The rebellion did result in women and children be killed, correct? From what I am reading Nate Parker left that out. I do think the story of rebellion needs to be told and the evils of slave owners needs to be shown but you do need to show all the aspects to make a powerful film.
shareIf you are going to watch a movie for true events and a history lesson then you're probably one of the stupidest *beep* in the world. I feel missed the last place you should look for truth.
It's amazing how no one cares how historically inaccurate Braveheart or any of these movies filmed in Africa with all white cast on. But everybody wants to talk about the accuracy of this film.
And for the record dumbass just because something is not shown in a film doesn't mean it didn't happen. You don't see people taking a dump in these films either. But thats doesn't mean nobody *beep*
How is the juvenile behavior going guy? Oh and "I feel missed,"-great English there guy! As for Braveheart I think it is overrated.
shareOkay, so everything in this movie is a lie. Got it. That's what I thought.
shareThere was plenty of discussion about Braveheart's historical inaccuracies when the movie came out. I don't remember the details other than people thought Gibson made some *beep* up just to display some homophobia. But then I don't know *beep* or particularly care about the history of the Scottish Highlands.
It makes sense that Americans would be a lot more sensitive about something in our own history.
And it's amazing to me how many people like you who are jumping to Parker's defense all over the internet were not around to defend Duvernay when Selma was attacked on similar, and far more racist (how dare you not make LBJ the hero?!!!), grounds. The criticism of Selma was a far cleaner example of what you are complaining about.
great response seconded. An intelligent post on IMDB? That's like finding an unicorn.
shareBut Gibson's Patriot was almost as inaccurate as Braveheart, and that was about American history.
If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack
Great response!!!
shareThe OP apparently hasn't seen the movie because he wrote: "I heard..."
I'm with you. If you want a history lesson, check out any numerous amount of material on the subject of your choice, written by history scholars who will recount their exhaustive research on said subject matter, which they will annotate and cite source material.
Films, as dramatic vehicles for story-telling are required to evolve a story in accordance with the principles of drama. Often the historical accuracy is sacrificed for the purpose of capturing the essence of the historical event. In this case, a slave uprising.
I do think it's in the best interest of the screenwriter/director to perhaps put a disclaimer at the front of the film if a lot of license has been taken. "Inspired by historical events." In that way, people are prepared ahead of time that the film was created around historical figures and events and not a chapter and verse recounting.
It's too bad that creators of historical dramatic films think that doing that discredits the validity of the film. Nothing in Birth of a Nation is beyond the realm of historical fact. Black women were brutally raped, slaves beaten and tortured, worked in the fields from sun up to sun down, were treated like sub-humans and had no rights.
Braveheart, for example is considered a cinematic masterpiece but is an historically inaccurate film. So to judge Parker's film based on the fact that this is not exactly how it happened is really unfair.
Unfortunately, BOAN is not a masterpiece. But then, few films are and Mel Gibson had a 72 million dollar budget in 1995 dollars as opposed to Nate Parker's 10 million 2015 dollars.
But money isn't everything. Braveheart's script, although not an Oscar winner, was better written. That's just my opinion. I think Parker aspired his Nat Turner to William Wallace type of heroic martyrdom, but the realities of American slavery make that very difficult to achieve, especially with always the focus on the brutality of white slave masters. This is not to say that their brutality should not be exposed, but I often think that in terms of everyday/ordinary life that there were periods where slaves were able to have ordinary life. That is hinted at with the 2 marriage scenes, but mostly we see the slaves having to confront the abject and imposing brutality of evil slave masters.
Parker tried to humanize his black characters as much as possible and I salute him for that, but ultimately the film slanted in the direction of previous slave narratives where the cruelty of white people moves the story line. In this story, the need to do that I think was to validate the slave uprising where they finally were able to retaliate and kill their captors/owners.
Parker did a good job of underscoring the hypocrisy and contradictions of Christianity via the Bible, but in the end, he used the Bible verses in the same way they were used on the slaves, to validate their bloody rebellion and retaliation.
I rated the movie 8 because I think Parker accomplished the telling of the film he wanted to tell, the focus mainly on Nat Turner's evolution and humanity. But he did that at the sacrifice of other black characters who were mostly stock characters and not fleshed out. The white characters were more fleshed out more, which is always the mistake in slave narratives.
In terms of the current controversy surrounding the film, I think those who are boycotting it are making a mistake. We have never had a film where slaves fought back. I think it's an important cathartic experience that you would be depriving yourself of especially after scores of films with docile, submissive, beaten slaves whose lives were so wretched it's painful to watch. The sacrifice of historical accuracy is worth it to have that experience. An experience I think is a much needed one for black people, especially young black people.
It's not a perfect film, but it's a darn good one.
You stated "In terms of the current controversy surrounding the film, I think those who are boycotting it are making a mistake. We have never had a film where slaves fought back." This is incorrect. A major motion picture entitled "Amistad" was released a few years ago. The slaves "fought back" and won their freedom. The movie was also far closer to the historical truth than this picture is.
The great irony of this film is that it is as historically inaccurate as the original "Birth Of A Nation" from 1915. In the original film of this name, the filmmaker whitewashes the past by portraying klansmen as heroic saviors of a ruined South and defenseless women threatened by barbarous African Americans, while this 2016 film whitewashes Nat Turner into a heroic and brave fighter of evil slaveowners when he actually only personally killed a teenage girl, his men primarily murdered defenseless infants, children and women, and he never engaged in hand to hand combat with one single white man before cowardly hiding in the woods before meekly surrendering to a farmer.
The film also omits the rather obvious fact that Turner was delusional. He stated that on May 12, 1828, he "...heard a loud noise in the heavens, and the Spirit instantly appeared to me and said the serpent was loosened, and Christ had laid down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and that I should take it on and fight against the serpent..." There are other accounts of his religious delusions.
I believe it is beneficial to make a movie about the rebellion, and it is certainly fitting to show the evils of slavery and the death of slave owners no matter how cruel or brutal their deaths were. We can have no pity for men who enslaved other men. But there is no need to whitewash the fact that 2/3s of the people Nat Turner killed were infants, children, and defenseless women.
But there is no need to whitewash the fact that 2/3s of the people Nat Turner killed were infants, children, and defenseless women.
But there is no need to whitewash the fact that 2/3s of the people Nat Turner killed were infants, children, and defenseless women.
Lol stfu. If I was a black slave, and saw all those things happen to my people, and that is all I knew... I would kill your women and children too. They took part in it as well.
share"If I was a black slave, and saw all those things happen to my people, and that is all I knew... I would kill your women and children too. They took part in it as well."
Many of the events depicted in the movie are fictional. Turner was a religious fanatic. That was his motivation and not- "saw all those things happen to my people."
If that's the case, then I agree with you. I don't know the history here in this particular case. I was just going off people's comments.
If he was a religious fanatic, then fk him. I was just saying, if any group of people put another group of people through those kinds of things, I probably go savage on their ass as well.
I don't remember anywhere in the Braveheart movie saying that it was based on a true story, unlike The Birth of a Nation, you jackalope.
sharelook at the old trailer. it literally shows a black man killing a white baby. since you're so into accuracy, did you also complain about ''gods of eygpt''?
i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners
http://melanoidnation.org/white-man-warns-all-black
Why would I have seen that crap?
share[deleted]
Ya, ironically, Nate Parker white-washed history.
The movie flopped anyway.
Not really ironic. The movie was a hit at Sundance. But, purposefully the rape charges that he was found not guilty of came up, right during the movies premiere. Hmm he's been acting since 2004. 😑 coincidence, I think not!
So white people boycotted the movie, claimed it was because of the rape charges but really it was because they can't stand to see their own murdered on screen.
Nat Turner admitted he killed one person, a white woman. Then cowardly hid in the woods until he was found months later. This is the hero you want?
shareYes. Nat was a hero. everyone who were participated in the revolt were too, you mad? He stood up for what was right, yes he and others killed women and children, but really their husbands brought it upon themselves to treat humam beings like animals and not expect them to fight back sooner or later.
shareNat Turner was a schizo. He had hallucinations and delusions of being Jesus, by his own admission he was well treated by his master. He only accomplished killing one of the few kind slave owners, brutally killing women and children including a kind pastor who allowed him to preach in his Church. Then he hid in the woods like the coward he was.
When real men with guns showed up his pathetic band of women and children killers were dealt with easily. The vengeful whites then went on a killing spree , life for slaves became MUCH worse after the massacre. And any thought of emancipation was shelved, and abolitionists had a much harder time.
Thanks Nat!
[deleted]
[deleted]
But the slave owners weren't disgusting cowards who killed slave women and children? What mindset is that exactly?
shareWho cares? Whites have murdered Black Men, Women, Small Children and unborn babies by the millions and you whining about a few white women and kids being put to death. Ya'll can kill us but when we fight back it's Evil, Pathetic and Cowardly?
share@iheartnormi
From Time dot com's article on this film:
"The film shows Turner driven to rebellion by repeated acts of cruelty, including the gang rape of his wife by white men and a severe beating from his master.
Nate Turners own confession not only says nothing about any such incident, but instead states, “Since the commencement of 1830, I had been living with Mr. Joseph Travis, who was to me a kind master, and placed the greatest confidence in me; in fact, I had no cause to complain of his treatment to me.”
Would you like some milk to eat crow with?
He may have been a kind man,but slavery in its self was not. Blacks were commodities! What Nat did was justifiable given his circumstance as a slave. I don't understand do you honestly think people were happy as slaves? And so what if it didn't happen to him, doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. Why do you think there are different shades of African Americans, because of the prevalent sexual abuse that occurred so often in master slave relations.
shareOh wait but you implied that he could NOT have been kind, emphasizing with 'REALLY?'
Then you change it to something else that wasn't in the post I had replied to. Then you say 'so what if it didn't happen to him'? WHICH IS WHY I REPLIED, that's why SO WHAT?!!! Can you say Duh? Go ahead, say it...
Then you just deflect more... Can't deal with people like you. It's like no matter what anybody replies with & are correct, you just glob on more stuff so you can ignore being incorrect, & feel like you're right... SMH...
☺
shareAnybody who commits murder is not a hero. Does not matter what skin colour they have.
What happened to African Americans slaves was terrible, and so too the murder of women and children of the Slave masters. (Let's also remember that white women also had almost no rights back in those days also.)
I personally could never kill anybodies child, no matter what they did to me.
It is a sad fact though that in this day and age this kind of thing still occurs and some people approve of it.
I've read somewhere that he left poor white people alone because their lives weren't much better than his. Life was *beep* back than for most people who didn't have money, black or white.
shareThe story of Nat Turner lived on as myth and evolved into an oral tale that took on a life of its own where, many thought he had killed a lot of white people. And it wasn't only black people who circulated and evolved these tales. Whites, petrified by the idea of slave rebellions also passed tales of Nat Turner through the grapevine.
This is why it would have been a good idea for Parker to put a Disclaimer that said his film was inspired by the mythology surrounding Nat Turner.
Myth has its function in culture. It's function is to inspire and empower. Which is what Gibson's Braveheart did. I think Parker aspired to that level, but was hampered by a script that was bogged down not by historical inaccuracies, but by not envisioning a much larger depiction of slaves and the lives they lead beyond the brutality while weaving in the horrors of slave master brutality and violence.
People like to see films where black slaves are brutalized, but I'm sure the actual truth on a day-to-day basis is not filled as much with that as people keep putting in films. But because it comes from a time with no video archives, we have reduced slavery to a cliche composite of wretched slave and brutal slave master. People tend to overlook that slaves were an economic investment. They cost money. And so to brutalize your property beyond repair is not being sensible about your investment. There's a certain amount of flexibility involved with getting a return on your investment. And it's pure vanity to think that slaves didn't exact vengeance in subtle ways, especially those who worked in the kitchen. But people in positions of power often are that vain.
If you want a history lesson, get a book written by a historian. Movies are not the place to get the facts.
we have reduced slavery to a cliche composite of wretched slave and brutal slave master. People tend to overlook that slaves were an economic investment. They cost money. And so to brutalize your property beyond repair is not being sensible about your investment. There's a certain amount of flexibility involved with getting a return on your investment.
"Because it completely ignores the fundamental twisted psychology behind NEEDING to randomly create an entire class of people out of utterly unscientific thin air called N----RS, to begin with! (And along with that, make absolutely no mistake about that very specific phrasing I used there...not "blacks"..."N----RS"!) At it's core, the very necessity to create such a totally arbitrary yet utterly dehumanizing concept as N----RS in the first place, was, by itself, a sign of pure moral depravity..."
Bravo Sir!
See the concept of "N----RS" was brought to us by the same minds that developed the concept of "Whiteness"...
Which is why human HIStory for the past 500 years or so and in particular since the emergence of European and American scientific, military, social, and economic dominance comes down to RACE ("White" Supremacy; Divide, Conquer, and Exploit Poor People) and GOD ("Organized Religion"; Divide, Conquer, and Exploit Poor People for Gold, Oil, and Drugs)...
Now in keeping with the theme of your illuminating comments...
Do so called "Christians" especially those who identify themselves as "White", do they really understand this book they profess to be the greatest ever written?
Or is it just a crutch they lean on to rationalize and justify their own individual and collective evil doing? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question)
NOTE: That goes ditto for most of the so called Muslims and Jews too...
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
- John 8:32-36King James Version (KJV)
“The best slave is the one who thinks he is free.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
1926 review [1] by the Reverend W.P. King (then pastor of the First Methodist Church of Gainesville, Georgia) of E. Stanley Jones's The Christ of the Indian Road (published in 1925 by The Abington Press, New York City) includes the following,
Quote:
"Dr. Jones says that the greatest hindrance to the Christian gospel in India is a dislike for western domination, western snobbery, the western theological system, western militarism and western race prejudice. Gandhi, the great prophet of India, said, "I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity." The embarrassing fact is that India judges us by our own professed standard. In reply to a question of Dr. Jones as to how it would be possible to bring India to Christ, Gandhi replied: First, I would suggest that all of you Christians live more like Jesus Christ. Second, I would suggest that you practice your Christianity without adulterating it. The anomalous situation is that most of us would be equally shocked to see Christianity doubted or put into practice. Third, I would suggest that you put more emphasis on love, for love is the soul and center of Christianity. Fourth, I would suggest that you study the non-Christian religions more sympathetically in order to find the good that is in them, so that you might have a more sympathetic approach to the people."
"What's past is prologue" - William Shakespeare from his play The Tempest -1610–11.
OK. You just made the hair stand up on the back of my neck!!!!
E. Stanley Jones is BY FAR my all-time favorite writer!
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
Coincidence? I think not my friend...:-).
"It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.."
- Henry A. Wallace
This is the hero you want?
Yes, people are going to watch this movie and later look up "Nat Turner." And they'll be disgusted when they find out the truth. What will be their opinion of Nate Parker?- race-baiter, manipulator and lying sack of ----.
shareHmmmm...."What's in a name?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Ruffian:
Border Ruffian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Border Ruffians were pro-slavery activists from the slave state of Missouri, who in 1854 to 1860 crossed the state border into Kansas Territory, to force the acceptance of slavery there. The name was applied by Free-State settlers in Kansas and abolitionists throughout the North. Armed Ruffians interfered in territorial elections, and attacked Free-State settlements. This violence was the origin of the phrase "Bleeding Kansas". The Ruffians contributed to the growing sectional tensions, and helped bring on the American Civil War
I respect the fact that you reveal your racist agenda by virtue of your username.
"Border Ruffian"? Regardless of the era, a White Supremacist by any other name would smell just as bad...
wow when ignorance is met with intelligence
that just happened!
Bravo dhooling!!!!!!
Border_Ruffian Hmmm. Let's look at the "Heroic" exploits of one of the primary Border_Ruffians who inspired your nom de plume. Shall we?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/19/quantrills-raid-around-180-killed-in-lawrence-in-1/
“I saw men jumping from windows and fleeing for their lives. Several were killed as they ran,” Jetta wrote 50 years later in her account of the raid. “I realized the terrible situation and ran back to our home to urge Mr. Dix and the others not to attempt to leave the house.”
Shooting unarmed civilians? Was this one of the "heroic" acts that inspired you?
"Realizing their wooden home was an easy target for the fire-setters among Quantrill’s raiders, Ralph and some other men decided to escape to the Johnson House by crawling over the roof of a barber shop. Jetta left her children in a coal shed with their black nurse and re-entered the street."
“Mr. Dix and several others had just been taken prisoners out the front door of the hotel, after having been promised protection if they would turn over their money and valuables,” she wrote.
The raiders ordered Ralph and other captives to walk east toward Massachusetts Street. Along the way, Jetta pleaded with Quantrill’s men to spare her husband. As they crossed an alley, Jetta stumbled over a rock pile, and one of the marauders shot all of the captives.
“I stood, completely dazed and rigid as I saw men falling to the right and left. I could not get to my husband at once, as the guerrillas were coming in every direction, riding through the alley, right over the dead bodies, between the buildings and the street,” she wrote.
The chaos lasted nearly four hours - enough time for Quantrill, 26, to order breakfast at the City Hotel and when finished shoot the proprietor in the head; enough time to burn nearly all of the businesses; enough time to kill 180 men and boys and create 85 widows and 250 fatherless children."
Of course. They also need to show the lynching of the 200 innocent adult and children slaves killed by militias after the uprising was suppressed.
shareNat Turner Killed 61 people, including Children, he's a Mass Murderer, he killed them with Knives and Swords in order to not be caught, if he had used Firearms he believed he would been heard, Nate Parker and his screenwriting Partner are both Rapists, so I'm not interested what they have to present.
shareMass murder killing mass murders huh?!....It's pretty obvious of the type of people you and the others are on here that have something negative to say about this hero. He faught/died for his family and ancestors lives. I've got a good feeling of what you wouldve done, ran like a coward
share"Mass murder killing mass murders huh?!...."
The white folks owned slaves (or at least some of them did) but as far as I know they did not murder anyone.
"It's pretty obvious of the type of people you and the others are on here that have something negative to say about this hero."
Which "hero" title do you prefer:
"Nat Turner, the hero axe-murderer" or
"Nat Turner, the hero baby-killer"
The "brave" Nat Turner killed women and children. Some while they slept.
That's not brave.
As long movies show cruelty of white people, it´s fine...
share