Reply to Topic
I was reluctant to see this film. The trailer did not convince me that it was something I wanted or needed to see. Fox Searchlight’s unprecedented investment piqued my curiosity, but not enough to persuade me to buy a ticket. I had sworn to myself after seeing 12 Years a Slave that I was done with ‘Blacks in Chains’ movies. However, a couple of discerning friends saw it and had good things to say. Still hesitant, I told myself, “Well, it’s about a revolt – it can’t be all that bad,” and saw the movie. I left profoundly disappointed on many levels, not limited to the numerous historical inaccuracies cited in other reviews. The best I can say about this experience is that it motivated me to research the subject matter and find out as much as I could about the revolt, and who Nat Turner really was.
I learned very quickly that Nat Turner is a historical enigma. Very little is known about him before or after his ill-fated 1831 rebellion. I started by reading The Confessions of Nat Turner by Thomas R. Gray, his attorney who interviewed him in the days before his execution. Confessions provides the only written first-hand account of Turner’s life and rendition of the motivations that led him to initiate the largest slave revolt outside of the Haitian Revolution of 1791-1803 and the Louisiana Slave Revolt of 1811. While some scholars question whether Gray got it right, Confessions remains the best authoritative source for anyone who wishes to make a film “based on a true story,” as Nate Parker professes to have done. Research of the events reveals his film is far less than “true” for reasons that become entirely apparent with the dramatic opening sequence.
Director Nate Parker’s Birth of a Nation attempts to mythologize and deify Turner by portraying him as a self-declared ‘agent of God’ who saw visions that informed him that he was to be ‘the great emancipator’ who would lead slaves to freedom. We are shown passionate scenes of Turner emulating an angel, seeing visions of blood on corn. His fellow slaves are shown as embracing these visions and seeing him as the harbinger of a ‘second coming’. This is one of the many depictions of Turner in Birth that I question. African slaves had been brought to the Americas since the early 16th Century through the early 18th. They brought with them their own Earth-based beliefs, worshiping the sun, moon, sky, ocean or other aspects of nature. Belief systems such as Candomblé, Santería, and Haitian Vodou were imported. Africans saw their role as living in harmony with the Earth and its spirits. They brought their music as well. Those ‘old Negro spirituals’ are founded on African lore and rhythms. History tells us that at night stories of Africa were told and passed on through the generations. But in Birth, all the slaves, including the recently arrived, have wholeheartedly embraced the white Jesus and Southern Christianity. No one, even if you want to believe the messianic portrayal, expressed an African perspective of Turner’s inspiration. Perhaps this concept was sourced from Gray’s observations in Confessions, where he writes, “Turner recounts that he is the ‘product of a religious upbringing’. The marks on his head and chest that appeared in early childhood were remarked as being a sign, but in Gray’s opinion, these marks were “a parcel of excrescences which I believe are not at all uncommon, particularly among [N]egroes, as I have seen several with the same. In this case, he has either cut them off or they have nearly disappeared.” There is no further mention of these marks having any significance to the slave revolt insofar as they may have served as a reason for the other rebels to follow him. It is more likely his intelligence and oratory skills allowed him to assume a position of leadership, rather than the religious ascension Parker would have us accept.
In another example of Parker’s attempt at myth-building, we see young Turner garnering the attention of his owner’s wife, who takes him in and shows him the Bible, apparently the only book he was allowed to read. In Confessions, he states, “whenever an opportunity occurred of looking at a book, when the school children were getting their lessons, I would find many things that the fertility of my own imagination had depicted to me before . . .” It appears that he had access to many books, not limited to the Bible. In fact, slaves were allowed to read at this time. There is no mention of being taken in by his owner’s wife or being treated with any favor. There are also no records of him traveling around Southampton County delivering sermons to slaves to encourage obedience. What I find more deplorable than this unsupported fictional account is that these scenes were inexplicably derived from William Styron’s wholly fictional, abhorrent, white fear-inducing speculation of Turner and the rebels as wild sexual predators, also titled The Confessions of Nat Turner. With so many other sources to call upon, why did he choose this insulting book, which elicited angry retorts from Black scholars known as “The 10 Black Writers,” led by John Henrik Clarke, editor of Freedomways magazine? These scenes, including a stomach-churning sequence where man’s teeth are removed via carpentry tools, were intended to elicit an emotional response, leading the audience to believe the accumulated viewing of these incidents caused the disgust that sowed the seeds of his rebellion.
In the third act, Parker employs artistic license to such excess that what we see on the screen is nearly a complete divergence from what is known about those fateful two days in August 1831. There are considerable records about the revolt and its aftermath that Parker could have selected from, but perhaps chose not to in his vain attempt to create a mythological Turner. On the one hand, he cannot be blamed. The mysterious nature of Nat Turner’s life has lent itself to a range of interpretations in books, film, stage and television. Charles Burnett’s Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property is an excellent documentary that illustrates various views on Turner’s place in history. Burnett comments that “He fits no mold, which makes him a flexible character.” On the other hand, there are records from the transcripts of the trials for suspected co-conspirators. There are anecdotal stories told by the ancestors of Turners’ contemporaries in interviews conducted by the WPA in the 1930s. These and other documents provide useful insight to the man and the rebellion that could have made Birth a stronger, more effective film.
The interviews of the surviving whites, discussed by Providence College Professor Patrick Breen in a lecture to the Virginia Historical Society titled “Revolt and Repression: Reconsidering the Nat Turner Slave Revolt,” contain a fascinating story about Harriet Whitehead, the sole survivor of the first family to be killed. She was saved by one her family’s slaves, who was unfortunately shot by vigilantes who questioned his loyalty, assuming he saved her to hide his role in the insurrection. Her story alone would have provided added drama based in reality. Whitehead’s story and others are found in the footnotes of the widely-criticized historical perspective, The Southhampton Insurrection, written by William Sidney Drewry, an Honorary Scholar at John Hopkins. He and his book have been decried by other historians because he believed slavery was a benevolent institution, suggesting that the slaves were happy with their condition. Nevertheless, his treatise is a treasure trove from which to source a richer, more robust historical foundation. Parker cannot and should not be excused for employing anger-inducing devices in a film that was marketed as a historical drama (“Based on a True Story” appears in the trailer and the intro). Why not tell the story the way it actually played out with a modicum of dramatic flair, according to the historical record and Turner’s narration in Confessions, or easily found in documents archived by scholarly institutions such as The Nate Parker Project?
Thomas R. Gray was both fascinated and repulsed by Turner. His personal assessment of him was both complimentary and condemning. Consider the following statements. “[F]or natural intelligence and quickness of apprehension, [he] is surpassed by few men I have ever seen,” and “On other subjects he possesses an uncommon share of intelligence, with a mind capable of attaining any thing.” These surprising reflections, given the sensibilities of the times, were juxtaposed by his observations that “He is a complete fanatic, or plays his part most admirably,” as well as “I looked on him and my blood curdled in my veins, . . .” and, ”The calm, deliberate composure with which he spoke of his late deeds and intentions, the expression of his fiend-like face when excited by enthusiasm, still bearing the stains of the blood of helpless innocence about him; clothed with rags and covered with chains . . .”
Stripping away his religious-based aspirations, how do we judge Turner? Why do some see him as a hero? Is it for having worked up the tremendous courage required to stage a revolt? His vision to fight for freedom occurred more than two years before the rebellion. His careful, intelligent planning in secret is commendable. That in itself is no mean feat. For one thing, who do you trust? Stockholm Syndrome is nothing new. In Medieval times family members were exchanged in order to maintain peace. These hostages were not thrown in prison. They were treated according to their station in their home country, and came to identify with their informal captors, often marrying. Comparatively, not all slaves wanted to be free. Some loved their masters, as difficult as our conventional feelings find this concept acceptable. From Drewry’s research, we have cautionary examples like Whitehead’s story and the account of another slaveholder who armed his slaves to resist Turner’s rebels. What we are given is a hastily-formed plan coming on the tails of his wife’s rape that put him over the edge, which portends neither intellectual planning nor sociopathic fanaticism.
But what of the plan itself? Here the film runs off the rails, making it appear that there was little opposition, and that his band of men, which grew to around fifty, fought their way to Jericho (not Jerusalem, where they were actually headed. Jericho is located in what became West Virginia during the Civil War), only to be ambushed upon reaching the armory. None of this occurred. Parker’s regrettable departure ignores the fact that soon after news of the killings reached other whites, the Greenville militia and groups of vigilantes amounting to over 3,000 assembled on the second day to surprise Turner’s rebels at the Parker plantation, where after initially reaching a stand-off, superior numbers prevailed. Some rebels were killed, causing them to scatter. This confrontation was depicted as a minor skirmish on the way to Jerusalem, which they never reached.
The rendition of the revolt as shown in the film is not only false; it stretches the limits of good fiction. The way Parker depicts the events leading to and culminating in the final confrontation are simply not credible. How did the whites know Turner was headed to the armory in Jericho (Jerusalem) in the first place? We find out at the hanging that he was betrayed by a Deux ex machina in the form of a not well-vetted teenager who magically appears for no apparent reason at one of the secret meetings. One of the rebels chaffs at his appearance, asking Turner, “What’s this here boy doin’ here?” I imagined Parker’s reply, “He’s a plot device I threw in for the ending.” The insertion of this character creates a serious plot hole that destroys what little story there is. First, imagine the effort it would have taken to remove all the armaments and replace them with rocks before the second morning. Secondly, if the whites knew they were going to Jerusalem, wouldn’t logic dictate that they would have known about and prevented the rebellion before it started?
Taking this sequence as presented, it casts rural white farmers in the manner of the ‘all-knowing and omnipotent Nazis’ who thwart the resistance until the end, except in this case, they succeeded. This dramatization is overwrought, requiring a Herculean suspension of disbelief. However, a more realistic portrayal would have made it difficult for Parker to hold his passion play together. He needs this betrayal and the climatic encounter it generates to raise his messianic version of Turner to martyrdom, courageously receiving the hangman’s noose and declaring (to paraphrase), “Director, I’m ready for my close up.” The fact of the matter is, he ran away and hid. This is the hero Parker chose to deify?
As for the teenager, he weeps at the hanging while standing at the front of the crowd, which is highly unlikely. He then morphs into an adult, leading the charge in a Civil War battle, also unlikely. Freed slaves were not accepted into the Union Army until 1863, two years after the war began. They were placed in special regiments under order of President Lincoln. They were assigned menial tasks, and were not allowed to carry guns or participate in combat. These regiments were led by white officers. He would have been nearly 50 by then, and after a life of hard labor, poor diet, no health care, it’s only marginally plausible that he would have been accepted as a volunteer. This tacked-on scene, meant to inspire, is no more than one last shot at emotional manipulation before the credits roll. To give the benefit of the doubt, this scene may be a nod to Edward Zwick’s Glory (1989), which depicts the exploits of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, known as the “Swamp Angels,” who fought in South Carolina and Massachusetts in 1864 after the desperate Union Army decided to let the Africans fight.
In the aftermath of this ‘inspired’ revolt, life became worse for slaves, not better. Over 100 slaves were questioned, and over 100 were executed on suspicion of co-conspiracy. Virginia was seriously considering a graduated emancipation plan in 1831. Those discussions ceased in 1832, and tougher restrictions were placed on slaves. Virginia and other Southern states passed legislation making it unlawful to teach slaves, free blacks, or mulattoes to read or write, and restricting all blacks from holding religious meetings without the presence of a licensed white minister. If a supreme being told Turner to do this, it made a big mistake.
Looking at Turners’ behavior through the lens of modern times, we have several examples of ‘inspired’ killers who heard voices telling them to kill. John Hinckley, Mark David Chapman, Timothy McVeigh, and Son of Sam to name a few. Is Turner to be excepted, even by Christians, since he saw himself as a freedom fighter? Or was he really just a fanatic who believed that he and handful of men could overtake a county, the state, and eventually the federal government, starting out with farm implements and a few stolen weapons?
In the end, Parker, though well-intentioned, has done the Black Community, and audiences in general, a great disservice. In these trying times, we need real heroes, not poorly-crafted myths. In light of the recorded history chronicling the rebellion, perhaps this version of Birth, despite its’ unheralded though controversial reception at Sundance, would have been better left unmade. Then again, perhaps the unintended object lesson of his fantastic conception advocates for finding non-violent solutions for today’s racial strife. Ironically, Nate Parker says about this film, “I've reclaimed this title and re-purposed it as a tool to challenge racism and white supremacy in America, to inspire a riotous disposition toward any and all injustice in this country (and abroad) and to promote the kind of honest confrontation that will galvanize our society toward healing and sustained systemic change.” What’s he really saying?
In an interview with Burnett about Styron’s version, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Director of African and African American Research at Harvard University commented, “What are you doing to our history by creating a character about whom we feel deeply ambivalent.” I would ask Nate Parker the same.
If you are looking for heroes, try Hidden Figures.
Antoine M. Devine
www.amdevine.com
Credits:
Photos - Creative Commons, Wiki
Video - © 2016 - Fox
