Birth of a Nation (Nate Parker) Movie • Page 3

I doubt it. I imagine it will mean there's at least a cursory vetting process before throwing down a giant stack on a movie. But I think fears of not finding a movie made by a poc are as founded as not making poc superhero movies after Fantastic Four bombed.

 

Studios still, to this day, are reluctant to pair men of color with white women romantically in movies. It's not much of a stretch to wonder if, in many executives minds, they'll perceive any failures in Birth of a Nation's box office to possibly be due to it's portrayal of people of color enacting violence on white people.

Superhero movies are essential to studios, and had been for years by the time Fantastic Four was made. Studios feel like they need to endlessly utilize their superhero properties to tap into a titanic market. Films made by and featuring predominantly people of color receive far less attention and resources. Birth of a Nation's sale set a Sundance record. The next time a provocative and racially charged film from creatives of color comes along at a festival, it is not a gigantic leap to assume studios will have this example in their minds. I do not have faith in predominantly white producers and studio executives, who have endless patterns of missing the point when it comes to race in filmmaking, to recognize the complicated intersection this film represents. Hopefully Nate Parker's case being such a news story in the leadup to the film leaves an impact.

 

There is no way that any box office/awards failure on the part of this film is attributed to "it's portrayal of people of color enacting violence on white people." The Nate Parker rape case has literally been all anyone can talk about in relation to this film since the story broke. The film is inextricably linked to the crimes of its filmmaker and always will be. The fact that this film's sale set a Sundance record shows that studios can be willing to bet big ("big" being a relative term) on independent films made by and starring people of color. The lesson to learn from this is to make sure that the filmmakers said studios are betting big on don't have insanely horrific skeletons in their closet beforehand. And that goes for both white filmmakers and filmmakers of color, by the way. Don't know how any studio executive could see it any other way based on how the last few months have gone.

 

Plenty of studio executives are that dumb and that racist.

 

The coverage has been constant and inescapable. There have been petitions, protests, public shaming of Parker and Fox Searchlight, statements from members of the cast, numerous interviews and statements from Parker himself, etc. Coming out of Sundance, there were few people not predicting that this film would be a major hit and awards season contender. I know that, for me personally, it was one of my most-anticipated films of the year, easily. And all of that was because of the film's subject matter, not in spite of it. Once the story broke, all of those high-hopes fell apart.

The lesson for studios to learn from this is to vet these filmmakers. Just as literally any prospective business partner should be vetted before any deal is signed. The fact that the dollar signs in their eyes prevented them from vetting Parker disproves the notion that the film's subject matter is what will turn future studios off from supporting independent filmmakers of color.

 

That is the lesson they SHOULD learn, absolutely. But I can't stress enough how deep in their own warped world they're in. They'll talk themselves into any narrative that makes the most sense to them, regardless of what makes sense to the general public.

Yes, these studios saw potential to make money and win awards in this film (the awards could still be coming). But they invested deeply in a film about people of color enacting violence against white people. Some producers and investors and studios will attribute the failure to that, even if they're aware of Parker's history being another factor. They are that afraid of taking chances on racially charged material.

Now, I never even said I think this all is what's going to happen. But from what I know of Hollywood, it is entirely possible, so yes, I am worried about it a little bit.

 

This is a bad film. Parker's actual filmmaking of Turner's rebellion is remarkably neglectful, he takes no craft or care to set up what's happening, why, and what it means, and he rushes through it like he didn't care about Turner's actual action. The rest of the film is dedicated to making Turner a Jesus parallel, which doesn't quite land. The women in the film are written purely as motivators and extensions to Turner, and it's particularly stomach-turning to see Nate Parker portray himself as a man who saves a woman from rape, then uses a subsequent rape of the same woman as justification for his rebellion. This after he chides a fellow slave that their action is not about "revenge", and then features a scene where he kills the man who raped his wife (though the film doesn't even make it clear that he knows he was the one who did it).

Nat Turner's story is an important one, and the idea of seeing his violent revolt against whites told cinematically is a powerful and brave idea. This film fails to honor that.

 

I drove to go see this last night but instead stopped and got a Slurpee and went home. It sounds like I made the right choice.

 

Richard Brody's review is spot on.

The Cinematic Merits and Flaws of Nate Parker’s “The Birth of a Nation” - The New Yorker

 

It seems like the type of film people championed because of the story it was trying to tell rather than any sort of mastery in telling it.

It seems like the opposite of the way people tried to argue against Selma because of certain historical inaccuracies. Selma was never explicitly about that accuracy, and it was a better film for taking a more personal approach.

 

Icees > Slurpees

 

In some ways yes, but I prefer the plastic cups of a Slurpee to the paper cups of an Icee. That scratching sound is irritating.