Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation made headlines at the Sundance Film Festival, but now that it's been released to the public it is getting a mixed, although mostly positive reception. I don't believe this is purely due to Parker's rape controversy. While Parker's retelling of Nat Turner's infamous slave rebellion has some emotional and powerful moments, it is ultimately a pretty routine slave movie. I don't know why it got such rave reviews at Sundance.
Parker took the title of D.W. Griffith's landmark and appallingly racist silent film for his directorial debut movie, and it serves as a rebuke to the racial stereotypes promoted by that film (that plague us to this day, I might add). Parker plays Nathaniel (Nat) Turner, a slave on the Turner plantation. The wife of Nat Turner's owner takes a liking to him and teaches him to read the bible. Eventually Turner begins to preach to the slaves on the plantation. Soon, the Turner family sees a potential financial opportunity in Nat's talent and they rent him out to other slave owners to preach obedience and good servitude to slaves. Nat is uncomfortable with this new role, and as he witnesses more and more atrocities on the plantation, including the rape and beating of his wife, Cherry, he decides to start a violent rebellion.
Nate Parker gives a good performance and all of the key scenes are directed pretty effectively. I thought his relationship with his owner was interesting as it was of the more paternal relationship for most of the film. The owner, played by Arnie Hammer, wasn't a one- dimensional monster. A worse director might have gone down that safe route. To the film's credit, despite the heavy subject matter, it didn't bombard you with overly emotional, depressing scenes every five minutes, which you would think a movie about a slave rebellion would do.
And yet, despite these welcome decisions by Parker, the movie does rely too much on common story telling tropes that we have seen since Glory. From the whipping scenes to the rape scenes, they've all been done before. As a revenge movie, the fictional Django Unchained had more edge. As a movie about a repressed people fighting for freedom, I don't think this movie went anywhere that we haven't seen before. This story, to me, never really gets that interesting.
The film would have been better if it had just stuck to the actual historical narrative. By all accounts, the rape of Cherry Turner didn't happen. There is no evidence that the rebellion was sparked by a particular act of brutality. Nat Turner decided to start a violent rebellion because he believed slavery was immoral and against the laws of God – it was as simple as that. He believed he received messages from God telling him that a race war was on the horizon and he was destined to lead it. As Leslie Alexander wrote in The Nation, slaves didn't need to endure rapes and beatings to violently rebel, just the mere fact of being a slave was enough (I'm paraphrasing here). This would have made for a much more morally complex and interesting film. Relying on rape scenes to spark rebellions is just clichéd at this point (Braveheart anyone?)
Relying on the historical narrative also would have done wonders for the character of Nat Turner, who is a pretty bland, generic hero. Grappling with the idea that Turner might be a religious maniac would have really given us something to think about. I think Parker was afraid to handle the subject matter in this way though. Parker clearly wanted to make a movie with a relevant message for the problems that black people face today. Some of the dialogue could have been taken directly from a Black Lives Matter protest. I'm not sure how successful he was in tying this movie to contemporary events though. I'm not sure what message he wanted to give other than "fight the good fight against oppression," as I don't believe Parker wants the BLM movement to take up arms against the U.S. government. For a movie about current problems facing the black community, watch the Netflix documentary 13th.
The Birth of a Nation is a competently made drama about an important event in American history and that's really the best thing I can say about it. Not great, but not bad.
Parker took the title of D.W. Griffith's landmark and appallingly racist silent film for his directorial debut movie, and it serves as a rebuke to the racial stereotypes promoted by that film (that plague us to this day, I might add). Parker plays Nathaniel (Nat) Turner, a slave on the Turner plantation. The wife of Nat Turner's owner takes a liking to him and teaches him to read the bible. Eventually Turner begins to preach to the slaves on the plantation. Soon, the Turner family sees a potential financial opportunity in Nat's talent and they rent him out to other slave owners to preach obedience and good servitude to slaves. Nat is uncomfortable with this new role, and as he witnesses more and more atrocities on the plantation, including the rape and beating of his wife, Cherry, he decides to start a violent rebellion.
Nate Parker gives a good performance and all of the key scenes are directed pretty effectively. I thought his relationship with his owner was interesting as it was of the more paternal relationship for most of the film. The owner, played by Arnie Hammer, wasn't a one- dimensional monster. A worse director might have gone down that safe route. To the film's credit, despite the heavy subject matter, it didn't bombard you with overly emotional, depressing scenes every five minutes, which you would think a movie about a slave rebellion would do.
And yet, despite these welcome decisions by Parker, the movie does rely too much on common story telling tropes that we have seen since Glory. From the whipping scenes to the rape scenes, they've all been done before. As a revenge movie, the fictional Django Unchained had more edge. As a movie about a repressed people fighting for freedom, I don't think this movie went anywhere that we haven't seen before. This story, to me, never really gets that interesting.
The film would have been better if it had just stuck to the actual historical narrative. By all accounts, the rape of Cherry Turner didn't happen. There is no evidence that the rebellion was sparked by a particular act of brutality. Nat Turner decided to start a violent rebellion because he believed slavery was immoral and against the laws of God – it was as simple as that. He believed he received messages from God telling him that a race war was on the horizon and he was destined to lead it. As Leslie Alexander wrote in The Nation, slaves didn't need to endure rapes and beatings to violently rebel, just the mere fact of being a slave was enough (I'm paraphrasing here). This would have made for a much more morally complex and interesting film. Relying on rape scenes to spark rebellions is just clichéd at this point (Braveheart anyone?)
Relying on the historical narrative also would have done wonders for the character of Nat Turner, who is a pretty bland, generic hero. Grappling with the idea that Turner might be a religious maniac would have really given us something to think about. I think Parker was afraid to handle the subject matter in this way though. Parker clearly wanted to make a movie with a relevant message for the problems that black people face today. Some of the dialogue could have been taken directly from a Black Lives Matter protest. I'm not sure how successful he was in tying this movie to contemporary events though. I'm not sure what message he wanted to give other than "fight the good fight against oppression," as I don't believe Parker wants the BLM movement to take up arms against the U.S. government. For a movie about current problems facing the black community, watch the Netflix documentary 13th.
The Birth of a Nation is a competently made drama about an important event in American history and that's really the best thing I can say about it. Not great, but not bad.