What was once considered one of the top Oscar contenders of the year and the Sundance Film Festival sweetheart that had every distributor scrambling to make the best offer is now entering in the worst kind of hell any filmmaker would never want for a film. It really begs the question after the controversy behind Nate Parker and the rampant criticisms of the film: is 'The Birth of a Nation' dead on arrival?

I was incredibly lucky. I got to see the film at Sundance before any of this controversy came out. At Sundance, it was the biggest buzz of the fest. Not a single person there had not seen the film, and for the most part the praise was universal. So, in a way, the opinions of critics like myself who were there before any of this came out are the most valuable when critiquing the film. I'm not going to go into a huge review of the film, since I will not be seeing it again and only remembering details of the film. But I will say it is not a terrible film at all. I hate Oscar bait films, and this one really is not much different, but it at least tries to stand out by telling the story of a slave rebellion as opposed to an inside look at how slaves were treated like every other Slave film is made. It offers some good performances, especially out of its captain Nate Parker. The build up to the end was also well done and the journey there was interesting, though sometimes it falls into the typical historical drama set pieces. As a film goer, this one can be hit or miss for viewers, so I would say see it for yourself.

But your view has probably been destroyed by the controversy behind the Nate Parker rape accusation. I knew as soon as this information broke, it would be over for him. It's one thing if it's Woody Allen who has been established as an auteur with a fleet of fans or Bill Cosby who was already beyond the end of his career, Parker was just beginning his. And how he treated it, in the wake of Brock Turner and other ridiculous rape cases that leave the victims like trash at the way side, he handled it absolutely poorly. It was so badly handled that it made me really despise the guy. He was accused of rape then later acquitted. When he was asked if he felt morally guilty after the fact that the victim killed herself in 2012, this is what he told 60 Minutes:

“I don’t feel guilty,” Parker replied. “As a Christian man, just being in that situation, yeah, sure. I’m 36 years old right now. And my faith is very important to me. You know, so looking back through that lens, I definitely feel like it’s not the lens that I had when I was 19 years old.”

(Source: Variety Magazine)

How is that any different than the excuse Brock Turner's parents gave? The only difference is that this is years later and he's not on trial. Who ever is his PR team needs to fired because it damned him more than anything. It's making the man a victim of the rape; not the woman. Which is apparent in the film itself, as pointed out the USA Today:

There are dangers to reducing women to plot devices and telling stories of rape that gloss over the woman. Films can shape conversations around masculinity and consent. Union herself, in an op-ed in which she revealed she is a sexual assault survivor, said she participated in the film to “talk about sexual violence. To talk about this stain that lives on in our psyches.” But the film leaves Cherry and Esther out of that conversation. The stain that matters is on their husbands.

(Source: USA Today)

In its clumsy way, the scene suggests that the shared pain of the three men matters more than Esther's own, singular pain. When Esther emerges from the master's house, her husband collapses onto her shoulder just as much as she does his. It’s clear in that moment that, for the foreseeable future, she’s going to have to comfort him before she can comfort herself. His pain and fragility is of greater importance than her own.

The audience doesn't get to know the story of how Esther heals, because she's never seen again. Having served her purpose as a catalyst for Turner's uprising, she vanishes from the film. The same thing happens to Nat’s wife, Cherry (Aja Naomi King), whose rape by a group of white men Parker delicately cuts away from. She's left out of much of the film’s third act, her disfigured face seen only in rare cutaways when Nat sobs at her bedside, begging her to allow him to avenge her.

(Source: Vulture)

That is a huge problem. How can you separate the art from the artist when it's woven in to the art he has created? This kind of portrayal of rape is what got 'Game of Thrones' into a big heap of trouble when Sansa was raped and Theon was forced to watch, as if all the pain and suffering was his to bare alone. What of the victim? And it doesn't help the Parker's co-writer, Jean Celestin, was also accused of raping the same woman and was convicted. They no regard for the women in this film, as Parker keeps protruding in real life the same kind of thinking through his interviews.

And this won't just be slipped under the covers. 40 men and women protested one of the screenings of the film to speak about this very issue.

“We were approached by women in Hollywood who felt this case was so complicated,” Remy Holwick, the founder of F— Rape Culture, told The Hollywood Reporter. “The conversation came up about how to respond in a way that respected how important this film was for people of color.”

(Source: People Magazine)

And this film has come out at such an important time. When racial tensions are high in the nation, #OscarsSoWhite was trending (and still is), and where people think 'Luke Cage' is racist for not having any white people. (I seriously wish I was joking.) This was supposed to rally the African American community and be the forerunner of a more diverse film industry.

Despite prominent examples of stories about slavery, the subject—along with the broader issue of race—is still dramatically under-explored and underrepresented in Hollywood, leaving plenty of room for more incisive history-based accounts. In this context, it’s little surprise that The Birth of a Nation received the premature praise and attention it did. Many Hollywood studios, critics, and moviegoers looked at the movie and saw a rare and thus seemingly vital project—one driven by the singular, ambitious artistic vision of black American man. It was hard not to respect the apparent passion behind the film, which was made with much of Parker’s own money and with the help of other black actors and writers.

(Source: The Atlantic)

But it may not even be that way:

Based on the standing ovations it received at the Sundance Film Festival, we assumed that 'The Birth of a Nation' was inherently valuable, inspirational, educational, and transformative.

We were wrong.

After attending an advance screening of the film, however, I now know that Parker failed miserably in his mission. 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. Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious.

(Source: The Nation)

The writer of that piece, Leslie Alexander, is a professor in the Department of African American and African Studies at The Ohio State University, where she specializes in 19th century Black culture and political consciousness, in my opinion, gave it the biggest sucker punch yet. She called it out rather harshly, but her intellect on the subject of slave films can't be denied. As The Atlantic, in the same article quoted above, says: "Ultimately, the movie isn’t sublime nor can it transcend the personal flaws of its creator."

Now, rounding back to my opinion of everything: this film died on the slab. It will be hard to ignore everything surrounding the film, but it still has some heart beat left in the film for the Oscars (It's what Fox Searchlight spent $17.5 Million on to get again). Knowing the lobbying they will do, it will most certainly be nominated, but the chances of Turner winning anything specifically is very slim. I still think people should go see the film as a film and check everything else at the door. Who knows, you might like it. I personally am not a fan of how Parker handled all of this and the very visible proof in the film of his way of thinking. He's not alone and shouldn't be singled out, for sure, but he shouldn't be excused because of the context of the film and the desperate need for strong African American voices in the mainstream. The discussion from here on in should be: how can artists portray rape that we can see the pain from the person who gets the most from it. But, as far as I am concerned, 'The Birth of a Nation' came in dead on arrival.