Naissance d'une nation

"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.

The beloved darling of last year's Sundance Film Festival is a competently crafted biographical drama that brings the story of Nat Turner to life in splendid detail and exhibits expert workmanship in all aspects of filmmaking but it still fails to bring anything new to the table and feels like something that we have seen many times before.

Set in 19th century America, The Birth of a Nation tells the story of Nat Turner, an enslaved man & a preacher who's taken to different plantations by his financially strained owner to preach to other negro slaves and, after witnessing countless acts of barbarity inflicted upon them by their owners, orchestrates an uprising to lead his people to freedom.

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Nate Parker who also stars in the leading role, The Birth of a Nation takes its time to set up its premise and is quite violent & disturbing when it's meant to be but there are also times when it needlessly indulges in some petty allegorical bullshit & unneeded flashbacks which hamper its steady narration by an extent.

While it's evident that the film is a product of extensive research, no real effort is made to separate its look n feel from other examples that deal with the subject of slavery. Its iconography has a lot in common with Steve McQueen's 12 Years A Slave but it is still lacking in the raw emotional power of that powerfully-moving feature. Nevertheless, for a debut feature, this is an impressive start.

Its 120 minutes of runtime could've been further trimmed, for there are plenty of scenes that don't add much to the story and at times take the focus away from what's relevant. Camera keeps itself firmly fixed on Nat Turner, the cold colour palette is finely utilised, and the decision to capture the violence & brutality in its raw, unadulterated form is a welcome one. Lastly, all of it is wonderfully supported by its evocative score.

Coming to the performances, the cast consists of Nate Parker, Armie Hammer, Jackie Earle Haley, Aja Naomi King & others, and although all chip in with apt inputs in their given roles, their screen time is shortened to keep the focus on Parker's character. Parker's measured performance packs wide range of emotions and he expresses them convincingly for the most part and manages to render Nat Turner on the screen with effectiveness.

On an overall scale, The Birth of a Nation does justice to the legacy of Nat Turner despite its many shortcomings and is at its best during the final act when the inner rage of the enslaved bursts out in masterly-shot acts of brutality, violence & retaliation. Yet none of it lingers long after the credits have rolled and in the end, it feels like one of those movies that lifts certain elements from different examples of its genre but fails to provide its own touch of originality to it.

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.

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.