Consequently, it matters when the film fails to question Turner's interpretation of religion: on being reminded that the Christian God is the God of Love he declares that he is also the God of Wrath. ![]() What really does disturb me, however, is the fact that this historical tale is clearly intended to be seen as meaningful in today's world. For that matter, although Parker's performance is not terrible, as an actor he is simply not in the same league as Chiwetel Ejiofor or, say, David Oyelowo. Even so, his film is totally overshadowed by memories of Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave which brought an outraged dignity to its depiction of slavery that contrasts with Parker's approach which is not above inserting a vision of a black angel at the film's climax. It's a story worth telling and Parker in his directorial debut handles it competently. He retained his faith but, through witnessing the sufferings of his people, eventually concluded that Christianity supported rebellion. Once he reached adulthood he was sent around by white people to encourage other slaves to accept their lot by quoting biblical passages chosen for that very purpose. Turner's story has unexpected individuality in that he was religious and, having been taught to read, became a preacher. In this film Nat Turner, played by Parker himself, is seen as a forerunner of black activists who would have to fight against later injustices. ![]() Griffith's highly controversial classic of 1915: that means that he seems to be saying that, whereas that film's supportive portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan was a gross misrepresentation, his version of the just anger of ill-treated blacks prior to the start of the American Civil war is a wholly truthful corrective. Consequently, the only genuine reason for concern on this point lies in the fact that Parker has deliberately borrowed the title of D. ![]() An opening credit informs us yet again that what we are about to see is 'based on a true story', but it seems sensible to suppose that most audiences these days will assume that what follows is yet another example of a film in which real events have been freely dramatised. Genuinely relevant, however, is the fact that some reviewers have referred to omissions and distortions in the film's portrayal of the life of the black slave Nat Turner, a portrayal which starting in 1809 builds to his leadership of an uprising against plantation owners and their like in Virginia in 1831. Innocent or guilty, the quality of their film should be assessed without reference to their personal lives. On the other hand, I do not hesitate to brand as irrelevant the notion that the film should be stigmatised because of revived accusations relating to claims of rape against Parker and his co-author Jean McGianni Celestin in 1999. The Birth Of A Nation hails from Bron Studios, Phantom Four, Mandalay Pictures and Tiny Giant Productions in association with Follow Through Productions, Infinity Entertainment, and Creative Wealth Media Finance.īron’s Aaron L Gilbert produces with Parker, Kevin Turen, Jason Michael Berman and Preston Holmes.Įxecutive producers are David Goyer, Mike Novogratz, Michael Finley, Tony Parker, Jason Cloth, Jane Oster, Barb Lee, Carl Lindner III, Derrick Brooks, Ryan and Jill Ahrens, Armin Tehrany and Mark Moran.Fairly or not, this film by Nate Parker has been dogged by controversy and this review will suggest an additional reason to be dubious about it. Parker stars alongside previously announced Armie Hammer, Aja Naomi King, Aunjanue Ellis, Coleman Domingo, Dwight Henry, Roger Guenveur Smith and Gabrielle Union. Haley will portray slave patrol captain Raymond Cobb while Boone Jr will play Reverend Walthall, a preacher who develops a plan to use Turner to pull his owner Samuel Turner out of debt. The story tells of slave-preacher turned revolutionary Nat Turner, who in 1831 led the most successful slave revolt in American history.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |