Re: Birth of a Nation: The Problem
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:59 pm
I think the issue with The Birth of a Nation in terms of awards season is that it might have succeeded despite being a mediocre effort given the great narrative of a young black actor-turned-filmmaker mounting his dream project... OR it might have succeeded despite the rape story/bad press if it had been a more widely acclaimed piece of film art. But I think the combination of the two -- so-so effort, dreadful behind-the-scenes narrative -- has proven fatal. And I heard the valid comment the other day that the Venn diagram of people who would want to support a serious historical film about the black experience in America and those who would NOT want to support the work of a man who might well have sexually assaulted a former girlfriend is basically a pair of overlapping circles, which has certainly impacted box office. (For what it's worth, I saw the film opening night a couple weeks ago, and there were protestors outside my theater.)
As for the movie itself, I'm in agreement with Mark Harris's tweet a while ago that it's better/worse than I'd been told, depending on who I was reading. The story is obviously an important one in American history, and there's an innate power to the material that's undeniable. I certainly don't think there's anything embarrassing about the filmmaking or performances, despite it clearly not being in a class with the artistry of 12 Years a Slave. But, as with Loving, The Birth of a Nation is another recent historical movie that just doesn't feel shaped by a writer with a unique take on the subject matter -- for me, I think a movie needs to be quite a bit deeper than "slavery was awful," which felt like the main takeaway with which Parker was intending to leave his audiences here.
Despite my under-consensus reaction to Moonlight, I will say that I'm glad that film seems to have stolen quite a bit of this one's thunder -- Jenkins's film, in addition to being far more artfully made, seems to have inspired real enthusiasm among critics (and it seems, limited release audiences) based on the actual movie onscreen. That, for me, is always preferable to a film elevated simply because its subject matter is important, which is what I feared could have happened with Birth of a Nation had there not been better options folks could look to to celebrate racial diversity this season.
As for the movie itself, I'm in agreement with Mark Harris's tweet a while ago that it's better/worse than I'd been told, depending on who I was reading. The story is obviously an important one in American history, and there's an innate power to the material that's undeniable. I certainly don't think there's anything embarrassing about the filmmaking or performances, despite it clearly not being in a class with the artistry of 12 Years a Slave. But, as with Loving, The Birth of a Nation is another recent historical movie that just doesn't feel shaped by a writer with a unique take on the subject matter -- for me, I think a movie needs to be quite a bit deeper than "slavery was awful," which felt like the main takeaway with which Parker was intending to leave his audiences here.
Despite my under-consensus reaction to Moonlight, I will say that I'm glad that film seems to have stolen quite a bit of this one's thunder -- Jenkins's film, in addition to being far more artfully made, seems to have inspired real enthusiasm among critics (and it seems, limited release audiences) based on the actual movie onscreen. That, for me, is always preferable to a film elevated simply because its subject matter is important, which is what I feared could have happened with Birth of a Nation had there not been better options folks could look to to celebrate racial diversity this season.