Within Our Gates

The best word to describe this film is "amateurish". While it does have a central focus, the muddled, confused and confusing plot proceeds in fits and starts. Characters drop in and out of the narrative seemingly at random and sometimes change outlook right in the middle of a scene.

Worse still, the film has been edited with a proverbial meat-ax. Odd bits and pieces of irrelevant action are often spliced without rhyme or reason into the movie, further adding to the viewer's difficulties in following the plot.

Despite all obstacles, however, individual scenes do succeed. The lynch sequence exerts a terrible power because—whether by design or accident—it looks like an actual newsreel event.

Acting too is mighty variable. Evelyn Preer does good work as the unsettled heroine, Bernice Ladd makes a forceful bigot, and there are two outstanding actors among the ranks of obvious amateurs in the support cast: E.G. Tatum and the uncredited Old Ned.

Which brings me to the most amazing aspect of Micheaux' vision. "Within Our Gates" is a cry for justice, but no apologia. In fact it often seems to go out of its way to present a surprisingly warts and all take on African-Americans. The two men just mentioned, for instance, enact self-seeking traitors (and do so brilliantly). The little spiv, Jack Chenault, is a despicable criminal, and even the second female lead seems somewhat unsympathetic (especially in the film's original uncensored version which has unfortunately been lost).

Within Our Gates (1920)

*** (out of 4)

Oscar Micheaux's response to Griffith's The Birth of a Nation faced its own share of controversy when originally released and was banned in black communities all over the country. The film was thought lost until a print showed up in Spain in 1993 and this remains the oldest surviving feature from a black director. A light skinned black woman, living up North, travels to the South to teach at an all black school. Since the government isn't helping to educate black kids, the woman goes back North to try and find rich white folks who will help in her cause but she's met with racism, from blacks and whites and a secret from her past might catch up to haunt her.

As with the Griffith film, you could overlook all the controversy surrounding this film and judge is for what good it does do and its historical importance. Watching the film with today's standards and politically correct nature, it's still easy to see why so many black folks were offended by a film that was made to have a moral tale. Micheaux shows racism going from black to white and white to black but, unlike the Griffith film, he also shows that races can show hatred toward their own race. Not many people have viewed this film, which is a real shame because it's heart is certainly in the right place and if you take the historic importance away from the Griffith film, more folks should be checking out this movie instead of that one.

Technically speaking it's rather amazing at how well Micheaux pulled this low budget film off. The editing is very good and really helps build up the suspense towards the end of the film. The story could have been worked on and a lot of the performances are quite poor but that doesn't take away from the film's message. The ending involves the backstory to our main character and this includes a lynching scene as well as a rape scene. Both of these scenes are very well done and pack quite a punch for a 86-year-old film. This sidestory, which is basically a remake of the ending to the Griffith film, has some over the top moments, which weren't needed but again, the film's heart and message is in the right place so hopefully more will seek this film out and let the other one die.

Before the film even begins, 'Within our gates' is a bit of a marvel. Seemingly the oldest surviving film directed by an African American in an industry that was (...and remains) predominantly white, the picture was nearly lost in the memory hole of time. Available background information indicates that the restoration archived by the Library of Congress is still only an approximation of Oscar Micheaux's original work. Moreover, the title claims a predominantly black cast, and the practical limitations under which the production operated make it somewhat extraordinary that the movie ever came into being in the first place. Without even considering the content - from a cultural and historical standpoint, 'Within our gates' is frankly essential.

Any regard for the film must necessarily take into account the difficulties of its completion and unfortunate shortcomings of its restoration. With that said, on the face of things, the feature does suffer from what feels like a staggered and stilted presentation. Each subsequent scene builds a cohesive narrative, yet the frequency of cuts between shots, scenes, and intertitles makes for a bit of a rough, choppy appearance, and a sense that every element is indelicately forced. Plot development is less than smooth or natural, and given the number of characters that are introduced, and the many ideas broached in the narrative, the viewing experience is unquestionably one that requires active, attentive, and indeed forgiving engagement.

Still, with all that said - provided one can abide the regrettable deficiencies, there is much to admire about 'Within the gates.' Micheaux approaches the topic of race relations with a blunt and unfiltered sensibility that squarely opposes the broad bigotry in society, and white supremacy as a personal and institutional prejudice, and that was sometimes mirrored in the uglier side of early cinema. The hypocrisy and indifference in northern cities is examined as much as the brutality of southern lands, and the cruel selfishness and betrayal of well-positioned black individuals as much as the utmost ignorance and iniquity of whites. 'Within our gates' champions education, advancement, and equality within a story that does not hold back from illustrating the dire obstacles and obstinacy that inhibit such progress, including violence not least of all. It's a narrative, and a movie, that if made in 2021 would be a beacon of passionate defiance in a world that's still all too complacent with the tawdry racism rampant throughout society - and there can be no doubt that in 1920, it signified a still greater turnabout.

Even keeping in mind and putting aside the issues thrust upon the film in light of its production and restoration, it's not unblemished. The inelegance in the presentation can surely be chalked up at least in part to not just its rediscovery decades later, but also imperfections in Micheaux's craft - writing, direction, and editing. For all the value herein, I'd be lying if I said it weren't a bumpy ride. To be fair, however, this was only Micheaux's second picture - and considering the remarkable circumstances and context in which this was made in the first place, it's easy enough to both acknowledge and largely overlook the weaknesses as they present. The strengths far outshine and outweigh the disadvantages, and the result is a feature that was both of and ahead of its time - and an important watch for all, for nigh every possible reason.

Yes, some of the subject matter is difficult; obvious content warnings abound for racism, and racial violence including lynching. And any viewer who can't parse the idiosyncrasies of the silent era, or handle a less than pristine exhibition, will likely be put off by what we see here. Yet the worth far exceeds the burden, and I'm hard-pressed not to recommend this to just about anyone. Wherever you can watch it, 'Within our gates' is a substantial, imperative classic of cinema that even 100 years later deserves far greater recognition.

Primitively filmed, with a fractured and meandering plot. Micheaux gives little evidence here of having much directorial ability. It's hard to imagine anyone actually enjoying watching it.

Of historical and sociological interest as an early black-made film, but compares poorly to professional-quality films of that era from the US and elsewhere. Of some value because it presumably shows how educated blacks of that era looked at themselves.

I was deeply affected by parts of this story about the plight of negroes as told for negroes by negro director Oscar Micheaux. Ostensibly, it's about a woman who tries to help a poor southern school for negroes by getting financial help to supplement the meager amount the state provides, but it is laced with observations about racial prejudice. One bigoted southern woman living in the north is against the women's suffrage movement for fear that negro women will get the right to vote. And she expresses her negative sentiment about educating negroes: "Thinking will give them a headache." Micheaux gets more points across in the best part of the film, the flashback scene near the end prefaced with a title card "Sylvia's Story." We see how a negro preacher agrees with some condescending whites that the negroes should keep their place, but privately condemns himself for doing so, announcing that "negroes and whites are equal" to himself. We see how injustice reigns with a lynch mob and how the innocent, even an innocent bystander, can easily become victims of racial prejudice. The film is worth seeing for this sequence alone, providing images that caused me to lose some sleep. Micheaux also slips in comments about the negroes' accomplishments in the Spanish-American and Mexican wars and WWI, as if to bolster the low self-image of his negro viewers. The film may be primitive by some standards, but Oscar Micheaux tells a powerful story.

The film was intended for negro audiences, but because of some controversial parts (rape and lynching) many exhibitors refused to show it, so very few saw it when it was released. This being the earliest surviving film made by an African American, it was placed on the National Film Registry and lovingly restored from the only surviving copy in Spain (see the alternative version listing for details). The Library of Congress is to be commended for doing such a fine job.