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

[lilmac]

23 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of us here have no material interest in drawing attention to the rape allegations. That's also the case for most of the people drawing attention to it outside of these boards.

 

It's one thing to say that you're satisfied with his acquittal and looking forward to seeing the film, it's entirely another to suggest that those who are not have ulterior motives.

Quote

 

it's entirely another to suggest that those who are not have ulterior motives.

 

 

 

Of course not everyone who stubbornly refuses to believe in this man's acquittal have ulterior motives. My lack of surprise is due to the fact that there is a pattern and very, very real racial prejudices in this country so OF COURSE a movie about a slave kicking butt isn't going to be well received. For others (like, I would imagine one or two folks on this board) there is a tendency among many of us to believe "guilty until proven innocent"

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by lilmac

[trifle]

2 minutes ago, lilmac said:

 

 

Of course not everyone who stubbornly refuses to believe in this man's acquittal have ulterior motives. My lack of surprise is due to the fact that there is a pattern and very, very real racial prejudices in this country so OF COURSE a movie about a slave kicking butt isn't going to be well received. 

 

 

It was very well received until this controversy came to light.  Not by everyone, of course, but certainly by 'Hollywood' and those who follow awards.

[Jandrew]

52 minutes ago, lilmac said:

 

 

Of course not everyone who stubbornly refuses to believe in this man's acquittal have ulterior motives. My lack of surprise is due to the fact that there is a pattern and very, very real racial prejudices in this country so OF COURSE a movie about a slave kicking butt isn't going to be well received. For others (like, I would imagine one or two folks on this board) there is a tendency among many of us to believe "guilty until proven innocent"

 

 

I'm not a fan of the whole lynch mob, "you're guilty cuz I said so" mentality either, but again, he brought it all on himself. All he had to do was shut up and keep it moving. He wants himself painted as the victim so bad, he's distracting everyone from the movie, not the boycotters.

 

I don't have a say in the case, I wasn't there, but I do have a say in his actions since this all started, and imo they've been pretty self-centered, irresponsible, and he can't seem to stop looking at this controversy in a vacuum. 

 

There are "boycotters", but he's the one who gave them something to boycott.

Edited October 6, 2016 by jandrew

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I am still going to see this since I am interested in Nat turner and I hope money goes to all the hard working people who worked on this film like the actress, supporting cast, editors, ect. 

[Jandrew]

On 10/4/2016 at 7:13 PM, filmscholar said:

 

First what does "Know it all" have to do with anything?  I wasn't saying I wasn't going litterally,  of course I will eventually go, My point in saying "I don't need to go" [...]

 

You took my post way too personal. Have you not realized yet that I am black too? I come from the same lineage and you aren't telling me anything new. Especially coming from SC.

 

You are wrong on the museum though. I'm vested in black history, and it still taught me even more. Good and bad. People who are in denial and don't want to see the truth aren't going to waste their time and go, so that point is moot.

 

But to your original point, Nate Parker is going to take his L. Unfortunately, it seems the movie will be caught in the crosshairs. Luckily this is only one movie. There's plenty of other media where you can get the history. There's 10+ plus books on Turner alone, that are likely more accurate anyway.

Edited October 6, 2016 by jandrew

[Nova]

54 minutes ago, lilmac said:

 

 

Of course not everyone who stubbornly refuses to believe in this man's acquittal have ulterior motives. My lack of surprise is due to the fact that there is a pattern and very, very real racial prejudices in this country so OF COURSE a movie about a slave kicking butt isn't going to be well received. For others (like, I would imagine one or two folks on this board) there is a tendency among many of us to believe "guilty until proven innocent"

 

12 Years A Slave would like to have a word. As for the film not being well received. It's currently sitting at 80% on RT so from Hollywood's standpoint it was well received and got standing ovations at film festivals. If the general public doesn't want to support the film because of Parker's actions that's their choice. They could also not want to go out and watch the movie simply because they have no interest in it which again is their choice. Just because a film is about the history of slavery/slaves doesn't mean it HAS to be successful otherwise the country is being racist. That's a very ridiculous comment to make. 

 

Also to add the only person who brought this on themselves is Parker. No one went digging for his past. No one brought this up until he did. And then when he got questioned, his answers were a PR nightmare and still remain that way. He has been so insensitive in his answers and has shown no remorse what's so ever. Sure "innocent until proven guilty," but if he is so innocent, why would he bring up the case in the first place? And then back pedal and try to make himself out to be the victim once the media and GA turned on him? 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Nova

[filmlover]

What's mind-boggling is that they've allowed Nate Parker to continue on and on with this "I'm the real victim in all of this" angle that no one's buying. Like, does he have the most incompetent PR team ever? Or is Fox Searchlight intentionally trying to bury him?

[Goffe]

2 hours ago, lilmac said:

If marketing is $20m and the film itself $7m

 

Fox paid 18m for the movie, I guess that's the number you should be using.

 

I think 50m ww should be the goal If everything goes relatively well.

[Blankments]

11 hours ago, Morieris said:

It's a stroke of good fortune theaters are required to play things for two weeks. This isn't showing anywhere near me - it probably would have knocked out Katwe.

I'm upset about this post just because I never got Katwe and I'm getting Birth of a Nation

[trifle]

7 minutes ago, Blankments said:

I'm upset about this post just because I never got Katwe and I'm getting Birth of a Nation

 

For reasons nothing to do with Birth of a Nation I am checking into Katwe, which sounds good.  I'm in the LA area, so I'm sure I can find it.  I've heard it is an unheralded gem.  Very sorry it isn't where you are.

 

[lilmac]

7 hours ago, jandrew said:

 

I'm not a fan of the whole lynch mob, "you're guilty cuz I said so" mentality either, but again, he brought it all on himself. All he had to do was shut up and keep it moving. He wants himself painted as the victim so bad, he's distracting everyone from the movie, not the boycotters.

 

I don't have a say in the case, I wasn't there, but I do have a say in his actions since this all started, and imo they've been pretty self-centered, irresponsible, and he can't seem to stop looking at this controversy in a vacuum. 

 

There are "boycotters", but he's the one who gave them something to boycott.

 

Sorry but I don't believe that's true. Not directed at you but I can definitely see his guilty-until-proven-innocent naysayers using his unwillingness to just take it as their cause celebre. He simply gave them an 'in'. 

 

I'm curious to see examples of him bringing this controversy to light on his own. Of him bringing up the victim card, like, out of the blue. Of him fanning the flames 'needlessly'.  Those who 'liked' your comment can feel free to provide examples. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by lilmac

[Arlborn]

Once again I'll just say this: Consent perception sure as hell changed a lot in the last 15 years - Thank fuck for that.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

1 hour ago, trifle said:

 

For reasons nothing to do with Birth of a Nation I am checking into Katwe, which sounds good.  I'm in the LA area, so I'm sure I can find it.  I've heard it is an unheralded gem.  Very sorry it isn't where you are.

 

I am planning on see Katwe soon. 

[Jandrew]

1 hour ago, lilmac said:

 

Sorry but I don't believe that's true. Not directed at you but I can definitely see his guilty-until-proven-innocent naysayers using his unwillingness to just take it as their cause celebre. He simply gave them an 'in'. 

 

I'm curious to see examples of him bringing this controversy to light on his own. Of him bringing up the victim card, like, out of the blue. Of him fanning the flames 'needlessly'.  Those who 'liked' your comment can feel free to provide examples. 

 

Well, I mean, its true. I'm sure @filmlover can give you the prime example. Its his favorite story to tell.

Edited October 7, 2016 by jandrew

[Fancyarcher]

9 hours ago, filmlover said:

What's mind-boggling is that they've allowed Nate Parker to continue on and on with this "I'm the real victim in all of this" angle that no one's buying. Like, does he have the most incompetent PR team ever? Or is Fox Searchlight intentionally trying to bury him?

 

I think Fox Searchlight just knows they have a film with a lot of baggage, and trying to do everything to keep the scandal as quiet as possible.

 

Plus apparently Parker had a lot of say in the matter of how the film was marketed. At least he's the reason why it's getting such a wide release, instead of a limited one, and then going wide anyway.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Daniel Dylan Davis

[Jason]

1 hour ago, lilmac said:

I'm curious to see examples of him bringing this controversy to light on his own. Of him bringing up the victim card, like, out of the blue. Of him fanning the flames 'needlessly'.  Those who 'liked' your comment can feel free to provide examples. 

 

You could have just cc'd me. Anyway, it's pretty widely known that the first time this controversy was brought back to light (at least in the news media) was the Variety interview where he decided to bring along his young daughter, which obviously makes it completely improper to have an open discussion regarding rape, I don't think any journalist would do that. It's been reported (not just here) that the Variety interview was pre-arranged and was intended to head off controversy. If that's the case, bringing along his daughter would be an attempt to use her as a shield. The other problem was he said this (underline my emphasis):

Quote

“Seventeen years ago, I experienced a very painful moment in my life,” Parker told Variety. “It resulted in it being litigated. I was cleared of it. That’s that. Seventeen years later, I’m a filmmaker. I have a family. I have five beautiful daughters. I have a lovely wife. I get it. The reality is” — he took a long silence — “I can’t relive 17 years ago. All I can do is be the best man I can be now.”

I, and many others, didn't think that struck the right tone. I don't mind him mentioning that he acquitted, but I would have preferred to hear he was sorry, and knew that he made a mistake. Describing it as a very painful moment for him rather than a mistake seemed to me (and others) that he thought he was the victim. That being said, I was willing to accept that maybe under the pressure of the interview it didn't come out the way he intended.

 

The problem is, since then he's repeatedly managed to write and say things (I don't have time to dig them all up, you can find them if you look though this thread) where his emphasis is always on himself, and even when he acknowledges the suffering of the victim, he always manages to dodge actually making an apology. "I've grown and matured in so many ways" etc. instead of "I made a huge mistake for which I'm really sorry." He made a Facebook post (I think it's since been deleted, but maybe I just suck at finding things on Facebook, it was posted to his page on August 18) where he described the encounter as "unambiguously consensual". Obviously he thought that was the case, but the victim clearly didn't, and if he had grown enough to understand that he would have said "I thought it was consensual at the time".

 

Anyway, I don't see much point in rehashing all this, but you asked. I really don't think people are wanting this film to fail because of racism (although I acknowledge racism is still a very real problem in general), because until this controversy was brought back to light the general tone of critics and the media was very supportive. Even now a lot of critic reviews are saying that the film is worth seeing regardless of Parker's faults. From one of my local newspapers (full review here):

Quote

After three viewings, the most significant thing for me about The Birth of a Nation is its depiction of Nat Turner’s transformation from a docile slave into a righteous rebel and free man.

His conscience was moved by what he learned and he took action to right a wrong. The same might not be said about Parker, but his film is worth seeing regardless

 

[filmlover]

Hollywood Reporter has posted this rather fascinating article about how Fox Searchlight and Oprah (who praised the film after seeing it at Sundance earlier in the year) tried to help Nate Parker get through everything, but in the end, his arrogance won and everyone else just threw up their hands in defeat.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nate-parkers-failed-media-tour-936102

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Hollywood Reporter has posted this rather fascinating article about how Fox Searchlight and Oprah (who praised the film after seeing it at Sundance earlier in the year) tried to help Nate Parker get through everything, but in the end, his arrogance won and everyone else just threw up their hands in defeat.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nate-parkers-failed-media-tour-936102

Trump-esque

[Lordmandeep]

Imo many people in Hollywood have been exiled for less.

 

The idea he should be given a pass as he makes a good film is  just...

 

Enabling and tolerance of such behavior.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[DAJK]

It's so disappointing how this whole thing started and turned out. Not about how people dealed with stuff, but the whole situation is just ugly and very unfortunate. Everything about this is very sad, especially about the woman