Let's Talk About The New "Birth Of A Nation" Movie

By Vallen Driggers on September 23, 2016

For those of you who don’t know, there is a film that comes out October 7, 2016 entitled Birth of a Nation. I, as a student of the one and only Florida State, had the opportunity of being able to see an advanced screening this past Saturday, September 17. That’s right. Nearly a whole month before the film comes to theaters.

So here’s a quick shout-out to the wonderful people at Student Life Cinema for making events like this happen. If y’all are not taking advantage of the gift that is the SLC, I would highly recommend looking them up here.

ew.com

Now there has been some controversy around the film, or, more accurately, the filmmakers. For more on that, you can read this enlightening article written by my fellow Uloopian Tamiera Vandegrift. I will merely be addressing the movie from a cinematic perspective, e.g. the plots, the shots, the actors, etc. That being said, there is one thing about this film that I want to clear up immediately.

This. Is. Not. A. Reboot.

Allow me to explain myself with a bit of background information.

The original Birth of Nation movie was a silent film released in 1915. It was adapted from the novel/play The Clansman. The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (… yeah) was the second work in a Ku Klux Klan trilogy that was influential for the KKK, the revival of which is officially recognized as starting in the year that the film was released, 10 years after the book. That film, as one might imagine, was super controversial because of how it portrayed the Klan as the protagonists, the heroes. You can see the whole plot summary here, but, from my understanding, the end shot is Jesus and some angels looking down upon the Klan’s actions with approval.

So there’s that. And then there’s this movie.

Saying the 2016 version is a reboot would imply that this one also displays one man in black face and one in a white hood.

That is not the case.

The new Birth of a Nation tells the story of Nat Turner’s rebellion. I will stay away from spoiler territory, although I’m not sure that really exists seeing as this is based on historical events and generally sticks to those events. You could effectively read the entire plot of the movie in the first paragraph of the rebellion’s Wikipedia page. Regardless, we’ll keep it basic.

www.u-s-history.com

Now, my friends and I have a habit of looking at movies like this from the perspective of the Oscars. Would I give this movie Best Picture? … Probably not. Would I give it the nomination? … Maybeeee. It honestly depends on the rest of the years’ movies.

This was a good movie. I will say that. It was well done, overall. But, were it made last year and have had to compete with that set of Best Picture nominees, I would not have even put it on the board.

Okay, I lied. I liked it better than Bridge of Spies. But I wasn’t a huge fan of that one to be honest. ANYWAY, what I’m saying is that the movie was great but not phenomenal. I would, however, give props to our leading man, Nate Parker, and supporting actress, Aja Naomi King.

Parker is pretty fantastic as Nat, providing a truly moving performance. And, while I realize this may say more about the character than the actor, Nat Turner was one smooth dude. Parker portrayed that overwhelming charisma with ease. Seriously, guys, there were several line deliveries that elicited enamored cries from the crowd, both male and female. This is the man that is coming to steal yo’ girl.

ew.com

But he definitely would not do that because he loves his lady, Cherry, played by the lovely Aja Naomi King. He is there for his lady, and she for him. She sweetly supports Nat, but is not afraid to call him out when he gets a little ahead of himself. King brings the character to life beautifully.

My biggest complaint about the movie, cinematically, is that the transitions between scenes could be extremely abrupt. One second you’re singing and dancing and the next a silent frame of cotton. This could be, and probably was, done on purpose for some sort of juxtaposition to emphasize the two extremes. But, for me, it was just jarring in a way that took me out of the film’s world.

And, overall, that is not something I would say about this movie. I felt enveloped in the world. It made an event in our history feel like more than just a page from a textbook. There were several scenes where I remember thinking that it just felt so … real. Amidst scenes of violence (and there are plenty of them), I felt like I could have been looking back in time as the event was happening rather than sitting in a theater. So, while there were moments that were clearly dramatized, nothing was outside the realm of reality.

And the reality behind it is maybe why this film might disappoint you a little bit. You get the sense that you’ve seen this before. And you definitely have because it’s kind of a classic story line. Most notably, however, I see a lot of Django. And if you’ve seen Django or literally anything Taratino, you may understand how anything that sticks too close to reality is going to feel like a bit of a letdown, action-wise. Regardless, the film holds its own in a world where it is becoming increasingly difficult to do anything with simplicity.

So, in the end, would I recommend this movie? Based solely on the movie, yes. It was heartfelt and entertaining, despite its flaws. And, if you so desire, you can find it in theaters October 7.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format