Why I never saw the movie

CN: rape

Yesterday's post concerned fairly trivial things, so when I identify male entitlement to women as a problem, that might seem like a stretch. So a girl gets kissed when she doesn't want it? Big deal!

We could argue over the size of that particular deal, but it comes up in other ways too. Yesterday, about the same time I tweeted out that day's blog, someone else was tweeting about a bar he knew being closed due to a fatal shooting. One guy was hitting on a woman, ignoring her rejection, and when another guy tried to back her up, the first guy shot him.

Comments were interesting. One person said it doesn't pay to get involved; just let women handle their own rejections. Of course, women get shot in a lot of those circumstances too. Sometimes it takes a surprisingly long time for any charges to be filed. How does that make sense if we believe women have the right of refusal?

There are a lot of directions we could go with that, but right now I want to talk about Nate Parker.

The release of Parker's film The Birth of a Nation was overshadowed by learning that he and his writing partner, Jean McGianni Celestin, had been tried for rape. Celestin was convicted and served some time. Parker was acquitted. The main difference appears to have been that Parker had previously had sex with the victim and Celestin hadn't.

When it was discovered that the victim had committed suicide, there were some expressions of regret, especially at the beginning, but Parker eventually became more frustrated, saying he was falsely accused and proven innocent.

It is possible that on one level he believes that. The jury appears to have believed that the woman's willingness to have sex with him one time vindicated him, and he could easily believe that. I have not read anything about him saying that Celestin should not have been convicted, but their continued association and collaboration may indicate that. Maybe the jury's disagreement was on whether Parker's continued right to sexual access included the right to bring a friend.

I was interested in the movie upon first learning of it but not sure if I would see it, wondering if the importance of the content made it worth seeing the violence that would be depicted. Then, learning of the rape, the question was whether it was more important to support a Black filmmaker or to not support a rapist. Those questions always wait for an answer until I see some reviews.

It quickly became apparent that I was not going to see it - that what was done with the material did not justify seeing it. I can't find the article that was most influential on me now, but here are two that cover some of the key issues.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/nate-parker-failed-birth-of-a-nations-women.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/movies/how-the-birth-of-a-nation-silences-black-women.html

It feels ironic that these two rapists made their characters' main motivation avenging rape, but if women are your property maybe it makes sense.

It is not surprising to me that they do not give fair representation or agency to the women in the film. That makes perfect sense.

I know I'm going long, and there is some awkward bluntness, and this is not a pleasant topic, here so close to Christmas, but it is a religious holiday coming up, so let me be a little religious.

In my church we go over the steps of repentance pretty regularly, which starts with recognition. You have to know that you did something wrong. There will be remorse where you feel sorrow for that sin, and then you will ask God for forgiveness. Also, you need to do restitution if possible, and turn from your sin, never doing it again.

I have criticized non-apologies before - "I am sorry if I offended anyone" - because it is not really acknowledging that something hurtful or damaging or wrong was done.

Looking at Parker, I see more how it holds him back. This should have been a great film. There are some decent historical sources for inspiration, there are current social ills that make it timely, and this nation needs to deal with its past. But Parker hasn't dealt with his. It holds back his art. It holds back his growth as a person.

What he should have said could have been something like this.

"At that time my friends and I were preoccupied with sex. It didn't just feel good; it felt like victory. In that pursuit, we did not think about the feelings or needs of the women around us. We did not intend to cause pain, but we did not care enough to think about whether we were. We only thought about ourselves and we caused irreparable harm. We were not unusual in those feelings, as shown by my acquittal, but they were wrong, and we were wrong."

That is a hard thing to say. It's hard to admit you did something criminal. It's hard to admit you did something ugly. It's hard to believe you did something cruel when you didn't feel cruel.

It's just needed. We spend too much time dehumanizing other people so we can get our way over them and not feel guilty about it. Something better starts with looking around and recognizing the humanity all around us, one person at a time.