Over the past month, a slowdown has been brought to a film that has been generating Oscar buzz for the better part of the year, Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation.” When it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival back in January, the Nat Turner passion biopic was hotly sought for by distributors (it was finally acquired by Fox Search Light Pictures for 17.5 million) and has been acclaimed for taking the name of the infamous 1915 film and destroying the racism it long stood for. It also serves as one sensational calling card for Parker, as the actor turned director has been prepping himself for his awards tour. However, when records of his past resurfaced about his involvement in a campus rape trial during his time at Penn State, Parker and distributor Fox Searchlight have been attempting to save face and continue on the awards path. This has left industry followers and insiders alike wondering if this will derail Turner's road to Oscars. Outside of the pageantry and glitter of the awards season, there is a more pressing and immediate question at hand, how will this controversy affect audiences in choosing whether or not to see the movie? Can the separation of the artist's personal life from the art be applied?

In many respects, the answer is to this is, yes. Hollywood and audiences alike have been able to sit down and enjoy a film despite any lingering controversy attached to one of the names behind it. Think about the numerous stars and celebrities, inside and out of the film industry, that have been caught in controversy only to be welcomed back in open arms by critics and fans alike. Most notably within the film industry, Roman Polanski was charged with a similar crime to Parker in 1977 and yet is still a praised talent and even won an Oscar in 2003. Although this doesn’t speak for the majority audiences, or infer that this is a healthy system, but the entertainment industry has proven that it is possible to escape controversy with enough reverence, time, and maybe even a little humility. Yet even before his controversy, Roman Polanski was already a high-regarded director. The issue with Nate Parker is that “The Birth of a Nation” is his ticket to A-list name status and for it to not even to be seen by the general public with all of this controversy surrounding it might push back any future projects he had planned.

It will all come down to how Parker further addresses the issue, which will be very difficult in context to the modern social political landscape in the media and Hollywood. For those that have read the transcripts related to the case, the evidence against Parker is quite damaging, a grim reminder of a horrifying situation that is still at-large on college campuses today. This is a very delicate wire of sensitivity to walk and Fox Searchlight has decided approached it by standing behind Parker and letting the film speak for itself. However, it is going to be very difficult for them to separate Parker's own identity from the picture. He is not just a face hidden behind the camera, nor is he just an actor they can be overlooked in marketing. He is the filmmaking trifecta of leading man, writer, and director meaning that Nate Parker is not just a part of “The Birth of a Nation” he is “The Birth of a Nation.” With this in mind, it is going to be difficult to escape the controversy of the name Nate Parker over the course of its theatrical run.

However, the more realistic question to ask is, will audiences be willing to see “The Birth of a Nation” to begin with? It is intriguing to see the story of Nat Turner’s revolt on the big-screen with this much grandeur but as the industry showed back in June with “The Free State of Jones” movies about slavery do not carry the same box-office weight as they do prestige. However, where "Jones" was generally disregarded by critics, "Birth" has enjoyed a strong critical charge in favor of it to propel it towards promising box-office prospects. Yet, it also has the added difficulty of living in the shadow of the recent “12 Years a Slave" (2013), a monumental film that delivered one of the most horrifyingly realistic portrayals of slavery in America. “Birth of a Nation" also shares a similar release window and the same distributor as "12 Years" making the comparisons all the more rooted. Still, "Birth" looks to carry its own powerful and brutal depiction of this era by telling a true tale of Amerian history that tends to be forgotten in at a time when there are those looking to cover up the dehumanization of the era.

So should audiences see "The Birth of a Nation"? Nat Turner's rebellion is a story of true patriotism and freedom. If the film truly lives up to the praise that came from Sundance then Parker will have a great historic film to his credit. After a recent screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, the film was met with a standing ovation, showing that some audiences are finding the ability to separate the artist's personal life from the art. But will this be the same with the general public?