The Birth of a Nation (Official Thread)

[GoldenGlove]

I swear I remember seeing a trailer for this that had a scene where Nat was speaking in front of potential slaves to join the rebellion, and he said something on the lines of, "now anybody that isn't down to fight, let's kill them now cause they're the enemy"... am I tweaking? Does anybody else remember that scene?

 

[VicMackey415]

Seen the movieon sunday. It was a good film. Acting was superb. I too lije many others here thought the violence was very tamed. I was expecting more gore n guts. But now thinking back on it I was expecting some game of thrones type battles scenes, but i realize those are expensive as hell . this is basically an independent film with independent budget. I gotta assume killing folks on screen is very costly considering the special effects n make up required.
I liked the back story of his child hood and how his pops was even a G.

 

[Rapmastermind]

This film was overrated.... it was another stereotypical slave victimization film with MAYBE 7 minutes about the rebellion itself! Nat Turner was black people's first REAL revolutionary and how Nate depicted it didn't due him enough justice. Maybe the focus SHOULD of been more about the 48 hours of the massive slave revolt and the build up mainly on how he got it organized rather than the same ol' cliche slave horrors that we should be SICK & TIRED of seeing by now. This film was supposed to be different from the rest, and it dropped the ball, IMO.

It is a SHAME in this day and age, a FICTIONAL-based from called Django Unchained gave us the most truest and balanced analysis on slavery and variety of black people that was forced to coexist in slavery with the slave oppressors and owners getting theirs. Makes me respect that film even more.

Not to mention the fact how it ended is a COMPLETE rip-off from Braveheart if anyone haven't noticed. Very disappointed for this film. Nate only gets a pass because this was his very 1st film he directed as well as produced. But he focused on the wrong aspect.... he focused on the VERY THING we did not want to have focus on, time and time again.... it should of been more about the revolt itself with just small enough backstory to understand his motivations... and not a full 2hrs with just 7 minutes of the revolt.

Brillant filmmaking doesn't require you to show gore 100% of the time. Stephen Speliberg didn't need you see Jaws every single shot to know he was a threat and did major damage. This wasn't the "Saw" series. The Brutality for Blacks and Whites was done in a very artistic way. This was a bio picture, it showed the complete Nat Turner story childhood to adult. The Revolt was only one aspect of Nat's life. Also it wasn't 7 mintues, it was the last about 20-30 just broken up because it didn't go smoothly. There were problems along the way obviously. The entire movie was not going to be the revolt. Some of you wanted a 2 hour white people bloodbath. But that's not how you do a movie. Also more whites were killed in this than "Django". Another thing, Django was 2 hour 45 minutes, it was mostly talking and dialogue.

Sorry having a White Savior hold Django's hand 95% of the film disqualifies it from being the best Slave movie. How can this movie be the same as the others when the others focused on White People freeing us from bodage? Atleast Nat Turner killed not only his slave master but the leader of the Slave Police Patrol. Who did Django kill that was important besides that sellout Stephen? (Another Black man)? The Plantation Wife? Exactly. QT did not make a more balanced Slave movie, are you kidding? It was a "Save my wife revenge story with a White Man holding his hand all the way" where Django does not even Kill the man resonsible for his wife torment and torture. Did he touch on religion and indoctranation? No, did he touch on African Tradition? No, did he touch on the origins of the Police? No. Did he touch on the family bonds of slaves? No.

Django is essentially a White Liberal Slave Blaxplotation Fantasy. White people were in the theater having a good time watching it. White people are scared to even go to "Birth" because they know it's a film that shows us fighting back without the help of a White Savior. The reality is QT could never understand the emotions that Nate put on screen. Also how is it a rip off of "bravehart"? Which was a WAR Film? Just because of that Clash scene in Jerusleam? Having two groups running into each other was done on film long before "Bravehart". The only real comparison is it shows man rising up against his opressors and the ending with the death being before a crowd. There were no war battles here. Lastly the movie cost about 10 Million some of you are acting like you don't understand that budgets matter as far as how the scale of a movie looks. "Django" cost 100 Million dollars yet Nate made a more meaningful film with less money.

 

[gluvnast]

I hear you. but when you've got a budget of $7-10 mil, extensive battle scenes are impossible.

The battle scene thing is actually not part of Nat Turner's actual story. Scenes of them going from house to house slaying people might have been good. Then again, it's hard to say. It might get monotonous.

Extensive battles scenes aren't what I was talking about and can be worked around it with good enough editing and movie magic. I was speaking on what was FOCUSED..... the revolt and the build up to it. Seven Samurai was 3.5hrs long and it was focused on the organization of the team and the confrontation and that wasn't a huge budgeted epic, not to those standards in comparison to Hollywood. Nate focused on the same SLAVE house of horrors that we're sick of instead of making it a backdrop reasoning and put all of that onto organizing all the slave plantations and their rebellion. You did not need some crazy 1000 extra super war battle for that.

 

[gluvnast]

Brillant filmmaking doesn't require you to show gore 100% of the time. Stephen Speliberg didn't need you see Jaws every single shot to know he was a threat and did major damage. This wasn't the "Saw" series. The Brutality for Blacks and Whites was done in a very artistic way. This was a bio picture, it showed the complete Nat Turner story childhood to adult. The Revolt was only one aspect of Nat's life. Also it wasn't 7 mintues, it was the last about 20-30 just broken up because it didn't go smoothly. There were problems along the way obviously. The entire movie was not going to be the revolt. Some of you wanted a 2 hour white people bloodbath. But that's not how you do a movie. Also more whites were killed in this than "Django". Another thing, Django was 2 hour 45 minutes, it was mostly talking and dialogue.

Sorry having a White Savior hold Django's hand 95% of the film disqualifies it from being the best Slave movie. How can this movie be the same as the others when the others focused on White People freeing us from bodage? Atleast Nat Turner killed not only his slave master but the leader of the Slave Police Patrol. Who did Django kill that was important besides that sellout Stephen? (Another Black man)? The Plantation Wife? Exactly. QT did not make a more balanced Slave movie, are you kidding? It was a "Save my wife revenge story with a White Man holding his hand all the way" where Django does not even Kill the man resonsible for his wife torment and torture. Did he touch on religion and indoctranation? No, did he touch on African Tradition? No, did he touch on the origins of the Police? No. Did he touch on the family bonds of slaves? No.

Django is essentially a White Liberal Slave Blaxplotation Fantasy. White people were in the theater having a good time watching it. White people are scared to even go to "Birth" because they know it's a film that shows us fighting back without the help of a White Savior. The reality is QT could never understand the emotions that Nate put on screen. Also how is it a rip off of "bravehart"? Which was a WAR Film? Just because of that Clash scene in Jerusleam? Having two groups running into each other was done on film long before "Bravehart". The only real comparison is it shows man rising up against his opressors and the ending with the death being before a crowd. There were no war battles here. Lastly the movie cost about 10 Million some of you are acting like you don't understand that budgets matter as far as how the scale of a movie looks. "Django" cost 100 Million dollars yet Nate made a more meaningful film with less money.

I didn't say ANYTHING about showing the GORE or lack of artistry. You really misinterpreted what I was saying completely. I was speaking where the film was FOCUSED. A film about Nat Turner, our 1st black American revolutionary, should be more focused on him building and organizing all the slaves from the plantation and on the rebellion itself. The fact that YOU ADMITTED that a LONGER film like Django Unchained was mostly dialogue points to the fact it COULD BE DONE without needing extra $$$$ for showing the violent. In my my CRITICISM was about them focusing on the HORROR of slavery on some victimization cliche shyt we get ALL THE TIME. This film is NO DIFFERENT from the ROOTS remake and all of those other slave movies and those slave tropes.

I only point ot Django because it is STILL the ONLY FILM that shown a true BALANCE as to what slavery was, how we as black people from all varying aspects existed. Call it a White Liberal Blaxploitaton Fantasy if you want, but a film where the black man came out, kill off all white people and the SAMBO-c00n and burning the plantation down is EXACTLY what Nat Turner's film SHOULD OF BEEN. And 7 minutes of killing like a handful of oppressors isn't worth the overpraise. This is nothing more than the same old SLAVE MOVIE that we are, or at least I AM sick and TIRED of seeing over and over. The FOCUS was at the wrong areas.

 

[mastermind]

I only point ot Django because it is STILL the ONLY FILM that shown a true BALANCE as to what slavery was, how we as black people from all varying aspects existed.

i liked most of your post, but I disagree with this completely.

12 Years a Slave did this waaaaay better than Django.

 

[hustlemania]

@Illeye buckmatic @mobbinfms @BmoreGorilla @MoonGoddess @CinnaSlim @MartyMcFly @JoelB @Poitier @Chelsea Bridge @Walt @Booksnrain @Azul @SoulController @hustlemania

@Realdealholy @-DMP- @Primetime @Versa

@Always-Right Liggins @Born2BKing

@Prynce

Read and leave comments brehs


THE SWORD AND THE SERMON (The Birth Of A Nation Review

im coming off my 4th 14hr double, and have to turn in a full menu in about 2hrs.. but, i got you when i have some time tomorrow..

 

[GoldenGlove]

Brillant filmmaking doesn't require you to show gore 100% of the time. Stephen Speliberg didn't need you see Jaws every single shot to know he was a threat and did major damage. This wasn't the "Saw" series. The Brutality for Blacks and Whites was done in a very artistic way. This was a bio picture, it showed the complete Nat Turner story childhood to adult. The Revolt was only one aspect of Nat's life. Also it wasn't 7 mintues, it was the last about 20-30 just broken up because it didn't go smoothly. There were problems along the way obviously. The entire movie was not going to be the revolt. Some of you wanted a 2 hour white people bloodbath. But that's not how you do a movie. Also more whites were killed in this than "Django". Another thing, Django was 2 hour 45 minutes, it was mostly talking and dialogue.

Sorry having a White Savior hold Django's hand 95% of the film disqualifies it from being the best Slave movie. How can this movie be the same as the others when the others focused on White People freeing us from bodage? Atleast Nat Turner killed not only his slave master but the leader of the Slave Police Patrol. Who did Django kill that was important besides that sellout Stephen? (Another Black man)? The Plantation Wife? Exactly. QT did not make a more balanced Slave movie, are you kidding? It was a "Save my wife revenge story with a White Man holding his hand all the way" where Django does not even Kill the man resonsible for his wife torment and torture. Did he touch on religion and indoctranation? No, did he touch on African Tradition? No, did he touch on the origins of the Police? No. Did he touch on the family bonds of slaves? No.

Django is essentially a White Liberal Slave Blaxplotation Fantasy. White people were in the theater having a good time watching it. White people are scared to even go to "Birth" because they know it's a film that shows us fighting back without the help of a White Savior. The reality is QT could never understand the emotions that Nate put on screen. Also how is it a rip off of "bravehart"? Which was a WAR Film? Just because of that Clash scene in Jerusleam? Having two groups running into each other was done on film long before "Bravehart". The only real comparison is it shows man rising up against his opressors and the ending with the death being before a crowd. There were no war battles here. Lastly the movie cost about 10 Million some of you are acting like you don't understand that budgets matter as far as how the scale of a movie looks. "Django" cost 100 Million dollars yet Nate made a more meaningful film with less money.

 

[Rapmastermind]

I didn't say ANYTHING about showing the GORE or lack of artistry. You really misinterpreted what I was saying completely. I was speaking where the film was FOCUSED. A film about Nat Turner, our 1st black American revolutionary, should be more focused on him building and organizing all the slaves from the plantation and on the rebellion itself. The fact that YOU ADMITTED that a LONGER film like Django Unchained was mostly dialogue points to the fact it COULD BE DONE without needing extra $$$$ for showing the violent. In my my CRITICISM was about them focusing on the HORROR of slavery on some victimization cliche shyt we get ALL THE TIME. This film is NO DIFFERENT from the ROOTS remake and all of those other slave movies and those slave tropes.

I only point ot Django because it is STILL the ONLY FILM that shown a true BALANCE as to what slavery was, how we as black people from all varying aspects existed. Call it a White Liberal Blaxploitaton Fantasy if you want, but a film where the black man came out, kill off all white people and the SAMBO-c00n and burning the plantation down is EXACTLY what Nat Turner's film SHOULD OF BEEN. And 7 minutes of killing like a handful of oppressors isn't worth the overpraise. This is nothing more than the same old SLAVE MOVIE that we are, or at least I AM sick and TIRED of seeing over and over. The FOCUS was at the wrong areas.

You keep saying this is the "Same" film as the others but it's not. There is no White Savior that alone changes the whole dynamic of the entire film. You wanted a longer rebellion, so maybe the movie could of been 20 minutes longer, ok I can see that point but budget probably prevented a longer shoot. They didn't have 100 Million like QT to do whatever they want. Most black films don't get the same budgets. Also "Django" length was a problem because then movie dragged and the pacing wasn't good were as "Birth" had great pacing and everything came together in the end. "Django" isn't "balanced" for the reasons I gave. As far as this being no different than "ROOTS" it's not a good comparison, "Roots" is a miniseries that was like over 10 hours of story.

More can be told in that time frame. This is an isolated story, from one particular slave. Look if you like Django, that's cool. I don't even think it's a bad film but it wasn't the 2nd coming and I gave my reason why. Nate made a more complete Slave film that focused on all aspects of our experience and showed us rising up and taking our own freedom. "Django" needed Dr. King to get out of chains. Nat broke the chains himself and freed others along the way. Also Nat Turner was a REAL PERSON not a figment of QT imagination. I tend to like my slave stories be real not imaginary. The only thing I will say is QT did good showing the "Mandigo Fights" because that's a lost history, also Django whipping the slave master was dope. Blowing up the Plantation was good as well and riding off with his women in the end was also strong. Outside of that he dropped the ball by not having Django face off against Candy in the final battle and the overuse of the White Savior complex.

 

[mastermind]

Nate made a more complete Slave film that focused on all aspects of our experience and showed us rising up and taking our own freedom.

 

[Rapmastermind]

After 185 Years, Nat Turner's Alleged Skull Returned to Family

Nat Turner Skull returned to his family after 185 years. SMH @ These White Ascenstors. The biggest reason they want us to move on from Slavery is because they will never look in the mirror. Nobody would tell a Jewish person to get over the Holocaust yet Blacks are constantly told by Whites to move on from Slavery. Because they don't want to accept their brutality and that's what they don't want people to know. Why in the hell would I disrespect my ancentors blood and sacifice by "Moving on" are you kidding? The fight is far from over too. This is why they have sanatized the sh!t out of slavery and hidden all of the many revolts we've had. They kept this man's skull for almost 200 years. That should let you know how huge his Rebellion was. I'm thinking they lying about the numbers and Nat went in even harder than they reported.

 

[MostReal]

I could've used a bit more of the revolt. Solid film with some powerful imagery
I did enjoy hearing Nat talk that talk

I see CNN is trashing him because he didn't use Confessions of Nat Turner as a source.

Btw what source do you all think he used

 

[Rapmastermind]

I could've used a bit more of the revolt. Solid film with some powerful scenery.
I did enjoy hearing Nat talk that talk

I see CNN is trashing him because he didn't use Confessions of Nat Turner as a source.

Btw what source do you all think he used

"Confessions of Nat Turner" wasn't non-fiction and has been debunked by many Black Historians. It was actually written by a White Author who tried to say Nat was Gay and dreamed of raping White Woman. Thankfully Nate was smart to not use it as a source. Nate wrote an original screenplay based off his own research.

 

[mcellas]

Y'all kill me with all the "Birth of a Nation is historically inaccurate" crap. So Nat's wife was never actually raped...so?! How many Black women's WERE raped by white men? "They never actually made it to all the weapons...." again SO?! They did fight and rebel with whatever weapons they had. "The way he was caught wasn't accurate...." wow SO WHAT? He was hanged and skinned REGARDLESS of how he was captured.

 

[Rapmastermind]

Y'all kill me with all the "Birth of a Nation is historically inaccurate" crap. So Nat's wife was never actually raped...so?! How many Black women's WERE raped by white men? "They never actually made it to all the weapons...." again SO?! They did fight and rebel with whatever weapons they had. "The way he was caught wasn't accurate...." wow SO WHAT? He was hanged and skinned REGARDLESS of how he was captured.

The "It's Not Historically Accurate" Excuse is more double standards and bias. No Bio Picture is Historically Accurate in the history of film. For example there is no audio of Abraham Lincoln's voice because technological recording wasn't invented. Yet Daniel Day Lewis made up his voice which means "Lincoln" is historically inaccurate yet it got shower with Oscars and nobody cared. In the Oscar Winning Best picture "Argo" Ben Affleck, a white man from Boston is playing a character who is Hispanic/Latino in real life and had all types of historical inaccracies yet it didn't stop it from cleaning up at the Oscars. You go to historical accuracy when you watching a documentary. When making a film writers and directors take artistic and creative lisence.