MovieChat Forums > The Birth of a Nation (2016) Discussion > Directors difference from Roman Polanski...

Directors difference from Roman Polanski?

posted 8 years ago by tarrelldude23
2 replies | jump to latest

Not picking sides or saying who's wrong or right, but I've noticed something. Why is it that Nate Parker gets his movie (which is in no way related to his personal situation) lambasted and given a lower score while Roman Polanski films are completely fine?

For those unsure of that situation, Roman Polanski is a famous filmmaker that was charged with criminal sexual assault (among other things) after drugging and raping a 14 year old girl in the 1970's. This could be a case of people in the modern age not being as aware of this, but it's weird to see so many people react this way when this goes unnoticed.

I personally think using the personal lives of people involved in films when rating them to be a disservice to this website. The films should be rated as stand alone things and not reflect those involved in making it. I find a lot of people online not taking the ratings on this site seriously sometimes, and similar to this situation I think it's because votes come in from people who haven't actually seen the film and vote for a different agenda.

Again, I'm not saying who is right or wrong (any form of sexual assault is definitely not ok), but I feel like this trend is getting out of hand (biggest recent example of this being for the movie A Dog's Purpose). What do you guys think?

[–] norgizfox 8 years ago

Polanski did not go unscathed. He cannot come back into the states or else he will have to face more sentencing.

As for his film's reception vs Birth of a Nation, all I can say is that as someone who can separate the art from the artist, I didn't find Birth of a Nation to be a good movie. It's just not that well made. Meanwhile, while I don't approve of Polanski's history, I can still watch most of his movies and objectively see that he is a good filmmaker. I
cannot say the same for Nate Parker.

[–] NdrwMsc 8 years ago

Probably a few factors. Easier access to information today and timing of the release of information hurt this film greatly. The information being known before the release of the film taints the image of it and Parker. Parker also didn't seem convincingly remorseful to some. The fact that the victim committed suicide probably factors in as well. Not only was justice not served but she also took her own life. This adds more tragedy to the victim's story.

Polanski was a well known director prior to his incident. His films were established and considered good cinema. He also had a very famous tragedy, losing his wife, a beloved actress who was also pregnant at the time, in the Manson family murders. The fact that the victim is still alive and seems to have forgiven him kind of gives permission for others to do the same. The other obvious point of difference between the two is race. Parker, a black man, was probably going to be given less of a chance than Polanski, who, while not as famous, continues to make films and is generally regarded favorably.

I struggle with this too, as an avid film fan and a feminist. I have a difficult time reconciling my love for Hitchcock movies knowing that, although a brilliant filmmaker, he also did a lot of bad things behind the scenes. You have to ask yourself should you separate the art from the creator? In Parker's case at least, it seems like people have said no, they can't.