100 years after the premiere of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation came another film bearing the same title. Over a century, we’ve admired Griffith’s technological prowess but despised his racism. The point of using that title for a film about a slave rebellion was to reclaim it, and in the words of first-time director Nate Parker, use it as a tool to ”challenge racism and white supremacy in America”. His film became the most talked about at Sundance last January.
Initially elevated as a future classic, the film has suffered over the year, ironically because of the man who wrote, directed, co-produced and starred in it.
Growing up as a slave
In the early years of the 19th century, Nat grows up as a slave owned by the Turner family in Southampton County, Virginia. As a child, his closest playmate is the Turners’ son Samuel and as adults Nat is always by Samuel’s side. When the Turners find out that Nat can read a little, they use the Bible as an education tool. Over the years, Nat becomes a preacher, which comes in handy when Samuel falls on hard times. After the death of his father, Samuel needs an extra income to keep the plantation going and agrees to use Nat’s preaching as a lucrative way to subdue unruly slaves at other plantations. Nat becomes a witness to widespread cruelty, but refuses to reject the god who speaks through Bible verses to teach slaves how to respect their masters. But then his wife Esther (Gabrielle Union) is raped by a group of white men…
Taking creative license
That last detail, Nat’s final motivation, is not based on historical facts; there is no evidence of Nat Turner even having a wife. Still, that’s the kind of creative license that a filmmaker can take. Parker reportedly ran into some difficulty getting this movie made. After all, Turner instigated a violent rebellion that caused many deaths. But there are many nauseating examples here of how morally corrupt the Southern way of life was. The biggest problem with Turner’s rebellion is that he was somewhat of a religious fanatic, inviting comparisons with today’s jihadist terrorists. Parker spends a lot of time making Nat come across as an angelic figure, even introducing religious symbolism in some of the last scenes that had me squirming a bit. There are a few other scenes that look more clichéd than as effective and inspiring as Parker was hoping for.
Much of the film is well directed though; the culture of the Old South as a society where terror is always close is staged with conviction. Parker uses the Billie Holiday classic ”Strange Fruit” to chilling effect in a montage depicting the consequences of Nat’s rebellion. One also has to congratulate Parker on casting himself in the lead; this is a very strong performance that carries the film, even though Hammer is good as the slave owner who is a kind man as long as you know your place in the Southern hierarchy.
The fact that Nate Parker once was accused of rape in a case where the accuser ended up committing suicide became a problem during the marketing of this film; Parker’s insensitive PR efforts didn’t help. My attitude though is the same as whenever there’s a new Woody Allen or Roman Polanski film out – what happens on screen is one thing, what happens off screen another. Both may be important, but so is this difference.
The Birth of a Nation 2016-U.S. 120 min. Color. Widescreen. Produced by Preston L. Holmes, Aaron L. Gilbert, Jason Michael Berman, Nate Parker, Kevin Turen. Written and directed by Nate Parker. Cast: Nate Parker (Nat Turner), Armie Hammer (Samuel Turner), Gabrielle Union (Esther), Mark Boone Junior, Colman Domingo, Aunjanue Ellis… Penelope Ann Miller, Jackie Earle Haley.
Trivia:Â Co-executive produced by Edward Zwick.
Last word: “We shot 27 days, less than 10 million bucks. Twenty-seven days. But we did it in a way that kept the crew inspired. They knew what we were there to do, they all read the script, they knew the power this film could have if people bought in. So to leave the theater [after the Sundance screening] and be immediately informed that there was traction, it was more confirmation — it told me less about who thought they could make money and more about the desire to get this message out to the world.” (Parker, Vulture)
