The Birth of Another Nation
“The Birth of Another
Nation”
One of the big films of 2016 was
supposed to be Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation.” It set records for winning awards and prizes
at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival (the Vanguard Award, Grand Jury Prize:
Dramatic, and Audience Award: Dramatic) and was sold for a record $17.5 million
dollars in distribution rights. Parker,
a veteran of 19 movies and the three-time winner of the NAACP Image Award
(2008, 2009, and 2015), was the director, writer and lead actor in a movie loosely
based on Nat Turner’s 1831 slave revolt.
The film called attention to the complexities of enslavement and
concluded with a call to black nationalism. Many interpreted the film as a
response to the “Black Lives Matters” Movement.
In June, Parker was riding high, and there was
talk of Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best
Actor. The buzz was so strong that
Parker was desired for interviews including countless magazines and CBS’ “60 Minutes”. Within the African American community this
was going to be a “must see” movie.
However, by mid-summer something
went wrong. Parker became the target of
negative press as stories of a rape case surfaced. In interviews after this disclosure, Parker
refused to discuss the past and only wanted to discuss the film. He showed
remorse, but not enough for his critics.
By the time the movie was released, public support for the film and
Parker was limited. “The Birth of a
Nation” was barely successful. The movie did not receive a single Oscar
nomination.
What was interesting was that Parker
was not found guilty by any jury, yet it was assumed that he was guilty of some
crime. In 1999, a white freshmen alleged
that she was raped by two black student-athletes, Parker and Jean McGianni
Celestin, at Penn State University. There
was some history between Parker and the young woman, and perhaps this could
have made their sexual encounter seem vaguely consensual. However, Celestin was unknown to the victim
and his role turned a “dating relationship” into a dangerous threesome
characterized by excessive drinking and a victim no longer in control of her
body or actions. Parker was acquitted of
four counts, but Celestin was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to up
to four years in jail. His case was later
appealed and overturned in 2005.
Celestin was released from jail and
built a decent life, Parker transferred to and graduated from the University of
Oklahoma, but the victim withdrew from school and suffered from bouts of
depression. It is known that she became addicted to pain pills and committed
suicide in 2012. Whether or not her fate
is tied to the rape is unclear, but the voices against Parker and his film made
that conclusion.
While it is clear that the aura of
the Joe Paterno scandal and Jerry Sandusky
case might have suggested that numerous heinous events transpired with athletes
at the university, it is suspect that an event that occurred in 1999 would have
such power in 2016. Between 2000 and
2016 there were no attempts to publicly attack Parker for this incident. During this time he began a modeling career
and then became an actor. He is married
to a college classmate and they have raised their daughters in a Christian
household.
So, why would Hollywood, which had
a heavy investment in the film and Parker, simply let “The Birth of A Nation”
die a painful death? Perhaps a boycotting of the film was promoted through
interviews granted to the siblings of the victim, but there are other
underlying factors to the attack on Parker and the film.
The demise of “The Birth of a
Nation “ had to do with more than sex.
Indeed, during the same time a vulgar video surfaced with then
businessman Donald Trump speaking about sexual assault, and Casey Affleck who
was going to be nominated for best actor in “Manchester by the Sea” had settled
two incidents of sexual harassment in 2010. So if America was not concerned enough with
these two well-known and documented sexually related incidents, why was America
so outraged by Parker?
I think it had a lot to do with history,
in particular the history of race and gender. [1] Kelly
Lawler in USA Today explained it as a case of context stressing: “Context
is what helped drive The Birth of a Nation,
the film directed by Nate Parker chronicling the Nat Turner slave revolt in
1831, to a spot on every pundit’s 2017 best picture prediction list when it
debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in January… But context is also what has
made the release of the film, nine months later, so controversial and fraught.”
[2]
The problem for many
is Parker’s depiction and use of rape in the guise of explaining a historical
motivation for Turner’s revolt. And in
the process of reframing the revolt to retribution for rape and other micro-aggressions,
that Parker weakens the agency of African American women and doesn’t do justice
to the real cause of Turner’s Rebellion.
A critic wrote:
Contrary to his
promises of “historical fidelity,” Parker created a deeply flawed, historically
inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history
of slavery in America. Nearly everything in the movie—ranging from Turner’s relationship
with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the rebellion itself—is a
complete fabrication.[3]
Women, especially historians, took
offense to Parker’s depiction of black women in the film. Leslie Alexander accused Parker of silencing
the voices of key African American female characters throughout the film.[4] Although Turner’s grandmother is portrayed
as a strong woman, other females are not afforded the same treatment. Vanessa Holden posits that women played a role
in Turner’s rebellion and it is not depicted in Parker’s film. [5] She stated:
For the most part,
the movie is [Parker’s] own sort of imagined historical fiction narrative about
the rebellion. And the rebellion itself doesn’t actually really take up that
much space in the film. I do think that the way that women are portrayed in the
film sort of reapplies this idea that enslaved women only worked at domestic
tasks, and that women during times of rebellion just sort of hid, like he sort
of shuttles his mother away, right, so that she’s not in the line of fire. That
women are victims of abuse and that they are protected by male slaves, that
they don’t have any agency in their own sort of defense.[6]
Equally important is the interplay
of race and rape in real life and in the film.
For example, Cherry, Turner’s
wife, and Esther, the wife of Turner’s friend, are raped by white men. It
must be pointed out that there is no historical evidence to prove that these
attacks happened, at least not in the manner portrayed in the film, although it
is well known that rapes occurred on countless plantations. To Lawler and others, the rape scenes provide
context without words. Esther was silent
before the rape but is even more so afterwards. Lawler writes: “Esther
never returns to the screen in Birth of a Nation.
Her rape is a catalyst for a male character to make a choice. Her tear-stained
face the scenery of someone else’s story.”[7]
Throughout the film, Esther, played
by Gabrielle Union, does not have a speaking role. In real life Ms. Union is a rape victim and
subsequent interviews targeted her for her opinions on Parker’s portrayal of
these events. In January 2016, Union was
proud of her role in the film and of Parker.
She told Jada Yuan of Vulture:
Watching the film I
had a lot of rage for my ancestors and for us today because so much has not
changed. It’s still the same. But watching Nate come on — don’t tell my husband
— I’ve never been more proud of anyone in my life. In
my life. When it said “Nate Parker wrote, Nate Parker directed.
Nate Parker produced!” I just had so much pride. So much fucking pride, and
it’s so important.[8]
Union relates that
she had lines in the script, but “Nate and I discussed her not having any”. I, she continues, “didn’t want her to have
any. It’s just more symbolic of the lack of control or power that black women
had, and have, over our own bodies. As a rape survivor, I know how powerful and
voiceless I felt myself for a very, very long time, and the shame and the rage.
It’s only relatively recently that I found the power to have a voice.”[9]
However, by the end
of the summer, Union changed her views. In countless interviews she was pressed
to confront Parker’s rape charges. And
she confessed that she did not take them lightly. [10]
Weeks later she was quoted as saying, “I have to educate him, he’s raising five
girls.”[11]
Yet, the continuing education lesson was on Parker and how he failed to show
women in pain but rather made it about men.[12]
The film turned from
a portrayal of Turner, some brilliant depictions of the African past, and an
emotion provoking film into a conversation about rape, black women and
historical agency. All was lost in terms
of capturing an audience to learn more about Turner, his rebellion and its significance.
So by the time the
film opened everyone but Parker was talking about rape. And it was not the physical rape, as it was
not shown on the screen. It was the voice of those who were harmed. Those who
suffered and how the scars were both physical and psychological. And, how this was an excellent time to give
black women a voice and Parker failed to do so.
The boycott of “The
Birth of a Nation” killed a spiritual revolution. It revealed how easily a good idea could be
repressed and how a black filmmaker must be cognizant of the larger world. Parker was still trying to save his dream,
but even Fox Searchlight had lost the stomach for its promotion.
Parker had made an
important film, but no one wanted to see it.
The audience was not going to have the opportunity to see his blending
of fact and fiction. His perspectives were not going to force the “Starbucks
moments” where intellectuals analyze the film for artistic and historical
merit.
In the end, the hero
of the film was Gabrielle Union. As
Esther she was silent but as Gabrielle she became a powerful ally. Throughout October and into November as the
movie languished in theaters, Union was openly accepting the perspectives of
those who boycotted the film. She stopped talking about Parker and his
achievements. Instead she pledged to use her voice to bring attention to sexual
violence and what it does to the psyche of women.
Hence, she became the
voice of the “Birth of Another Nation.”
[1]
See Rebecca Onion, “How the Birth of a Nation Uses Fact and Fiction” Slate October
14, 2016
[2]
Kelly Lawler, “How ‘Birth of a Nation’ Mishandles Portrayal of Rape” USA
Today October 7, 2016
[3]
Leslie M. Alexander, “’The Birth of a Nation’ is an Epic Fail” The Nation
October 6, 2016
[4]
Leslie M. Alexander, “’The Birth of a Nation’ is an Epic Fail” The Nation
October 6, 2016
[5]
Aisha Harris, “In The Birth of a Nation, Women Don’t Participate in Nat
Turner’s Rebellion. History Tells Us Otherwise.” Slate October 7, 2016
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Kelly Lawler, “How ‘Birth of a Nation’ Mishandles its Portrayal of Rape” USA
Today October 7, 2016.
[8]
Jada Yuan, “Gabrielle Union on Why Her Cameo in The Birth of a Nation is Silent
and Anonymous” Vulture January 26, 2016 <
http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/gabrielle-union-sundance-cameo-birth-of-a-nation.html>
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Gabrielle Union, OpEd LA Times September 2, 2016 <
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-union-nate-parker-birth-nation-rape-allegation-20160902-snap-story.html>
[11]
Shenequa Golding, “Gabrielle Union on Nate Parker: I have to educate him, he’s
raising five girls” Vibe October 5, 2016 <
http://www.vibe.com/2016/10/gabrielle-union-birth-of-a-nation-interview/>
[12]
See Hunter Harris, “We Need To Talk About how Badly this Film Treats Women” Refinery
29 October 10, 2016
<
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/125547/rape-scene-the-birth-of-a-nation>
Comments