This is not a remake of the 1915 film about the Klan. It is an original 2016 film about Nat Turner, a man of God who led a slave uprising in 1831. It stars Nate Parker, who wrote, directed and produced the film. It comes out this October.
The song in the trailer is Nina Simone’s cover of “Strange Fruit”.
The Scripture that Turner is quoting at the end is Psalm 149:5-9:
Let the saints be joyful in glory.
Let the high praise of God be on the mouths of the saints and a two-edged sword in their hand
to execute vengeance on the demonic nations and punishment on those peoples,
to bind their kings with chains.
This honour have all his saints.
Praise the lord, praise the lord, sing to him a new song.
In the King James Bible, it has “the heathen” where Turner says “demonic nations”. That might be an update for the sake of 2016 audiences..
– Abagond, 2016.
I just got off Google plus community and this is being discussed on black Google communities and my question is what Nat Turner is being presented so that it will be palpable for white movie goers? Because this story of slave insurrection is not a pretty one. Will white movie goers sit for two hours watching white women and children and other whites get slaughtered? I will go just to see what story will be told.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Mary
Well, they apparently sat through “Django Unchained” and its bloodbath-a-thon. On the other hand, though, that film was cartoonish, fictional and it was by a White director, so it is hard to say.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Roots and Django are the only two slave movies I’ve ever seen. Is this genre any good? Gotta be, or Hollywood would stop making them. Right?
LikeLike
Since Nate Parker is from the Hampton Roads region of SE Virginia, he probably would be better poised to give a good rendition of Nat Turner, who grew up on plantations in SE Virginia. Parker himself has probably visited the plantations nearby.
This is opposed to those films (Selma, Twelve Years as a Slave, etc. ) where the lead roles are played by British actors, who have no family narrative to mirror the events in the film, and who must get the cue of the character from reading narratives or from the director.
LikeLike
Maybe a “hate that hate created”, with the protaganist depicted as a Villian Protagonist?
LikeLike
Hollywood doesn’t have a good track record of treating black heroes with respect. They love revisionist history. They usually downplay the heroic efforts of our ancestors. Knowing that a white company is behind this film I doubt it will be accurate. The jury is still out…..
https://kushiteprince.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/film-about-nat-turners-slave-revolt-will-it-be-accurate/
LikeLike
@Kushite Prince: This is what I am thinking because if the Sundance Festival was green lighting this I am thinking this is some mealy mouthed whitewashed mess and I am not interested in that story. I think Nate Parker just wanted to spare the white people’s feelings.
LikeLike
I sincerely hope Hollyweird doesn’t water down this prophet’s legacy down to a mere infuriated slave. Nat Turner was deeply religious man who always fasted, prayed, received frequent visions of a serpent on the loose (heathen nations) and constantly studied the Bible.
Most slave type movies are symbolic or subliminally drop morsel of messages on how black folks should conduct themselves and respect white folks, … or else. However, Nat Turner’s story is quite different because the cinematic pendulum swings totally in the opposite direction. His rebellion essentially uprooted respect and replaced it with righteous disdain with a passion. Therefore, we’ll have to wait and see how much Hollyweird’s sleight of hand played a part in the plot and Nat’s overall character once the movie is released.
It is time to sing a new song!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nat Tuner was the baddest black man ever.
I hope they don’t change the most poignant part of his story which said everything about him, that is when they talked to him on the gallows in front of baying crowd and they said to him
“Why did you do this ?”
Turner “The lord led me to this mission”
They said “Well – If the Lord led you to this mission and the mission has failed, doesn’t that mean that your God has failed ?”
And you know what Turner said just before he was about to die ?
He said “Even Jesus Christ had to be crucified”
Now how many people would go out like that ?
In fact when they hung him, normally your body shakes, because of the rapid lose oxygen, but Turner was just still.
The crowd was amazed, because they rarely saw fearless black man like that. That freaked them out.
To the point were they all wanted a piece of him. They cut of his penis, his nose, his lungs, kidneys, all different parts. And his skull was sent Harvard Medical school.
He should no fear even at his death !!! The man was a real G.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has anyone seen this movie? If so, what did you think?
LikeLike
Is it still in the theatres?
LikeLike
http://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/7992/the-birth-of-a-nation
“The Birth of a Nation (2016)
The Birth of a Nation DVD and Blu-ray release date is estimated for January 2017 and available on Digital HD from Amazon Video and iTunes is not announced.”
I don’t think it’s in the theaters still, and there is no ‘leaked’ version of it availble commonly on the internet…
LikeLike
re; The Birth of a Nation (2016)
I just looked. I found at least two HDCAM files currently floating around out there. Probably low quality audio and video camcorder captures from when it was showing in theaters. Copyright owners still get antsy if they see you …
LikeLike
It failed due to the negative controversy of Nate Parker rape conviction in college.
LikeLike
yeah HD CAM I don’t watch so much, and wouldn’t recommend them either, due to quality issues, people walking in front of the camera etc.
LikeLike
NOTE: What follows is a mostly “White-centric” viewpoint on the movie. I offer it because (A) I am White so I don’t know any better and (B) I’m trying to revive the thread see if any of you saw it and what you thought.
I agree… people avoided it as a means to reject Nate Parker. In hindsight, I wonder if redirecting everyone’s focus against the movie was a opportunistic but deliberate attempt to suppress the story and simultaneously distract us from the prevalence of sexual assault. As in, both the topic of the film and the topic of rape are uncomfortable to discuss, but “punishing” a Black man for a crime is familiar territory so in a way, boycotting the film was killing two birds with one stone. Shameful if true…
Yes, I have. I’m not sure exactly what I think. I thought it was fairly well done, as Hollywood productions go and the acting was good. It had decent character development of the handful of main characters. It tugged at all the right emotions, etc…
It did feel like it was softened for a White audience, or at least made in a way as to make it palatable for the average White person that fancies themselves as colorblind and non-racist. Little things like the living conditions, the health and fitness, the amount of personal time, etc… of the average slave were downplayed. I suppose maybe it would seem bad enough to White moviegoers, but it seemed “sugarcoated” to me… like playing into the “Some slaves had it good” mentality. That was then juxtaposed to the slaves that “had it bad”, but those owners were played like the over-the-top backwoods racists that White people like to envision as the “real racists”. There were a couple of exceptions, but they were made out like a kind of “tipping-point” in the movie. Like Mr. Turner would never have “risen up against the Whites” if his own master had not proven to be just like the others. Like somehow THAT was the injustice and until then, everything was pretty much reasonable on his plantation.
This was really downplayed. In fact, I felt there was equal screenplay given to the killing during the revolt and hangings in retaliation. There were some killings, but it was more along the lines of war movies or silent assassinations… very few satisfying revenge moments… although, as the story is told, Mr. Turner’s actions were motivated from a spiritual place as opposed to one of hatred, so perhaps that was deliberate. Meanwhile, hundreds of Black people were slaughtered in retaliation and that was captured in a montage set to Strange Fruit. It was powerful, yes.. but it also let White people off the hook in a way by making it seem to be somehow a proportional response or whatever.
Yeah, that’s not how the movie went… I very much like your telling of the story better! He died honorably enough in his hanging scene, but it definitely lacked that kind of movement-inspiring punch. I haven’t read much on the subject, but if your telling is accurate, then I can only assume they downplayed it in the movie to avoid offending potential moviegoers… because, you know… $$$ Darn shame though, your ending would have ended the movie on a note that would inspire people to continue the fight rather than the sort of fizzle that even included an obligatory nod to the North to be sure to remind everyone that it’s all ok now.
All-in-all, I do not regret seeing it. White people just need to understand that it’s not a definitive work and should be seeking to further educate ourselves on Mr. Turner and in a broader sense the authentic history of how this nation was formed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I saw the movie.
Open minded observer said,
“Little things like the living conditions, the health and fitness, the amount of personal time, etc… of the average slave were downplayed. I suppose maybe it would seem bad enough to White moviegoers, but it seemed “sugarcoated” to me… like playing into the “Some slaves had it good” mentality. That was then juxtaposed to the slaves that “had it bad”, but those owners were played like the over-the-top backwoods racists that White people like to envision as the “real racists”.
Agreed.
LikeLike
I watched this film on HBO and was underwhelmed. Even with the controversy surrounding Nate Parker this just wasn’t that great a film.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I meant to say even if I hadn’t heard about the Nate Parker controversy i was not impressed.
LikeLike