"THE BIRTH of a NATION' : _On January 18th & 19th the Ridge Theatre screened PD.W. Criffith's 'The Birth of a Nation’. Outside the theatre a number of people (approximatelv 20) had gathered on each consecutive evening to protest the film. Displaying Plackards, as well handing out pamphlets. Plackards con- veying such messages as ‘Ban The Klan’, ‘Racism Is Anti- Human’, 'Ban Movie-Birth of a Nation’, etc. A brief from the pamphlet reads as follows-'Toronto, 1978. Local police kill Buddy Evans and Albert Johnson, both West Indians. Greensboro, North Carolina. November 1979. Klansmen and ® Nazis kill five demonstrators at anti-Klan rally. Paris. Nctober, 1980. Neo-Nazi bomb kills four people in front of a Jewish Synagogue. : Vancouver. 1989. KKK sends in recruiters. Distributes hate literature at High Schools and at RCIT. Sets up Klan units. Racist attacks against Fast Indians and other eth- nic communities growing.. (and) 'The Klan has a long history of violence against minorities and unions. Having heen driven into silence by popular protest, it is again coming out of the woodwork because of the current economic dif- ficulties. It has adopted a mask of ‘respectability’ and new names like NAAI'P (National Association for the Advance- ment of White Peonle). In Canada it is going under the name of the Nationalist Party-. The film ‘The Rirth of a Nation' is a landmark in the historv of cinema. That is historv of cinema, as op-: posed to history of North America. The film premiered at LIbertv Theatre, New York, March 1915. Prior to that time it was previewed at a special showine as 'The Clans- man'. Rased on a suggestion by Thomas Dixon (author of -'The Clansman') the title was changed to 'The Birth of a Nation’. In his autobiography Rilly Bitzer (Griffith's Cameraman) states-'Personallv I did not share his en- thustasm, (referring to Griffith) having skimmed through the book. J figured that a crazed Nepro chasing a white eirl-child was just another sausage after all. I was from Yankee country and to me the KKK was sillier than the Mack Sennet comedy chases. A group of horsemen in white sheets? Prenosterous. J was wrong again. Horror fascinates neople and suspence gets them. You must have horror and suspence, and a ride to the rescue, if you want to hold the audience's interest. 'The Birth of a Nation’ cost $I10,900 to complete,ah incred- ible figure in those days. The origional budget was to have been $49,900. Over the vears the film has erossed $29,900,000 from all its showings. Unfortunately. I say unfortunately, for herein lies the ideology of what has come to constitute a cood and successful achievement in terms of cinema. Re- ferring back to Bitzer's statement-'Horror fascinates people' etc.-'if vou want to hold the audience's interest’. The film was the first of its kind to he called a "feature full length” (approximetly 2 hrs.). From going over budget by $79,N00 to later erossing $2N,000,000, it is known as a success story in the business: unfortunately, My initial reaction after having seen 'The Rirth of a Nation’ was simply it sucks, nevertheless I anpreciate the film for its historical importance. Every leading actor, in the film, portraying the black people of America was white: covered with black make-up. (There were black's in the film but cast in very minor roles). They drank, they talked funny, (sub-titles, no sound) they lusted after white women, they were of a violent nature, etc. A similar portrayl of a people in the history of cinema, is that of the North American Indians: as well the portrail of women. The KKK were portrayed as the ‘good guys’, the singing cowboys with the white hats. The black people on the other hand were the indians: the savages adorned with red paint and feathers. In turn you have the dialogue or plot: good vs. bad, the cenflict. When 'The Birth of a Nation' premiered it was recieved with mixed reactions. In the fast, especially in Boston, it was scorned, creating riots. In the West, in California, it was accepted with enthusiasm as a grand cinematic achievement. D.W. Griffith was a Southern bov’ , was he . prejudicial? Perhaps. I think more naive than prejudicial. It mav have been that as a voung hoy he was continuouslv subjected to the ideoloev of prejudicial influences. Perhans an incident occurred that was hlown out of proportion. A young wot’. woman is raped or murdered. a black man is ac- cused (the scape-goat). The man is tried and convicted. Another noint to take into consideration, in terms of un- derstanding Griffith's role, is that film in America dur ing the earlv 1919's was very much a fragile enterprise: solelv denending on its popular audience for its survival. So that Griffith, being totallv engrossed in creating a plot, attemntine to move audiences to the heigzhts of feeling. was unaware, to an extent. of the underlvine racial content he created. A similar situation comes to mind. the German film-maker, Leni Peifenschtahl: who made ‘Triumph of the Will’ and also "Olvmpia’. She was accused ofpropaganda and heine a pro-Nazi, to be later vroven innocent. As a youne woman she was given the opportunity, bv Hitler. to put to full use her film- making capabilities. However unaware of the cruel*+: sand un- humaniterianism the Nazi's were to display later. Both films show a uniaue approaches towards film-making tecnique. Roth films are important historically, as a documentat!.:. (be it a true or false portraval), as well as cinematic achievements. "The Birth of a Nation’, ‘Triumph of the Vill", and ‘lyvmpia' should never be banned from nublic viewing. After all how are we, the nublic, to have svmpathy or to- justifv with a cause when we are restricted from seeing what it is that that cause is standine for. A healthier approach must be taken. Arni Haraldsson REVIEWS LAURIE ANDERSON : PERFORMANCE (January, 12th, 1981) Laurie Anderson's performance at Ian Wallace's ART NOW class was truly inspiring. The artist (from N.Y.) showed her diversity from high-tech wizardry to subtle poetic finesse, using, pillow microphones, recordings, a voice harmoniser, keyboards and violin among her vast range of tools to communitate. Although at first it seemed as if sound was her primary vehicle, it wasn't. She blended her poetic, visual and philosophic ideas with her high-tech knowledge and, what revealed itself was intellectually based art, that didn't throw one into depths of aesthetic trauma. It was humourous 7 serious. It was philosophic / entertaining. The performance accentuates a need of a greater acceptance of technolo -gy in our college. I think that is already happening, but, perhaps a sound department has a use in an art school. The small sound romm in the Media Department is adequaté for certain recordings for the videos, films etc. and is just a birth of what could grow into an exciting exploration at ECCA. We need a larger area for sound study and research, and definitely more equipment. What was really important in Laurie Anderson's performance was the affection, or, perhaps a better word is humaness, that lay behind the cold technology. She has not only acquired the physical under- standing of the equipment, but has blended with it a non-physical understanding of herself to make her statement. And it communicates. The piece I really liked was the sound tabée. It is made of pine wood, and it utilises the listener's hands and forearm bones as sound conductors. One placed the elbows on marked spots on the surface of the table, and with the hands cov- ering the ears, could hear what Music/sound was placed within. Although the piece was not at the performance, the description and idea (and slide) was inspiring. ‘Stereo headphones at the touch of one's hands ! One thing that did scare me was the power that can overpower one other. When do we know when there _ is too much technology compared. to the original idea ? How does one keep in balance enough tech for an idea ? I think Laurie Anderson has found that balance. She doesn't really need the harmoniser to show us harmony, but it is a nice touch, and is one step ahead. L.C. ‘THE BIRTH of @ NATION’ on January I8th & I&th the Ridge Theatre screened D.¥. Griffith's "The Birch of a Nation’. Outside the theatre each consecutive evening to prot Plackarda, as vel handing out pamphlets. Plackarde con- veying auch messages as "Ban The Klan’, ‘Racism Ts Anti- Hunan’, "Ban Movie-Birth of a Nation’, etc. A brief from the pamphlet reads ar follove-'Toronto, 1978. Local police Kili’ Buddy Evans and Albert Johnson, both West Indians. Greensboro, orth Carolina. Novenber 1979. Klansmen and Nazis kill five demonstrators at anti-Klan rally. Paris. October, 1°80. Neo-Nazi bomb kills four people tn ‘Sront of a Jewish Synazosue. Vancouver. 1980. KKK sends in recruiters. Metrihutes hate literature at liih Schools and at RCIT. Sets up Klan units. Racist attacks aainst Fast Indians and other eth~ nic communities proving... (and) ‘The Klan has a long history of violence against minorities and unions. Having heen driven into silence hy popular protest, it is azain coming ‘out of the woodwork because of the current economic dif~ {ieulttes. It has adopted a nask of ‘respectability’ and new names Like NAA"P (National Association for the Advance- rent of White Peonle). In Canada it ts poine under the ane of the Nationalist Party. ‘The (1m "The Mirth of a Nation’ is a landmark in the history of cinema. That 4s history of cinema, as op- posed to history of North America. The film prentered nt Liberty Theatre, Nev York, “arch 1915. Prior to that Lime 4€ was nrevieued at a spectal shovine as ‘The Clan rman’. Rased on a sureestion by Thomas Dixon (author of "the Clanaman") the title was changed to "The Pirth of a Nation’, In his autohfonraphy Milly Bitzer (criffith' Cameraman) states-'Personally T did not share his en- thustasm, (referring to Griffith) having skinned through the bool I figured that a crazed Nerro chasing a white eirl-ehild vas fust another stusare after all. 1 vas fron Yankww country and to me the KKK vas sillfer than the Mack Sennet conedy chases. A proup of horsemen in white sheets? Prenosterous. T vas wrone again. Yorror fascinates neople and suspence gets then. You must have horror and suspence, and a ride to the rescue, 1f you vant to hold the audience's interest ‘the Birth of @ Nation" cost SIT0,000 to conplete,ah incred~ Able figure in those days. The origional budzet vas to have been $49,000. Over the vears the film has erossed $20,090,000 from all its showings. Unfortunately. 1 say unfortunately, for herein Iies the ideology of vhat has cone to constitute ‘9 ood and successful achtevenent in terns of cinena. Re- fereing back to Bitzer's statenent-'Norror fascinates people’ ete.-"Sf vou want to hold the audience's interest". The film was the first of its kind to he called a “feature full length (approxinetly 2 hrs.). From going over budget hy $70,000 to later erossing 20,000,000, it 4s known asa success story in the business: unfortunately. My Initial reaction after having seen ‘The Rirth of a Nation’ vas sinply it sucks, nevertheless I anpreciate the film for its historical importance. Every leading actor, in the film, portraying the black people of America was vhite: covered with black make-up. (There were black's in the film but cast in very minor roles). They drank, they talked funny, (ub-titles, no sound) they lusted after vhite wonen, they were of a violent nature, etc. A similar portravl of a people in the history of cinena, is that of the North American Indians: as vell the portratl of vonen. The KKK were portrayed as the "good guys. the singing covboys with the white hats. The black people on the other hand were the indians: the savages adorned vith red paint and feathers. In turn you have the dialogue or plot: good vs. bad, the conflict. hen ‘The Birth of a Matton’ premtered it was recieved with mixed reactions. In the Past, especially in Boston, At was scorned. creatinn riots. Tn the Hest, in California, it vas accented vith enthusiaan as a arand cinenatic achtevenent, Dall. Griffith was a Southern bow’ . was he prejudicial? Perhans. 1 think more naive than prejudicial. Te nav have been that as a voune hov he was continuously subjected to the {deolory of prejudicial influences. Perhors an freident occurred that was Moun out of proportion. Younn wt". woman in raed or murdered. a blach man {8 ac~ cused (the scape-roat). The man is tried and convicted. Another noint to take into consideration, in terna of un~ derstanding Griffith's role, ir that €1lm in America dur ing the early 1990's vas very uch a frarile enternris: solely denendine on irs nonular audience for its survival. So that riffith, heing totally engrossed in creating a plot, attennting to move audiences to the hetahts of feeling. Gas unaware, to an extent, of the underlvine racial content he created, \ similar situation cones to nimi. the German film-maker. Lent Seifensehtahl: who nade ‘Triumph of the Will" and aiso ‘olympia’. She was accused ofpronazanda and heine a pro-Mazi. to he Inter oraven innocent. As a youne vonan she vas eiven the onportunitv, by IMeler. to put to full use her film aking canahilities. However unaware of the cruel” nd un- hunaniterianisa the Nazi's were to display later. Roth films show a unioue approaches tovards film-naking technique. Roth (lms are important historically, as a documentat !- (he st a true of false portraval), an vell af cinematic achtevenents. "The Rirth of @ Nation’, ‘Triumph of the VtI1", and Slwnpia’ should never be hanned fron nublic viewing. After all how are we, the nublic, to have avmpathy oF to justify vith a cause when ve are restricted from seeing what it ts that that cause 1s standine for. ‘A healthier approach must he taken. Aent Haenldanon REVIEWS LAURIE ANDERSON : PERFORMANCE January, 12th, 1981) Laurie Anderson's performance at Tan Wallace's ART NOW class was truly inspiring. The artist (from N.Y.) showed her diversity from high-tech wizardry to subtle poetic finesse, using, pillow microphones, recordings, a voice harmoniser, keyboards and violin among her vast range of tools to communicate. Although at first it seemed as if sound was her primary vehicle, it wasn't. She blended her poetic, visual and philosophic ideas with her high-tech knowledge and, what revealed itself was intellectually based art, that didn't throw one into depths of aesthetic trauma. It was humourous ? serious. It was philosophic / entertaining. The performance accentuates a need of a greater acceptance of technolo ~sy in our college. I think that is already happening, but, perhaps a ‘sound department has a use in an art school. The small sound romm in the Media Department is adequate for certain recordings for the videos, films etc. and is just a birth of what could grow into an exciting exploration at ECCA. We need a larger area for sound study and research, and definitely nore equipment. What was really important in Laurie Anderson's performance was the affection, or, perhaps a better word is humaness, that lay behind the cold technology. She has not only acquired the physical under- standing of the equipment, but has blended with it a non-physical understanding of herself to make her statement. And it communicates. The piece I really liked was the sound tabée. It is made of pine wood, and it utilises the listener hands and forearm bones as sound conductors. One placed the elbovs on marked spots on the surface of the table, and with the hands cov- ering the ears, could hear what music/sound was placed within. Although the piece was not at the performance, the description and idea (and slide) was inspiring. Stereo headphones at the touch of one's hands ! One thing that did scare me vas the power that can overpower one other. When do we know when there is too much technology compared to the original idea ? How doe: one keep in balance enough tech for an idea ? I think Laurie Anderson has found that balance. She doesn't really need the harmoniser to show us harmony, but it is a nice touch, and is one step ahead. Lc.