Phillip Weiss Film 3001 Spring 2012

His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled: racist art or morality tale?

by Phillip W. Weiss

Art is subject to different interpretations and film as an art form is no exception. This adage applies to two D. W. Griffith films, His Trust and its sequel

His Trust Fulfilled. It can be easily argued that both films are examples of racist cinema. First, the principal character, a black slave, is played by a white actor performing in black face; second, black people in general are portrayed as being subservient to white people; and third, the black slave is depicted as being forlorn and disheveled, all of which could be considered racist. Yet, to summarily label these films as racist based strictly on these subjective impressions would be wrong. Based on careful analysis of the text of these films and documentary evidence derived from a comprehensive list of authoritative published sources,

I will demonstrate that despite the racist-like features of these films, they actually represent an attempt to present a dignified and positive portrayal of a black man, and therefore of African-Americans in general

First, here is a combined synopsis of both films. Set in the South during the

Civil War, a white man goes off to fight for the South, entrusting the care of his wife and daughter to his house slave, George, (who is played by a white actor in black face). Subsequently, the soldier is killed in action, and his sword is returned to his wife. Soon after, Union soldiers pillage the home and torch the house, and at the risk of his life, George rushes into the burning building and saves the sword, but the wife and daughter are now homeless. George provides them shelter in his cabin while he sleeps outside; then the wife dies, and George arranges that the daughter live with another family and secretly pays for her education out of his

meager funds, which renders him destitute. Yet, so devoted is George to the daughter that he is even willing to steal to ensure that she can continue her education. The story concludes with George being thanked for his service, and for honoring the trust that had been placed in him.

This story raises a question: Is the idea of a black slave remaining selflessly loyal to a white slaveholding family a contrivance, that is, is the plot deliberately distorted for dramatic effect? The answer to this question is no. Such a story was entirely plausible. It is true that not all slaves remained faithful. Their reactions to the war varied widely, from some firing their masters’ rifles at the invading Union soldiers to others joining the Union Army (Roark, 2005, 140). During the war, many slaves ran away from their masters, and some masters had to use threats and outright force to compel the slaves to remain obedient (Roark, 2005, 141). Page

Smith writes how one manager of several Louisiana plantations

found it increasingly difficult to control the behavior of his slaves. He wrote one slaveowner “that but very few are faithful – Some of those who remain are worse than those who have gone … they will not even gather food for themselves.” (Smith, 1982, p. 378)

In Mississippi the provost marshal of Adams County reported that “there is a great disposition among the Negroes to be insubordinate and to run away and go to the federals” (Smith, 1982, p. 379).

But there were also many instances in which slaves remained completely devoted and steadfast. Some slaves were intensely protective of their masters, especially those “who were closely associated with their owners” (Wiley, 1938, p. 64). In one case in Texas, a slave disarmed his master and locked him in a

smokehouse to save him from being killed by Union soldiers (Smith, 1982, p.379).

In other cases, when a family learned that the master was dead, “the tears of the

black members of the household were often more profuse than those of the

whites” (Wiley, 1938, p. 64). One slave said she would be happy if she “could kill

me jes’ one Yankee.” She hated them because “dey hurt my white people” (Smith,

1982, p. 379).

The Emancipation Proclamation also failed to incite widespread rebellion.

After its publication “the great majority of slaves remained on the plantations and

farms” (Smith, 1982, p. 389). D. W. Griffith recalled how one of his father’s

ex-slaves who, “with the heads of four other Negro families,” had refused to leave

the plantation (Geduld, 1971, p. 13). Booker T. Washington talked about how a

“Negro rarely betray[ed] a specific trust” (Wiley, 1938, p. 65). In the 1936 movie

Show Boat, which is set in the South shortly after the Civil War, a black dock

worker, Joe, played by Paul Robeson, risks his life to get help for Magnolia; and

in the 1939 movie Gone with the Wind a house slave, Mammy, played by

Hattie McDaniel, remains intensely devoted to Scarlet, even after the South had

lost the war. McDaniel, who was black, won an Academy Award for her performance, and Robeson’s rendition of “Ol’ Man River” in the movie has become an iconic symbol of hope.

The feelings of devotion shown by the slaves were often reciprocated by their masters. For instance, after hearing that a cholera epidemic was threatening certain plantations, a slave owner, Alfred Huger, vowed to join his “Negroes” and share their fate (Roark, 2005, p. 141). In other cases, “many planters responded

to the plight of the blacks with genuine pity, feeling almost as sorry for them as they felt for themselves” (Roark, 2005, p. 142). Griffith remembered how his father had joked with black ex-slaves (Geduld, 1971, pp.13-14). When a master was preparing to depart for war, calling together the slaves prior to his departing “and the commitment of his family to them for safe-keeping seemed to have a salutary effect on their later conduct” (Wiley, 1938, p. 65).

Some argued that slaves were treated more humanely than white workers in the North. A Vermont woman who had worked in North Carolina reported that the

“slaves received good food and appeared contented” (Saun, 1980, p. 172).

Another Northerner who traveled to the Natchez, Mississippi area in December

1838 said that the slaves were given the week off from Christmas to New Years at a time “when the Christmas day itself often went unobserved in the North” (Saun,

1980, p. 172). Commenting on the labor unrest in the North in the aftermath of the

Panic of 1857, the chairman of the Democratic Party in North Carolina, William W.

Holden, said: “How eagerly would those poor wretches devour what our well-fed slaves waste.” (Huston, 1987, p. 80). Unlike the factory workers in the North who were being reduced to destitution, in the South slaves were valued and treated as a capital asset (Huston, 1987, p. 80). On November 18, 1857, The Mobile Daily

Register wrote: “Labor is capital in the South, and therefore, while paying the cost of government, it is as carefully and tenderly guarded as the humanity and the avarice of its owners can induce” (Huston , 1987, pp. 80-81).

It was only after the Civil War, when the black slaves were transformed into tenant farmers and workers and now had to fend for themselves that they became

a target of open hatred, as had happened with every other minority group who was vying for a larger piece of the economic pie. Blacks had freedom but they no longer had security, which placed them at an immediate disadvantage in a highly competitive and ethnically and racially diverse culture in which they, from an economic perspective, were newcomers. Thus, nostalgic depictions of the Old

South, with its kindly white plantation owners and smiling, contented slaves may have been based on at least a kernel of truth. Though this bucolic picture was founded on an ideology that was racist (Huston, 1987, p. 7), it is unfair to then presume that D. W. Griffith was racist just because he was a white Southerner.

He did not create the problem, and to impugn his motives based upon his ethnic background alone is equally racist too. Writing on whether Griffith was a racist,

Bryan Curtis wrote that Griffith “didn’t have a coherent political idea in his head”

(Curtis, 2003). Griffith himself vigorously denied that he was anti-Negro (Bogle,

Toms, Coons, 1989, p. 16).

Regarding the Southern attitude toward slavery, James Huston writes:

“Southerners … advocated an economics based on paternalism,” (Huston, 1987, p. 81). For the white Southerner, while the slaves were under their control, the slave was not an object for hatred, but rather was someone to be cared for. These views were “surprisingly widespread” (Huston, 1987, p. 81). Hence it should not be surprising that a Southern white man going off to war would have left his family in the care of a slave, for whom he would have felt a genuine feeling of love and further, it is doubtful that any slave owner would have entrusted the care of his family to his slaves unless that feeling was mutual.

Another key question that must be asked is: Is the portrayal of George by a

white actor in blackface inherently racist? The answer to this question is no. An

actor of one race playing a character of another race is a custom as old as theater

itself, and extends back to antiquity. Regarding the practice of blackening or

masking the face, Hans Nathan writes:

Actors and dancers blackened or masked their faces long before the practice established itself in the popular American theater. We recall the Greek phallophoroi who used soot; the demons, goblins, savages, Indians, Turks, Moors, and Negroes of the lavish entertainments at the courts of the Renaissance and the early Baroque; and Pulcinella and Arlecchino of the Commedia dell’Arte who wore their black masks up to the past century. (Nathan, 1962, p. 3)

In cinema this custom of masquerading or imitating persists to this day in the

form of cross-racial, cross-ethnic, and even cross-species casting. The following

is a list of major motion pictures or television series which have featured

cross-racial, cross-ethnic, or cross-species casting:1

Tropic Thunder (2009) – a white American actor, Robert Downey Jr., plays a

white man disguised as a black man (cross-racial casting).

55 Days at Peking (1966) – a white English actress, Flora Robson, plays the

Dowager Empress of China (cross-racial casting).

Kung Fu (television series, 1973-77) – a white American actor,

David Carradine, plays a Chinese priest (cross-racial casting).

White Chicks (2004) – two black American actors, the Wayans Brothers, play

black men disguised as white women (cross-racial and cross-gender casting).

1 The definition of cross-racial, cross-ethnic, or cross-species casting is a situation in which an actor of one race, ethnicity, or species is cast to play a character of a substantially different race, ethnicity, or species.

Moon Over Parador (1986) – a white American actor, Richard Dreyfuss, plays a white man disguised as a Hispanic dictator (cross-ethnic casting).

Evita (1996) – an American actress, Madonna, plays the Argentinian actress and politician, Eva Peron; an English actor, Jonathan Pryce, plays her husband,

Juan Peron (cross-ethnic casting).

The King and I (1956) – a white European-American actor, Yul Brynner, plays the King of Siam, an Asian (cross-racial casting).

Doctor Zhivago (1966) – an ensemble cast of mostly American and English actors play Russian characters, with the title role being played by an Egyptian,

Omar Sharif (cross-ethnic casting).

The Ten Commandments (1956) – an ensemble cast of white, non-Egyptian actors play ancient Egyptian characters (cross-racial casting).

Khartoum (1966) – a white English actor, Laurence Olivier, plays the Mahdi, a middle-eastern Muslim (cross-racial casting).

Scarface (1983) – a white American actor, Al Pacino, plays a Hispanic gangster (cross-racial casting).

The Iron Cross (1977) – an American actor, James Coburn, plays a German soldier serving in the Wehrmacht (cross-ethnic casting).

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1968) – a white American actor,

Eli Wallach, plays a Hispanic thug (cross-racial casting).

Gone With the Wind (1939) – English actors Vivian Leigh and Leslie Howard play southern white American plantation owners (cross-ethnic casting).

House M.D. (television series, 2004-2012) – an English actor, Hugh Laurie, plays an American doctor (cross-ethnic casting).

Hotel Rwanda (2004) – an American actor, Don Cheadle, plays an African hotel manager (cross-ethnic casting).

Coming to America (1987) – an American actor, Eddie Murphy, plays an

African prince (cross-ethnic casting).

A Woman Called Golda (1983) – a Swedish actress, Ingrid Bergman, plays the Israeli politician, Golda Meier (cross-ethnic casting).

King David (1985) – an American actor, Richard Gere, plays David, King of

Israel (cross-ethnic casting).

The Incredible Hulk (television series, 1978-1982) – an American actor,

Lou Ferrigno, plays a genetic mutation with green skin (cross-species casting).

The Wizard of Oz (1939) – an American actress, Margaret Hamilton, plays a witch with green skin (cross-species casting).

Terminator (1984) – an Austrian-American actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, plays a cyborg, i.e., an animate object that is part organic and part machine

(cross-species casting).

The Thing from Another World (1951) – an American actor, James Arness, plays an alien from parts unknown (cross-species casting).

The Long Voyage Home (1940) – an American actor, John Wayne, plays a

Swedish sailor (cross-ethnic casting).

The Pink Panther (2006) – an American actor, Steve Martin, plays a French detective and another American actor, Kevin Kline, plays his boss (cross-ethnic casting).

I Remember Momma (1948) – an American actress, Irene Dunne, plays a

Norwegian woman (cross-ethnic casting).

The Mortal Storm (1940) – an ensemble of American actors, including

Robert Young and Robert Stack, play members of a German family (cross-ethnic casting).

The Pawnbroker (1965) – an American actor, Rod Steiger, plays a European

Holocaust survivor (cross-ethnic casting).

West Side Story (1961) – a white Russian-American actress, Natalie Wood, plays a Puerto Rican woman (cross-racial casting).

Troy (2004) – an ensemble cast of American and English actors, including

Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Peter O’Toole, and Diane Kruger, play a variety of ancient

Greek and West Asian characters (cross-ethnic casting).

Alexander (2004) – an ensemble cast of American and English actors, including Colin Farrell, Anthony Hopkins, and Rosario Dawson, play a variety of

Eastern Mediterranean and West Asian characters (cross-ethnic casting).

Nixon (1995) – an English actor, Anthony Hopkins, plays American

President Richard M. Nixon (cross-ethnic casting).

Predator (1987) – an American actor, Kevin Peter Hall, plays an alien from outer space (cross-species casting).

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) – an English actor, Charles Laughton, plays a deformed Frenchman; an American actor, Edmond O’Brien, plays a French poet; and an Irish actress, Maureen O’Hara, plays a gypsy girl

(cross-ethnic casting).

The Fly (1986) – an American actor, Jeff Goldblum, plays a half-human, half-insect mutation (cross-species casting).

The Merchant of Venice (2004) – an American actor, Al Pacino, plays a

Venetian Jew (cross-ethnic casting).

The Wolf Man (1941) – an American actor, Lon Chaney, Jr., plays a werewolf

(cross-specie casting).

Essex and Elizabeth (1939) – an American actress, Bette Davis, plays the

English monarch Elizabeth I (cross-ethnic casting).

Frankenstein (1931) – an English actor, Boris Karloff, plays a grotesque freak assembled from human parts (cross-species casting).

Dracula (1933) – a Hungarian actor, Bela Lugosi, plays a blood-sucking monster which disguises itself as a man (cross-species casting).

The Sand Pebbles (1966) – a Japanese-American actor, Mako, plays a

Chinese coolie (cross-ethnic casting).

Soul Man (1986) – a white actor, C. Thomas Howell, plays a white man trying to pass as a black man (cross-racial casting).

A Bell for Adano (1945) – an American actress, Gene Tierney, plays an

Italian woman.

F Troop (television series, 1965-1967) – white actors, including

Frank DeKova and J. Pat O’Malley, play Native Americans (cross-racial casting).

Some actors built their careers crossing ethnic and racial lines. In

The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936), Austrian-American actor Paul Muni plays the

French scientist, Louis Pasteur; in The Life of Emile Zola (1937) he plays the

French journalist and social activist, Emile Zola; in The Good Earth (1937) he plays a Chinese man; in Juarez (1939) he plays the Mexican patriot and five-time

president Benito Juarez; and in A Song to Remember (1945), a biopic about the

Polish composer Frederic Chopin, he plays Chopin’s Polish music teacher

(Chopin is played by an American actor, Cornel Wilde). The American actor

Lon Chaney was known as “‘the Man of a Thousand Faces’ for his ability to transform himself into any type of character” (American Masters, 2002).

Chinese-American actor Richard Loo played numerous Japanese characters in war movies such as The Purple Heart (1944) and God is My Co-pilot (1945)

(Imdb.com).

Without cross-racial, cross-ethnic, and cross-specie casting, few movies could be made. Such casting should not be a cause for consternation. In the words of the Jerome Kern-Oscar Hammerstein II song from the musical

Show Boat, it’s only make believe, a clever contrivance without substance; a technique for artistic expression. If some are offended, that is not the fault of the movie or the director; such reactions are attributable to political, social, and psychological factors that are subjective. And if there are those who find a director’s style of movie making objectionable, they have the option not to patronize those movies. Ultimately, the determining factor that dictates a movie’s popularity should be the marketplace, not political pressure. Let the critics have their say, but then let the paying public decide.

There are four reasons why a director may cross racial or ethnic lines to cast a role. First, the production may need an actor with a marketable name, i.e., someone whose name alone will attract an audience. For instance, in Scarface, there were probably numerous Hispanic actors who could have played Tony, but

were they known to the public and would the studio be willing to gamble millions of dollars on casting a relative unknown? Second, production companies employ professional make-up artists who are capable of radically transforming an actor’s appearance. In the 2011 movie Albert Nobbs, it is virtually impossible to recognize that Glenn Close is actually a woman. Third, a director may prefer working with certain actors, e.g., John Ford with John Wayne, and D. W. Griffith with

Lillian Gish (American Masters, 2001, 2006). Fourth, a role may demand an actor with a combination of special skills not readily found within the pool of available actors. In the 2002 film Chicago, the lead male role, played by

Richard Gere, required a handsome middle-aged actor with strong stage presence who could also sing and dance. None of these reasons for selecting an actor have anything to do with race. Rather, casting choices are driven by pragmatic considerations that are predicated to moving the production forward. Regarding the subject of production, Tom Reilly, a member of the Director’s Guild of America and a veteran of over forty films, writes:

When making a film, you have to budget for equipment and location rentals, construction and travel, and the cost of a full crew. Expenses that, collectively, will reach well into the millions. That’s millions of dollars either spent or committed to be spent before the director applies a single brush stroke to the very expensive canvas of a feature film. You have already spent millions, yet not a single foot of film has been shot. (Reilly, 2009, p. 79)

The concerns Reilly talks about are what D. W. Griffith had to deal with every time he started a new project. Race was not part of the agenda. Griffith’s goal was to produce movies and if that meant having to cast white actors in blackface, then

he would do it, not as a snub to a particular group, but based on who was available to play the roles, which were white actors. Lillian Gish recalled that at the time “there were practically no Negro actors in California … and only a few in the East” (Bogle, Black Manhood, 2005, p. 11).

When Griffith made His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled, blackface was already a well-established and highly popular form of entertainment in the United States and England (Nathan, 1962, pp. 3, 32; Waters, 2007, pp. 94-99). Griffith did not invent blackface nor did he go out of his way to defend it. Further, there is no empirical evidence that conclusively shows that D. W. Griffith was a racist. There are no statements in which Griffith impugns or attacks blacks, either as individuals or as a group. Yet certain critics have made comments impugning

Griffith’s motives for making His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled. For instance, in in racially charged pseudo-psychological discourse on Griffith’s decision to use blackface, Sarah Louise Childress writes:

Blackface is less a sign of absolute white power and control than of panic, anxiety, terror and pleasure arising from contradictory racial impulses at work. George is a white man representing a black man and thus becomes neither and both simultaneously. The burnt cork on his face designates him as “black,” but the objectivity of his “black” face is also a subjective fiction. (Childress, 2005, p. 19)

Childress’s assertion that Griffith was driven by certain racial impulses, as well as her entire statement, is pure speculation, unsupported by any hard evidence.

Another Griffith critic, Robert M. Henderson writes:

There is little doubt that Griffith was actively perpetuating a popular Southern myth about the faithful black with these two films. (Henderson, 1972, p. 98)

This statement too is pure speculation. First it presupposes that the films were based on a myth, which is a matter of opinion, and second, it suggests that

Griffith was more interested in promoting a political agenda than in selling a commercial product, which is conjecture. A third Griffith detractor,

Cedric J. Robinson, writes:

In his earlier films, Griffith’s racism had assumed a sentimental, paternalistic form.” (Robinson, 2007, p. 101)

This statement, like the previous two, is also based on presumptions which are unsubstantiated by any hard, verifiable evidence.

In 1910, Griffith made eighty-six movies, and that in two and a half years at

Biograph he made two hundred and eighty-eight films of which His Trust and His

Trust Fulfilled were but two (Henderson, 1972, p. 98), the purpose of which was not to promote a social agenda but to produce a commercial product that would appeal to an audience and make money. Commenting on the risks associated with making movies, Griffith wrote:

Most motion-picture producers hesitate about going too near the limit of popular approval. Naturally. With so much invested in a single film, it is obvious that only disaster could attend the making of many photoplays that failed to please. (Geduld, 1971, p. 63)

It is highly doubtful that Griffith would have spent money making two movies a week to promote a social agenda. He was not a politician. His goal was to make movies that would be pleasing, not offensive, and meet the needs of a public that demanded to be entertained. As Jack Temple Kirby writes, “public interest in things racial and ethnic was high” and Griffith accordingly made movies dealing

with subjects for which there was a high interest. For Griffith, any ethnic group

could be a subject for cinematic treatment. Besides making movies about blacks,

he also made movies depicting Hispanics, Jews, Italians, Indians, and Orientals

(Kirby, 1978, pp. 118-120). He was an artist, a businessman, and an impresario.

Some could argue that Griffith was insensitive to the feelings of blacks because

they were not part of the general audience that went to see his movies, but the

work of Oscar Micheaux seems to dispel the notion of black disinterest (Cripps,

1977, p. 11; Green, 2000).

Griffith’s absence of racist intent or racial malice is further reflected in his

treatment of George. There are some who decry Griffith’s depiction of George as

being derogatory of African Americans (Henderson, 1972, p. 98; Robinson, 2007,

p. 119; Butters Jr., 2002, p. 65) However, that is not the case. Far from being a

good-natured Uncle Remus2, a shamelessly obedient Uncle Tom, or a “lazy,

no-account, good-for nothing … comedian,” also known as a pickaninny or a coon

(Bogle, Tom, Coons, 1989, pp. 7-8, 41), George is a heroic figure who is worthy of respect and earns it in the films. He exhibits some of the finest and most sublime human characteristics and comports himself in a dignified manner that warrants not disgrace but honor. He is a man caught up in a situation which presented him with certain choices that put his strength of character to the test. He could have easily forsaken the colonel’s wife and daughter and gone about his business, but he was not that kind of person. His lack of rancor may be interpreted as a sign of weakness, but in fact it is evidence of immense strength of character. How would

2 Uncle Remus is a black character featured in a series of southern American folk tales by Joel Chandler Harris first published in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Source: “Joel Chandler Harris, 1848-1908,” Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org, online.

the story have transpired if he had turned against a grieving woman and her orphaned child? What kind of message would that have sent to white America and to the public in general about the character of black people? It certainly would not have been a positive one. And how would that have helped to promote the interest of the blacks? Imagine for a moment a scenario in which George, instead of taking the sword and revering it, spits on it and smashes it on the ground and crushes it under his feet. Would that have made for a better story? If Griffith was motivated by any racial intent, it was to promote racial harmony and not discord. It is true that

George seems to have many perceived stereotypical traits – his sad features, his shuffling gait, his apparent lack of power – yet these are mere stylistic superficialities that have no bearing on the character’s substance. When necessary, George is a man of action. When the sword is delivered, he takes it and places it on the wall; when the house is burning he rushes in to save the little girl and then the sword; when he is desperate for money to help the daughter, he is willing to put his own freedom at risk (“George’s love for the child leads him to temptation” – Griffith, His Trust Fulfilled, 05:54). These are not the actions of a vacuous man; instead they are the actions of a hero (“George risks his life to be faithful to his trust” – Griffith, His Trust, 09:54). Just because he is in a subordinate position does not make his actions any less noteworthy. Just the opposite is the case: his actions are altruistic. He acts not out of self-interest, but rather in the interest of others. After the daughter becomes orphaned, “George with his savings provides support for the child, pretending it comes from her estate” (Griffith, His

Trust Fulfilled, 01:25). That he is black recedes into irrelevancy, replaced by his

essential humanity which has managed to transcend his own disadvantaged social position to attain a level of spiritual purity that is almost divine. George, like Jesus

Christ, eschews wealth and does good, thus becoming sublime. If Griffith had really intended on using these films to smear the black race, he could have had depicted

George as a “brutal black buck” joining the Union soldiers in committing acts of mayhem, or he could have portrayed him as hate-driven fanatic, “full of black rage,” who would stop at nothing to wreak his revenge for years of enforced servitude

(Bogle, Toms, Coons, 1989, p. 13). Acts of sheer depravity would have sensationalized the character, but then the critics of Griffith would have complained that he was vilifying black people. Being a quiet man does not mean that George was a stupid man. Nor does Griffith’s choice of casting a white actor in the role mean that the character itself is somehow tainted. The race of the actor who played the role should not be the issue; in a character-driven story such as that found in

His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled, in which George is the principal character, what should matter is the actor’s understanding of the character and his ability to effectively play the role, artistic considerations which transcend race.3 Regarding what he wanted from an actor, Griffith wrote:

The worries then were pretty much the worries now; better stories, finding actors who could be natural and interesting, struggling to put into pantomime effects which your imagination painted. (Geduld, 1971, p. 66)

Wilfred Lucas plays the role skillfully; his rendition of George is believable, dignified, and entertaining, and after watching these films, the audience knows

3 Development of character-driven stories is discussed by Francis Glebas in Directing the Story – Professional Storytelling and Storyboarding Techniques for Live Action and Animation, 2009. Focal Press: Burlington, MA.

something about George, the person. The role of George is not a caricature, and the use of black face does not in any way detract from the character’s credibility or essential nobility. Griffith believed that “what pictures need above everything else is a good story,” and the Trust movies present a good story (Geduld, 1971, p. 64). Nowhere in the text of the two films is George specifically belittled because of his race, and nowhere in these stories is George treated as a joke. He does not dance a jig, does not eat watermelon, and does not act like a fool. Just the opposite is the case. He is the epitome of responsibility, the consummate adult, and is treated as such. In both movies, white people shake his hand (four times), ask him for help, come to him for aid, and afford him respect. His generosity is evident throughout the story. None of this is racist, and that George helps the daughter can hardly be considered foolish or demeaning. Instead, it is something that should elicit feelings of pride. For the fact is that George is an honorable man. Expanding on this point, Robert Jackson writes:

Griffith endows George with a strong sense of pathos here; his paternalistic portrait of the slave (or legally if not practically, the ex-slave) seems quite ingenious and blind to the irony of the lawyer’s final handshake with George. Rather than understanding the handshake as a hearty endorsement of the ongoing servility and inferiority of the black man – which at a fundamental level it most certainly is – Griffith invests the gesture with affection and respect, with a disarming sense of the lawyer’s appreciation of the black man’s honor. It is this vision of honor that the film so fully celebrates. (Jackson, 2011, p. 39)

That George is played by a white man in black face is unimportant; what is important is that he is depicted in a manner that is eminently fair and respectful.

His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled hardly constitute a racist rant. Instead, they are a labor of love. As for Griffith, far from being a narrow minded “paternalist-style racist” (Kirby, 1978, p. 118), he was, in the words of Marian Hansen, an “artistic genius” (Hansen, 1991, p. 163) who used his creative skills to produce two movies which, through the character of George, extol blacks and furthers the cause of racial tolerance. This view may run counter to prevailing beliefs regarding Griffith

and his cinematic treatment of blacks, yet the facts seem to present a far more

positive and hopeful picture.

Works Cited

American Masters, 12/29/01. “About Lillian Gish,” www.pbs.org, online

American Masters, 10/30/02, “Lon Chaney – The Man of a Thousand Faces,”

www.pbs.org, online.

American Masters, 5/10/06. “Pappy and the Duke,” by Ken Bowser.

www.pbs.org, online

Donald Bogle, 2005. Bright Boulevard, Bold Dreams – The Story of Black

Hollywood. One World Book: New York

Donald Bogle, 1989. Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks –

an Interpretative History of Blacks in American Films.

Continuum: New York

Gerald R. Butters, Jr. 2002. Black Manhood on the Silent Screen.

University Press of Kansas

Sarah Louise Childress 2005. Presence in Absence: D. W. Griffith’s Patriarchal

Paradise in His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled (thesis).

Vanderbilt University: Nashville, TN

Thomas Cripps, 1977. Slow Fade to Black – The Negro in American Film,

1900-1942. Oxford University Press: New York

Bryan Curtis, January 3, 2003, “D.W. Griffith in Black and White –

Was the Birth of a Nation director really a racist?” Slate,

www.slate.com, online

Harry M. Geduld, ed. 1971. Focus on D. W. Griffith. Prentice-Hall, Inc:

Englewood Cliffs, NJ

J. Ronald Green, 2000. Straight Lick: The Cinema of Oscar Micheaux.

Indiana University Press: Bloomington

D. W. Griffith (dir.), 1911. His Trust and His Trust Fulfilled, videos.

www.youtube.com, online

Miriam Hansen, 1991. Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film.

Indiana University Press: Bloomington.

Robert M. Henderson, 1972. D. W. Griffith: His Life and Work.

Oxford University Press: New York

James L. Huston, 1987. The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War.

Louisiana State University Press: Baton Rouge.

Robert Jackson, 2011 “The Celluloid War before The Birth – Race and History

in Early American Film,” American Cinema and the Southern Imaginary,

Deborah E. Barrier and Kathryn McKee, eds. The University of George

Press: Athens

Jack Temple Kirby, 1978. “D. W. Griffith's Racial Portraiture,” Phylon, 39:2

Hans Nathan, 1962. Dan Emmett and the Rise of Negro Minstrelry. University of

Oklahoma Press: Norman

James L. Roark, 2005. “A Loss of Mastery,” The Civil War Era – An Anthology of

Sources, Lyde Cullen Sizer and Jim Cullen, ed. Blackwell Publishing:

Malden, MA

Cedric J. Robinson, 2007. Forgeries of Memory and Meaning: Blacks and the

Regimes of Race in American Theater and Film before World War II.

University of North Carolina Press

Lewis O. Saun, 1980. The Popular Mood of Pre-Civil War America.

Greenwood Press: Westport, CT

Page Smith, 1982. Trial by Fire – A People’s History of the Civil War and

Reconstruction, Vol. 5. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York

Hazel Waters, 2007. Racism on the Victorian State – Representation of Slavery

and the Black Character. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Bell Irvin Wiley, 1938. Southern Negroes 1861-1865. Yale University Press:

New Haven, 1965.

Filmography