The movie sequel has become Hollywood’s bread and butter. When a movie catches the public’s attention and brings in money, studios have ample reason to try to head back to the well, and that continues to be the case in2024. While this approach does not always work out, with sometruly terrible sequels, it is still considered normal practice within an industry always looking to turn a profit and find the next big franchise. But what was the first movie sequel? Well, that honor goes toThe Fall of the Nation(1916), a follow-up to the highly successfulThe Birth of a Nation(1915).
However, the historical first presents a troublesome truth about race relations during the period, withThe Birth of a Nationconsidered to be a landmark achievement in cinema, but heavy with racist ideology and imagery.This can largely be tied to author Thomas Dixon Jr., a white supremacist who wrote the novelThe Birth of a Nationwas based on, as well as stepping into the director’s seatto try to recreate the success of the first film for the sequel. We will examine both movies and the controversial figures behind each in Director D.W. Griffith and Thomas Dixon Jr.
The Birth of a Nation Is an Extremely Racist Film
The Birth of a Nationis divided into two parts, revolving around two families, the Northern Stoneman family and the Southern Cameron family, whose sons became friendsbefore the Civil War. Part one focuses on the events leading up to the war, with the two families facing their hardships while finding themselves in opposing states. The war further fragments the families when both lose their youngest sons.
From here, the movie shifts to after the war, depicting both ‘radical Republicans’ and the ‘Black Militia’ as a threat to the South. The call to protect the nation falls on the Ku Klux Klan, led by the eldest Cameron son, Ben, to use tactics like voter intimidation and adhering to a religious coda to usher in the “second coming of the Prince of Peace.”
The 50 Best War Movies of All Time, Ranked
War films are a difficult genre to tackle, but these are the 50 greatest ever made, from The Big Parade to Saving Private Ryan.
The Birth of a Nationmade an estimated gross of $18 million by 1921, over $550 million with inflation in the modern day, andessentially invented the film industry despitefacing censorship issues on release. The movie, over three hours long and “boasted an impressive five thousand distinct scenes,” was shown in theaters with an intermission in between. An estimated 50 million people saw the film during its run, which lasted for at least five years after its release after its premiere in Los Angeles on June 20, 2025.
The movie starred many era staples, many of whom would continue to play prominent roles in the film industry. These included Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, and Henry B. Walthal, who would amassover 100 acting creditsacross their careers. Despite ‘portraying’ the Black people of America, all actors in those roles used Black-face, which was standard of the era. D.W. Griffith directed the film; Griffith is considered a pioneer in film and made over 500 films during his lifetime. The movie was based on the book byThomas Dixon Jr. “The Clansman,” who would also go on to direct the sequel to the filmThe Fall of the Nation.
The Fall of the Nation (1916) Plot and Cast
Acting as an attack against the pacifism of two prominent figures of the era, William Jennings Bryan and Henry Ford, and asking for preparedness for the potential of war. The movie follows the invasion of America by the German-led “European Confederated Army,” which leads to the slaughter of men, women, and children. A millionaire accepts the role as the ‘prince’ of a puppet government, and it becomes up to a pro-war congressman, John Vassar, and a suffragette, Virginia Holland, to defeat the invaders. Notably, Holland forms a group known as the “Daughters of Jael,” who seduce and then kill the soldiers of the occupation force. The movie ends with Holland and his allies driving back the European forces.
The movie starred Arthur Shirley as John Vassar and Lorraine Huling as Virginia Holland, who would manage brief yet unremarkable careers in the film industry.Thomas Dixon Jr. acted as director and based on another one of his novels, hoping to capitalize on the success ofThe Birth of a Nation.
However, themovie was poorly received, beyond being used as propaganda by Allied governments in Europe during World War I, and the production studio set up by Dixon, Dixon Studios, ultimately folded, having only ever produced one film. Still, the movie broke a few historical firsts, having been the first sequel and, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, containing “probably the first original symphonic score composed for a feature film.”
The Controversial Career of Director D.W. Griffith
While Thomas Dixon wrote the material that would inspire the filmThe Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith was still active in bringing the movie to life. However, the history of the director and his beliefs in race relations and politics is somewhat blurry (via Slate); as in the director’s biography, he admitted a disinterest in politics altogether and was instead more formed by the hardship his family had faced; being born in 1875 in Kentucky to a Confederate family.His history as a filmmaker and his continued success in the industry over three decades lend credence to his ability as an artist, and while, in retrospect, he has become a controversial figure, his work onThe Birth of a Nationonly led to further accolades as a filmmaker.
11 Most Controversial Movies Ever Made
Outside of the world of horror and religiously-themed movies, these films courted massive controversy upon release, and here’s why.
It isn’t easy to separate the artist in extreme cases, and even in considering the climate of the era,the content ofThe Birth of a Nationis difficult to approach with anything but disdain, especially with it considered to be the film that re-invigorated interest in the KKK. D.W. Griffith and his work are still taught in film school, withThe Birth of A Nationconsidered essential viewing for its ingenuity at the time. This included using advanced camera techniques never used before and a narrative structure that set a new standard for cinema. It also gave the medium artistic merit in the mainstream and showed its financial viability. Perhaps the importance of the film was best summed upby actor Charlie Chaplin, who was controversial in his own right, who said, “The whole industry owes its existence to him.”
Thomas Dixon Jr., the White Supremacist Author Turned Director
Comparatively, Tom Dixon Jr.’s career was much more cemented in his political beliefs through the many novels that he wrote and open sympathy for white supremacist groups like the KKK. Thomas Dixon’s beliefs were shaped by his religious upbringing, notably having lived much of his life in the shadow of his brother, a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher, the racial tensions of the post-Civil War South, and his family involvement in various White Supremacist organizations. As part of the openW&M Scholar Works, the dissertation from"History Written with Lightning": Religion, White Supremacy, and the Rise and Fall of Thomas Dixon, Jrby David Micheal Kidd goes into great detail on howThomas Dixon Jr. combined various beliefs from his background to shape his overt political and racial beliefs.
Thomas Dixon Jr. made a name for himself as an author; between 1902 and 1939, he published 22 novels and numerous plays, screenplays, books of sermons, and miscellaneous nonfiction. His greatest work is considered to be 1905’sThe Clansman, which would serve as the source material forThe Birth of a Nation. His move to filmmaking, despite making history as the first sequel and first original score, did not prove fruitful, and it seemed to be a bid to capitalize on the work of a much better filmmaker to further push his beliefs on the masses.
Should You Watch The Birth of a Nation and The Fall of a Nation?
This has always been a tricky question regardingThe Birth of a Nation. The work is beyond reproach when viewed from a moral standpoint, particularly under a contemporary interpretation. The simple answer is that there is no reason for the majority to watch the film, as its racist elements are one of the few (though most notable) that make it unpalatable; yes, it defined the entire industry, but the3-hour runtimesilent era movie would be an exercise in patience for the majority.
Best Movies Adapted from Previously Banned Books
Books have been banned for political, religious, and supposedly moral reasons, but they’ve been wonderfully brought to life with these films.
On the other hand,The Birth of a Nationis still considered an essential landmark and merits exploration from a historical standpoint. Ultimately, the choice is up to the viewer, but if you have any reservations about the content, it is better to avoid the film outright. If you are interested,The Birth of a Nationis in the public domain, meaning you can find it easily on YouTube.
WhileThe Fall of the Nationis historical in its own right because it is the first-ever sequel, it cannot even be argued whether the film is worth watching.The Fall of the Nationisconsidered lost media. The soundtrack exists online, but only a couple of frames exist of the movie itself. That said, if you find a copy, you have struck gold, but given the legacy of hatred that Thomas Dixon Jr. left behind, the film will still likely not be worth watching.
