C-SPAN3 Showed The Birth of a Nation on Feb. 14, Questions

[misteranalog]

C-SPAN3 Showed The Birth of a Nation on Saturday, February 14. Once in the morning, once at night.
The movie itself was sandwiched between a commentary by Dick Lehr, author of a book about the movie,
and an interview with Hari Jones.
I am not aware of any protests.

Three questions:

Exactly which version did they show? They claimed it was 3 hours and twelve minutes in length.
Was this a commercial version, or did it come from the Library of Congress? Or Somewhere abroad?
Any leads are welcome.

The move was tinted with tones such as a very light green, I have not seen this color elsewhere

I did not recognize the music at all. Definitely not the Carl Breil score.
Anybody know where it came from?

[radiotelefonia]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324189-1/birth-nation-1915" target="_blank

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324189-2/b ... ion-part-2" target="_blank

[wich2]

(Title Card:)

"...to enforce the rule of the coming nation over the individual states..."

"Coming nation?"

What a Secesh-addled fellow was our dear David Wark. What exactly had the United States of America been, since either 1776, 1781, or 1789 (take your pick)?

Chopped liver, I guess.

-Craig

[Rodney]

(Title Card:)

"...to enforce the rule of the coming nation over the individual states..."

"Coming nation?"

What a Secesh-addled fellow was our dear David Wark. What exactly had the United States of America been, since either 1776, 1781, or 1789 (take your pick)?

Chopped liver, I guess.

-Craig

One of Griffith's theses in the film is that before the war, the United States was a collection of separate sovereign states with their own nation-like rights. The civil war took away those states rights, imposing for the first time the Federal Government's sovereignty over the states, thus creating the "new" nation. I'm not saying I agree, but that's Griffith's thesis (and the reason for the title of the film).

[Rodney]

I did not recognize the music at all. Definitely not the Carl Breil score.
Anybody know where it came from?

Hey, that's me up there on the teevee!

That's the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra score that was commissioned for the Kino BluRay in 2013. Presumably licensed from Kino: They paid me up front and don't have to tell me when it's being broadcast; so it was a surprise to me too.

The video compression has done horrible things to the sound of the violin... if you have a choice, run the Blu-Ray.

If you're curious about the music for this film, I wrote a short essay on the various historical scores for the film, plus some notes on the recent Mont Alto score, which can be found on our web site.

[wich2]

One of Griffith's theses in the film is that before the war, the United States was a collection of separate sovereign states with their own nation-like rights. The civil war took away those states rights, imposing for the first time the Federal Government's sovereignty over the states, thus creating the "new" nation. I'm not saying I agree, but that's Griffith's thesis (and the reason for the title of the film).

Rodney, this Lincoln lover/portrayer/writer, and man moderately well informed about Civil War history, knows that battered old canard well.

But with Lincoln, I stand upon the reasoning that it was delusional thinking in his time, was in Griffith's, and is today.

Best,
-Craig

[Harlett O'Dowd]

One of Griffith's theses in the film is that before the war, the United States was a collection of separate sovereign states with their own nation-like rights. The civil war took away those states rights, imposing for the first time the Federal Government's sovereignty over the states, thus creating the "new" nation. I'm not saying I agree, but that's Griffith's thesis (and the reason for the title of the film).

Rodney, this Lincoln lover/portrayer/writer, and man moderately well informed about Civil War history, knows that battered old canard well.

But with Lincoln, I stand upon the reasoning that it was delusional thinking in his time, was in Griffith's, and is today.

Best,
-Craig

At the risk of going further off topic (moderators, step in whenever you deem necessary) I do find that, if one can intellectually remove slavery (which is, was and will continue to be indefensible and an abomination - sorry, The Bible) from the equation, the recent unpleasantness offers a fascinating constitutional crisis.

From revolutionary times, southerners viewed the relative balance of slave and free states as one of the checks and balances the founding fathers would eventually address when drafting the Constitution. And while many of those checks and balances (the presidential veto, the SCOTUS' ability to declare law unconstitutional, impeachment, etc.) eventually found their way INTO the Constitution, the tradition of slave/free state parity did not. However, beginning with the Missouri compromise, that tradition did live on through a series of laws that afforded the south parity at least in the Senate, even when the industrial revolution, the Irish famine and other events swelled the northern population.

But by 1850 it was clear that a) "manifest destiny" would occur and b) that expansion would NOT go into Mexico and the Caribbean, effectively isolating the south into 1/3 and eventually 1/4 of the nation. Seeing themselves as, ahem, minorities, the south rebelled, feeling that federal overreach had acted outside of the limits of the tradition of the law and (in their minds) the Constitution as designed, if not specifically written.

Lucky for us all, the union prevailed, for the US would never have become the powerhouse that it did in the 20th century without it.

Not, of course, to mention, slavery.

[wich2]

Christopher-

Understood, and well written. But -

"the south rebelled, feeling that federal overreach had acted outside of the limits of the tradition of the law and (in their minds) the Constitution as designed, if not specifically written"

- the parts that I have emboldened there are very telling, yes? There seems to be a good deal of wishful thinking, and as Lincoln himself described, a bit of paranoia, there.

After the broiling uneasiness that attended the birthing of the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, the South seems to have willfully played an ostrich game, figuratively sticking its head in the sand and going, "nah nah nah, I can't hear you," as Jefferson's "firebell in the night" continued to loudly and repeatedly ring.

Even "little nubbin" Alexander H. Stephens, late Rebel VP, later wrote (only slightly paraphrasing here), "yes, we all spoke
about States' Rights and the Constitution - but down deep, we all knew it was really about keeping our slaves."

Best,
-Craig

P.S. - I don't think this is off-topic at all, considering the profound influence of BOAN in so many ways.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Christopher-

Understood, and well written. But -

"the south rebelled, feeling that federal overreach had acted outside of the limits of the tradition of the law and (in their minds) the Constitution as designed, if not specifically written"

- the parts that I have emboldened there are very telling, yes? There seems to be a good deal of wishful thinking, and as Lincoln himself described, a bit of paranoia, there.

After the broiling uneasiness that attended the birthing of the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, the South seems to have willfully played an ostrich game, figuratively sticking its head in the sand and going, "nah nah nah, I can't hear you," as Jefferson's "firebell in the night" continued to loudly and repeatedly ring.

Even "little nubbin" Alexander H. Stephens, late Rebel VP, later wrote (only slightly paraphrasing here), "yes, we all spoke
about States' Rights and the Constitution - but down deep, we all knew it was really about keeping our slaves."

Best,
-Craig

P.S. - I don't think this is off-topic at all, considering the profound influence of BOAN in so many ways.

One should also include in the mix that good ole American sense of entitlement. the colonists knew that if they were enough of a PITA - and, especially, an *expensive* PITA - King George would grow tired of policing colonists from 3000 miles away. The confederates thought 1000 miles was far enough distance to make the unionists weary of a protracted, expensive war. All they had to do was NOT LOSE.

[wich2]

True.

And thank God for Abraham Lincoln, because MANY folks, at various times, wanted to just sue for peace and give up the bigger battle. But as he said (and as I think you yourself touched on above), that would never have really worked long-term:

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

(God, if only the fire-breathers in Charleston and elsewhere had listened to him in 1861...)

-Craig

[milefilms]

Just to share a very funny line that has something to do with this.

I play tennis with a country judge and tonight we got into politics and what's happening in Alabama with their chief justice and the courts putting a stay on Obama's immigration policies. One of the more conservative members of our group suggested that the federal government has completely gotten in the way of states rights and when did we decide they could. The judge said, "the civil war pretty much settled that."

[wich2]

Amen!

(Well, maybe that "ostrich sticking its head in the sand" characteristic I cited above is still with us...)

[Scoundrel]

Are we done kicking Griffith yet ...?


Enough Already.

[wich2]

???

The last several posts, as Harlett even suggested above, aren't even directly ABOUT Griffith.