Great bro. You got me inspired.
The Birth of a Nation (Official Thread)
- Thread starter BlackMajik
- Start date
FruitOfTheVale
Superstar
Saw it two days ago, I'll post my thoughts.
Honestly I was a little disappointed with the film. The acting is solid throughout and the production quality is solid throughout but the film itself lacks the level of substance I was expecting. The main question in my head after I watched it was, "Who is this film supposed to be directed at?" Looking at the film's namesake and what "Birth of a Nation" represents in this country, I pictured this film having a lot more to say about the mentality of the white society that not only permitted chattel slavery but endorsed it.
I'll backtrack a little bit to make another point. IMO slavery films in general are by definition targeted at white people. The horror of slavery is not old - let alone new - to black folks here in America. White people have been raised to forget what these films (supposedly) aim to make them remember and confront. That being said, Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation suffers the same problem as the other slavery films (12 Years a Slave, Django, etc.) that came out in the last 20 years. The only way these films understand how to communicate with their intended (white) audience is through violence. The emotional set-pieces of Nate Parker's film are almost all predicated on extreme acts of violence committed by slave owners on their slaves.
My problem with violence being the driving plot device in this film is that the violence is a symptom of the mindset that empowers these slave owners to act this way. The mindset is the root problem, not the violence. When a white audience watches a film like this one, the only thing they are being forced to confront is the barbarity of the violence. A white person can watch this film and genuinely cringe at the violence while thinking in the back of their head, "we've come a long way from this."
But what about the barbarity of the slave owner's mindset? Have we come a long way from that? The original Birth of a Nation was released a full 70 years - a lifetime - after emancipation. What is the difference between the mindset on display in that film and that of a slave owner? There isn't one. What was the difference between the mindset on display in Jim Crow and the mindset on display in slavery? There wasn't one. My point being... What is the difference between the white mindset of 2016 and the white mindset of 1916? This film took on the burden of addressing that question when it took on the namesake and imo it failed to address it.
The narrative construction is a big part of where the film lost power... Nate Parker's performance is good but the choice to make him the singular focus of the film AND make the violence the focus of the film was a poor choice imo. Nat Turner did not rebel because he witnessed unspeakable violence, he rebelled because he saw that the mentality that enabled slavery was a chronic disease that could not be treated with sermon. The elephant in the room is that the white slave owners are sick but they can't (and don't want to) see that...
... The same way the white audience in the movie theater can't and doesn't want to see it either.
Honestly I was a little disappointed with the film. The acting is solid throughout and the production quality is solid throughout but the film itself lacks the level of substance I was expecting. The main question in my head after I watched it was, "Who is this film supposed to be directed at?" Looking at the film's namesake and what "Birth of a Nation" represents in this country, I pictured this film having a lot more to say about the mentality of the white society that not only permitted chattel slavery but endorsed it.
I'll backtrack a little bit to make another point. IMO slavery films in general are by definition targeted at white people. The horror of slavery is not old - let alone new - to black folks here in America. White people have been raised to forget what these films (supposedly) aim to make them remember and confront. That being said, Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation suffers the same problem as the other slavery films (12 Years a Slave, Django, etc.) that came out in the last 20 years. The only way these films understand how to communicate with their intended (white) audience is through violence. The emotional set-pieces of Nate Parker's film are almost all predicated on extreme acts of violence committed by slave owners on their slaves.
My problem with violence being the driving plot device in this film is that the violence is a symptom of the mindset that empowers these slave owners to act this way. The mindset is the root problem, not the violence. When a white audience watches a film like this one, the only thing they are being forced to confront is the barbarity of the violence. A white person can watch this film and genuinely cringe at the violence while thinking in the back of their head, "we've come a long way from this."
But what about the barbarity of the slave owner's mindset? Have we come a long way from that? The original Birth of a Nation was released a full 70 years - a lifetime - after emancipation. What is the difference between the mindset on display in that film and that of a slave owner? There isn't one. What was the difference between the mindset on display in Jim Crow and the mindset on display in slavery? There wasn't one. My point being... What is the difference between the white mindset of 2016 and the white mindset of 1916? This film took on the burden of addressing that question when it took on the namesake and imo it failed to address it.
The narrative construction is a big part of where the film lost power... Nate Parker's performance is good but the choice to make him the singular focus of the film AND make the violence the focus of the film was a poor choice imo. Nat Turner did not rebel because he witnessed unspeakable violence, he rebelled because he saw that the mentality that enabled slavery was a chronic disease that could not be treated with sermon. The elephant in the room is that the white slave owners are sick but they can't (and don't want to) see that...
... The same way the white audience in the movie theater can't and doesn't want to see it either.
FruitOfTheVale
Superstar
TLDR version: The message of this film boils down to the idea that violence begets violence in return. What the film doesn't make much of an effort to comment about is whether there was something more sinister than the violence itself that made Nat Turner choose to rebel against the institution as a whole. In real life he didn't specifically target white people who he witnessed committing acts of extreme violence and depravity, he killed any and all white people that got in his way because he could see that they were all sick.
FruitOfTheVale
Superstar
Putting it another way...
What kind of mentality do you have to have as a 10 year old girl to be smiling at a lynching? What kind of mentality as a parent do you have to have to make a lynching a family gathering that you intentionally bring your children to?
What kind of mentality do you have to have to be proud of this? The violence in and of itself is terrible... The mentality is far worse.
Violence is typically a last resort when there is no other way to settle a dispute/survive/right a wrong. It is something that carries physical and spiritual consequences for the perpetrator... the weight of violence on the mind is real.
Why then does white American culture not only normalize violence against black people but actively seek it out? All of the white men, women and children in the above photos WANTED to kill the black men above and for that matter any black man unlucky enough to be spotted by that mob that night regardless of what they did or didn't do. Historically White America has had a bloodlust independent of any moral compass... They justify their actions by internalizing at a young age that a black life being black serves as a good enough justification for taking it.
What kind of mentality do you have to have as a 10 year old girl to be smiling at a lynching? What kind of mentality as a parent do you have to have to make a lynching a family gathering that you intentionally bring your children to?
Violence is typically a last resort when there is no other way to settle a dispute/survive/right a wrong. It is something that carries physical and spiritual consequences for the perpetrator... the weight of violence on the mind is real.
Why then does white American culture not only normalize violence against black people but actively seek it out? All of the white men, women and children in the above photos WANTED to kill the black men above and for that matter any black man unlucky enough to be spotted by that mob that night regardless of what they did or didn't do. Historically White America has had a bloodlust independent of any moral compass... They justify their actions by internalizing at a young age that a black life being black serves as a good enough justification for taking it.
Last edited:
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
I've got to see the movie again. Before I rate it. First time all I could do was think how this could have been great with a bigger budget.
Also, Django, BOA, 12 Years are all very different movies......its ok if you like them all.
Django appealed to me because I'm a huge western fan. However, Its flaw is that its silliness undermines some of the great aspects of it. There are a lot of layers in this movie. Still the best movie of 2012 imo.
12 Years (watched it for the 2nd time before seeing BOA) - is an incredibly told slave narrative. Another movie could have benefited from a bigger budget. Only flaw isn't a huge one. Just a bit by the numbers (this happened, then this happened, etc.) McQueen is just a much better filmmaker at this time than Nate. Very powerful movie that deserved the oscar.
BOA - The most ambitious movie. Nate gives the best performance as a lead (close with Chiwetel) However, as a director...he had a few issues....some which could have been helped with money.
I gotta see it again to truly judge though. As of now Nate gave the movie I think most wanted to see, but didn't quite stick the landing like he hoped. Its too bad none of the black directors Nate wanted to direct kept passing on it.
Rapmastermind
Superstar
Daily Box Office for Tuesday, October 11, 2016 - Box Office Mojo
Up to 8.6 Million after 5 Days. On pace for 12-13 Million by Sunday. But it's a flop, SMH. Rolan Martin can be hit or miss but he did a great breakdown of things I have been saying as well as Tariq about the fake box office standards being used against it. Yet "Girl on a Train" didn't make half it's budget yet no talk of "Flop". Tim Burton's new movie isn't doing that great. Mark Walburg's new movie is stuggling yet again no reports of "Flop". I'm done with the Hollywood media's racist bias agendas.
Last edited:
Dr. Narcisse
Veteran
Birnin Zana
Honorary Wakandan
Not bad at all at 8.6 as of Tuesday. Assuming this keeps up, it'll reach 10 million by Thursday and 12-13 by Sunday, as @Rapmastermind mentioned. Possibly more if an unexpected boost occurs.
Birnin Zana
Honorary Wakandan
I felt it was one of the film's weaker points, but only because everything else was really well done, imho. It's definitely not wack, however, and in certain moments it was great and very fitting.
A lot of those reviews felt that the music was too pretentious, I have to disagree. I absolutely loved the soaring pieces.
especially music illustrating The Stand, after an overseer advises death is better than life. Imo this was the message of the film. To stand and fight, show strength in the face of great odds is a win for us in and of itself.
That was the most powerful scene in the film to me because it told so much about the blackmans strength and ability
Rapmastermind
Superstar
Tariq New Radio Show on "Birth of a Nation"
"The Assault in Independent Black Films
Ep.#153-The assault On Independent Black films
Tariq may not know but he's an inspiration to future black filmmaking as well. The fact he got "Hidden Colors 4" on screens without major hollywood distrubution was great. As for the film and the rebellion, I loved how they showed Nat's and the slaves getting those evil people "Like a Theif in the Night".
"The Assault in Independent Black Films
Ep.#153-The assault On Independent Black films
Tariq may not know but he's an inspiration to future black filmmaking as well. The fact he got "Hidden Colors 4" on screens without major hollywood distrubution was great. As for the film and the rebellion, I loved how they showed Nat's and the slaves getting those evil people "Like a Theif in the Night".
Mr Hate Coffee
Veteran
Saw it two days ago with a so-called black feminist (not the crazy Twitter kind). It was a good movie. Nate acted his ass off in it. I wish it would have shown more of the actual rebellion tho.
I'm over all the articles and think pieces tho. It's unfortunate people are falling for the diversion tactics.
I'm over all the articles and think pieces tho. It's unfortunate people are falling for the diversion tactics.
