To see or not to see?

That is the question moviegoers must answer regarding “The Birth of a Nation.”

To see the film is to see a wonderfully shot, exceptionally acted, beautifully bloody  stroke of genius. The film examines and deconstructs the institution of slavery, all while making a social commentary on modern race relations in America. At Sundance Film Festival, “The Birth of a Nation” received a standing ovation from its audience before its first frame appeared on screen, took home the Grand Jury Prize in the drama category and landed a festival-record distribution deal of $17 million.

To not see the film is through no fault of the film, but rather its polarizing co-writer, director and star, Nate Parker (“Red Tails”). The success of Parker’s film has also brought up his involvement in a controversial 1999 rape case while attending Penn State. Parker was acquitted of all chargers, but his friend was sentenced to six months in prison. His accuser committed suicide in 2012. Whether to hold him accountable for these accurences is up to the court of public opinion.

The artist behind the art has raised many questions as to whether the two can be separated by moviegoers. Yet, the film takes that decision right out of their hands, as once again the realm of cinema distracts from the real-world, even as the film focuses itself on real-life occurrences.

“The Birth of a Nation” is centered on an 1831 slave rebellion led by Nat Turner (Parker). Despite its tragic outcome, the rebellion was largely considered to be the most successful rebellion of its kind. Audiences watch Turner grow up on a Southern plantation and become a preacher at a young age, only to be relegated to working the field with his childhood friend, Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”) as his master. Nat is initially passive to working the plantation and is ultimately paid to travel with Samuel to other local plantations and preach to other slaves. This experience haunts both Nat and Samuel, ultimately changing their characters and their outlook on the institution of slavery.

It is after Nat’s wife Cherry (Aja Naomi King, “How to Get Away with Murder”) is beaten and raped by slave owners that Nat’s perspective turns rebellious. His ideals shift from a Martin Luther King Jr.-like approach of civil disobedience and preaching about peace to a more violent approach, a-la Malcolm X. Nat organizes a rebel group that will fight to gain their freedom by any means necessary, spelling trouble for the likes of Samuel and other slave owners.

The film showcases practices on plantations that are not far off from modern-day issues. In the opening stages of the film, Nat’s father, Isaac (Dwight Henry, “12 Years a Slave”) is caught in the woods late at night by slave owners, who ask him to show his “papers” and even after providing them,  he is still almost killed.

This speaks to the social consciousness of the film, with themes of black empowerment, unity, oppression and even, given Parker’s controversy, rape culture.

In an emotional scene, Esther (Gabrielle Union, “Think Like a Man Too”) is forced to have sex with a slave owner, much to the chagrin of her husband Hark (Colman Domingo, “Fear the Walking Dead”). This scene is one of the major points that turns the perspective of Nat’s character.

A memorable note about “The Birth of a Nation” is how it reclaims the title from the controversial, KKK-sympathizing, black-community-denouncing D.W. Griffith film from 1915. The audacity of Parker to use this title, 101 years after the original, speaks to his overall message.

Still, Parker finds a way to lend a major story beat from the original, where Cherry’s rape and assault is the final justification he needs to plan his revolt. This is not too far off from Griffith’s film, where the main character’s sister commits suicide out of fear after being raped by a black man, prompting the main character to find the man, put him on trial and lynch him.

Despite these graphic and emotional storylines, Parker’s film is every bit a work of art, featuring beautiful cinematography from Elliot Davis (“Twilight”) that utilizes some haunting tracking shots and a wonderful use of natural lighting. The acting throughout is superb, with Parker and King both delivering career-defining performances. In the end, the biggest talking point regarding the film shall be its story, which is flawed in its own ways regarding character development and pacing primarily in the early stages of the film, yet is forgiven due to how rich in sub-text and sub-themes it is.

This is a passion project Parker had painstakingly worked on for about seven years, halting his acting career to polish it. The end result is a film with a breathtaking cinematography, memorable performances, a bloody climax and an important story. As much as it has in common with its counterpart “12 Years a Slave,” it is that much more important. It is artistic yet flawed, typical to the slavery drama, but demands to be seen. It is where the Black Lives Matter movement is represented and celebrated on the big screen, empowering and inspiring its audience.

To see or not to see?

There is not even a question.