El nacimiento de una nación

I strongly disapprove of the fact that this movie has gotten a lot of IMDb thumbs-down from people who most likely haven't seen it, but just disapprove of a movie about slavery, as well as one whose director has a problematic past.

However, that's not what I'm writing about here. I DID see the film (at a film festival), and my disappointment is based on the movie itself, not politics or anything else external. "The Birth of a Nation" is about a very important chapter in US history, yet it sanitizes that history to a ridiculous degree. I think most non-blatant-racists can agree that an uprising amongst slaves is a thing that inherently generates empathy. Yet this movie apparently doesn't agree--it needs to sanitize the mental health of Nat Turner (who was on record as saying God directly told him what to do from an early age) as well as pretend women & children weren't killed in the Turner uprising. I'm not saying these things were justifiable. What I'm saying is that they're part of a complex historical record, and shouldn't have been left out of a movie that purports to tell the "truth." That would be fine if "Birth" were one of many Nat Turner movies out there, but it's the only one most people are likely to see.

It's also a pandering, middle-of-the-road "inspirational" movie, so much less complex a take on slavery than the recent "12 Years a Slave." While that movie was a work of art, this is more like a TV movie in style and content. I just wasn't impressed by it. I wish somebody would make great Nat Turner movie. This isn't it. And sorry, a bad populist telling of the tale isn't better than no telling.

"You got purpose, its in you." Nat Turner (Parker) is a different type of slave. He is literate and a preacher. He is treated better than most slaves and remains calm and obedient. When he begins to speak to other slaves around the south he notices mistreatment and worse. No longer able to stand by and do nothing he leads a slave revolt that ends up changing the country. Going in I was expecting "another brutal slave movie" along the lines of 12 Years A Slave. While it did not shy away from the horror of slavery it was more about the reasons that led up to the uprising and had more of a Free State Of Jones feel than 12 Years A Slave. That fact alone made this easier to watch. I'm not 100% sure how historically accurate the movie is but it is a movie that should be seen and understood. Things like this can happen and people can take a stand not based on how they are treated, but how they see others treated. That is an important lesson. Overall, easier to watch than 12 Years A Slave and one that is very much worth seeing, but nothing earth shattering either. I give this a B.

Birth of a Nation is Nate Parker's directorial debut and I was initially sceptical about watching this film after the harsh criticism it received and the controversy around the portrayal of the events. The best way to describe this one for anybody that is not aware of the plot is "Django Unchained" meets "12 Years a Slave" although toned down slightly in budget and quality of direction. I loved this film a lot and the vision and passion that Nate Parker conveys with the script is unparalleled. Something that I was very concerned about with this film is whether or not it would fall into the trap of "The Free State of Jones" because many audiences complained that it was too long and boring however this film is consistently interesting and thought provoking from start to finish. Unfortunately, the editing throughout felt extremely rushed. It was almost as if they were scared to leave the camera on a character too long in case the audience lost interest and the editing is overall very sloppy which is one of the major flaws with the picture. I would have loved to see them take their time with the shots and extend the film to the 160 – 170-minute mark to allow for further character development but I understand why they didn't because of the hatred that previous similar films received. For the first hour of the film, it wasn't very emotionally captivating and I struggled to relate to the characters a lot. The film also loses its footing and trips over common clichés within the biographical war drama/ period piece films which takes away some of the innovation presented by the mostly superb cinematography. The characters should have been given more freedom to traverse the world as they often felt detached from the setting and environment of the film due to a lack of interaction. The film also features some very thought provoking metaphorical imagery although it often feels very forced and doesn't blend well with the structure of the narrative. An additional flaw with the film was that I felt that Nate Parker was trying way too hard in this role and was seriously desperate for acting recognition. That's perfectly understandable as this is his directorial debut although he has often quite obviously constructed scenes that allow him to stand out and seem the superior actor in relation to the rest of the cast. Moving away from criticisms on the film, what I thought it did really well was to eliminate the stigma surrounding historical settings in the film industry today where average movie goers often associate historical events as boring and tedious and I honestly can't imagine anybody being genuinely bored at this film. It just moves so fast and the events are truly brutal and relentless. Some of the scenes in this film are excruciatingly hard to watch and the film isn't scared to push the boundaries of the "15" certification. This really worked to its advantage to show the horrifying events although some viewers will be turned off by the onslaught of violence and torture. The personal peak of the film for me was the score. So expertly chosen to reflect the actions on screen and breathe life into scenes that are otherwise quite bland. The music really worked for me and there wasn't too much to the point where it felt like a music video much like other titles this year (Suicide Squad). The gore and injury detail is so well realised, absolutely horrific and shocking leaving some scenes cemented into audiences minds for days after watching the film. There was a singular scene towards the end of the film that absolutely floored me with its gruelling depiction of violence and rebellion which was followed by an uplifting and inspiring resolution and overall this film gave me way more than I could have hoped for or was expecting. The Birth of a Nation – 7.8/10

"Anytime anyone is enslaved, or in any way deprived of his liberty, if that person is a human being, as far as I am concerned he is justified to resort to whatever methods necessary to bring about his liberty again." Malcolm X

The antebellum South had not been kind to slaves, if you look only at the award-winning 12 Years a Slave, in which Solomon Northrup, an upstate New York free man, was sold into slavery. But you can now relive that excruciating experience from the religious and moral perspective of a slave, Nat Turner (Nate Parker), in Nate Parker's realistic and dramatic The Birth of a Nation.

While both men are mercilessly whipped in the two films, 12 Years remains superior in its scope and complexity. Yet, Birth is strong in deeply exploring the hero's motivations for the rebellion he eventually foments in 1831. It shows his daily humiliations and hardening in the face of unfettered violence, his growing reliance on the Bible for rebellion, and finally the brutal rape of his wife, Cherry (Aja Naomi King). The film graphically depicts the violence and is equally indulgent showing the growing love between Nate and her.

As in 12 Years, Birth takes care to show the close relationship between slave and master, Samuel (Armie Hammer). In both cases, master might seem at times benign but not over the length of the film. The owner becomes a symbol of the once proud South now reduced to exploiting human beings, in this case black slaves. In Birth, the progression to violence is slow, even as the ultimate violence comes on us.

Parker has a director's eye for the ironies inherent in the beautiful Virginia mansion (actually filmed in Savannah) and the poverty of the servants' quarters, the empathy of Samuel's mother, Elizabeth (Penelope Ann Miller), and the growing intolerance of her son. Thank Geoffrey Kirkland's production design— white plantation houses and those iconic drooping willows—to a stirring, sometimes too intrusive, score by Henry Jackson. Elliot Davis's camera is particularly strong in night shots. Director Parker's slow pullback shot of the mass hanging is memorable.

Although this film does not have the epic perspective of its namesake by D. W. Griffith (1915), it is nonetheless a respectable entry into the canon of film helping to reconcile the white and black populace, the birth of tolerance.

Nat Turner (Nate Parker) grew up a slave in Virginia. It was better than most slaves and he was taught to read the bible by Elizabeth Turner. His father ran away after killing a slave catcher. Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley) is one of those evil slave catchers. With fears of a slave revolt, Reverend Walthall suggests that the debt-ridden drunk Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) hire out Nat's preaching to soothe other restless plantations. Nat talks Samuel into buying and saving Cherry-Ann. Nat witnesses and experiences countless injustices. When he dares to baptize a white man, he is whipped. Finally, he organizes a slave revolt.

This is competently made. It is sincere but it doesn't have that extra something to put it over the top. Nate Parker is a good actor but Nat Turner is a passive character for the first half of the movie. He could have made more with the religious aspect. That would be a different angle to get at this subject matter. Whatever it is, the movie needs a new spin to angle this shot.