Columnists
Context
When Justin Trudeau was asked about the gender parity of his cabinet, he answered simply that it was 2015. It was time. And yet months later, south of the border, thousands protested the Oscars for their lack of racial diversity in 2016.
Then Hollywood announced The Birth of a Nation, a dramatization of the story of Nat Turner, a black slave who led a rebellion in the 1830s. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival this summer. It opens in theatres on October 7, and is being touted as an Oscar contender.
But shortly before it opened at TIFF, it came out that the movie’s director, co-writer and star, Nate Parker, had been accused (and acquitted) of rape.
In 1999 at Pennsylvania State University, the alleged victim accused Parker and his roommate, Jean McGianni Celestin of rape. Celestin is Parker’s co-writer on the film. Parker was acquitted and Celestin was initially convicted, but that conviction was overturned when the accuser refused to testify at a retrial. She was given a settlement in a civil suit against Penn State for their handling of the case, but in 2012, she committed suicide.
Parker was found innocent. And he maintains that innocence. He very well may be. As with many sexual assault cases, social pressure, scant evidence and hesitant accusers make it difficult to prosecute and difficult to know exactly what happened.
But when the story was brought to the fore at TIFF, it caused a stir. And an ethical dilemma.
The film highlights an important moment in history. It does so in the context of heightened frustration in North America about inequality and systemic racism nearly 200 years later.
But its creator’s story also comes out amidst the context of an awakening to the widespread issue of campus sexual assaults and the lack of weight that issue is given. Many alleged perpetrators get away with it, and those who don’t get astonishingly light sentences.
The question becomes, is it possible to separate the creator from their creation? Is it possible to put value on a piece of work for its own merits and contributions to society, given the information we have about those who created it?
Parker will most certainly benefit from a positive response to this film. So will the hundreds of others who contributed to its creation, but on a symbolic level, what message would that send?
Context is important in art. Taking in a body of work from a specific movement without knowing any of the history is an entirely different experience than viewing the same works with an understanding of the political motivations at the time, and the stories of the artists involved. That understanding adds a new dimension to the work itself.
But when an artist has, or is accused of having done something terrible, does that mean the creation itself should be boycotted? And to what end? Who wins, and who loses? The works of Wagner, a notorious anti-Semite, have contributed greatly to human culture. The Cosby Show undoubtedly improved black representation in American pop culture. It’s a difficult and truly personal decision to separate the art from the artist.
Comments (0)