Movies: The Birth of a Nation (Nate Parker)

[Lord Moriarty007]

Click to read more...

 

[Osprey]

This is about the last film that I'd ever expect to see remade. Then again, this looks nothing like the original, so it hardly seems like a remake.

Ah, the filmmaker (Nate Parker, also the star) admits that it has no relation, but took the name, anyways, to make a point (and maybe generate attention).

"Griffith's film relied heavily on racist propaganda to evoke fear and desperation as a tool to solidify white supremacy as the lifeblood of American sustenance. Not only did this film motivate the massive resurgence of the terror group the Ku Klux Klan and the carnage exacted against people of African descent, it served as the foundation of the film industry we know today. I've reclaimed this title and re-purposed it as a tool to challenge racism and white supremacy in America, to inspire a riotous disposition toward any and all injustice in this country (and abroad) and to promote the kind of honest confrontation that will galvanize our society toward healing and sustained systemic change."

That's some pretty charged language there. He seems to think that the answer to 100-year-old racial propaganda that turned whites against blacks is more propaganda to, this time, turn blacks against whites ("inspire a riotous disposition" and "promote... confrontation"). I don't see how that's better. It's also ironic that, while condemning the KKK as a group that terrorized and murdered black people, he's also promoting a film about a group that went around terrorizing and murdering white people (including women and children), though I imagine that he'll portray them heroically... just as the 1915 film portrayed the KKK. If you're trying to show the flip side of the coin, but you're just flipping the agenda and the whitewashing, how is it different? It just seems awfully hypocritical and misguided.

 

[Jumptheshark]

curious how they got the right to use Birth of a Nation?

The MPA is pretty strict when it comes to reusing titles

That is why we had "Lee Danials The Butler" a few years ago

edit--did a quick check--it was done intentional and is set up as the flip side of the coin to DW Griffiths movie

 

[Saturated Fats]

Preferred the teaser with Billie Holliday, but yeah. Looks good.

 

[nameless1]

It got good reviews at Sundance. I am very curious about it.

 

[Morozov]

Got me curious just from the name alone so mission accomplished on that part.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Oh wow, I couldn't even understand what this movie was from the trailer. This is the Nat Turner movie. Goodness, been waiting for this one for a while.

 

[Oscar Acosta]

Got me curious just from the name alone so mission accomplished on that part.

Yeah me too, I was thinking "there's no way they would remake that". Flip side, might have the charged outcome Osprey brought up that it's similar in nature. Either way should make for a good film. Two sides of a story is always appreciated.

 

[Jumptheshark]

obviously this will be a touchy subject


http://variety.com/2016/film/news/b...erence-for-nate-parker-in-toronto-1201843864/

and the fact that the woman killed herself in a few years ago does not help

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/17/nate-parker-devastated-by-suicide-of-accuser

it will be interesting to see how it unfolds as this movie was predicted to out do 112 years a slave--but foxlight is playing down the movie a little and may not put the full court press on its release now

 

[Sharpshooter]

So he was cleared of all charges 18 years ago, and it's an issue now because the girl that accused him killed herself and because he's making a movie?

I don't get why this is an issue now.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I do find it extremely strange that Roman Polanski and woody Allen movies are fine but this movie is literally getting boycotted by Oscar voting critics

From what I'm hearing they not only refusing to review it they're refusing to see it

 

[Archangel]

So he was cleared of all charges 18 years ago, and it's an issue now because the girl that accused him killed herself and because he's making a movie?

I don't get why this is an issue now.

it is more complicated then that. After two trials (where the defence lawyers put the victim on trial) she could not go through with a third trial. The University lost a lawsuit due to how they handled the situation by making her life a living hell. Of all the information that came out, it appears to me that Parker and his buddy got a girl drugged and drunk and they took turns on her. It is the testimony of the third guy who they offered her to that was the most damaging as one of his statements he clearly states the girl was in her right mind

 

[Sharpshooter]

it is more complicated then that. After two trials (where the defence lawyers put the victim on trial) she could not go through with a third trial. The University lost a lawsuit due to how they handled the situation by making her life a living hell. Of all the information that came out, it appears to me that Parker and his buddy got a girl drugged and drunk and they took turns on her. It is the testimony of the third guy who they offered her to that was the most damaging as one of his statements he clearly states the girl was in her right mind

Why did they have two/three trials? Was he found not-guilty all 2/3 times?