Some people compare "Brave Heart" and "Twelve Years of Being a Slave" with this "Birth of a Nation". To be honest, they are far from it.
The shots made people feel that they were shooting purely for the sake of blood and gore. The scenes of the final battle for the weapon arsenal were also very bad. The accuracy of guns in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was poor, and it is understandable that the formation of queues increases the firepower density. However, the period of the Civil War was already in the 19th century, and the effective range of the rifle had reached 400 meters. The dense formation of the Civil War was completely unable to cope with the firepower of the rifle at that time. White people don’t have to line up with black people in the yard to shoot and then fight each other. Occupying the commanding heights can completely abuse the blacks. After the whites are dead, there will be militias ambushing the commanding heights. went?
In terms of plot, the front is too long, but I feel unable to grasp the key point. In the first half of the movie, it hints that the protagonist will become a leader in a religious way, but in terms of the character’s growth experience, there is no filming that can reasonably explain the protagonist’s aftermath. The important opportunity for the transformation is only being able to read and read the Bible, and the passage of the protagonist from being a submissive slave to a leader of the rebel army is too hasty. It is not obvious that the protagonist suddenly realized the oppression of blacks by slavery because of knowledge. Still heard the voice of God and chose to resist. The event that caused the protagonist to change turned out to be that he baptized a white man and was beaten by the owner. I saw so many people being oppressed before, and my wife was raped. She was as meek as a lamb, and suddenly she couldn't bear it after she was beaten. Someone would definitely say that this was the last bale of grass that crushed the camel, but I didn't see the protagonist's inner struggles and conflicts in the movie. Suddenly, I decided to rebel against life and death. When deciding to rebel, his wife and mother did not hesitate in the face of such a matter of life and death, nor did they worry about the safety of themselves and their relatives. They just said they did it beautifully, which was incredible.
The film was named "The Birth of a Nation", apparently in order to make Griffith's 1915 film of the same name, but in the film I can't see how a country was born. The whole film implies that the protagonist is the black version. Jesus, gave his life in order to end slavery. Nate Parker himself said that this is a movie in which one person resists a system. To be honest, I can’t see any anti-antibody system. The movie uses skin color as the target. There are two types, black = good people, white = bad people. The twisted and complicated parts of human nature are all discarded by the movie. For example, the mother of the white manor has no lines except for a few pale close-ups, and the protagonist takes revenge and kills the manor. The main part directly forgot this important supporting role. As for the black housekeeper, apart from saying a few words, we are all going to die and then leave. Why should the traitor kid betray the resistance army? Sorry for not explaining, when I was watching a movie, I thought I was watching a cut version. The whole movie makes people feel that only blacks are vendettas against whites, and the interpretation of slavery is a stroke.
Speaking of the American Civil War, the Northern Army and the Southern Army are unavoidable. Sorry, the troops on both sides are mainly white, and the director doesn’t seem to have read much history. The last Northern Army in the film is all black. If you say 1915 The "Birth of a Nation" by Nate Parker is a preaching of white supremacy, and Nate Parker's "The Birth of a Nation" is a declaration of black supremacy. Ironically, this movie, like the one he wants to challenge, is racist trash at its core.
The only thing worth mentioning is that the movie portrays the life of blacks in the era of slavery, but even this highlight is completely inferior to the comprehensiveness and depth of "Twelve Years of Being a Slave".
Art should not be linked to character, but it should not be linked to politics either. This movie has too many private goods. I think that as a director, when shooting a film with a real history as a background, he should try his best to be objective and fair. Instead of dumping private goods blindly to the audience. We should not judge a director’s personal virtues, but we can still see his personal virtues through his works, and through this film I feel that this director is really not a good person, I hope not to become Another Jean Jacques Arnold.
View more about The Birth of a Nation reviews
