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

[Macleod]

On 8/25/2016 at 11:12 PM, WrathOfHan said:

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

 

You're telling me...   Speaking of...

Nate Parker: ‘The Definitions of So Many Things Have Changed’

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/nate-parker-rape-trial-the-birth-of-a-nation-1201846016/

 

If Variety's reporting on this stuff, then as far as I am concerned, the industry is, so it's relevant here in terms of how it is affecting the roll-out of this film.

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Macleod

[trifle]

2 hours ago, Macleod said:

 

You're telling me...   Speaking of...

Nate Parker: ‘The Definitions of So Many Things Have Changed’

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/nate-parker-rape-trial-the-birth-of-a-nation-1201846016/

 

If Variety's reporting on this stuff, then as far as I am concerned, the industry is, so it's relevant here in terms of how it is affecting the roll-out of this film.

 

 

Quote

When asked if he had thought about the incident at any point over the last 17 years, Park said, “No, I had not. I hadn’t thought about it at all.”

 

The interview focused on the definition of consent, and how Parker was raised to think about sex and women.

“It wasn’t a conversation people were having,” he said. “When I think about 1999, I think about being a 19-year-old kid, and I think about my attitude and behavior just toward women with respect objectifying them. I never thought about consent as a definition, especially as I do now. I think the definitions of so many things have changed.”

 

He also said, “I can’t remember ever having a conversation about the definition of consent when I was a kid. I knew that no meant no, but that’s it.”

 

He consulted with feminists and asked questions, he said. “I called a couple of sisters that know that are in the space that talk about the feminist movement and toxic masculinity, and just asked questions. What did I do wrong? Because I was thinking about myself. And what I realized is that I never took a moment to think about the woman. I didn’t think about her then, and I didn’t think about her when I was saying those statements, which was wrong and insensitive.”

 

I'm not feeling better about this.

Edited August 28, 2016 by trifle

[Arlborn]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

 

 

I'm not feeling better about this.

Just PR statements. He's already shown his true colors.

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

I'm not feeling better about this.

 

He should stop talking because the more he does the more he comes off like a sociopath who's only now just mouthing the right things because he's been told he has to because she died.  Even two weeks ago he saw himself as the victim and never once thought of her as a person who suffered --- not once according to himself in seventeen years.   This was after he knew about her two suicide attempts while in college while he and Celestin and their supporters stalked and harassed her until she dropped out of school.  He's only just had the realization that he didn't see or treat her as a human being?   

 

Quote

When asked if he had thought about the incident at any point over the last 17 years, Park said, “No, I had not. I hadn’t thought about it at all.”

 

How is this anyone's idea of good PR for this movie?

 

The definition of rape has not changed in 17 years.  It was rape then, it's rape now.  Being unable to say no doesn't give the rapist and his rapist buddy a free pass at one's drunk and or unconscious body.  

 

Considering the content of this movie and the themes he's said he's exploring and some of the subject matter he's added his lack of insight and humanity are galling.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by TalismanRing

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

That third guy was also back in ye olden days of 1999  and somehow seemed to have a different concept of how to behave himself.

 

All of FSL's PR options with respect to Parker seem pretty bad in one way or another...if he were just an actor in this and not also the director/screenwriter, if the movie didn't feature

Spoiler

a woman being raped by multiple men, in the screenplay that *those two guys* wrote,

the woman from the case ending her life...so many minefields. I doubt the rest of the cast is eager to go out and field questions about him and even if they do, it would look like they're being trotted out because Parker has something to hide or can't be trusted not to say something (else) that makes him look bad.

Edited August 28, 2016 by BoxOfficeChica

[filmlover]

The other week I saw a headline on Variety that said "How Mel Gibson Helped Nate Parker make Birth of a Nation".

 

If I didn't know better I would assume Fox Searchlight's PR time is actually trying to bury him.

 

[Dementeleus]

4 hours ago, filmlover said:

The other week I saw a headline on Variety that said "How Mel Gibson Helped Nate Parker make Birth of a Nation".

 

If I didn't know better I would assume Fox Searchlight's PR time is actually trying to bury him.

 

 

I read that article... the headline is.... dubious. (Though I'd be frustrated if I were Gibson's people). The article was basically about how various different filmmakers gave him advice about this project over the years. Gibson was one (of several) who basically gave him some tips on perseverance and notes about the script.

[trifle]

It looks like other smaller pictures are lining up to take the awards focus this film was expected to have. The article speculates whether the animation blockbusters this year might enter the conversation, as well.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/08/early-oscar-predictions-c-v-r.html

Edited August 29, 2016 by trifle

[trifle]

5 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

The definition of rape has not changed in 17 years.  It was rape then, it's rape now.  Being unable to say no doesn't give the rapist and his rapist buddy a free pass at one's drunk and or unconscious body.  

 

Considering the content of this movie and the themes he's said he's exploring and some of the subject matter he's added his lack of insight and humanity are galling.

 

 

 

I'm not certain that is accurate.  Juries MIGHT have been more willing to find reasonable doubt where there was no express refusal, if they thought the guy might assume it was ok.  They DID let Parker off, while convicting his friend.  How it could possibly be consensual to get two other people to climb onto your date after you get off and she is drunk to the point of not physically responding -- well, they did convict the friend.

 

It doesn't matter.  Nate Parker was acquitted and double jeapardy protections means he won't be tried again, even if society now focuses on 'lack of consent' rather than 'ignoring refusal' (there being no possibility of refusal if the victim is in a stupor).  But putting aside legal definitions of 'rape', what they did was disgusting and public opinion is not a court of law.

[TalismanRing]

9 minutes ago, trifle said:

 

I'm not certain that is accurate.  Juries MIGHT have been more willing to find reasonable doubt where there was no express refusal, if they thought the guy might assume it was ok.  They DID let Parker off, while convicting his friend.  How it could possibly be consensual to get two other people to climb onto your date after you get off and she is drunk to the point of not physically responding -- well, they did convict the friend.

 

It doesn't matter.  Nate Parker was acquitted and double jeapardy protections means he won't be tried again, even if society now focuses on 'lack of consent' rather than 'ignoring refusal' (there being no possibility of refusal if the victim is in a stupor).  But putting aside legal definitions of 'rape', what they did was disgusting and public opinion is not a court of law.

 

Juries and worse - Judges - let people off or wrist slap now for the same reasons - but the laws on consent in most jurisdictions were the same then as they are now.  In 1999 they were and had already been for quite a while a social and educational push on consent in the media and in schools.   There are reasons that rape is the least reported, least prosecuted and least convicted serious crime but it's not because the laws aren't clear.

[trifle]

23 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Juries and worse - Judges - let people off or wrist slap now for the same reasons - but the laws on consent in most jurisdictions were the same then as they are now.  In 1999 they were and had already been for quite a while a social and educational push on consent in the media and in schools.   There are reasons that rape is the least reported, least prosecuted and least convicted serious crime but it's not because the laws aren't clear.

 

Yeah, I agree,  but I was speaking of the public opinion aspect, which is what will impact box office and awards considerations today, rather than what the laws say.  People now look at lack of consent more critically, I believe.  And I think that will decimate the potential this film might have had.  Particularly since articles are now writing 'a lot of people at Sundance privately thought the film was mediocre' as well as discussing the controversy.

 

edit:

 

To be clear (I hope), I think that most people would have thought what he did was disgusting then.  As you point out, the third guy left and refused.  Besides which, we can, ourselves, perceive how disgusting it was. 

 

And that is part of why I doubt the court of public opinion is going to absolve him, or the film for which he is star, co-writer and director, either.  And add in the fictional

Spoiler

gang rape scene as motivation for Nat Turner

a scene not in history but contrived by him and his co-writer friend who was convicted in the first trial of rape, and I think this film is dead in the water as far as awards go. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by trifle

[Nova]

Who is letting this guy continually have a platform to talk about the case? What are Fox and his people thinking? Every single time he talks he puts his foot in his mouth and looks even worse. Just stop talking. Stop doing interviews. Just stop. You're not making it any better for yourself or for the victim. You would think after all this time and the media talking about it, he would finally understand but he just doesn't. He has no clue how wrong he was and therefore he needs to stop. He has no business trying to talk about what rape is, what consent is, how he was just 19...blah blah blah. Just shut up and stop. 

[RandomCat]

Just reading the article, two quotes stand out.

Quote

“I was acting as if I was the victim, and that’s wrong,” he said. “I was acting as if I was the victim because I felt like, my only thought was I’m innocent and everyone needs to know. I didn’t even think for a second about her, not even for a second.”

 

 

Quote

“People may say that, ‘Oh, now is good timing.’ I don’t know what to say to them except I’m trying,” Parker said. “I’m trying to transform behaviors and ideas that have never been challenged in certain ways in my life. I’m not the kid that I was at 19.”

 

So we're to understand he wouldn't be thinking about his toxic masculinity and what wrong he did, if this hadn't happened?

 

And he wants us to believe he isn't the same person he was in 99?

Edited August 29, 2016 by RandomJC

[The Futurist]

Man, this guy is giving a new definition for irony.

[JennaJ]

This just reeks of PR and crisis management. Nothing about his newer comments sound sincere. It sounds like someone went over the complaints and fed him a new company line.

 

"I'm not the preson I was at 19" is tough enough to swallow.

But this "I was acting as if I was the victim, and that’s wrong... I didn’t even think for a second about her"...

 

He's also not the person he was when he gave those interviews two weeks ago, I guess. 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by JennaJ

[filmlover]

In retrospect, it's hilarious how this thread only had less than 3 pages worth of posts in the 4 months since it opened and has grown by 22 pages in less than two weeks.

Edited August 29, 2016 by filmlover

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

This just reeks of PR and crisis management. Nothing about his newer comments sound sincere. It sounds like someone went over the complaints and fed him a new company line.

 

"I'm not the preson I was at 19" is tough enough to swallow.

But this "I was acting as if I was the victim, and that’s wrong... I didn’t even think for a second about (the victim)"...

He's also not the person he was when he gave those interviews two weeks ago, I guess. 

 

He's only "changing" because people know about it. He admits he's never thought about it, which is the dumbest PR move you could make. He either needs better PR coaches, or duct tape on the mouth. He is doing the opposite of helping with every new thing he says.

[JennaJ]

5 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

He's only "changing" because people know about it. He admits he's never thought about it, which is the dumbest PR move you could make. He either needs better PR coaches, or duct tape on the mouth. He is doing the opposite of helping with every new thing he says.

 

I think he's trying to "atone" for how tone deaf his previous comments sounded, by spouting about how he's seen the errors of his ways now.

I don't believe a word of it though. He's clearly being coached through this, and IMHO it's just digging a bigger hole. None of it sounds sincere, a lot of it is really stupid or makes no sense.

 

Honestly, I hope this one time the PR machine fails. I don't plan to watch any movie he stars in or makes.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by JennaJ

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, JennaJ said:

 

I think he's trying to "atone" for how tone deaf his previous comments sounded, by spouting about how he's seen the errors of his ways now.

I don't believe a word of it though. He's clearly being coached through this, and IMHO it's just digging a bigger hole. None of it sounds sincere, a lot of it is really stupid or makes no sense.

 

Honestly, I hope this one time the PR machine fails. I don't plan to watch any movie he stars in or makes.

 

 

I get the trying to atone, but it makes him look like a callous ass more than anything. I want to know why no one is asking him about the harassment after the fact. That's speaks far more to his character, and that is probably more the reason for the woman's issues and mental condition. 

 

 And the PR machine is gloriously failing on this, and everyone knows it.

[Nova]

Anytime he speaks the only things I hear coming out of his mouth are "What do I have to say in order to get us talking about the film and my Oscar chances again."