“The Birth of a Nation” and Moral Dissonance

When, if ever, should the actions of an artist negate the value of their art? In 1977, filmmaker Roman Polanski pled guilty to the drugging and statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. Twenty-five years later, he won an Academy Award for Best Director for his film “The Pianist.” A gripping biopic about a Jewish man’s attempts at surviving Nazi Germany’s occupation of Warsaw, “The Pianist” is largely considered mandatory viewing in order to understand the terrifying nature of the Holocaust. It was also made by a rapist. Is that to say that a historically important and significant story should not be heard because of the actions of a single artist?

This is the dilemma that currently plagues Nate Parker’s directorial debut, “The Birth of a Nation.” In 1999, Parker was charged with and acquitted of the alleged rape of a classmate at Penn State. His accuser maintained that Parker sexually assaulted her while she was intoxicated and harassed her before and after the trial. In January of this year, “The Birth of a Nation” was shown at Sundance Film Festival and was met with critical praise, culminating in its purchase for $17.5 million by Fox Searchlight Pictures. 

Parker tells the story of Nat Turner, a slave who led an uprising that claimed the lives of at least 55 white Southerners across Southampton County, Virginia in 1831. He knits together vicious scenes of the atrocities committed by the slave owners from rape to torture, mounting to the climactic turning point wherein Turner decides to lead a revolt against his peoples’ oppressors. Relevant in a time when protests are swelling across the United States as a demonstration against racially driven police brutality, Nat Turner’s revolt is an important reminder of our nation’s ugly history of racism and its consequences—a theme that is inescapable for the duration of the film.

But for all of its historical gravity, “The Birth of a Nation” remains wholly intertwined with Nate Parker and subsequently his controversies. He didn’t just direct the movie – he also wrote its screenplay and plays the character Nat Turner. In this way, the film is certainly inseparable from its filmmaker, and Parker’s influence then makes for a rather uncomfortable viewing of the movie. Namely, there are two scenes where the brutal rape of a woman is insinuated, not shown, and the major emotional fallout of the action is placed on Turner, not the women involved. Training the camera on the reaction of a man and ignoring the affected victims grossly manipulates the sexual assault endured by these women, a flaw that can’t be taken lightly given the filmmaker’s past.

To me, no film will ever be able to shine brighter than the actions of its filmmaker. I don’t support movies made by rapists, and I understand my hypocrisy when I consume art that is made by artists with their own controversies. Perhaps this is my moral dissonance, and perhaps every person has theirs.  We understand that we are doing things that may conflict with our morals by watching films made by Roman Polanski or Nate Parker, but the art and its significance exist in a separate reality from its creator in our minds. As humans we are nuanced, contradictory and complex.  Maybe your desire to have Nat Turner’s story publicized and taught directly conflicts with your hesitation at his past, so they coexist in tumult.

There is no definitive answer as to whether or not “The Birth of a Nation” is worth its moral vexations, largely because it is futile to try and generalize the moral landscape of each and every movie patron. Ultimately, it’s a personal decision for the film-goer to make, but it’s also one that should require thought and deliberation. What’s not a personal matter, however, is the way the public is introduced to the film – discussions about it need to address Parker’s past and not contribute to the rape culture that silences women and their experiences.

As a film, “The Birth of a Nation” is certainly not without its pitfalls. Many of the characters outside of the protagonist fall flat, the pacing of the film seems inconsistent at some points and Parker tends to focus too much on Turner, allowing him to silence and subdue the anger that undoubtedly consumed many of his fellow slaves. But it tells an important story. What it comes down to, however, is how important one believes this story to be – and whether or not viewing the film that chronicles it is worth the moral price one must pay.