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

[Nova]

The movie comes out October 7th. Anytime the film has been mentioned in the media, the rape case follows it. It's not going anywhere and it's not going to be "forgotten" about. Will the GA know about it to care? I don't know. If you're on social media, it's definitely been a trending story on the side bar so it's most definitely out there. I just don't think Nate Parker is THAT big of a star to create an uproar over it...yet. 

 

But I don't think it's so easy to just sweep it under the rug by the time it gets released. This is why some of promotional aspects of the film are already being cancelled. Because they know questions are going to come up. So going forward what does that mean when it comes to the more commercial promotion aspects of the film....time will tell. 

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

Is It Okay to See Nate Parker’s Birth of a Nation? (NY Magazine) Four black writers discuss the controversy, the case (a little bit), the protectiveness that can displayed by the black community when one of their own stands accused, and whether they'll see the movie.

 

Oscar Voters Ponder Nate Parker and 'Birth of a Nation': "I Would Not Go to the Movie" (The Hollywood Reporter) That's just one quote and another is from someone who says Parker was acquitted and he has no problem separating the art from the artist. The article also brings up how the backlash to TBoaN might affect other Oscar contenders with "black subject matter" (their words).

Edited August 25, 2016 by BoxOfficeChica

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

Thats the thing. Those nominations come out well after the film's run. The quality of the film itself will create the conversation surrounding the movie, which I imagine will be a debate over whether or not the movie should be nominated due to Parker's history. That means the conversations bringing up the quality of the movie will be there, and that is to the film's advantage. 

 

Also I'd bet good money that 90%+ of the audience for most movies do not know what TIFF is.

 

Every time the quality is mentioned, the controversy will be mentioned, in howevermuch detail.  People who actually follow 'the conversation' about the Oscars (as I didn't a year and a half ago) will know about this.   Those in the Academy actually voting on this will absolutely know about this.  If it were pushed it would have been as much about the subject matter and moral justice as about the film.  That is a very hard case to make when the Star/co-writer and other co-writer are who these are with the actions they have committed.

 

People who DON'T follow the 'conversation' only hear about nominations and awards, and I doubt this film will get many, if any.

[DeeCee]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

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).

Speaking of Cosby and Netflix I just watched Jim Jefferies latest special. He has a bit about Cosby. 

[AJG]

31 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Every time the quality is mentioned, the controversy will be mentioned, in howevermuch detail.  People who actually follow 'the conversation' about the Oscars (as I didn't a year and a half ago) will know about this.   Those in the Academy actually voting on this will absolutely know about this.  If it were pushed it would have been as much about the subject matter and moral justice as about the film.  That is a very hard case to make when the Star/co-writer and other co-writer are who these are with the actions they have committed.

 

People who DON'T follow the 'conversation' only hear about nominations and awards, and I doubt this film will get many, if any.

 

People are looking for high quality drama this time of year, if the movie is good as they say, then what's stopping it? It's already in contention. This movie and 'Oscar' are gonna be paired together in articles and news stories saying the movie is good, yet debating whether or not it desrves a nomination based on the controversy. It was brought up for months on end before this controversy got out.

 

I think if the the big promotions can still take place (eg TV ads, billboards, etc) I think the movie will perform with the GA as it was destined to perform. People that follow awards will see it out of curiosity alone. It doesn't matter at this point, we have a movie that people that follow this shit will already know is a contender, and people that don't follow this shit will assume is a contender. 

 

Again, to this film's benefit it comes out during the last weeks of the election, I don't think this story can get any bigger than it was last week.

 

It really comes down to this: does anybody really care what a celebrity has done in the past in order to pass up on a good one of their products?

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, AJG said:

It really comes down to this: does anybody really care what a celebrity has done in the past in order to pass up on a good one of their products?

Ask Mel Gibson about how well all of his movies this decade have fared.

[trifle]

12 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

People are looking for high quality drama this time of year, if the movie is good as they say, then what's stopping it? It's already in contention. This movie and 'Oscar' are gonna be paired together in articles and news stories saying the movie is good, yet debating whether or not it desrves a nomination based on the controversy. It was brought up for months on end before this controversy got out.

 

I think if the the big promotions can still take place (eg TV ads, billboards, etc) I think the movie will perform with the GA as it was destined to perform. People that follow awards will see it out of curiosity alone. It doesn't matter at this point, we have a movie that people that follow this shit will already know is a contender, and people that don't follow this shit will assume is a contender. 

 

Again, to this film's benefit it comes out during the last weeks of the election, I don't think this story can get any bigger than it was last week.

 

It really comes down to this: does anybody really care what a celebrity has done in the past in order to pass up on a good one of their products?

 

 

Who says it is all that good?

 

Anyhow, I don't think that many people would have gone to see it but for its being pushed by critics etc.  People just assumed it would be so pushed. Now I don't see it, honestly.

 

I don't want to fight you. The outcome of the movie isn't something I think that much about (there is just very little going on with movies I do care about.) I just personally associate it with a guy who wanted two other guys to climb onto his date when she was drunk to the point of unmoving according to testimony in a case where the guy was convicted.  (the third guy who refused and left testified.)  Even if you discount all conclusions I make from transcript reports in Parker's own trial, that remains.

 

And the election is too long already.  I think most people are bored and want to vote and get it over with.

Edited August 25, 2016 by trifle

[AJG]

17 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Ask Mel Gibson about how well all of his movies this decade have fared.

 

Mel Gibson failed because nobody wanted to work with him. Cosby Show went off the air because advertisers didn't want to be associated with him.

 

I feel like this situation is almost unique. The film is finished and already being promoted.

Edited August 25, 2016 by AJG

[Nova]

I think the issue that most of us are missing is that we assume the GA doesnt know about any of this. If you follow awards season as a casual movie goer and you see this film on the list of possible award films, youre going to find out about this story. I mean just look up The Birth of a Nation right now on Google and see what comes up. Look it up on Twitter. Look it up on Facebook. Look it up on Flixster, IMDb...you name it and the case is there. If you follow this film, because its a film that interests you then you also know about the case. If you are on social media, you know about the case. Hell if you frequent the Internet, you know about the case. I just don't think this is one of those special cases where the GA is totally clueless of whats going on. I just don't think Nate Parker is that big of a star, to create the type of outcome that happened with Bill Cosby where everyone and anyone knows about it and thus backlash began. But I do believe that if a casual movie goer is following this film, follows award shows, or pays attention to the celeb world etc, they are going to know about it. 

 

On another note, while the film has gotten praise, its not getting phenomenal reviews. Sure it a 96% rating on RT but its average rating is 7.6/10. I'm not saying thats not good or anything. Obviously it is but it's not getting the type of reviews, that would have the GA become interested in a film they weren't interested in to begin with. 

[tonytr87]

I think relatively close proximity to Django and 12 Years will hurt it as far as interest. At least I have less interest anyway. 

[John Marston]

this movie wasn't doing that great at the box office in the first place. The controversy will bring it down from 30m to 20m or so

[dudalb]

. It's Parker's first film as a director. It will have to be really, really, good to overcome the baggage.

The early reviews, if you read them are not all that great, sort of "good effort for a first film" type of review.

Edited August 25, 2016 by dudalb

[Dementeleus]

Moderation:

 

This is mainly responding to the conversation from a page or two ago, but any greater discussion at large about rape, Cosby, celebrity entitlement, other directors who've committed ugly, immoral, or questionable deeds in the past, and so forth should go in the The Real World thread about this topic. I understand that discussing Parker's case overlaps with the movie discussion so much it's hard to separate, but let's keep things focused on just that.

[langer]

The real question is : does William Hurt have a cameo in this as General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross? 

 

Please keep this on topic guys. 

[Nova]

So I don't know why I'm just finding this out now but apparently there is 

Spoiler

a very graphic rape scene in the film where Nat Turner's wife is gang raped....which apparently never even happened 

and I have no idea how someone can sit, watch this movie/that particular scene, knowing what they know about the director, star and writers of this film. 

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, Nova said:

So I don't know why I'm just finding this out now but apparently there is 

  Hide contents

a very graphic rape scene in the film where Nat Turner's wife is gang raped....which apparently never even happened 

and I have no idea how someone can sit, watch this movie/that particular scene, knowing what they know about the director, star and writers of this film. 

And isn't

Spoiler

Turner's wife supposed to be played by Gabrielle Union, who is an actual rape survivor herself?

Oof.

[Nova]

Just now, filmlover said:

And isn't

  Hide contents

Turner's wife supposed to be played by Gabrielle Union, who is an actual rape survivor herself?

Oof.

Yes.

 

It just gets so much more uncomfortable with every detail that comes out. 

[trifle]

5 minutes ago, Nova said:

So I don't know why I'm just finding this out now but apparently there is 

  Hide contents

a very graphic rape scene in the film where Nat Turner's wife is gang raped....which apparently never even happened 

and I have no idea how someone can sit, watch this movie/that particular scene, knowing what they know about the director, star and writers of this film. 

 

Particularly since, it not being actual historic fact, it was a scene made up by the writers -- Nate Parker and that friend of his - the guy who was convicted of rape and later had it overturned because his attorney didn't object to introduction of phone call tapes.

 

It is so damned ironic that they

Spoiler

invent this as the huge motivating injustice compelling Turner to act,

and yet seem to see what they did coming back to trouble them as an injustice to them.

 

(spoiler tagged because maybe a scene could have been suggested by what I wrote.)

Edited August 26, 2016 by trifle

[Nova]

6 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

Particularly since, it not being actual historic fact, it was a scene made up by the writers -- Nate Parker and that friend of his - the guy who was convicted of rape and later had it overturned because his attorney didn't object to introduction of phone call tapes.

 

It is so damned ironic that they

and yet seem to see what they did coming back to trouble them as an injustice to them.

Thats why I find it so fucking disturbing. It never even happened and was written in by them. 

 

And then they bring up Nate Parker's case in an interview with Deadline, as a way of getting it over with so the media doesn't bring it up and I just don't know.

 

Like what on Earth were they thinking? Who exactly thought this would be a good idea/gave the okay for all of this to transpire? 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Nova

[cookie]

So, wait, is it true that the

 

fictional gang rape is what motives Nat Turner in the movie? Or am I getting this wrong?