The Birth of a Nation (Official Thread)

[BXKingPin82]

This was great and I left the theater with some tears in my eyes

How does this have 5.5/10 on IMDB

I didn't even know Gabrielle Union was in this who did she play?

i noticed IMDB has some real weird ratings when it comes to black films :nosasmj:

Rotten Tomatoes got it at 77% I think

 

[Jello Biafra]

Finally saw this. It was really good and for a first time director Parker did a really good job with some scenes being extremely powerful visually to the point that a few of the women in the theater I was in audibly gasped and even cried when they came on.

I would not recommend watching this and 13th on the same day though...came out if the theater with this look on my face for everybody:

 

[Birnin Zana]

The movie's sitting at 9.5 million as of yesterday. Will most likely cross $10 million tonight.

The Birth of a Nation (2016) - Box Office Mojo

 

[valet]

Minor spoiler: Solid movie but not great. Some of my problem. Felt way too modern at some parts. The romantic courtship between Nat and his future wife felt too Hollywoodish. The prayer scene when that woman (was that Nat's mama, can't remember) felt way too Black churchish modern times. I get that Nat could read and write but a lot of the slaves sounded educated as well.

I enjoyed from the different story sence. Especially the justice here on earth. As a christian, I enjoyed that it dispelled the Christianity is the white man's religion myth. Obviously, Nat didn't view it as so. And led his rebellion because of what he saw people did in the Bible when it was war time. But read the whole Bible and saw that God was about freedom. Camera work, scenary is fine. But you could tell that it was low budget. Not faulting him because of all he went through a lot to get the film made. Acting was fine and he got his message across fine. I just can't call this a great film. 12 Years a Slave was a great film. This was solid.

 

[Drew Wonder]

Wasn't perfect and you could tell it was made by a first time director on a limited budget. But I'll be damned if this wasn't the most powerful movie I've seen this year. There are scenes in this movie that are going to stay with me for a long time

Spoiler

The opening scene, the slave master breaking the slave's teeth and forcing the food down his throat, the little white girl pulling the little black girl along with the rope, Nat using scripture in his argument against the white "preacher," the bodies hanging from the tree as Strange Fruit played, the boy watching Nat being hung becoming a soldier in the Civil War

Excellent movie. 12 Years a Slave was a better film technically but this hit me more emotionally

 

[Drew Wonder]

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.

I disagree with this. Yes, there were violent scenes but I thought the film emphasized the religious and spiritual aspect more as far as why Nat did what he did. Nat truly felt like he had received a calling from God to punish evil which he associated with slavery. His feeling that he was God's instrument to spread righteousness and punish the wicked seemed to be the motivation behind his rebellion. It was more than him just witnessing violence and reacting to it. It was the usage of scripture to justify slavery which he viewed as blasphemous, the violation of black women and the overall inhumane nature of slavery.

 

[YourMajesty]

I can't wait to see this again. There were some scenes in this that sent chills thru my body

 

[Soundbwoy]

I keep seeing in reviews that they had a problem with the soundtrack of the film.

Imo that was one of the best parts of the film along with the imagery

the "strange fruits" scene was amazing

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

I disagree with this. Yes, there were violent scenes but I thought the film emphasized the religious and spiritual aspect more as far as why Nat did what he did. Nat truly felt like he had received a calling from God to punish evil which he associated with slavery. His feeling that he was God's instrument to spread righteousness and punish the wicked seemed to be the motivation behind his rebellion. It was more than him just witnessing violence and reacting to it. It was the usage of scripture to justify slavery which he viewed as blasphemous, the violation of black women and the overall inhumane nature of slavery.

I agree with that in the sense that Nat Turner's rebellion was empowered by his faith. My problem though is that the film does not look at the slave owners' actions and thoughts through any lens besides faith when clearly there is a conscious objection on their part to the majority of the scripture because it conflicts with their other beliefs. Nat Turner's POV is obviously limited because his education is limited to his experience on the plantation and the teachings he was able to glean from the bible. The film does a good job of fleshing out the character of Nat Turner and his POV, it doesn't do as good of a job fleshing out the POV of his enemies. The POV of the slave owners is not merely predicated on a willful misinterpretation of the bible, it's a lot deeper than that. Their children are literally indoctrinated every day to look at black people as subhuman. They learn to be threatened and offended to their very core by the idea that black people are as human as they are: that is what allows them to willfully misinterpret the bible without seeing the obvious blasphemy.

The movie presents the idea that the society of slavery is a consciously blasphemous one constructed on lies but I would argue that its society is actually constructed on deep rooted beliefs that radically skew their ability to perceive truth. They truly believe they are God's chosen people because they truly believe they are the only people. They believe that they and they alone have been given natural superiority and divine agency over "the savages". The white supremacist rhetoric of the 19th century - phrenology, manifest destiny, the white man's burden, etc. - espoused as much and the film did not really bother to look at just how deeply that white society internalized their superiority no matter how crazy the rationale was.

 

[Drew Wonder]

I agree with that in the sense that Nat Turner's rebellion was empowered by his faith. My problem though is that the film does not look at the slave owners' actions and thoughts through any lens besides faith when clearly there is a conscious objection on their part to the majority of the scripture because it conflicts with their other beliefs. Nat Turner's POV is obviously limited because his education is limited to his experience on the plantation and the teachings he was able to glean from the bible. The film does a good job of fleshing out the character of Nat Turner and his POV, it doesn't do as good of a job fleshing out the POV of his enemies. The POV of the slave owners is not merely predicated on a willful misinterpretation of the bible, it's a lot deeper than that. Their children are literally indoctrinated every day to look at black people as subhuman. They learn to be threatened and offended to their very core by the idea that black people are as human as they are: that is what allows them to willfully misinterpret the bible without seeing the obvious blasphemy.

The movie presents the idea that the society of slavery is a consciously blasphemous one constructed on lies but I would argue that its society is actually constructed on deep rooted beliefs that radically skew their ability to perceive truth. They truly believe they are God's chosen people because they truly believe they are the only people. They believe that they and they alone have been given natural superiority and divine agency over "the savages". The white supremacist rhetoric of the 19th century - phrenology, manifest destiny, the white man's burden, etc. - espoused as much and the film did not really bother to look at just how deeply that white society internalized their superiority no matter how crazy the rationale was.

Excellent point, but I don't really have an issue with the film only being from Nat's perspective with a few hints of white supremacist ideology thrown in there since it's Nat Turner's movie. It gives the film a tighter focus and with Nate being a first time director I think going in the direction that you wanted would've made the film a bit messy and uneven. When it comes to films on race, sometimes if you try to tackle too many complex issues within a 2 hour time frame the main message becomes lost and you end up with something incredibly unfocused and all over the place (ie. Higher Learning, Black and White).

I also do agree however that it may have been a mistake to call the film "Birth of a Nation." Because that title suggests a reconstruction and reanlaysis of the original film that plays into what you were talking about, the psychology behind white supremacy and the belief in the white race being the chosen people. It suggests a way more ambitious film than what we ended up getting.

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

Excellent point, but I don't really have an issue with the film only being from Nat's perspective with a few hints of white supremacist ideology thrown in there since it's Nat Turner's movie. It gives the film a tighter focus and with Nate being a first time director I think going in the direction that you wanted would've made the film a bit messy and uneven. When it comes to films on race, sometimes if you try to tackle too many complex issues within a 2 hour time frame the main message becomes lost and you end up with something incredibly unfocused and all over the place (ie. Higher Learning, Black and White).

I also do agree however that it may have been a mistake to call the film "Birth of a Nation." Because that title suggests a reconstruction and reanlaysis of the original film that plays into what you were talking about, the psychology behind white supremacy and the belief in the white race being the chosen people. It suggests a way more ambitious film than what we ended up getting.

This is true. I think it would be very interesting to do a TV show on the Reconstruction era... The same way that Narcos benefited from having the time to look at the different players in the coke game and their different motivations/challenges/etc, a TV show looking at the reconstruction of the south could explore the subject matter (the emerging black middle class and the push for black education and strong black communities vs. the newly poor white planter class and the violent push-back against black progress + the strengthening of white nationalist rhetoric, the hand of the North in Southern politics, etc.) with a similar multidimensional POV.

 

[Rapmastermind]

I also do agree however that it may have been a mistake to call the film "Birth of a Nation." Because that title suggests a reconstruction and reanlaysis of the original film that plays into what you were talking about, the psychology behind white supremacy and the belief in the white race being the chosen people. It suggests a way more ambitious film than what we ended up getting.

When I first heard Nate was using the title I was against renaming it that but after seeing the film, I understood why he did it. Mainly because it does reconstruct the original film. The original film postions Black men as savages, sexed crazy rapist who need to be tammed by the God fearing KKK (White Man). Nate by using Nat Turner's story of religion and indoctrnation completely flips that on it's head by showing The Black Man as strong, morale, in charge and being a God fearing family man. Then it shows that same Black Man fighting back against not the KKK but the idealogy that created the KKK (White Supremacy).

I also feel this wasn't just "Violence Begets Violence" but Nat Turner realizing through spirituality that the ideology and the mentality was the problem that had to be eradicated. The ending of the film also makes illusions to Jesus and the fact Black Men are being crucified. So this "Birth of a Nation" has become a rebuttal film with the original version of "Birth of a Nation". Iconcially the original was screen in The White House during Jim Crow Era. 100 Years Later Post Civil Rights Era the new one is released and we have A Black President (Another Symbolic Rebuttal to the film). The original is only still held up because of it's technlogy advances in film at the time and it's credited as the first majorly distrubuted released film in theaters but the film is one of the most racist in history.

The title now forever links the two films and History will now see the Real Black man's point of view instead of the one left behind by White Supremecy. Also the two posters Nate did speak to this as well. One has a the American Flag as noose around Nat Turner's neck which symbolizes the violent deadly hold America has had over black men. The other poster show the rebellion and the American Flag dripped in Blood symbolism the bloodshed spilt for Freedom. So the title not only works for Nat's story, it now changes the narrative about the Black Man in America. If the original influenced the Police, Demonizing and Mass Incarsration of the Black Man as well as the creation of the KKK. Than Nat's film should inspire Black Men to be husbands, fathers, leaders and fight back against racial oppression.

Nat Turner's Final Line in the film:

Spoiler

"I'M READY"


He was Ready To Die for his People, His Family and the future of Black People

 

[FruitOfTheVale]

When I first heard Nate was using the title I was against renaming it that but after seeing the film, I understood why he did it. Mainly because it does reconstruct the original film. The original film postions Black men as savages, sexed crazy rapist who need to be tammed by the God fearing KKK (White Man). Nate by using Nat Turner's story of religion and indoctrnation completely flips that on it's head by showing The Black Man as strong, morale, in charge and being a God fearing family man. Then it shows that same Black Man fighting back against not the KKK but the idealogy that created the KKK (White Supremacy). I also feel this wasn't just "Violence Begets Violence" but Nat Turner realizing the ideology and the mentality was the problem that had to be eradicated. So this "Birth of a Nation" has become a rebuttal film with the original version of "Birth of a Nation".

The original is only still held up because of it's technlogy advances in film at the time and it's credited as the first majorly distrubuted released film in theaters but the film is one of the most racist in history. The title now forever links the two films and History will now see the Real Black man's point of view instead of the one left behind by White Supremecy. Also the two posters Nate did speak to this as well. One has a the American Flag as noose around Nat Turner's neck which symbolizes the violent deadly hold America has had over black men. The other poster show the rebellion and the American Flag dripped in Blood symbolism the bloodshed spilt for Freedom. So the title not only works for Nat's story, it now changes the narrative about the Black Man in America. If the original influenced the Police and the creation of the KKK. Than Nat's film should inspire Black Men to be leaders and fight back against racial oppression.

Where specifically in the film would you say the character realized this? The argument scene after he baptized the white man comes to mind but the argument itself is about what is and isn't blasphemy. Nat directly accuses them of blasphemy as they falsely cite the scripture to rationalize their knee jerk reaction to Nat baptizing one of their own. You could even say that he's pointing out that their problem with him baptizing the white man has nothing to do with what's actually in the bible and everything to do with him being "black". Where in that scene (or the rest of the movie) though does Nate Parker's character reach a conclusion on the idea of "white supremacy"? In real life Nat Turner obviously did reach one, I'm not convinced though that the film dived deeply enough into the idea of white supremacy to really say that the film serves as a direct deconstruction of the 1916 original. It definitely tackled the religious aspect of the original film but I disagree that it looked at the white mentality in much depth.

You do make a good point though that it points out the hypocrisy of the portrayal in the original film of black men as psychopathic and sex crazed when slave masters were often as sex crazed and psychopathic as they come.

 

[Birnin Zana]

Birth of a Nation is now at $10.3 million as of Friday

The Birth of a Nation (2016) - Box Office Mojo

 

[Rapmastermind]

Where specifically in the film would you say the character realized this? The argument scene after he baptized the white man comes to mind but the argument itself is about what is and isn't blasphemy. Nat directly accuses them of blasphemy as they falsely cite the scripture to rationalize their knee jerk reaction to Nat baptizing one of their own. You could even say that he's pointing out that their problem with him baptizing the white man has nothing to do with what's actually in the bible and everything to do with him being "black". Where in that scene (or the rest of the movie) though does Nate Parker's character reach a conclusion on the idea of "white supremacy"? In real life Nat Turner obviously did reach one, I'm not convinced though that the film dived deeply enough into the idea of white supremacy to really say that the film serves as a direct deconstruction of the 1916 original. It definitely tackled the religious aspect of the original film but I disagree that it looked at the white mentality in much depth.

Europe may be the home but Slavery in America is the origin of White Supremacy Mentality and Systems that still affect Blacks till this day. It's that state of mind that we are property and less than human that lead to the very creation of systems and the horrible treatment we still endure. Through witnessing the different burtality on the planations, Nat Turner begain to see not only the hypocracy but the mentality of that hypocracy. Through scripture he was also able to tie in spiritualty that his crusade was one of justice because the Slave Masters were using scipture to justify torture. The Black Angel represented that conformation that he made the right choice.

This is why he felt death was the only solution because if that mindstate continued his childern and their childern will still be dealing with type of mentality. In those times extreme situations caused for extreme measures. So how did the film not deal with White Mentality when it deals with Slave times and White People's extreme treatment of Blacks. The Baptizing scene only accents the absuirty of White Supremacy. Nat could preach to keep the slaves docile but he couldn't baptize the man because he was White. The movie completely deconstructed White Supremcy Mentality.