O Nascimento de Uma Nação

"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.

History favours the brave, but like any form of art, it is also about perception. Whether that perception is a result of inner expression or manipulated by external influences, what matters is the manner in which it is told. Bold, controversial and violent, The Birth of a Nation is a period drama that is as powerful as it is important. Most of all, this film functions as a cinematic memorial to one of the first freedom fighters that would eventually give rise to the American Civil Rights Movement.

His name was Nat Turner and although not shown in the film, he received the same fate as the fictionalized William Wallace (who was famously portrayed by Mel Gibson in Braveheart). Played by Nate Parker in his directorial debut, Nat is a slave with compassion for his fellow slaves. He is also in good standing with his master Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) but the latter has problems of his own, including mounting debts and alcoholism. They were friends since childhood and Samuel's mother was the first to notice Nat's incredible ability to read (this was a time when literacy was considered a gift, and rare even for white landowners). With this 'ability' Nat is allowed to preach the Bible to other slaves with the intention of putting the fear of God into them. It works for some time, until Nat witnesses the ugly and often heinous atrocities of slavery. The inevitable happens when Nat perceives scripture as a double-edged sword – that which justifies slavery and that which justifies retribution.

Based on the actual 1831 salve rebellion in Virginia, and co-written by Parker, The Birth of a Nation is a slow burner during its first two acts. Visual artistry notwithstanding, Parker's nuance is the cogs and wheels turning in Nat's head. Did he snap or was he disillusioned by his own sermons? Although the result is an explosive finale that is both brutal and disturbing, the answer to that question lies in the way Nat is perceived. With collateral damage on both sides, history has all but condemned Nat Turner as a mass murderer, much like what English history says about Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace. But the director has us believe otherwise; that Nat was more like a hero whose actions influenced a far bloodier war 30 years later in the emancipation of slavery, and hence the title.

Yet at its core, this film is a penetrating enquiry into the ongoing struggles for justice and equality, the fine line between the use and abuse of authority, and also whether the history taught today is factual, or eroded, or sanitised. Whether Nat lost his faith or manipulated scripture to justify his rebellion is of little importance because The Birth of a Nation is competently made and told with grit. Like Steve McQueen's relentless 12 Years a Slave before, the theme on dehumanisation is rampant and doesn't let go even during its most harrowing moments. Even so, Parker's narrative may not be as flawless as McQueen's Academy Award winning masterpiece but it's still an effective undertaking for a debut director; And given the racial uproar behind the new Trump administration, perhaps even a well-timed film that takes a stab at a challenging dilemma – intention versus action.

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.

Nate parker writes, produces, acts, and directs this landmark in American history. The story of Nat Turner is one that is relatively uncharted territory in the realm of cinema, with that being said, Nate Parker does a great job of of telling the story, albeit a little shortsighted as to the backlash that transpired afterwards.

Also, I don't know what this other critic user is talking about in regards to calling this movie, "racist crap" and giving it a 1 out of 10. The movie tells the story of a rebellious slave who does whatever he needs to, to achieve freedom from the oppressive south. With that being said, his story simply tells the truth of our nations racial relations at this time. In this particular context, Blacks and whites surely were not singing kumbaya, our relationship was highly one-sided, volatile, and largely disturbing. So, to anyone who is not prepared to see a small glimpse of historical truth in regards to our nations past, do not see this movie. You'll just end up like this other user, offended because this movie doesn't depict white people as saviors, heroes, etc, like most movies...it depicts a more sinister side that too often goes untold, unseen, and therefore, unnoticed.

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.