Privilege: Not Just a White Man’s Tale
It’s not often that we come by a socially conscious film that strives to evoke a sense of justice and history as it appropriately acknowledges the uncomfortableness of sensitive topics — all without losing the essential lesson. Birth of a Nation does just this as it follows the life of a Nat Turner who led the slave rebellion in Virginia. It is set in 1830, but if anything, it’s a film about now. It won awards during the festival circuit, opened to critic praise — and because merit is not ever enough — it sold its distribution rights to Fox Searchlight for a record-breaking $17.5 million at Sundance.
But — there’s always a but. Just recently, it was revealed that writer, director, producer, actor, Renaissance man Nate Parker and his co-writer were accused of raping a friend while they were students at Penn State. While his co-writer was charged, Nate was not. Now, nearly two-decades later, he is riding on the success of his debut film and his alleged victim is dead. Initially, when the press brought up the issue and Parker was forced to address his forgotten past, he confessed that he did not know that she committed suicide and simply stated that,
“Seventeen years ago, I experienced a very painful moment in my life. It resulted in it being litigated. I was cleared of it. That’s that.”
Since then, Parker has backtracked and acknowledged his toxic masculinity when addressing something so much bigger than a painful moment in a selfish, and uncaring manner.
The question is this (and I don’t know the answer): what is the line — and how do you balance it — between supporting racial diversity in film and also toxic masculinity; at what cost? It’s undeniable that Parker’s film valiantly attempts to represent history in a light that gives the marginalized a proud voice — a feat that is far and in between in Hollywood where inequality is the norm. But it’s a film that stems from the artistic creativity of a man who has displayed male privilege and toxic masculinity. Birth of a Nation does great things for racial diversity on-screen, but its filmmaker has done and said not-so-great things for women’s rights off-screen. Similarly, Fresh Off the Boat does great things to get diverse actors on-screen, but not-so-great things for racial stereotyping off-screen.
This debate has often been reduced to something along the lines of should you support it, should you not. However, I don’t think it’s that simple because it’s not a matter of black or white, yes or no. My confusion stems from whether it’s appropriate to support someone who claims to fight against the culture of social injustice when he himself participates it in other manners.
Oftentimes, attempts to be progressive in Hollywood are met with some type of unproductive tension in other areas. Perhaps in the form of how diverse characters may be stereotypically represented or how they are given insignificant roles that serve no substantial purpose to the story. All I know is this — I commend Nate Parker’s initiative to bring change to the screen in a way that honors history, yet chastises it. However, the allegations that have been brought to light about Parker’s past makes Birth of a Nation a meta-case study of society’s timeless faults and widens the conversation to encompass the dangers of unchecked privilege — whether it be racial or gender. The film is undoubtedly going to suffer not entirely for Parker’s past record, but for his nonchalant sense of male privilege, as it should.
