Birth of a Nation | Fox Searchlight | Sundance Grand Jury Prize. ONLY DISCUSS THE MOVIE AND BOX OFFICE IN THIS THREAD.

[cannastop]

57 minutes ago, Noctis said:

^ Exactly. The man was fucking filthy, and no one can deny he's a murderer.

OK, now that is hyperbole.

[Dementeleus]

2 hours ago, Noctis said:

^ Exactly. The man was fucking filthy, and no one can deny he's a murderer.

 

He's not a murderer. Language has meaning.

 

We're also really astray of the context of the movie itself. Take this sort of stuff to the other thread.

[The Panda]

7 hours ago, comicbookguy said:

 

There are more than enough posts in this thread, since this scandal surfaced, that should constitute poisoning the well. They have all went unchecked.

And nothing pertaining to issues outside of any film's production or development can be brought up in a disparaging light and not, technically, be considered not poisoning the well. 

 

 

Im still not sure if talking about the controversy even is poisoning the well.  It is something that really effects the movie in every aspect (from the box office, to reception, to if people here are going to see it).

 

It's also really hard, once you know about the controversy, to talk about anything other than it when the movie comes up, because it's that prevalent.

 

It's the mods call, but I'd think as long as the controversy discussion stays within the grounds to being about the movie, then it pertains to this thread.

[The Panda]

7 hours ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

I believe people can change. Not everyone does but some people do change. 

 

Yeah, I think the fact that people change is pretty hard to refute, if only from the mere fact that you yourself change.

 

Small things about me change, like my film preferences (the type of movies I loved when I was 5, when I was 16, and now are really pretty different).  People can and do mature to some extent.  On a bigger level, the way I treated people as a kid, as a teenager, or even a few years ago has changed and will change again.  Some things have remained the same, but people are evolutionary creatures, we adapt to our environments, we can recognize our mistakes and choose (or not choose) to fix them in the future.

 

Maybe Nate Parker is a changed man from when he was at Penn State, and maybe he just doesn't know how to react to the story coming out.  Maybe he's not and he's trying to slime his way through it.  Unless you personally know him, I don't think anyone here really knows for sure which it is.

[filmlover]

Parker and his team brought this whole story up when there wasn't a controversy (yet) just to nip it in the bud before awards season instead of letting a rival studio bring it up as a smear tactic during the actual season. Just saying.

Edited August 19, 2016 by filmlover

[Murgatroyd]

12 hours ago, Noctis said:

^ Exactly. The man was fucking filthy, and no one can deny he's a murderer.

 

I most certainly can deny that he's a murderer. Murder is the act of killing with premeditated malice. While, by all accounts, his actions did set in motion the series of events that led to her suicide many years later, he did not personally kill her, nor did he intend to cause her death.

 

There are many words that accurately describe him, but "murderer" is not one of them.

[comicbookguy]

 

On 8/19/2016 at 5:23 AM, Tele the Jet Baller said:

 

Putting aside the actual incidents themselves: Amber Heard has a minor role in JL. Saying she should be dismissed from the movie because she filed a lawsuit against Depp -- a lawsuit that was settled in her favor -- has very little to do with the movie itself. For better or worse, Parker is front and center with BOAN -- he co-wrote, produced, directed, and stars in it. In no way, shape, or form does the movie exist without him (and, for that matter, his co-writer).

 

Can you not see the difference?

 

There is no difference.

 

 

 

Amber Heard is A, B and C she did X, Y and Z - don't watch her movies, I hope she gets removed from the film for those external reasons not related to the quality of the film she stars in.

 

Nat Parker is A, B and C, he did  X, Y and Z - dont watch his movies, I hope it fails for those external reasons not related to the quality of the film he's attached to. 

 

 

Both are literally the exact same degree of poisoning the well from a logical position. And why was my quote deleted? And MORE importantly, how was anything I said being interpreted as poisoning the well. Again, you guys use this to mean whatever you want it to mean, and not what it actually means. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by comicbookguy

[ddddeeee]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/birth-a-nation-screening-called-922389?utm_source=twitter

[TalismanRing]

On 8/19/2016 at 10:29 AM, The Panda said:

 

Yeah, I think the fact that people change is pretty hard to refute, if only from the mere fact that you yourself change.

 

Small things about me change, like my film preferences (the type of movies I loved when I was 5, when I was 16, and now are really pretty different).  People can and do mature to some extent.  On a bigger level, the way I treated people as a kid, as a teenager, or even a few years ago has changed and will change again.  Some things have remained the same, but people are evolutionary creatures, we adapt to our environments, we can recognize our mistakes and choose (or not choose) to fix them in the future.

 

Maybe Nate Parker is a changed man from when he was at Penn State, and maybe he just doesn't know how to react to the story coming out.  Maybe he's not and he's trying to slime his way through it.  Unless you personally know him, I don't think anyone here really knows for sure which it is.

 

 

I'm not going to go over the horrific specifics of the case again but his initial interview didn't show much growth or compassion and worse and more tellingly he brought along his 6 year old daughter to sit in on an interview where he knew he'd be discussing the rape.  What kind of man let alone parent does that?

 

[filmlover]

Parker is a despicable human being and we all should just avoid this film like the plague in protest. Like, I'm all for separating the man from the art, but the way he tries to portray himself as if he's the victim (when the real victim, as it turns out, is no longer with us). Fuck you, sir.

[Nova]

7 hours ago, filmlover said:

Parker is a despicable human being and we all should just avoid this film like the plague in protest. Like, I'm all for separating the man from the art, but the way he tries to portray himself as if he's the victim (when the real victim, as it turns out, is no longer with us). Fuck you, sir.

Exactly. And it just continues. Like this guy is fucking despicable. I get so infuriated anytime I read about this case and then the film and his actions about it. The only thing he cares about is that his film is a success and he will paint himself as the one who has been wronged. I seriously hope it bombs hard and gets nada when awards season comes around. 

 

Variety’s sources say that Parker is currently “in a low place” and “He vacillates between thinking the case is resurfacing now after 17 years because of a Hollywood conspiracy against him or just bad luck. He’s disappointed over the backlash on social media and that the African-American online community hasn’t been more supportive. And he’s even mad at himself, for underestimating the public’s interest in a court case that happened so long ago.”

[DeeCee]

9 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/birth-a-nation-screening-called-922389?utm_source=twitter

Talk about burying the lead. They get to see Jack Reacher. 

 

Read the comments people. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by DeeCee

[JennaJ]

4 hours ago, Nova said:

Variety’s sources say that Parker is currently “in a low place” and “He vacillates between thinking the case is resurfacing now after 17 years because of a Hollywood conspiracy against him or just bad luck. He’s disappointed over the backlash on social media and that the African-American online community hasn’t been more supportive. And he’s even mad at himself, for underestimating the public’s interest in a court case that happened so long ago.”

 

That just makes me sick. The whole conspirecy thing is such utter nonsense. I mean, I get that it's spin, but surely he remembers that he was the one who chose to do two interviews about this issue (supposedly to "get ahead" of it), before it broke out? Right? That's not that hard to remember, surely. His interviews raised the topic to awareness, then regular media and social media took over from there.

 

He chose to do interviews about his rape case, thinking he could open and close the book on it whenever he saw fit, wanting it to just blow over before his award campaign began. He thought people will settle for the story he provides without digging deeper.

 

He underestimated public's interest, he underestimated the severity of his actions, he overerestimated people's willingness to forgive a heinous crime just because it happened in the past.

That's no conspiracy, that's karma.

 

I hope he's never able to shake this off. The poor girl he tormented sure couldn't.

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by JennaJ

[trifle]

12 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/birth-a-nation-screening-called-922389?utm_source=twitter

 

Quote

Birth had been set to screen at the LA-based film school's "Opening Day," a special screening for second-year fellows (as the students are called) that occurs at the end of the first week of the new semester. The screening is usually reserved for an upcoming, high-profile release and is accompanied by a guest who worked on the film. Instead, the school will hold a discussion about issues raised by the film and the surrounding controversy.

 

Well, that seems like an appropriate trade off.  Likely not a trade off Fox was looking for.

 

And just examine this below.  What is he thinking?  Not even : 'I did this terrible thing and invited my friend and co writer to join in, and now it's come back to roost', but that having it become a controversy is 'a Hollywood conspiracy' or unanticipatable 'bad luck'.  And what he's 'even mad at himself' about is misjudging whether lack of interest in his actions would insulate him from any accountability for his actions. He clearly thinks he doesn't deserve this and is the one being wronged.

 

2 hours ago, Nova said:

 

 

Variety’s sources say that Parker is currently “in a low place” and “He vacillates between thinking the case is resurfacing now after 17 years because of a Hollywood conspiracy against him or just bad luck. He’s disappointed over the backlash on social media and that the African-American online community hasn’t been more supportive. And he’s even mad at himself, for underestimating the public’s interest in a court case that happened so long ago.”

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by trifle

[filmlover]

Cosby tried playing the "it's a conspiracy to take a black man down" angle too. Look at how well that worked out.

 

Speaking of which, Netflix is probably happy they didn't acquire this at the moment because they would probably let it languish on the shelf like that Cosby special they produced (and is unlikely to see the light of day at this point).

[Nova]

What I find disturbing is that he also expected the African American online community to have his back. Like he wants them to give him a pass over his rape case simply because he is black? And we can't bring down the black man? No. You deserve to be brought down. This is beyond a film. And the fact that he doesn't understand that and is just coming up with the conspiracy bull shit, shows he's not even sorry for what happened and only cares about himself, how he looks and how his film will be received. Good riddance to him. 

[TalismanRing]

Rape allegations, a breakout star, and the Oscars: how the attempt to smooth Nate Parker's past failed so badly

The Birth of a Nation director is at the center of one of the worst damage control campaigns in Hollywood history.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/19/12521136/nate-parker-rape-charges-birth-of-a-nation

 

Quote

Fox Searchlight and Parker turned to Deadline, which reframed his past within the context of how it could affect the film’s awards chances. That was a mistake.

 

The Nate Parker Interview: What’s Next for ‘The Birth of a Nation’

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/nate-parker-interview-rape-trial-birth-of-a-nation-1201841223/
 

Quote

It’s not clear what Parker’s path forward is from here. He will have to navigate difficult waters, given that his statements about the film, as well as the movie itself (especially a fictional rape scene involving key characters), will be viewed under a different lens. “I say if you have injustice, this is your movie,” Parker said about “The Birth of a Nation,” a line that could be met with raised eyebrows now.  He wanted to use the movie to inspire a movement — he even recorded a PSA to run before the film — to talk about the wounds that slavery inflicted on generations of U.S. citizens. “Americans suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome from a time that we refuse to address,” Parker said. “Healing only comes from honest confrontation. Any psychologist will tell you that."

 

 

 

No conspiracy needed at all for this much deserved train-wreck

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

3 hours ago, Nova said:

What I find disturbing is that he also expected the African American online community to have his back. Like he wants them to give him a pass over his rape case simply because he is black? And we can't bring down the black man? No. You deserve to be brought down. This is beyond a film. And the fact that he doesn't understand that and is just coming up with the conspiracy bull shit, shows he's not even sorry for what happened and only cares about himself, how he looks and how his film will be received. Good riddance to him. 

It's gross but it's not like it never happens...of course OJ and Cosby were superstars already, so that helped, and eventually even their defense brigades diminished in time. Parker has shown major signs of being exceptionally entiled and arrogant, but it's gotten him pretty far in life until now.

 

Unless the movie's been severely edited since it first screened, a big thing that happens is that

Spoiler

Nat Turner's wife gets gang raped by a group of white men and this is a catalyst for him to lead the slave rebellion. Now, besides the fact that critics increasingly loathe when a female character is raped in a story and it's not about her but how the man in her life feels about it, and that it isn't known to be Turner's actual motivation...given Parker and Celestin's mutual history 

it's an, um, interesting story choice.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, BoxOfficeChica said:

It's gross but it's not like it never happens...of course OJ and Cosby were superstars already, so that helped, and eventually even their defense brigades diminished in time. Parker has shown major signs of being exceptionally entiled and arrogant, but it's gotten him pretty far in life until now.

 

Unless the movie's been severely edited since it first screened, a big thing that happens is that

  Reveal hidden contents

Nat Turner's wife gets gang raped by a group of white men and this is a catalyst for him to lead the slave rebellion. Now, besides the fact that critics increasingly loathe when a female character is raped in a story and it's not about her but how the man in her life feels about it, and that it isn't known to be Turner's actual motivation...given Parker and Celestin's mutual history 

it's an, um, interesting story choice.

 

Spoiler

If that scene is still in the movie, it gives every reviewer and news outlet the ability to naturally bring up his crimes, and can even show the hypocrisy of him trying to go around condemning rape to churches and college campuses.

 

[Nova]

24 minutes ago, BoxOfficeChica said:

It's gross but it's not like it never happens...of course OJ and Cosby were superstars already, so that helped, and eventually even their defense brigades diminished in time. Parker has shown major signs of being exceptionally entiled and arrogant, but it's gotten him pretty far in life until now.

 

Unless the movie's been severely edited since it first screened, a big thing that happens is that

  Hide contents

Nat Turner's wife gets gang raped by a group of white men and this is a catalyst for him to lead the slave rebellion. Now, besides the fact that critics increasingly loathe when a female character is raped in a story and it's not about her but how the man in her life feels about it, and that it isn't known to be Turner's actual motivation...given Parker and Celestin's mutual history 

it's an, um, interesting story choice.

Of course I agree with you. I'm just saying it's disturbing to me that he thought that it would go down that way. Like oh I'll get away with it because the African American community will have my back.