“Birth of a Nation” (2016) Chronicles Uprising

imageReclaiming the title of D.W. Griffith’s controversial classic is the most subversive element of Nate Parker’s otherwise straightforward historical 2016 retelling of Nat Turner’s 1831 Virginia slave uprising, The Birth of a Nation (B-), but the timing of this true-life tale could not be more prescient given continuing struggles with race in today’s society. Because the protagonist is both slave and scholar and an active preacher, the film brings up big themes about the nature of vengeance. It doesn’t always fuse those themes into a consistent tone, though. For a first time writer/director also in the lead role, Parker is a bit over his head; and his passable acting is largely enhanced by the gravity of his character and because he is opposite a very wooden Armie Hammer as the plantation owner (with unwieldy beard and novelty teeth). Hammer has evolved very little since his leaden Lone Ranger. In fact, the acting overall is a weak spot as many of the underwritten characters (especially the women) feel more like symbols than fully fleshed-out individuals. The film gains stirring resonance long after it has lost narrative momentum. Where’s the storytelling fire found in the final twenty minutes during the rest of the film? Aside from the gruesome rebellion itself, the film soars in a sequence when scriptures are used to argue both sides of the slavery argument. I couldn’t help but think how good the exchange would have been if embodied by more seasoned performers. Nonetheless the cinematography is intermittently gorgeous and Henry Jackman’s chorus-tinged score haunting. It’s an important film and a vital story to tell; it just could have been a bit stronger cinematically. But the first-time helmer should get some major credit for his brazen first choice in subject matter.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.