The Nation's review was definitely biased because the things that journalist spoke of didn't quite happen the way she said they did. There were many women in this film, and at least three of them had prominent voices, roles, and impact on Nat's development in this film. In fact, I think if you did a line by line count, the women spoke more than any of the men besides Nat. So I really don't get that criticism. Sounds like propaganda to me, and I'm a feminist.
Another point I'd like to make that the author of that review failed to grasp is that at the end of the day, Nat Turner was still a preacher. He was a true believer in the King James' Christian Bible and it's doctrine. It's a patriarchal story. Any story told from Turner's point of view would not have featured overly empowered women both because of the time period, and because of Turner's perspective. That being said, the women in his life, his grandmother, mother, and wife, were all depicted as smart, savvy, and insightful. So yeah, I really think that review was full of shyt.
To be honest, I forgot Gabrielle was in this movie. I don't even know who she was (perhaps because she didn't speak, or maybe because she didn't have her hair straightened and out) But if you read my review, you'll notice I said that the slaves (plural) each had their own personalities and quirks. I'm sure there were mute slaves, but what struck me about this movie was that they weren't all like that, that it was one portrayal against many others.
What Nate did was wrong. You don't join in trains on someone who is passed out. That's rape.
In the context of the other slave characters, it seemed like it would come across as less of a stereotype and more like a personality/situational depiction. But I'd have to see it again to even find Gabrielle because I really wasn't checking for her.