D.W.Griffith: A Man of Vision and Contradiction

Upon the study of Griffith’s contribution to cinematic history, it is evident that he was a very contradictory man, as described by David A. Cook;
‘a provincial southern romantic with pretensions to high literacy culture and a penchant for...melodrama’. Here we already see a form of contradiction in terms as melodrama was viewed by some of being of a lower class of literature and the 'pretentions' in Cook's description make it sound as though Griffith was far from being as clever as he believed himself to be.
Each film he released seemed to drastically oppose the other, an early film of his called ‘The Rose of Kentucky’ centres around a southern man who refuses to join the Klu Klux Klan and in fact fights against them. To have 'The Rose of Kentucky' to be followed by‘The Birth of a Nation’, a very openly racist film which glorifies the KKK is truely a bizzare progression. It is also equally difficult to determine exactly what precise vision Griffith truly had for his films. Whilst he seemed one minute to revel in the storm of controversy that ‘Birth of a Nation’ had created, he then complained that people were not admiring its technical expertise and historical accuracy.
Two of Griffith's films after "Birth of a Nation" also seem to be some sort of attempt at repentance for the offence he caused with it. "Intollerance" is a profoundly anti-war film that observes the battles in history of various nations, whilst the lower-key "Broken Blossoms" highly romanticises the grace and gentleness of the Chinese culture as embodied by the store owner who looks after the young girl who is abused by her father. Griffith even goes so far as to make the white male father the villain of the piece as opposed to the Chinese man, one could argue, however, that despite an attempt to show his humanity, Griffith has still fallen back onto the use of a stereotype as the actor playing the Chinese was infact white and made to look like a stereotypical image of a Chinese person.
Many film critics and students are too quick to dismiss Griffith's work due to the high level of racism. I believe, however, that whilst the open display of vile prejudice and vulgar spin on history, ‘The Birth of a Nation’, should be recognised first asGriffith’s vision to prove to the world that film could be used as an art form to deftly convey a comprehensive narrative to an audience that would evoke great reaction and discussion, whilst thoroughly displaying his brilliance of mastering new filming techniques that had never been seen before. It is evident that Griffith has achieved this as to this date it is cited as one of the most important films ever made and can still provoke discussion and debate. Griffith’s overtly grand and extravagant vision with regards to the study of ‘The Birth of a Nation’ has done nothing to effect his great achievements that the history of cinema should recognise for pushing the boundaries of what could be done with film that would pave the way for everything to come afterwards.