The Birth of a Nation

Ever since it premiered at Sundance earlier this year, Nate Parker's (who stars, wrote and directed the film) The Birth of a Nation seemed to be riding a wave of hype.  Part of the reason was the film's plot, concerning the 1831 slave uprising led by Nat Turner in Southampton County, Va.  Not only was it a mostly forgotten piece of history, but it arrived right in the middle of the controversy surrounding the Oscars about nominating performers and filmmakers of color that was going on at the time.  There was also the title, which he intentionally named after D.W. Griffith's 1915 epic which is often seen as a masterclass of early filmmaking, but is equally derided for its blatant racism.  It was a bold move, but it seemed to pay off, as it brought the film national attention, leading to what many believed would be countless awards and acclaim for the budding director.

But then, little by little, that attention turned away from the film and to the past of Nate Parker himself.  In recent months, he has been forced to address the fact that he and fellow writer Jean McGianni Celestin (who shares a "Story by" credit with Parker on the film) were accused of sexually assaulting a female classmate back in 1999, when he was a student at Penn State University.  Parker was acquitted of the charges, while Celestin saw his charges eventually overturned.  But the incident never really went away, and the woman they were accused of assaulting tragically took her life in 2012.  Parker's attempt to talk about the incident in interviews has not helped matters, as he often came across as cold and defiant, refusing to apologize to the victim's family in a national interview.  This has led to a boycott of the film, which indeed seems to be in full swing, as the film opened much lower at the box office last weekend than it was expected to, and is already being deemed a flop for the studio, who paid $17.5 million to purchase the film back at Sundance.  What was once seen as a guaranteed prestige film and a way to send Nate Parker to the top of the Hollywood A-List has slowly imploded, and now seems destined to be yet another disappointment for what has largely been a quiet Fall season for Hollywood right now.

So, after all that, what about the film?  What will people see if they do choose to look past all the controversy?  They will see see a movie that has moments of tremendous power, but also long stretches where it struggles to reach the heights that it should.  Part of this can be blamed on Parker's inexperience behind the camera.  This is an ambitious movie, but it also comes up short in a lot of ways, namely in terms of character development.  It's an engaging but uneven film that needed a steadier hand at the script level in order to make the film what it truly could have and should have been.  It's also forced to exist in the shadow of the far superior 12 Years a Slave from a couple years ago.  That was a movie that had me almost shaking with anger due to its power when it was over.  This film, as I said, has its moments of power, but they are way too few and far between.

The Birth of a Nation begins with Nat Turner as a young boy living on the Turner Plantation.  Growing up, he befriends the owner's son, Sam, and occasionally steals books from the house in order to teach himself to read.  Sam's mother (Penelope Ann Miller) catches him, but rather than punish him, she chooses to bring him inside the Plantation house to teach him the Bible.  In time, Nat gets the opportunity to preach sermons to family and friends of the Turner family, which brings him fame as he grows into a young man (now played by Parker).  As an adult, Sam (now played by Armie Hammer) hires out Nat to preach at other Plantations, using his sermons to defend slavery and prevent the slaves from uprising.  This forces Nat to witness the cruelty that some of his fellow slaves have to endure.  In the film's most unforgettable sequence, we watch along with Nat as a chained up slave who refuses to eat has his teeth knocked out and bloodied with a blunt instrument, and then has a funnel stuck in his mouth to force him to eat.

We witness Nat's anger grow during his many encounters and experiences outside of his own Plantation, and it comes to a head when his trusting wife (Aja Naomi King) is gang raped.  It all builds up to Nat leading a violent rebellion that lasted 48 hours as he and a group of fellow slaves banded together, and murdered many white property owners and their families.  Parker's use of rape to drive the narrative that leads to rebellion does lend the film an eerie quality to just about anyone who knows the backstory behind the filmmaker, and it's hard to kind of get over.  But what's even harder to escape is the notion that the film is largely portrayed as an exploitation revenge picture.  Rather than truly explore Nat's mindset about what he is witnessing and the struggle to remain loyal to Sam,who he once saw as his friend from childhood, the movie seems more interested in staging elaborate and violent sequences of revenge and carnage.  It gives the film an uneasy tone.  It wants to be about something, but it also wants to unleash anger and exploit violence.  Rather than truly get us into the mind of Nat, it essentially uses him as a passive cipher who explodes into Braveheart-style rebellion during the last half.

Parker's portrayal of Nat Turner is uncomplicated.  He is essentially a quiet figure for most of the film whom we learn little about.  His relationship with his wife is seldom if ever explored, and we never truly learn about what he is thinking.  The movie wants to lionize him and make him a martyr, but it falls short, due to the fact we know little about him.  For the most part, he is giving us a fairly standard docudrama here, one that lacks the emotional power of the previously mentioned 12 Years a Slave.  But then, every once in a while, the movie will reach upon a powerful image, such as the scenes depicting the outcome of his uprising, and the fates of the surviving slaves that participated in it.  There is a lack of a consistent tone here.  The movie also can't help but dive into some heavy handed symbolism from time to time, such as when Turner sees an angel descending toward him while a heavenly choir blasts on the soundtrack.  It's somewhat hokey, and turns what should be a powerful moment into an overpowered and overblown one.  For every scene that does work as intended, there are just as many that either seem oddly dramatically inert, or just plain overwrought.

Maybe The Birth of a Nation had too high of expectations forced upon it at the festival circuit.  Maybe it was never supposed to have such high hopes placed upon it.  All I know is that while the film can be effective, it is far too often mundane for this kind of story.  It's an important story to be sure, and one that deserves to be told.  You just wish it was told better.

0 comments