[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsEmmysSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideToronto Int'l Film FestivalIMDb Stars to WatchSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
  • FAQ
IMDbPro

Naissance d'une nation

Original title: The Birth of a Nation
  • 1915
  • Tous publics
  • 3h 15m
IMDb RATING
6.1/10
28K
YOUR RATING
Naissance d'une nation (1915)
EpicPeriod DramaWar EpicDramaWar

The Stoneman family finds its friendship with the Camerons affected by the Civil War, both fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln's a... Read allThe Stoneman family finds its friendship with the Camerons affected by the Civil War, both fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln's assassination and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.The Stoneman family finds its friendship with the Camerons affected by the Civil War, both fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln's assassination and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.

  • Director
    • D.W. Griffith
  • Writers
    • Thomas Dixon Jr.
    • D.W. Griffith
    • Frank E. Woods
  • Stars
    • Lillian Gish
    • Mae Marsh
    • Henry B. Walthall
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • IMDb RATING
    6.1/10
    28K
    YOUR RATING
    • Director
      • D.W. Griffith
    • Writers
      • Thomas Dixon Jr.
      • D.W. Griffith
      • Frank E. Woods
    • Stars
      • Lillian Gish
      • Mae Marsh
      • Henry B. Walthall
    • 454User reviews
    • 74Critic reviews
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • See production info at IMDbPro
    • Awards
      • 2 wins total

    Videos1

    How 'Antebellum' Began as a Timely Nightmare of the Present Day
    Interview 3:49
    How 'Antebellum' Began as a Timely Nightmare of the Present Day

    Photos115

    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    + 107
    View Poster

    Top cast64

    Edit
    Lillian Gish
    Lillian Gish
    • Elsie - Stoneman's Daughter
    Mae Marsh
    Mae Marsh
    • Flora Cameron - The Pet Sister
    Henry B. Walthall
    Henry B. Walthall
    • Col. Ben Cameron aka The Little Colonel
    • (as Henry Walthall)
    Miriam Cooper
    Miriam Cooper
    • Margaret Cameron - The Elder Sister
    Mary Alden
    Mary Alden
    • Lydia Brown - Stoneman's Mulatto Housekeeper
    Ralph Lewis
    Ralph Lewis
    • Hon. Austin Stoneman - Leader of the House
    George Siegmann
    George Siegmann
    • Silas Lynch - Mulatto Lieut. Governor
    • (as George Seigmann)
    Walter Long
    Walter Long
    • Gus - A Renegade Negro
    Robert Harron
    Robert Harron
    • Tod - Stoneman's Younger Son
    Wallace Reid
    Wallace Reid
    • Jeff - The Blacksmith
    • (as Wallace Reed)
    Joseph Henabery
    Joseph Henabery
    • Abraham Lincoln
    • (as Jos. Henabery)
    Elmer Clifton
    Elmer Clifton
    • Phil - Stoneman's Elder Son
    Josephine Crowell
    Josephine Crowell
    • Mrs. Cameron
    Spottiswoode Aitken
    Spottiswoode Aitken
    • Dr. Cameron
    George Beranger
    George Beranger
    • Wade Cameron - The Second Son
    • (as J.A. Beringer)
    Maxfield Stanley
    Maxfield Stanley
    • Duke Cameron - The Youngest Son
    • (as John French)
    Jennie Lee
    Jennie Lee
    • Mammy - The Faithful Servant
    Donald Crisp
    Donald Crisp
    • Gen. Ulysses S. Grant
    • Director
      • D.W. Griffith
    • Writers
      • Thomas Dixon Jr.
      • D.W. Griffith
      • Frank E. Woods
    • All cast & crew
    • Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

    User reviews454

    6.127.7K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Featured reviews

    drf12005

    comments just as disturbing as the movie...

    more disturbing that the movie, made in 1915, are some of these comments I'm reading...in 2007...

    pcorder wrote: "Whites could not vote or serve in the government during Reconstruction, Blacks ruled in the Legislatures and this movie showed how they acted during that time. The reason some many liberal whites and blacks HATE this movie is because it is the only movie to ever tell the truth about RECONSTRUCTION."???

    Are you high?? what planet are you from?? This couldn't be further from the truth. you obviously don't know your history. or perhaps you know "your story", which is not the same. benefits of a home education, i presume?

    to those who praise this movie...let's say a black director makes a film depicting whites as ignorant, violent, subhuman heathens, but hey, its a cinematic masterpiece. Would you be singing its praises? i highly doubt it.

    shows just how far we Haven't come...
    Douglas_Holmes

    Fascinating, expensive movie.

    This movie had the stockholders quaking when they saw the costs mount. It was the most expensive movie made up to that time, and it shows that silent films really COULD create spectacle on a grand scale.

    One of the posters remarked on how ridiculous the Klansmen's hoods looked. Actually, the original "ghost costumes" were all homemade and there was no standardized uniform- some had spikes on the head, horns, painted faces on the masks, etc.

    I myself had an ancestor who was a member of the Reconstruction Ku Klux Klan, and they saw themselves as guerilla fighters against an occupying power, not as terrorists. Today we can condemn them. At the time, it must have seemed to them that the war was over, but that the battle lines were still firmly drawn.

    This film is a good peek into the attitude of the general public in 1915 about Reconstruction. It became a national obsession, and probably gave impetus to Col. William Joseph Simmons's decision to "resurrect" the Klan in that year.
    satya232

    What does it mean to say something is 'Politically Correct'?

    I don't think there's ever been a more maligned phrase than "politically correct" out there; the words immediately evoke a kind of liberal pseudo-fascism that some would have you believe is dominating freedom of speech and thought around universities and media outlets everywhere. I'm not so sure about that, but I am concerned at the counter-trend, of things that are labeled politically incorrect now proudly sporting that label as if they were a rebel, a David fighting these psedo-fascist Goliaths. That is hardly the case. D.W. Griffith's movie, far from being a politically incorrect movie unfairly condemned by the liberal elite, was a movie that perpetuated and, to a certain extent, created a Southern Myth that was damning to black people all throughout the country. The scary bit about this movie is not that it is one voice amoung many giving a personal recount of reconstruction. The movie is not presented that way, nor was it received that way. Until the 1960s, this movie WAS the commonplace, everyday understanding of reconstruction, understood by both Northerners and Southerners (aside: notice how the movie intentionately put as much distance between Northerners and Southerners as possible? The enemy is blacks and "radicals" (who were nothing of the sort), not Lincoln or the union soldiers. The movie was trying to appeal to a Northern audience).

    Anyone who ever complains about the political correctness or historical "revisionism" of today's academics, see this movie. And understand, that it is the work of historical "revisionists" that are responsible for teaching the facts about our nation's history, grasped out of the hands of fictions like Griffith's horrific Birth of a Nation. And don't be so smug about complaining of political correctness in the future.

    And don't try to seperate this film as an artistic work with the historical perspective of the film. Keep in mind, this film was not only a portrayl of history, it was also a *part* of history. It served to defend racial segregation, lychings, and the Klan at a time when all three of those were very real political issues. It is not a coincidence that the greatest period of lychings and Jim Crow laws came shortly after this movie. In short, this film oppressed people. So don't treat it like it existed in an entertainment vacuum, unaffected by and unaffecting everything else around it.
    Snow Leopard

    The Conventional Wisdom is Partially Right

    The conventional wisdom about "The Birth of a Nation" is that it represents an impressive and innovative display of cinematic skill that was unfortunately wasted on a story that promotes a bizarre and disturbing point of view. While that is certainly true in a general way, it might also be something of an oversimplification.

    It really is almost like two different movies. The first part, which takes place in the era before and during the Civil War, contains little objectionable material, and it deserves praise both technically and for the acting. The second part, set in the reconstruction era, contains almost all of the disturbing material, and it also is really not all that great in terms of cinematic quality.

    Then also, the degree to which "The Birth of a Nation" may have influenced the development of cinema has very likely been overstated . The controversy that it generated may very well have helped it to remain better known than other films of the era that were equally innovative and/or lavish, or nearly so.

    If the movie had ended shortly after the memorable and well-crafted Ford's Theater scene, the anti-war sentiment and similar themes would remain the main focus, since the effects of war on families and individuals is depicted convincingly and thoughtfully. In that case, its occasional lapses would possibly at the worst be called "dated", given the quality of the rest of this part of the movie.

    The second half, though, is completely unfortunate in almost every respect. Not only does it promote a distorted viewpoint, but the story becomes labored, and the characters lose their depth and become more one-dimensional. The purely technical side, such as the photography and the use of cross-cutting, might still be good, but much of the rest of it loses its effectiveness.

    Perhaps more importantly, it really seems rather difficult to justify the credit that this one film gets in the development of cinema. There had already been numerous feature-length movies, and most of the techniques that Griffith used were also in use by others. He may well have been ahead of the pack in terms of appreciating their possibilities, but that does not mean that cinema would not have developed as it did without this particular movie.

    Just as one example, the Italian epic "Cabiria", from the previous year, has the same kind of lavish scale, is quite resourceful in its techniques, and is quite entertaining, without causing so much controversy.

    Other early feature-length films also include some creative efforts to adapt film-making techniques to longer running times and more complex stories. Finally, many short features from the pre-Griffith era experimented with the same kinds of techniques that he later would use systematically. There's no denying Griffith's considerable technical skill, but others of the era also deserve some credit, even if they and their works were less controversial, and are now largely forgotten as a result.
    6Marcyph3r

    How to possibly rate this piece of (movie) history

    This is some incredible movie making. The skill involved is simply incredible. But the racism overwhelms it during the second part. It is very hard to watch. It should not be negated or forgotten. Neither its genius nor its abhorrence.

    Related interests

    Orson Welles in Citizen Kane (1941)
    Epic
    Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, Florence Pugh, and Eliza Scanlen in Les Filles du docteur March (2019)
    Period Drama
    Kenneth Branagh in Dunkerque (2017)
    War Epic
    Mahershala Ali and Alex R. Hibbert in Moonlight (2016)
    Drama
    Frères d'armes (2001)
    War

    Storyline

    Edit

    Did you know

    Edit
    • Trivia
      President Woodrow Wilson is famously rumored to have responded to the film with the remark: "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." After the film became subject of controversy due to its heroic portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan, Wilson denied through his press secretary as to having known about the nature of the film before screening it at the White House, or having ever endorsed it. Nevertheless, Wilson's published works as a historian are closely aligned with the film's negative portrayal of Reconstruction (some of his writings are even quoted onscreen in certain prints of the film). Wilson was also notably a consistent pro-segregationist as President.
    • Goofs
      The Ku Klux Klan never fought or won any battles with federal troops, black or white.
    • Quotes

      intertitle: While youth dances the night away, childhood and old age slumber.

    • Crazy credits
      The following was listed in the opening credits: A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the bright side of virtue--the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the written word--that art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare.
    • Alternate versions
      In both 1921 and 1927, edited versions of the film were released to reflect current political viewpoints.
    • Connections
      Edited into The Revenge of Pancho Villa (1932)

    Top picks

    Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
    Sign in

    FAQ20

    • How long is The Birth of a Nation?Powered by Alexa
    • Wallace Reid---What Happened to Him?

    Details

    Edit
    • Release date
      • October 22, 1920 (France)
    • Country of origin
      • United States
    • Language
      • English
    • Also known as
      • El nacimiento de una nación
    • Filming locations
      • Calexico, California, USA
    • Production companies
      • David W. Griffith Corp.
      • Epoch Producing Corporation
    • See more company credits at IMDbPro

    Box office

    Edit
    • Budget
      • $110,000 (estimated)
    See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

    Tech specs

    Edit
    • Runtime
      • 3h 15m(195 min)
    • Sound mix
      • Silent
    • Aspect ratio
      • 1.33 : 1

    Contribute to this page

    Suggest an edit or add missing content
    • Learn more about contributing
    Edit page

    More to explore

    Recently viewed

    Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
    Get the IMDb App
    Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
    Follow IMDb on social
    Get the IMDb App
    For Android and iOS
    Get the IMDb App
    • Help
    • Site Index
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • License IMDb Data
    • Press Room
    • Advertising
    • Jobs
    • Conditions of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, an Amazon company

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.