blog have seen Bamboozled but if you haven't, click here for a synopsis.


Commercially and critically, Bamboozled was a flop. There are many possible explanations as to why Spike Lee's film failed so miserably. One is that the ending was too outrageous with nearly all of the main characters being killed. Another reason could be that Spike Lee failed to do his best work and rushed the making of this film. But the most likely reason it failed is that Americans did not want to relive the racist past of the American entertainment industry. Black face and the racist stereotypes that were once common in America are brought back in Bamboozled. Lee does this for one specific reason, to compare black entertainers of the past, to those of the present. When you compare them, you find that not much has changed since the minstrel shows of the past.

Spike Lee's major point in his movie is that nearly all of the entertainment industry is still controlled by the white man. Thomas Dunwitty is the boss to Pierre Delacroix and he represents white corporate America in the entertainment industry. At the end of the day, he makes the decision of what goes on the air. Pierre represents black entertainers who are just trying to make it big in the entertainment business. Pierre has ideas of a respectable black family television series but Dunwitty doesn't like it. He doesn't think that image will get good ratings. In response, Pierre sarcastically creates a minstrel show in an attempt to get fired, but to his surprise, Dunwitty likes it and approves of it. Dunwitty's approval of only this idea should remind us that nearly all of the entertainment we see today is approved by someone like Dunwitty, a white corporate man. This raises the question that if the white man still decides what kind of black people are being represented in films and T.V., is it that different than the white man directly representing black people by putting on black face?

America Bamboozled

Birth of a Nation is one of films greatest achievements, yet it is also the most shameful piece of popular cinema. No doubt it was one of the most influential films in history as KKK memberships grew nearly 20 times because of it and the film was so powerful it was used well into the 1970's to recruit. The film demonstrated the full power of the film medium and how it influences those who watch it. Sadly, it also demonstrated what happens when great film making gets into the wrong hands. D.W. Griffith's epic portrayal of a false history tricked Americans, or bamboozled them if you will. So how much has changed since it's release in 1915? The entire film of Bamboozled seems to answer that very question... not much. The only thing that has changed are the stereotypes. The black image in films started with Birth of a Nation as it portrayed the savage black beast stereotype. Soon after, Hallelujah! and other films gave America the happy Southern Negro. Later came the revival of minstrel shows and black face with Jim Crow and Zip Coon among others. Than came the 70's with the Blaxploitation era. In this era came the Baaaad Asssss black man and the Kick-ass sexual woman. Finally, today we have the gangster image who's popularity grew entirely from rap music. It seems that with every generation comes a new stereotype. And these stereotypes occur for one reason, the entertainment industry is still controlled by white corporate America. Back in 1915, big studios were producing films written, directed, and acted in by whites under the approval of white studio executives. Today, blacks now have the opportunity to write, direct, and act in films but they still must be approved by white studio executives. If people in America only see entertainment that passes through the white executive filter, they are not seeing the full America. And it's been like that since 1915.

The Irony of Spike Lee and Bamboozled

In Spike Lee's Bamboozled, his major issue with the entertainment industry is that it is still controlled by whites. He points out in his film that the filter that is the white studio executive does not allow for a diverse image of blacks to be represented. However, after reading "Post-Art Minstrelsy" by Armond White, the fact that Lee himself passes through this filter is brought up. All of Lee's major films were produced and financed by major studios, even Bamboozled (New Line). In essence, Spike Lee is approved by white executives in order to have his racial and political films showcased to America. Armond White also brings up the fact that other writers/directors that he deems superior to Lee are not approved by white executives and their films go largely unnoticed. This class serves as a great example of those films. Most of the films shown I had never heard of, and I'm sure most of America still doesn't know about them. My point is this, America sees what major studio executives wants it to see, and it's been like that since Birth of a Nation first premiered over 90 years ago. Since 1915, the power of the entertainment industry has been in the hands of a few white executives who run the 6 major studios(Universal, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., Columbia and Walt Disney). Yes, much has changed to better equalize blacks and whites since than, but until executive positions at these studios become diversified, misrepresentation and under representation of the black image will continue to occur.

Works Cited

Crowdus, Gary. Georgaka, Dan. “Thinking About the Power of Images: An Interview with Spike Lee.” Cineaste 26. 2 (2000): 4-9.

Drew, William M. “D.W. Griffith (1875-1948).” 10 August 2002. 3 December 2008. .

Ebert, Roger. “The Birth of a Nation.” 30 March 2003. 3 December 2008. .

Fabe, Marilyn. “The Beginnings of Film Narrative: D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation.” Closely Watched Films. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. 1-18.

White, Armond. “Post-Art Minstrelsy.” Cineaste 26. 2 (2000): 12-14.

“The Birth of a Nation.” The Internet Movie Database. 3 December 2008. .

“Bamboozled.” The Internet Movie Database. 3 December 2008.