Black Entertainment : birth-of-a-nation-dismal-debut


This is pure nonsense. Nate was tried and found not guilty. People who are dissatisfied with the verdict decided to retry the case in their imaginations, find him guilty based on no evidence, and declared him to be a rapist.

Meanwhile, admitted child rapist Roman Polanski continues to produce films with not one whisper among whites - nor these same black people - about whether to support his work.
 
‘The Birth of a Nation’ Is an Epic Fail
From its depictions of black women to the representation of slavery itself, Nate Parker’s film is deeply flawed and historically inaccurate.
By Leslie M. Alexander
OCTOBER 6, 2016

The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner, leader of the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history. A film on Turner is long overdue, and as a professional historian of the black experience in the nineteenth century, I have anxiously awaited one. I was especially encouraged by September’s issue of Vanity Fair, in which Parker stated that he had become “obsessed with the idea of telling Nat Turner’s story” and that he sought to create “historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.”

Parker created a deeply flawed, historically inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history of slavery in America. Nearly everything in the movie—ranging from Turner’s relationship with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the rebellion itself—is a complete fabrication. Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious: Nat Turner did not murder his owner, nor did he kill a slave patroller. Turner’s rebellion was not betrayed by a young boy, or by anyone else involved in the revolt. To the contrary, the rebels fought until the bitter end. The shootout depicted in Jerusalem, Virginia, never happened, because the rebels were stopped by the militia before they ever reached Jerusalem. The list of inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications goes on and on.

Despite Parker’s bluster about Nat Turner’s heroism and his claims to historical accuracy, he failed to provide a truthful rendering of Nat Turner’s life, his rebellion, or the experience of black people during slavery. As a result, Parker and Jean Celestin pimped black suffering for financial gain and proved that they have no respect for black history or for the people who fought for our freedom.


* 'The Birth of a Nation' Is an Epic Fail | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-birth-of-a-nation-is-an-epic-fail/ - 125k - Cached - Similar pages


 
So, word of mouth is The Birth of a Nation is not a good film. Could this be another reason the film is not doing well.

Are slave movies expected to be received by Black audiences as good just because it's produced by Black and the subject is slavery.
NOT.
It cost $$$$$ to see a movie. I'm asking somebody was the movie good before I come out of pocket.

At least Nate can blame women for the failure and not that the movie didn't deliver as expected.
 
‘The Birth of a Nation’ Is an Epic Fail
From its depictions of black women to the representation of slavery itself, Nate Parker’s film is deeply flawed and historically inaccurate.
By Leslie M. Alexander
OCTOBER 6, 2016

The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner, leader of the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history. A film on Turner is long overdue, and as a professional historian of the black experience in the nineteenth century, I have anxiously awaited one. I was especially encouraged by September’s issue of Vanity Fair, in which Parker stated that he had become “obsessed with the idea of telling Nat Turner’s story” and that he sought to create “historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.”

Parker created a deeply flawed, historically inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history of slavery in America. Nearly everything in the movie—ranging from Turner’s relationship with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the rebellion itself—is a complete fabrication. Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious: Nat Turner did not murder his owner, nor did he kill a slave patroller. Turner’s rebellion was not betrayed by a young boy, or by anyone else involved in the revolt. To the contrary, the rebels fought until the bitter end. The shootout depicted in Jerusalem, Virginia, never happened, because the rebels were stopped by the militia before they ever reached Jerusalem. The list of inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications goes on and on.

Despite Parker’s bluster about Nat Turner’s heroism and his claims to historical accuracy, he failed to provide a truthful rendering of Nat Turner’s life, his rebellion, or the experience of black people during slavery. As a result, Parker and Jean Celestin pimped black suffering for financial gain and proved that they have no respect for black history or for the people who fought for our freedom.


* 'The Birth of a Nation' Is an Epic Fail | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-birth-of-a-nation-is-an-epic-fail/ - 125k - Cached - Similar pages



This intellectually dishonest piece was ripped apart in another forum which exposed her false characterization of this movie:

There are several false & misleading statements she made in her critique of this movie.

1. She claimed "The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner." Ummm...no. The opening credits began with the following verbiage: "Based on a true story." Whatever nitpicking she chose to do about the historical accuracy of various details, none of it disproves the essence of the story that was portrayed in the movie:

That there was an enslaved preacher named Nat Turner who staged the bloodiest slave revolt that white historians are willing to admit to, and who was betrayed by one of his own, captured, and executed.

The film otherwise made no claim whatsoever to be THE story of Nat Turner & his rebellion.

2. She lied when she said what inspired him to stage the rebellion in the movie was the rape of his wife. The fact is that there was no one incident in the movie that led to the revolt. In fact, you can see how his mindset changed from docile to rebellious as a result of a gruesome incident he witnessed on a neighboring plantation involving the abuse of slaves. This occurred BEFORE his wife was raped.

3. Another falsehood she perpetrated was when she said of the real Nat Turner that he "took up arms against slavery because he believed slavery was morally wrong and violated the law of God," implying that this was not part of the movie. Contrary to what she would have us believe, this is precisely what was conveyed in the movie by Nat Turner's character when he explained to another slave his reason for staging the rebellion.

4. The good professa falsely attributed to Nate Parker words that he never spoke in the interview with Vanity Fair about him having become “obsessed with the idea of telling Nat Turner’s story” and seeking to create “historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.” Since she's a degreed historian who knows how to do primary research, she most assuredly knows better than to play fast and loose like that with quotes.

On the opinion side, there was nothing about the portrayal of Black women in the movie that I found to be "disturbing." Rather, she bent, twisted and stretched the truth with her claim that "the rape story line is carefully constructed to redeem black masculinity at black women’s expense." If Black masculinity is need of redemption, such redemption can only come with what Black men do in the world of reality, not on the silver screen.

Last but not least, white historians have been fabricating our history for hundreds of years. My question is where has she and her "outrage" been all this time? Oops, I forgot: Nate Parker doesn't have the power to deny her tenure in the university where she currently teaches.
 
So, word of mouth is The Birth of a Nation is not a good film. Could this be another reason the film is not doing well.

Are slave movies expected to be received by Black audiences as good just because it's produced by Black and the subject is slavery.
NOT.
It cost $$$$$ to see a movie. I'm asking somebody was the movie good before I come out of pocket.

At least Nate can blame women for the failure and not that the movie didn't deliver as expected.

A couple thangz:

1. The movie isn't "not doing well" and it isn't a failure. I know that's depressing to the haters, but that's life in the city. It met analysts' projections of $7 - 9 million at the box office, which is all the more remarkable considering the campaign of psyops waged against it in an effort to dissuade its target audience - Black people - from going to see it.

2. The only people I know who don't think it's a good film are the ones who didn't see it. People who actually did see it loved it.
 

Donate

Support destee.com, the oldest, most respectful, online black community in the world - PayPal or CashApp

Latest profile posts

HODEE wrote on Etophil's profile.
Welcome to Destee
@Etophil
Destee wrote on SleezyBigSlim's profile.
Hi @SleezyBigSlim ... Welcome Welcome Welcome ... :flowers: ... please make yourself at home ... :swings:
Back
Top