Fox Searchlight Pictures obtained Nate Parker’s film “The Birth of a Nation” for $17.5 million, an all-time high for a festival acquisition. Buzz about the film came immediately when it premiered at Sundance Film Festival last February — this was the film to look out for in 2016. Fox Searchlight had a surefire hit on its hands, and many thought the 2017 Oscars were on lock before the 2016 ceremony had even taken place.

But as the year progressed, some unsettling facts about Nate Parker began to pop up. We learned his name was tied to a rape case as a student at Pennsylvania State University. While Parker was acquitted, his friend who was also accused, pleaded guilty — though it was eventually overturned. Pretty bad, right? Well, it gets even worse. We then learned that the girl who Parker was accused of raping committed suicide in 2012, after Parker had risen to a mild level of fame.

For many audiences, this news is horrifying. For Fox Searchlight, who dropped $17.5 million on the film, this was a PR disaster that needed to be handled as efficiently as possible.

This situation has put Parker in a terrible bind on the press circuit. If he appears apologetic or guilty, many would infer that he indeed is guilty. If he shows absolutely no remorse, he seems cold, unsympathetic, and ultimately, guilty.

As the “It’s On Us” campaign continues to grow nationally as well as on campus, and discussions about sexual assault and “locker room banter” grow, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Parker to take a horrible situation and educate people on the topic. Unfortunately, when push came to shove, in a high-profile “60 Minutes” interview, Parker was fiercely unapologetic and dismissive. He did not use the platform he was given to make a difference, but rather used it to shift blame.

When all was said and done, the film did mediocre at the box office, and award buzz has significantly fizzled. Is this due to the accusations about Parker and his subsequent behavior? It is hard to know for the box office. But in terms of awards — which are, for better or worse, a popularity contest — it has been absolutely disastrous.

After films are released in theaters, they have a screening for the Academy. For high buzz films, these screenings are usually standing room only. For “Birth of A Nation,” the early Oscar frontrunner, the room was only half full. The awards tend to help the economics, so the near-empty Academy showing revealed a cyclical process that will continue to hurt the film.

The interesting thing is that those who actually saw the film the previous week loved it: it received an “A” in CinemaScore, a very reliable exit poll in the industry. After all, Fox Searchlight would not shell out the largest amount of money ever at a film festival if they did not think they truly had something special on their hands.

This leads to the inevitably provocative question: Can we judge Parker’s art separate from judging Parker as a person? “Birth of A Nation” tells the story of Nat Turner, a man who led a slave rebellion.

In this time of racial tension in the United States, this is an extremely relevant and important story to be told. If a film tells an important story of American history from a unique perspective in a meaningful and artful perspective, must we dismiss it because of the creator’s past?

Controversially, I would say no. I would say that it is actually okay to go into the theater, enjoy this film and take something away from it. When all is said and done, I am not a judge nor jury, and I can only deal with the facts. Parker was acquitted, and I feel now that the film exists, there is a larger benefit to me seeing the film than me protesting it in a display of morality.

Over the years we have seen films made by Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, who have both been swirled in controversy, yet they have been able to create art that has risen above their behavior. Just as Polanksi’s “The Pianist” was essential viewing to audiences a decade and a half ago and picked up three Oscars along the way, “Birth of a Nation” is essential viewing for the filmgoers of today.

If there is one problem with the morality of the film, it is that Parker used a rape of a slave to incite Turner’s rebellion, essentially boiling down rape as a plot point. Parker is not an idiot; he absolutely knew these allegations of his past would arise if this film were to become successful.

To include this assault is lazy storytelling at best, as there was more than enough jurisdiction to stage a rebellion without a specific incident, and grossly irresponsible at worst. Here, he is utilizing a scandal that would inevitably be in headlines and directing it toward the story of the film.

One final thing to consider is that while we give Parker the credit for “Birth of A Nation,” he did not make this movie by himself. There were hundreds of people who worked their tail off to tell this story, and it would be a shame for their efforts to be disregarded because of the accusations of one man.

Viewers may not like Parker as a person, and we certainly do not have to, but I feel for any piece of art, I would try to separate the human and the work, and simply judge the work on its merit. It is not always easy, but doing this allows the best stories to rise above the rest, and we can have a richer culture for it.

Erik Benjamin is a junior Television, Radio, and Film Major. He is very nervous about the reception to this article. You can reach him at ebenjami@syr.edu, or @embenjamin14. 

Published on October 12, 2016 at 8:40 pm