Anyone who keeps up with film culture knows the controversial story behind Nate Parker's passion project, The Birth of a Nation. The film depicts the story of Nat Turner, a slave who led a rebellion in 1831. The film is not entirely accurate to history (more on this below), but the true controversy lies in Parker himself.
Accused of rape in 1999, Parker was acquitted, but his roommate (and co-writer of The Birth of a Nation), Jean McGianni Celestin, was found guilty of rape and spent time in prison. When these charges re-surfaced while Parker promoted the film, he choose not to address them.
Is Parker a rapist? It seems very probable (despite his being acquitted) given the circumstances of the night in question. His accuser was extremely drunk to the point of not being able to consent. But let's say for the sake of argument that Parker didn't touch his accuser and in fact is not guilty of rape--why then, would he still keep the company and share a writing credit with a man (his friend and roommate) who WAS charged with rape? Why would he not address the accusations head on when they arose during the promotion of The Birth of a Nation?
I wasn't there in the room the night Parker and Celestin likely had sex with an unconscious woman, so I don't know with 100% certainty what happened. But given what I do know about rape culture (victims are often ridiculed and rarely see justice served) and the way Parker has acted (as if the rape charges are beneath him--as if he doesn't need to address them in a serious, honest way), I'd say this guy is 1) guilty and 2) an asshole.
So why did I go to see The Birth of a Nation? Well, because I wanted to. I was curious as to what a story of violence and objectification would look like in the hands of a man who likely committed violence and objectification himself. A man who claims that God gave him a vision to bring this story to theaters.
Everyone approaches this issue differently. Some people go out of their way to avoid art created by known (or heavily assumed) rapists/criminals, such as Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, David O. Russell, and Bryan Singer. (And it's not just men. Marion Zimmer Bradley, author of the beloved Mists of Avalon series, was accused by her daughter of sexual abuse). I highly respect people who make an effort to not support work done by people who have been accused of abuse and rape, mostly because I am not as pure as that. Although I haven't seen a Woodly Allen film since Midnight in Paris (mostly b/c his recent work tends to suck), I have watched Roman Polanski films and Michael Fassbender movies (Fassbender was accused of domestic violence in 2010) for the only reason that...well, I wanna. I don't really have an excuse other than I simply want to see these movies.
But everyone has their limits. And here is perhaps a chilling thought: these are only the people *we know* have been accused of rape/violence. What about the almost certainly hundreds or thousands of actors, directors, musicians, and public figures that we admire who have committed similar crimes, which as of yet have not come to light? Or, what about the people we interact with everyday--family, friends, partners--who have committed acts of violence that we simply don't know about?
In any case, maybe I'm just justifying myself. The point is, I saw The Birth of a Nation, and while it is imperfect, it's actually not that bad of a movie.
The film follows Nat Turner, a man born into slavery in Southampton Country, Virginia. Turner was taught to read by the wife of his owner, and he grew up to be a preacher among his fellow slaves. The film depicts Turner's life on the Turner plantation (his owner was Benjamin Turner, who eventually died and left everything to his son, Samuel) as relatively pleasant and non-violent. Turner even married an enslaved woman who lived a few miles down the road and the two had a baby together. But when Samuel Turner started taking Nat to other plantations to preach to slaves, Nat began to see how the lives of other slaves were filled with wretchedness and violence. Seeing this led him to plan and carry out a rebellion in 1831 in which a group of 70 or so rebel slaves and free men of color killed around 60 men, women, and children. The rebellion was quickly squashed and Nat Turner was hanged for his crimes.
I'm not a history major, so I know fuck-all about Nat Turner expect for the fact that he led a rebellion. Turner's history, it turns out, is difficult to tease out since the historical accounts are shaky and marred by propaganda and hearsay. This article goes into more detail about Nat Turner's story vs. what is depicted in The Birth of a Nation.
The film itself is quite good. Parker plays Nat Turner with a zealous conviction. It's interesting to ponder how Parker wanted to portray him--Turner believed he had a mandate from God to engage in a violent rebellion, and in the film you see him go from conflicted preacher to, well, kind of a crazy man with a wild look in his eyes and the kind of fiery conviction needed to lead dozens of men to almost sure death. Did Parker intend to play Turner this way, or did Parker's own convictions and supposed vision from God to make this film blind him to Turner's own faults and weaknesses?
The film contains historical inaccuracies and cleaning up of the Turner legend. For example, Turner is spurred on to rebellion after the gang rape of his wife, an event that apparently did not occur (although maybe it did! Female slaves were raped all the damn time in the Antebellum South). Also, when the rebellion occurs, you see Turner and his fellow rebels kill men. Evil, slave-owning men. What you don't see is that they also killed the slave owners' wives and children--including infants.
The long and short of it: Parker re-wrote history to make the Turner Rebellion appear more "clean" than it actually was. Now, here's the thing--filmmakers re-write history all the time. But there is something especially icky about a man accused of rape re-writing history to suit his own needs. Art imitating life a little too closely.
The acting in The Birth of a Nation is undeniably good. Parker gives a great performance, as does Armie Hammer as Samuel Turner--a man who grew up with Nat and was his childhood friend...until he became master of his father's plantation and a virulent alcoholic. Penelope Ann Miller has a great role as Elizabeth Turner, the mistress of the plantation who teaches young Nat to read, thus setting in motion everything to come.
The film is appropriately violent without being sensational. Multiple rapes of enslaved women happen off screen. Additionally, Nat sees the brutality of other plantation owners, particularly in a devastating scene where a slave on a neighboring plantation who refuses to eat has his teeth knocked out and a funnel shoved into his mouth and is force-fed gruel. It's a fucking gruesome scene, but it serves to awaken Nat to the hell that other slaves experienced.
If someone were to ask me "should I see this movie", I would say no, you don't have to. Other films--12 Years a Slave comes to mind--do what this film does, only better and with fewer rapists involved.
That said, The Birth of a Nation itself is not a bad film. It's also not great. What it is is a decent film tainted by its creator, whose "magical thinking" not only adds to the dishonesty inherent in this film, but to the dishonesty inherent in his own life.
Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment