tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post8354929288126132311..comments2008-12-08T04:28:46.206+02:00Mark Jacobsenhttps://profiles.google.com/107999162787819355839noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-54824643309829196732008-12-08T03:48:00.000+02:002008-12-08T03:48:00.000+02:00I have no dispute about your central thesis. Here are some interesting comments by Roger Ebert regarding D. W. Griffith's use of blackface in <I>Birth of a Nation</I>:<BR/><BR/>"Griffith, for example, was criticized for using white actors in blackface to portray his black villains. There are bizarre shots where a blackface character acts in the foreground while real African-Americans labor in the fields behind him. His excuse, as relayed by Miss Gish: 'There were scarcely any Negro actors on the Coast' and 'Mr. Griffith was accustomed to working with actors he had trained.' But of course there were no Negro actors, because blackface whites were always used, and that also explains why he did not need to train any. <BR/><BR/>"Griffith's blindness to the paradox in his own statement is illuminating. His blackface actors tell us more about his attitude toward those characters than black actors ever could have. Consider the fact that the blackface is obvious; the makeup is not as good as it could have been. That makes its own point: Black actors could not have been used in such sexually-charged scenes, even if Griffith had wanted to, because white audiences would not have accepted them. Griffith wanted his audience to notice the blackface. "Sam Sundquisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00168137243961193026noreply@blogger.com