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

[Nova]

Just now, cookie said:

So, wait, is it true that the

 

 

  Hide contents

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

 

Yes. Based on folks who have watched the film, THAT is the catalyst for Nat Turner's motivation. 

 

 

[cookie]

37 minutes ago, Nova said:

Yes. Based on folks who have watched the film, THAT is the catalyst for Nat Turner's motivation. 

 

 

 

 

Setting aside the meta-implications for a moment, that sounds like something that would undermine (from what I've read) one of the more interesting aspects of Turner's rebellion, namely that he saw himself as a soldier for God and interpreted atmospheric events like a solar eclipse to be signs that he should carry it out. I haven't seen the movie so maybe it works better in the context of the narrative, but the fact that they had to invent an injustice (as if him being a slave wasn't enough) doesn't really do the movie nor Parker any favors.

Edited August 26, 2016 by cookie

[Macleod]

25 minutes ago, Nova said:

Yes. Based on folks who have watched the film, THAT is the catalyst for Nat Turner's motivation. 

 

 

 

Wow.  Just wow.  This whole thing keeps getting more cluster-foggy. 

[filmlover]

lol @ the thread title. Just lock it up now Tele. It's impossible to discuss this without the controversy. Blame Nate Parker for that.

[Nova]

15 minutes ago, cookie said:

 

  Hide contents

Setting aside the meta-implications for a moment, that sounds like something that would undermine one of the (from what I've read) more interesting aspects of Turner's rebellion, namely that he saw himself as a soldier for God and interpreted atmospheric events like a solar eclipse to be signs that he should carry it out. The fact that they had to invent an injustice (as if him being a slave wasn't enough) doesn't really make the movie nor Parker himself look any better.

Exactly. Even if the stuff with Parker never happened

Spoiler

incorporating that scene as the reason for the rebellion

 takes away from Turner's actual rebellion. Add in Parker's past and it all makes me sick to my stomach. 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Nova

[Macleod]

OK, I was basically adopting the "separating the art from the artist" stance until now...but this little nugget definitely makes things problematic for me.

[cookie]

21 minutes ago, filmlover said:

lol @ the thread title. Just lock it up now Tele. It's impossible to discuss this without the controversy. Blame Nate Parker for that.

 

The controversy is the only reason anyone is even talking about the film this far out. This thread literally only had two pages in it before the shit hit the fan.

Edited August 26, 2016 by cookie

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, cookie said:

 

The controversy is the only reason anyone is even talking about the film this far out. This thread literally only had two pages in it before shit hit the fan.

The irony was that they addressed the controversy early instead of allowing a rival studio to dig it up to nip in the bud before awards season. Obviously they never thought it would blow up like it did.

[trifle]

1 minute ago, filmlover said:

The irony was that they addressed the controversy early instead of allowing a rival studio to dig it up to nip in the bud before awards season. Obviously they never thought it would blow up like it did.

 

I kinda wonder if Fox did their homework on it, before that Deadline interview.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, trifle said:

 

I kinda wonder if Fox did their homework on it, before that Deadline interview.

Considering the bidding war that ensued at Sundance, it's safe to assume no one did.

Edited August 26, 2016 by filmlover

[cookie]

12 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Considering the bidding war that ensued at Sundance, it's safe to assume no one did.

 

Netflix executives are counting their lucky stars that they didn't win that bid and spend $20 million on what would quickly turn out to be a massive PR disaster. That Bill Cosby special that will likely never air was bad enough.

Edited August 26, 2016 by cookie

[The Futurist]

It s incredible to me that these two were able to get that far in Hollywood.

 

Proof the Town is still first and foremost a boy s club.

[grey ghost]

51 minutes ago, cookie said:

 

  Hide contents

Setting aside the meta-implications for a moment, that sounds like something that would undermine (from what I've read) one of the more interesting aspects of Turner's rebellion, namely that he saw himself as a soldier for God and interpreted atmospheric events like a solar eclipse to be signs that he should carry it out. I haven't seen the movie so maybe it works better in the context of the narrative, but the fact that they had to invent an injustice (as if him being a slave wasn't enough) doesn't really do the movie nor Parker any favors.

 

How dumb. The historical truth sounds far more interesting than the movie version.

[WrathOfHan]

This movie loses another million off its gross every time a new tidbit comes out.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, filmlover said:

And isn't

  Reveal hidden contents

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

Oof.

I believe that 

Spoiler

Aja Naomi King  (from How to Get Away With Murder) plays the wife, but still

more fun for the PR team! I saw that some Penn State alums released an open letter supporting Parker. You know FSL heard about that and had to be thinking, "Gee, thanks so much!"

[narniadis]

Obviously to the Victors go the "right" of writing the historical narrative, but I have found the Nat Turner Movie "drama" history going back to the 60s interesting. The idea that Nat needed a new catalyst is nothing new, deadline had an article about how Hollywood tried to do a movie version going back to the 60s but it always came with problems - including the historical fact that Nat was never married. As much as the African American community would be in uproar over a white filmmaker making significant changes to black history, I don't understand why it's allowable because the director and writer are African American. But then again, I can't understand. (This isn't sarcasm btw - if someone has an educated and relevant answer I would be more than happy to read / debate about it.)

[Dementeleus]

5 minutes ago, narniadis said:

As much as the African American community would be in uproar over a white filmmaker making significant changes to black history, I don't understand why it's allowable because the director and writer are African American.

 

I know very little about the history, but I suspect it's one of two things: one, this is an indie production and so went through a very different process than if it were a studio picture -- a movie that's spearheaded by one man's vision and concept can be pushed through if he pitches that concept well to the financiers (many of whom might not particularly care about the history). Secondly, there's some consideration that someone who grew up with his ancestors' experiences. I don't think it's necessarily a purely race issue either: a lot of people outside of Scotland loved BRAVEHEART, which took much further liberties than this does (I think). But that didn't stop the movie from being made -- the Scottish were pissed that their history was ignored and the British were pissed they were portrayed as evil assholes and everyone else moved on. With something like STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON, there was definitely some complaints that historical facts were fudged a bit, and that movie was directed by F. Gary Gray. Slavery and the African-American experience is a hot-button topic, sure, but it's not like adhering to specific history is common, regardless.

[trifle]

17 minutes ago, narniadis said:

Obviously to the Victors go the "right" of writing the historical narrative, but I have found the Nat Turner Movie "drama" history going back to the 60s interesting. The idea that Nat needed a new catalyst is nothing new, deadline had an article about how Hollywood tried to do a movie version going back to the 60s but it always came with problems - including the historical fact that Nat was never married. As much as the African American community would be in uproar over a white filmmaker making significant changes to black history, I don't understand why it's allowable because the director and writer are African American. But then again, I can't understand. (This isn't sarcasm btw - if someone has an educated and relevant answer I would be more than happy to read / debate about it.)

 

To be fair (to Nat Turner, not Nate Parker) whether a slave is married or not might not entirely be their own choice.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

49 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

To be fair (to Nat Turner, not Nate Parker) whether a slave is married or not might not entirely be their own choice.

Right, American slaves often paired up and formed family units to the best of their abilities, but it's not like there would be records of a marriage at the local courthouse. Still, it didn't stop slaves (or their masters) from referring to these partners as husbands and wives, even if slaves were considered property by law, and thus were not afforded the legal right to marry.  Unless the contention is that the real Nat Turner was never known to have a woman in his life at all who would have been considered a wife in the common parlance of the day...

Edited August 26, 2016 by BoxOfficeChica

[Frozen]

12 hours ago, cookie said:

 

The controversy is the only reason anyone is even talking about the film this far out. This thread literally only had two pages in it before the shit hit the fan.

 

We're not really that far out. Girl on the Train is about to start their promotion. I don't think Fox is even bothering to promote this.