Birth of a Nation

[Olympic Fan]

Jason mentioned this coming film on another thread. After seeing the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i18z1EQCoyg

and reading about it, I am very interested in this film. But it does present problems.

To begin with, this film is a very personal project by Nate Parker, who co-produced, co-wrote, directed and starred in the film.

Early returns are very good - it won both the audience award and the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, where it is said to have received the most enthusiastic reception of any film ever shown there. It is currently 96 percent on Rotten Tomatoes -- with 23 positive reviews (out of 24 reviews overall).

The subject matter is controversial enough -- it's a sympathetic retelling of the Nat Turner slave rebellion. Not sure how closely based on history it is -- the Turner rebellion is certainly justified in many ways, but several of the 55 to 65 whites killed during the uprising were women and children. Over 200 blacks (including women and children) were murdered by white mobs responding to the rebellion and 57 more were executed for taking part. Not a glorious moment in American history.

At any rate, the new film -- it's title specifically chosen to evoke the racist DW Griffith film of the same name -- is a subject of considerable debate ...

But that's not the main complication. In 1999, while a student at Penn State, Nate Parker was charged with rape. His friend Jean Celestra, who shares writing credit for the film was also charged in the same incident. They claimed that sex with the girl was consensual. Parker was acquitted. Celestra was convicted, but his conviction was overturned. The victim in the case committed suicide in 2012.

Should that incident impact our perception of the film? Parker was, after all, acquitted. Technically, so was Celestra. We've seen from the Duke lacrosse hoax that even the most damning appearances can be wrong. On the other hand, we've seen dozens of recent cases where rapists were not punished (a recent one at Dartmouth were a male student broke down the door of his victim, assaulted her anally, orally and vaginally -- none of that in dispute -- but was acquitted when his lawyer who argued that it was merely "awkward, drunken college sex.").

I honestly don't know how to view Parker. And I'm not sure how to view his film (as much as I want to see it).

We've talked on his forum before about separating an artist from his art. Woody Allen hasn't seemed to suffer from some very vile accusations of sexual assault. On the other hand, Mel Gibson's career appears to have taken a turn for the worst after some despicable behavior on his part.

Anyway, Birth of a Nation will be in theaters Oct. 7.

Anybody else excited to see it? And is anybody else put off by Parker's background?

[DUKIECB]

Your thoughts about this are very similar to my own. I plan on seeing the movie because I think it will be worth it and I think I can without thinking too much about Mr. Parker. I do think there are times when someone does something so despicable that no matter how good they are at their craft I just can't support it but in this case they guy was acquitted and only him, his friend and the young woman know exactly what happened. If it was proven otherwise I might have a stronger opinion.

[JasonEvans]

I will see the film because it is said to be simply brilliant and enlightening about an important moment in American history. The subject matter does not bother me in the least.

That said, Parker's personal history are more of a challenge. I suspect the backlash over the alleged rape will impact enough Oscar voters to keep Parker and the film from getting some awards and perhaps even keep it from being nominated. Obviously it is very, very early in the Oscar process but prior to the rape allegations being widely known, Parker was considered a lock for a Best Director nomination and the film was said to be a shoe-in to get a Best Picture nomination. Now, I am somewhat skeptical.

As for how I personally feel... I am torn. It is clear that something happened in 1999 that deeply affected a woman and played at least some role in her suicide. To some extent one can argue that Parker's actions cost that woman her life. Can that ever be forgiven? As a society, we are taught to believe in forgiveness at some point, aren't we? The incident happened 17 yeas ago. Since then, Parker has gotten married and fathered 5 daughters as well as adopting a son. There have been no allegations or even hints of sexual assault or other scandal (he did say some controversial things about homosexuals, but I don't think it is really relevant here) surrounding him. So, even if one were to think he was guilty of something -- or at least displayed some very bad judgement -- does a decade and a half of being "clean" not merit some kind of forgiveness?

Again, I am torn...

-Jason "Bottom line for me -- I will always feel some reluctance about Nate Parker's career and success. But, when his art speaks to the masses in a meaningful way, I'll be there" Evans

[Olympic Fan]

As for how I personally feel... I am torn. It is clear that something happened in 1999 that deeply affected a woman and played at least some role in her suicide. To some extent one can argue that Parker's actions cost that woman her life. Can that ever be forgiven?

I understand that is a possible way of looking at her death.

But I agonize because we don't KNOW.

She could have been a very disturbed individual before the 1999 incident ... just as the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse Hoax was a woman with serious mental issues that played a part in her false accusations. Is it possible that the woman in Parker's case had similar issues that led to false claims in 1999 and also led to her suicide in 2012?

I'm not saying that's the case. It's equally possible that she was an innocent victim in 1999 who was raped then scarred for life when her rapists walked, leading to her eventual suicide.

How do we know? Do we give Parker the benefit of the doubt? Do we express our outrage with the number of rapes that go unpunished on our college campus by piling the blame on Parker, who may (or may not) have been one of those who got away with it?

I wish I could find out more about the 1999 incident. I'm not convinced that juries and judges always get in right. O.J. was found not guilty, but I personally believe he did it. The judge who let the Stanford rapist off with a slap on his wrist earlier this summer deserves to be disbarred. The jury that found the Dartmouth rapist not guilty should surrender their citizenship.

I know enough about those cases to form an opinion. It might not be the right opinion, but I THINK I see those cases clearly now. I just don't know enough about the 1999 incident to form an opinion -- to me, neither Parker's acquittal nor the victim's later suicide is proof one way or the other.

I do think I'll see Birth of a Nation when it comes out and try and judge it on its merits -- without allowing any feelings about Parker to intrude.

[Jim3k]

The judge who let the Stanford rapist off with a slap on his wrist earlier this summer deserves to be disbarred.
***
I know enough about those cases to form an opinion. It might not be the right opinion, ***

Easy to be outraged. But that judge did exactly what the California statute said he should. He was right on the law. Can't disbar him for that. You can be outraged that the statute was too lenient, but recall the dude was never charged with rape as defined by law (i.e., nonconsensual sexual intercourse). He was tried under lesser statutes. Attacking the judge is unwarranted. In response to the public outrage, the California legislature, knowing the judge was right, has passed an amendment. We'll see where that goes.

I do think I'll see Birth of a Nation when it comes out and try and judge it on its merits -- without allowing any feelings about Parker to intrude.

Fair enough.

[Olympic Fan]

Easy to be outraged. But that judge did exactly what the California statute said he should. He was right on the law. Can't disbar him for that. You can be outraged that the statute was too lenient, but recall the dude was never charged with rape as defined by law (i.e., nonconsensual sexual intercourse). He was tried under lesser statutes. Attacking the judge is unwarranted. In response to the public outrage, the California legislature, knowing the judge was right, has passed an amendment. We'll see where that goes.

A weird reading of the situation. Yes, Judge Aaron Persky had the discretion under California law to do what he did ... but that was NOT what the California statute said he had to do or even should do -- it provided for up to 14 years in prison for the crime Brock Turner committed (nobody ever said it was rape ... but it was sexual assault). In this circumstance, the prosecutors asked for a two-year prison term. In a very similar case against a Mexican American taking advantage of a sleeping woman (touching her inappropriately), the defendant -- also a first offender -- got two years from Persky. The difference between the two? The Mexican-American apologized for the crime and took responsibility. Turner refused to take responsibility, but instead blamed the party culture at Stanford.

Same crime , same Judge ... which deserved two years in prison and which deserved three months in the county jail?

I think that the fact that Judge Persky has since been removed from all criminal cases is evidence that he did NOT follow guidelines in sentencing Turner. The law the legislature, knowing the Judge was WRONG, passed was not to change the statute, but to limit the discretion of the judge. Attacking Persky IS warranted.

[JBDuke]

Easy to be outraged. But that judge did exactly what the California statute said he should. He was right on the law. Can't disbar him for that. You can be outraged that the statute was too lenient, but recall the dude was never charged with rape as defined by law (i.e., nonconsensual sexual intercourse). He was tried under lesser statutes. Attacking the judge is unwarranted. In response to the public outrage, the California legislature, knowing the judge was right, has passed an amendment. We'll see where that goes.



Fair enough.

A weird reading of the situation. Yes, Judge Aaron Persky had the discretion under California law to do what he did ... but that was NOT what the California statute said he had to do or even should do -- it provided for up to 14 years in prison for the crime Brock Turner committed (nobody ever said it was rape ... but it was sexual assault). In this circumstance, the prosecutors asked for a two-year prison term. In a very similar case against a Mexican American taking advantage of a sleeping woman (touching her inappropriately), the defendant -- also a first offender -- got two years from Persky. The difference between the two? The Mexican-American apologized for the crime and took responsibility. Turner refused to take responsibility, but instead blamed the party culture at Stanford.

Same crime , same Judge ... which deserved two years in prison and which deserved three months in the county jail?

I think that the fact that Judge Persky has since been removed from all criminal cases is evidence that he did NOT follow guidelines in sentencing Turner. The law the legislature, knowing the Judge was WRONG, passed was not to change the statute, but to limit the discretion of the judge. Attacking Persky IS warranted.

While discussing the implications of Parker's situation on the potential success or reception of his film is one thing, venturing off into a discussion over a totally different case and beginning a debate about sexual assault and racism in judicial cases is going into a public policy area inappropriate for these boards, per our Posting Guidelines. Any further posts in this area will be deleted, and the poster may incur a citation. Thanks for respecting our Posting Guidelines.

[BandAlum83]

While discussing the implications of Parker's situation on the potential success or reception of his film is one thing, venturing off into a discussion over a totally different case and beginning a debate about sexual assault and racism in judicial cases is going into a public policy area inappropriate for these boards, per our Posting Guidelines. Any further posts in this area will be deleted, and the poster may incur a citation. Thanks for respecting our Posting Guidelines.

I understand and respect and appreciate the posting guidelines. This could devolve quickly, I imagine.

It is a shame,though, I did learn something.

Keep up the good work, mods! Even when it means I get a vacation.