O Nascimento de Uma Nação

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.

"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.

"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.

Nate Parker's stirring portrayal of Nat Turner's rebellion is a film that tries extremely hard to be something more than what it is. This is not the Oscar contender you read it to be, this is not some revelation in the vein of Roots, this is just another slavery film. Nate Parker's film sheds no new light on the brutality of slavery and does his absolute best to make sure you despise the white villains in this as anyone should as they are portrayed with much relish from the actors especially Jackie Earle Haley's menacing slave owner that serves as the main villain of the film. The problems that The Birth of a Nation has are ones that exist in it's director's overbearing ego and overwhelming goal to bring something powerful to the table. Parker succeeds haphazardly unfortunately. The Birth of a Nation tells the story of Nat Turner, a preacher turned rebellion leader as he fights racism in the south with a violent and brutal fist. The film is powerful and Jackie Earle Haley and Gabrielle Union are absolute gems in this film, with Union giving the best performance of her career and Nate Parker giving...well, a performance. The problems here lie with the film itself. The story plays like a more realistic version of Django Unchained, even lifting some inspiration from that film a little too heavily for the scenes in which the slaves are beaten and abused. However, the film also delves into the religious aspects of Turner so heavy handedly that it borders along the fine line of a parody more often than not. The other film that Parker must have had playing on his tablet while directing some scenes is Braveheart because, the last battle in particular, is riddled with countless homages to that film that border plagiarism. Between the way Parker conveys his violence and the way he immortalizes Nat Turner by making him more of a saint than he ought to be, the film gradually feels less and less genuine as the running time winds down. That was my biggest gripe with the film honestly. Nate Parker failed to convey anything human about Nat Turner outside of him witnessing the brutalization that went on around him. There is something divine in the way Parker conveys Turner and it is just too much for a film that is steeped in this much history and realism. It fails to accurately portray to rebellion as it happened. There are very few mentions of what the rebellion actually did in reality as opposed to what it did in the film. While I am not saying that Turner's Rebellion was without cause, the film dilutes the harsh realities of what Turner's Rebellion did. In a sense, I felt it was a bit disrespectful to the victims of his Rebellion both black and white. With that being said, this is a film and not a documentary, so there is some room for some creative liberties, within reason. However, this does stand as Nate Parker's first directorial effort and, for a first film, it is a damn fine effort that should lead to more work as a director. Despite this fact, it still is nowhere near enough to sustain this as a film worthy of accolades and praise. Quite frankly, there is a lot wrong with the film. The pacing is either mind-numbingly slow or so quickly cut and erratic that you can barely grasp what is going on. Also, the extreme close shots are so constant and abundant that it is just another contributing factor to it feeling very incoherent. The story is bland and has been done before and done better despite this being Nat Turner's first on-screen portrayal, the story has inspired many films that have come out in recent years such as the previously mentioned Django Unchained. The sound design, at least on the Sundance version that I saw, was very flat and felt a bit too post-production sounding. Despite all this, I can't fully write this film off. There are some truly powerful performances in the film and some well done battle sequences to enjoy but other than that, this is an average film.