Nat Turner Birth Of A Nation Analysis
The Birth of A Nation: Directed by Nate Parker, Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2016. 120 Minutes
Reviewed by Mike
Nate Parker’s The Birth of A Nation is a movie in which the balance between entertainment and history was perfectly managed. He, as the director, put the audience as well as Nat Turner starred by himself through the pain and suffering upon slaves caused by the institution of slavery. Nat Turner was a by-stander in the beginning like the rest of us. He wasn’t like any other slaves, because he was a preacher and, according to the movie, a rather good one. He was also a childhood friend with his later-to-be master. He had to watch all the unsightly, unspeakable atrocities upon his fellow slaves that he couldn’t fight against. Eventually, the rebellion in which he led 70-some peers, killing 60-some white people failed, but his action marked an immense significance in the history of the United States.
Parker went above and beyond in terms of dramatic portray. At the beginning of the movie, dramatic and mysterious depictions shed on the birth of Nat Turner concerning the ritual that took place. It not only adds a sense of mystery to the infant, making the crowd wonder, “who is this boy?”, …show more content…
The balance between history and entertainment, as I mentioned before, is well-managed by the director. There are some bias, of course. In order to depict how just and righteous Nat was so that it creates a typical good v. bad kind of motif. For example, according to the historical records, Nat slaughtered not only adult males like the movie showed us, but also females and even children. This illustrates that the director focuses on how vicious and abominable slaveholders were instead of how wrong it was as to what Nat and his peers did. The battle scenes are very realistic. In fact, they are so realistic and violent and bloody and then some that when I watched the movie, I closed my eyes, because I was too
Reviewed by Mike
Nate Parker’s The Birth of A Nation is a movie in which the balance between entertainment and history was perfectly managed. He, as the director, put the audience as well as Nat Turner starred by himself through the pain and suffering upon slaves caused by the institution of slavery. Nat Turner was a by-stander in the beginning like the rest of us. He wasn’t like any other slaves, because he was a preacher and, according to the movie, a rather good one. He was also a childhood friend with his later-to-be master. He had to watch all the unsightly, unspeakable atrocities upon his fellow slaves that he couldn’t fight against. Eventually, the rebellion in which he led 70-some peers, killing 60-some white people failed, but his action marked an immense significance in the history of the United States.
Parker went above and beyond in terms of dramatic portray. At the beginning of the movie, dramatic and mysterious depictions shed on the birth of Nat Turner concerning the ritual that took place. It not only adds a sense of mystery to the infant, making the crowd wonder, “who is this boy?”, …show more content…
The balance between history and entertainment, as I mentioned before, is well-managed by the director. There are some bias, of course. In order to depict how just and righteous Nat was so that it creates a typical good v. bad kind of motif. For example, according to the historical records, Nat slaughtered not only adult males like the movie showed us, but also females and even children. This illustrates that the director focuses on how vicious and abominable slaveholders were instead of how wrong it was as to what Nat and his peers did. The battle scenes are very realistic. In fact, they are so realistic and violent and bloody and then some that when I watched the movie, I closed my eyes, because I was too