The Birth of the Feature Film: Crash Course Film History #6

The Birth of the Feature Film: Crash Course Film History #6


If you’ve been joining me from the beginning
of our journey through the history of film, you might’ve noticed something.
None of the films that I’ve talked about so far look like the movies you see today.
Yes, Ryan Gosling got very little play in the late 1800s. But what I really mean is:
We haven’t talked much about story. Character. Narrative.
Like, you don’t go the the megaplex today, buy a bunch of popcorn, and sit down to watch
movies of trains entering stations, or horses running in slow motion. That’s because, there was a period in the history of film – a really important and
kind of problematic one – when film evolved, from a technical curiosity into a powerful
visual storytelling machine. Artists, technicians, and engineers started
devising ways of making films longer, more complex, and more narrative. This is when
it began to develop its own language, through the power of editing.
And the way films were made, and watched, became more familiar, too.
Film studios began to pop up. Movie theaters proliferated. Systems were created to develop
film, shuttle movies from theater to theater, and publicize them to hungry audiences. As film’s physical and economic imprint became more stable, so too did its visual language, taking a shape that more closely resembles the movies you see today.
And this was due in large part to the exhaustive work of D. W. Griffith, a failed actor-turned-filmmaker
whose own legacy was as complicated and sprawling as one of his films.
It’s time to tackle D. W. Griffith and the arrival of the feature film. [Opening Titles] As the film industry took root, that whole
system began to take a shape that’s recognizable to us modern movie-goers.
First, there’s the studio. When an entertainment company grows big enough
to have its own production facilities – from offices and sound stages to props, costumes,
and editing rooms, we call it a studio. The studio is where the films are made by the
production company. Second is the distributor. Its job is to market
the movie to its audience, book the films onto screens, and then deliver them to the
theaters. So the distributor actually gets the films out into the world. Thank you, distributor. I like watching movies. Finally, we have the exhibitor. This is the company that actually provides the film to
the audience. Movie theaters and big theater chains are
exhibitors, as are streaming services and DVD rental companies.
In the first few decades of film production in the US, many of these companies were vertically
integrated. That means that the studio owned the production company. And the distribution
company. And even the exhibition company. While this made a lot of sense for the owners of the studios – to be able to control the process from production to exhibition – it
would eventually be ruled a monopoly. At that point, the studios would be forced
to break off their distribution and exhibition businesses and open the field to competition.
But that came later. In the early days – from about 1907 to 1913 – the major film studios
had tremendous power… like me. Eager to please a growing and ravenous audience,
these studios looked to the success that manufacturers like Henry Ford were having with mass production,
and tried to make films in a kind of “assembly line” process.
Write the film, shoot the film, edit the film, distribute the film, screen the film, and
repeat. As fast as possible, and as often as possible. That’s how you make art! It was about quantity, not quality. If the movies were good, that was cool; but it wasn’t
the goal. Experimentation of any kind was discouraged. Time was money.
The standard length of these films was about 10 to 16 minutes, or one reel of film. The
creative name they came up for these films? “One reelers.”
But despite the flattening out of quality, this was a period of astronomical growth for
the film industry, in the US and western Europe in particular.
Demand was through the roof, and filmmakers were working overtime trying to meet it.
They were also stealing. Copyright law was still in its infancy, and – as with books
prior to 1893 – most films were considered to be in the public domain. This meant that
prints could be stolen and duplicated without legal consequences.
It was kind of the Wild West, and it can be as confusing to make sense of as it was to
live through. YEE-HAW! So let’s see if we can work our way through it.
The person in the best position to bring some order to the chaos of this burgeoning film
industry is our old friend Thomas Edison. Edison claimed that he held the patents on
several elements in almost all motion picture cameras and projectors. So he believed he
was entitled to a cut of every camera and projector sold, as well as every movie that
was made, sold, or screened. And who was the competitor who most got under
his skin? His former lab assistant – and the man who actually invented the first motion
picture camera – William Dickson. After he left Edison, Dickson started his
own production company called Biograph, which made films using a camera similar to Edison’s
kinetograph, but different enough to survive a lawsuit.
And sue Edison did. No fewer than 20 times in just a few years. I mean, Edison was suing everybody. This era became known as the Patent Wars,
as gangs of men connected to Edison were known to show up at independent film studios and
threaten the filmmakers. Eventually Edison realized that he was wasting
time and money in court. Independent producers and distributors were popping up all over
the place, and he was left playing this big, high-stakes game of whack-a-mole. Sounds like fun, but it’s not… trust me. So he proposed a truce, and partnered with Dickson’s Biograph and eight other major
film studios, the country’s leading film distributor, and George Eastman, the biggest
supplier of film stock. Together, they created the Motion Picture
Patents Company, also known as “the Trust,” an effective monopoly on film production and
distribution in the United States. Instead of selling films to distributors and
exhibitors, studios would rent them out, and retain all legal rights to them. This gave
studios control over which films were screened, how often, and in which theaters. Sounds great! … no it doesn’t. Plus, because Eastman was a member of
the MPCC, independent film companies couldn’t
get their hands on film stock without permission. Which meant that Edison got to decide who
could and couldn’t make movies! In addition to the stranglehold that the Trust
put on the industry, it also promoted the assembly line process of film production.
As a result, the films themselves by and large became unimaginative, stale, and static.
But, the independents refused to go quietly. They banded together to form groups aimed
at resisting Edison and the MPPC. The last and most successful of these was the Motion
Picture Distributing and Sales Company. Many of them also decided to move their production
facilities as far away from Edison’s New Jersey headquarters as possible. Can you guess
where they ended up?… Not Synecdoche. That’s right: Hollywood, California, which
had the added benefits of year-round sunshine and a diverse and handy assortment of natural landscapes. And earthquakes. That’s not a benefit it’s just something they had. Finally, in 1918, the United States Supreme
Court broke up the MPPC and ordered film studios to sever their distribution and exhibition
branches, ending Edison’s run as American film’s great gatekeeper.
While all this was going on, films themselves were struggling to change, and though no one
knew it yet, features were on the way. A feature film is a movie with a running time
long enough to be considered the principal film in a program. Usually, features clock
in at between 70 and 130 minutes. When Edison’s posse was in control, the
MPPC strictly forbade films longer than one reel, or 10 to 16 minutes.
So filmmakers began looking for creative ways around the length restriction. Some would
make two reelers and then show them in a serial format – the first reel this week, the second
next week. Sort of like what they did with the last Harry
Potter book. I’m still not over that. Three films in particular paved the way for
features by convincing studios that longer films could be commercially successful. The first was The Crusaders, an Italian film
from 1911 that was four reels long. The second was another 4-reeler, a French film called
The Loves of Queen Elizabeth, that starred megastar Sarah Bernhardt and made a ton of
money in 1912. And finally, Quo Vadis, a 1913 Italian spectacle
that boasted huge crowd scenes and big special effects, and ran nine reels in length!
And working steadily through all of this was a director named D. W. Griffith. The son of
a Confederate colonel, Griffith was a failed stage actor who happened to be on an Edwin
S. Porter set one day and fell in love with film.
Within a few months, he was directing one reelers at an astonishing rate – he would
go on to make more than 450 in less than a decade.
What’s even more impressive, he was able to integrate an actor’s understanding of
nuance and character with the film grammar laid down by pioneers like Porter.
He made incredible innovations in how a film could be shot and cut. And most importantly,
he grounded all of his new techniques in the service of character and story.
For example, Griffith is credited with innovating the close-up – cutting to a shot of a character’s
face at a moment of high drama. This also required – and rewarded – a more subtle
style of acting than film actors often delivered. Can we cut to a close up, Nick?
Nick: No. Drama, right? Are we in a close up?
Nick: No. Why? He used insert shots – close-ups of objects
or characters’ hands – to draw attention to symbolic props or key narrative moments.
He used increasingly extensive flashbacks to add depth to characters and their stories.
And he found ingenious ways to use cross-cutting to engage the audience on a deep level, to
make us empathize with his characters, to really care about what was happening to them. It’s remarkable how modern his films feel
today. So I’m gonna remark on it. Sure, they’re in black and white, and they’re short, and they don’t star
Captain America or Vin Diesel’s car or an Oscar-worthy bucket of tears.
But the way the shots are framed and arranged hasn’t changed all that much since Griffith.
And Griffith’s biggest achievement was the film Birth of a Nation.
This is the film that paved the way for feature-length films to become the gold standard. It was
successful enough – both financially and in terms of its massive scope mixed with its
detailed attention to character, emotion, and story – that audiences demanded more
like it, and would no longer be satisfied with a program of half a dozen one reelers.
Birth of a Nation is also a deeply racist film. It offers an extremely sympathetic view
of white southern former slaveholders under Reconstruction.
The heroes at the end of the film are the reborn Ku Klux Klan, who ride across the countryside,
racing to save poor white southerners besieged by mobs of murderous former slaves.
It’s stunningly effective in its use of cross-cutting and screen direction; it’s
also profoundly disturbing in its message and imagery.
This is the double-edged sword of D. W. Griffith: a master of cinema on one hand, and an apologist
for a legacy of hatred, violence, and persecution, whose work inspired actual hate groups to
reconstitute in this country. The film faced protests at the time, particularly
in places like Chicago, where people of all ethnic backgrounds objected to its twisted
view of history and race relations. And there was a very small but vibrant underground
African American film industry at the time that responded to the racism of Birth of a Nation with films of their own. Most famous was Oscar Micheaux’s Within
Our Gates, released in 1920, the story of a mixed-race school teacher who encounters
violence and prejudice as she tries to make a better life for herself.
The most successful African American filmmaker of the time, Micheaux examined the racial
climate in the United States in a way that’s as nuanced and searing as Griffith’s is
bigoted and inaccurate. Whatever else it is, Birth of a Nation marked
the end of the Silent Shorts era, and challenged film studios to allow filmmakers to make longer,
more complex films that told grand stories with unique characters and powerful emotions.
The pictures may have moved before Griffith, but now the audience was moved too.
Today we talked about how the film industry is divided up into studios, distributors,
and exhibitors – and how all those systems used to be controlled by the same people.
Then, we discussed the independent filmmakers who resisted the monopolies, started up Hollywood,
and began creating longer feature films instead of one reelers. We introduced D.W. Griffith who was an innovator and master of film language, but his biggest achievement was a film cloaked in hate and racism. And next time, we’ll talk about how the violence and politics of World War I influenced
cinema, and how filmmakers began to experiment with horror, psychological twists, and the
distortion of reality. Crash Course Film History is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of
their latest amazing shows, like Shank’s FX, Indie Alaska, and Deep Look.
This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio
with the help of these one reelers and our amazing graphics team, is Thought Cafe.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Thank you so much for your videos, I enjoy watching a lot! I'm wondering though, why do you talk so fast? If you slowed down a little, it would be a lot easier for foreigners to watch 🙂

  2. Scene Jesse-jane McParland & Nick Frost
    JesseJane McParland Martial Arts Champion & Actress
    https://plus.google.com/photos/photo/111450336760724009894/6421594345529172546?icm=false

  3. For a not native English speaking person as me was he speaking to fast, so i play the video at 0.75 speed. Now i can follow what he said.

  4. I really admire how matter-of-fact Craig is about D.W. Griffith. He acknowledges the man's racism – as he should – but doesn't dwell on it longer than necessary; he also points out why Griffith is important to Film History.

  5. Ok I get that it is creative hyperbole, but these films were not stolen. I seriously doubt people were going around actually stealing reels, so we're talking about re-use without approval of the original creator. Whether such re-use should be called theft ever is subject of serious philosophical work (e.g. David Koepsell), but here the narrator explicitly says there were no laws covering reuse and the movies were considered public domain. Theft is unlawful taking. If there is no law prohibiting the taking, it is not theft.

  6. I was sO happy when you mentioned how racist Birth of a Nation and Griffith were!
    btw another reason for the Independents to go to Hollywood was that they were close to the Mexican border there so if the Trust came looking for them to sue them they would've had the possibility of basically hiding behind the border!

  7. academics be like:
    "D.W. Griffith is such a great director!"
    "Leni Riefenstahl is such a great director!"

  8. If they were in the public domain and there was no copyright laws it wasn't stealing but okay yeah sure pull that mpaa line

  9. Very good! Not infantile like some of these …
    But I had to play it at the slower 0.75 Speed!
    And Yikes! The Cuts between sentences!

  10. FINALLY! A video that does more to describe Birth of a Nation as an important film in the history of film besides just calling it racist. I admit it's racist in its message and narrative, but there's more to it than racism.

  11. please do a video on situation ethics, these videos are soo helpful and explain topics to me in a way that I can easily understand!

  12. Did people just recently talking about how shitty Edison was or have they been for years and no one was listening?

  13. A plot? I remember those. Can't wait until he gets to the episode where he talks about modern film which are all reboots and sequels and adaptations of existing works.

  14. Can I recommend the MIT course on film that is available for free on Opencourseware – It's really interesting & takes you on a tour of the important stages of cinema history. Obviously not as speedy as these videos but damn it's interesting and provides a path through the history of cinema that makes watching old films more enjoyable. Also you pick up a lot about styles & technique along the way. "The Film Experience".

  15. I'd argue that you are participating in a particular brand of dishonesty and dogma. You are welcome to pontificate and pass distant judgment on a particular expression of hate. It's not particularly effective, but do you. I object to the arrogant dismissal of a perfectly normal, inescapable, useful, arguably necessary, human emotion. We hate. We all hate. You must if you are to recognize love. You could see not one thing in the Absence of light. It guides our morality, humanity, and understanding of all aspects of the human condition. It cannot be avoided or dismissed, so at most you play pretend like toddlers. Stop. Grow up.

  16. Anyone else notice that "independent" is spelled wrong ("independant") in the sum-up at the end? Anyone? Just me? Okay.

  17. The resurgence of the KKK post-reconstruction is inextricably connected to that film. In considering history, it cannot be ignored as a critical origin of the modern KKK that persists to today.

  18. I wish you had mentioned WHERE a lot of those African American filmmakers were. They weren't welcome in Hollywood, their films were made in Jacksonville, FL- which was also a place where independent film makers trying to escape Edison went.

  19. I love the series…but I could really do without the host making jokes just to amuse himself every 30 seconds.

  20. I love the use of the often overlooked punch transition in these videos. You teach film history in the best way, by example

  21. David Wark Griffith also made "Intolerance" a couple of years after, which was a sort of an attempt to redeem himself.

  22. "Intellectual Property" isn't property and you can't steal it. There's some powerful companies who have manipulated law and public opinion to convince you otherwise.

  23. I dropped out of my university media course and am doing biomed instead. Thank you for making a pleasant, accessible way of learning all the cool stuff without having to do a whole degree in it.

  24. I'd like to congratulate the sound editor for his accuracy at 2:18.
    Almost there buddy, almost there.

  25. In general, this series is an ok overview. But this Birth Of A Nation episode reveals the problems of Crash Course Film's approach as a series, and general academic narratives of film history overall.
    If race enters into the conversation for the first time with BOAN, then the racism integral to U.S. film’s development is obscured. This makes it harder to grapple with BOAN in context. If race enters the conversation for the first time here, then critiques of the film can only be shallow, can only be a “it’s good but it’s racist, what are you going to do!” level of engagement, or a misleading "art vs the artist".
    BOAN is not just an exceptionally racist work, but it is a film built on the existing form and technology that was marketed and developed through anti-blackness. Discussion of Porter & Edison is purely formal – but their developments in form (technology and narrative as well) was built on anti-blackness. Early film narratives and jokes were developed through racist discourse. Cinematic technology was sold through film’s ability to racialize and display racial difference and white supremacist ideologies. All of this leads into BOAN and Griffith – his "emotionally effective" melodrama and editing is built on lynching narratives present in the very beginnings of photography and cinema. His blackface caricatures, his eugenics and facism displayed in BOAN’s “anti war” melodramatic message, his formal achievements built on anti-black racism are not just a "double edged sword" through which to interpret him. Griffith is not a “pioneer and hate group revivalist” – his pioneering is inherently connected to this racism, his form and technology are a part of an anti-black discourse that is U.S. cinema, a cinema developed through this racism, this spectacle, this violence. To faithfully and ethically engage with U.S. film history, we must view it as an art form built through racism.

  26. I have replayed that "Yeehaw" an embarrassing number of times.

    Also absolutely loving this series.

  27. I love crash courses. every one. so, to make it better a little critique question: Why is in every crash course attempt of comedy so pathetic and bad?

  28. Whithin the gates sounds like that Michelle Pfifer movie, think it might be called dangerous minds or something. First one seems better.

  29. I don't know if DW Griffith was racist. I do know that in "Birth of a Nation," he was telling the story about racist views in the United States after the Civil War. At that point in our history, the Southern half of the country enacted "Black Codes," in direct violation of the Reconstruction Acts. Segregation was the way of the day until the Supreme Court ruled in 1954, "Brown v. Board of Education," that segregated schools are not equal schools, therefore paving the way for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

  30. so essentially one of or a team of Thomas Edison's workers came up with, and he took the credit for it, like with all of "his" inventions.

  31. Theres a big mistake on this segment. Birth of a Nation is a very long movie. 3h and 13 mins. Intollerance was also as long.

  32. I just wanna take a moment to thank CrashCourse for also highlighting the African American filmindustry and their answer to D.W Griffith's Birth of a Nation, my uni never talked about this, so without this video I'd never know. Learning this made me really happy 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *