Arya Tsaddiq
New member
R.D.;9410299 said:
Im in there tonight. Got ALL the homies coming too. Then imma take the family another day. I think my son is still a little too young. But imma buy it on dvd for him and wait till he gets a few years older.
Did she just ask him to apologize for a rape he was acquitted for?
Im in there tonight. Got ALL the homies coming too. Then imma take the family another day. I think my son is still a little too young. But imma buy it on dvd for him and wait till he gets a few years older.
Brother_Five
New member
I'm going tonight
Brother_Five
New member
Cain;9410528 said:
Wasn't u there? Your stories ain't enough?
The Lonious Monk;9410324 said:
True, but that's only because I feel that the definition of rape needs to be narrowed down.
Not necessarily narrowed down to my definition, but narrowed down from as broad as it's legally defined right now.
Meaning, in terms of consenting adults......if we simply use forcible penetration as the foundation of the definition, then it would eliminate a large portion of the subjectivity involved in what's classified as rape.
This reminds me of the breakfast club interview
How come so many grown black people in America didnt know about Nat Turner?
You can blame the school system I guess because I actually learned about T'ouissant, the black jacobins, Louisiana purchase shit like that in school I guess it depends on where u r but even if school didnt teach u this some shit thats just supposed to at least be past down to niggaz.
I dont get that shit.
The Lonious Monk
New member
R.D.;9410480 said:
I don't see why you'd be disappointed in that. First, there are like 5 times as many white people as black so even if the movies you just name appealed only to them, they'd still be able to pack a theatre far more easily than us. But that doesn't even matter because those movies don't just appeal to whites, so it stands to reason they will attract larger audiences.
What you should be disappointed by is the fact that the turn out for that movie probably didn't hold a candle to what you'd see for the newest Tyler Perry garbo when its released.
ghostdog56
New member
I'm in the theater right now it starts at 110 it's just me a old black dude and a fat white bitch
ghostdog56
New member
ghostdog56;9410847 said:
Edit the white bitch just started talking and it's a tranny he has on a hat and a big purse I'm starting to think that it might be a disguise for him to shoot up the place, good thing I'm packin
deadeye;9410723 said:
Respectfully, I think that is narrowing the scope in the wrong dimension.
The core of the crime; the nature of its criminality; is the intent to violate someone (regardless of their gender or oriention) sexually againt their will.
The semantics of the event and the sexual organs possessed by respective participants are not pertinent.
IMO, among other things - we need to define and articulate the standards surrounding what constitutes an actor's consent to engage in sexual intercourse.
This seems like it shouldn't even need to be discussed. Consent is an obvious thing...
On a personal level, it's obvious.
But once facts and a flow of events are established, we need it to be objectively obvious ... not just for the victim - but for every involved party and cursory observer, privy to the law.
We need standards for consistency and transparency that allow for judicial efficiency, as well as the mitigation of competing narratives and distortion of facts that may occur during the course of an investigation.
Last edited:
gns;9410793 said:
Honest answer IMO.
Its just as much the parents/family fault as it is the schools for the mis-education that too many black children are getting.
I didn't learn about Nat Turner in school either. As black people we shouldn't expect a white run educational system to teach black kids about black heroes such as Nat Turner.
Arya Tsaddiq
New member
They already tryna trash the movie.....smh
Read this...take note of the tone of the article.
Then look up who wrote it....
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...rtant-is-the-birth-of-a-nation-really/503270/
Read this...take note of the tone of the article.
Then look up who wrote it....
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...rtant-is-the-birth-of-a-nation-really/503270/
Fox Searchlight
TEXT SIZE
GILLIAN B. WHITE
11:56 AM ET CULTURE
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to the Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
Email
SIGN UP
One of the words most commonly used to describe Nate Parker’s The Birth of a Nation is “important.” The word seemed less fraught when the movie, which tells the story of the 1831 slave rebellion led by Nat Turner, debuted to notable acclaim at Sundance early this year. But it took on a different feel when college rape allegations against Parker and his co-writer for the film emerged during promotion for the movie. And then again when news broke that the alleged victim killed herself in 2012. “Important,” now, is being deployed to help sway those who remain critical of or conflicted about Parker, The Birth of a Nation’s writer, director, and star.
Amid the strong criticism of Parker that’s ensued, there have been many calls to prioritize the significance of the movie over any personal feelings about the filmmaker. Again and again, cast members, critics, and supporters have suggested both explicitly and implicitly that The Birth of a Nation should be seen because it’s an “important” work. But what exactly makes a film required viewing despite personal ambivalence or objection? What does “important” mean?
The Birth of a Nation is important insofar as any narrative about slavery, race, or other parts of America’s dark past is. Films in this tradition are valuable because they demand a continued reckoning with a history that’s too easy to forget or gloss over, and they also explore how the impact of that past continues into the present. But the fact that The Birth of a Nation is representatively important as a movie doesn’t mean that it’s good cinema, or even a necessary addition to the genre of stories about slavery.
RELATED STORY
Grappling With The Birth of a Nation
One oft-cited meaningful feature of the film is its historical grounding in one of the bloodiest slave rebellions on record: Nat Turner’s revolt in Virginia, which resulted in the deaths of over 50 white people and the subsequent killing of hundreds of blacks as retribution. The Birth of a Nation doesn’t spare its audience the powerful and disturbing images of beatings, force feedings, and a litany of other atrocities that supposedly motivated Turner’s rebellion. Nor should it. But aside from its status as one of the deadliest, there’s not a widespread consensus among historians that Turner’s uprising had critical, long-lasting consequences for the institution of slavery or the people who benefited from it.
Further, little is actually known about Turner himself aside from a few sparse historical accounts and the confessional he wrote prior to his execution—a document that deserves scrutiny since it was produced by a white attorney during Turner’s confinement and published after Turner’s death. This knowledge vacuum would make it difficult for a filmmaker (or anyone) to fill in the blanks about Turner’s life and motivations without significant editorializing. And Parker does editorialize, choosing to include scenes and tropes that viewers may bristle at: at least two instances of the brutalization and rape of black women and the portrayal of Turner as the constant, morally unambiguous hero.
But even as a narrative about slavery in general, The Birth of a Nation doesn’t break any new ground that would make it essential viewing. Rather, the movie retreads some of the same emotional and visual terrain as Roots, 12 Years a Slave, and Django Unchained—and in some cases it does so less artfully. There are familiar tropes: the at once beautiful and devastating scenery of antebellum plantations with lush foliage being toiled by black bodies bent under the watchful eye of an overseer. The frustrating Uncle Tom house slave and the benevolent white benefactor. The commonness of unspeakable cruelty.
Parker, it seems, is trying to convey the strength, bravery, and agency of slaves in the face of unimaginable atrocities. Turner’s motivation—solidified during his travels as a preacher to his fellow slaves—becomes answering a moral call to stand up for his brethren and himself. A reading of Turner’s own words reflects far more religious fanaticism than moral imperative. Much of the heart and feeling infused into The Birth of a Nation are of Parker’s own design. And even in these instances, intended to humanize an enigmatic historical figure, the film offers heavy-handed moments of gravitas that come off as trite rather than moving.
Despite prominent examples of stories about slavery, the subject—along with the broader issue of race—is still dramatically under-explored and underrepresented in Hollywood, leaving plenty of room for more incisive history-based accounts. In this context, it’s little surprise that The Birth of a Nation received the premature praise and attention it did. Many Hollywood studios, critics, and moviegoers looked at the movie and saw a rare and thus seemingly vital project—one driven by the singular, ambitious artistic vision of black American man. It was hard not to respect the apparent passion behind the film, which was made with much of Parker’s own money and with the help of other black actors and writers.
Ultimately, the movie isn’t sublime nor can it transcend the personal flaws of its creator.
Together, these factors created astronomically high expectations for The Birth of a Nation itself. The promise of a groundbreaking work about slavery and a heroic portrayal of a revolt brought to Hollywood by a rising black filmmaker was enticing. But hopes for the movie and its creator hit a snag as Parker faced scrutiny for his past and criticism for how he handled questions about the rape allegations today. Amid growing disappointment with Parker’s personal life, emphasis on the film’s importance as new addition to the canon of works about black America has only intensified.
Though The Birth of a Nation does little to artistically differentiate itself from its predecessors, it remains a special case of a black person telling a story about black people and, at least at Sundance, receiving applause for it. The Birth of a Nation finds itself in the middle of a national conversation where many who are frustrated with persistent racism and inequality are willing to embrace a tale about the oppressed rising up against their oppressors at any cost. The movie’s reappropriation of the title of one of the most sweeping works of racist propaganda ever created in order to tell the story of a slave uprising is, perhaps, its most clever victory.
But for those who’ve said they hoped to view and enjoy the the film in spite of mixed feelings about Parker and his past, that may prove difficult. The fact remains, The Birth of a Nation is a movie that is solely about Nat Turner, told from Turner’s largely fictional perspective. It is envisioned, written, editorialized, and performed by Nate Parker. Ultimately, the movie isn’t sublime nor can it transcend the personal flaws of its creator—its own failures as a work of cinematic art simply don’t allow it to. Whatever importance The Birth of a Nation does have lies solely in its status as an uncommon film that forces viewers to confront the horrifying and courageous history of black people in America.
TEXT SIZE
GILLIAN B. WHITE
11:56 AM ET CULTURE
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to the Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
SIGN UP
One of the words most commonly used to describe Nate Parker’s The Birth of a Nation is “important.” The word seemed less fraught when the movie, which tells the story of the 1831 slave rebellion led by Nat Turner, debuted to notable acclaim at Sundance early this year. But it took on a different feel when college rape allegations against Parker and his co-writer for the film emerged during promotion for the movie. And then again when news broke that the alleged victim killed herself in 2012. “Important,” now, is being deployed to help sway those who remain critical of or conflicted about Parker, The Birth of a Nation’s writer, director, and star.
Amid the strong criticism of Parker that’s ensued, there have been many calls to prioritize the significance of the movie over any personal feelings about the filmmaker. Again and again, cast members, critics, and supporters have suggested both explicitly and implicitly that The Birth of a Nation should be seen because it’s an “important” work. But what exactly makes a film required viewing despite personal ambivalence or objection? What does “important” mean?
The Birth of a Nation is important insofar as any narrative about slavery, race, or other parts of America’s dark past is. Films in this tradition are valuable because they demand a continued reckoning with a history that’s too easy to forget or gloss over, and they also explore how the impact of that past continues into the present. But the fact that The Birth of a Nation is representatively important as a movie doesn’t mean that it’s good cinema, or even a necessary addition to the genre of stories about slavery.
RELATED STORY
Grappling With The Birth of a Nation
One oft-cited meaningful feature of the film is its historical grounding in one of the bloodiest slave rebellions on record: Nat Turner’s revolt in Virginia, which resulted in the deaths of over 50 white people and the subsequent killing of hundreds of blacks as retribution. The Birth of a Nation doesn’t spare its audience the powerful and disturbing images of beatings, force feedings, and a litany of other atrocities that supposedly motivated Turner’s rebellion. Nor should it. But aside from its status as one of the deadliest, there’s not a widespread consensus among historians that Turner’s uprising had critical, long-lasting consequences for the institution of slavery or the people who benefited from it.
Further, little is actually known about Turner himself aside from a few sparse historical accounts and the confessional he wrote prior to his execution—a document that deserves scrutiny since it was produced by a white attorney during Turner’s confinement and published after Turner’s death. This knowledge vacuum would make it difficult for a filmmaker (or anyone) to fill in the blanks about Turner’s life and motivations without significant editorializing. And Parker does editorialize, choosing to include scenes and tropes that viewers may bristle at: at least two instances of the brutalization and rape of black women and the portrayal of Turner as the constant, morally unambiguous hero.
But even as a narrative about slavery in general, The Birth of a Nation doesn’t break any new ground that would make it essential viewing. Rather, the movie retreads some of the same emotional and visual terrain as Roots, 12 Years a Slave, and Django Unchained—and in some cases it does so less artfully. There are familiar tropes: the at once beautiful and devastating scenery of antebellum plantations with lush foliage being toiled by black bodies bent under the watchful eye of an overseer. The frustrating Uncle Tom house slave and the benevolent white benefactor. The commonness of unspeakable cruelty.
Parker, it seems, is trying to convey the strength, bravery, and agency of slaves in the face of unimaginable atrocities. Turner’s motivation—solidified during his travels as a preacher to his fellow slaves—becomes answering a moral call to stand up for his brethren and himself. A reading of Turner’s own words reflects far more religious fanaticism than moral imperative. Much of the heart and feeling infused into The Birth of a Nation are of Parker’s own design. And even in these instances, intended to humanize an enigmatic historical figure, the film offers heavy-handed moments of gravitas that come off as trite rather than moving.
Despite prominent examples of stories about slavery, the subject—along with the broader issue of race—is still dramatically under-explored and underrepresented in Hollywood, leaving plenty of room for more incisive history-based accounts. In this context, it’s little surprise that The Birth of a Nation received the premature praise and attention it did. Many Hollywood studios, critics, and moviegoers looked at the movie and saw a rare and thus seemingly vital project—one driven by the singular, ambitious artistic vision of black American man. It was hard not to respect the apparent passion behind the film, which was made with much of Parker’s own money and with the help of other black actors and writers.
Ultimately, the movie isn’t sublime nor can it transcend the personal flaws of its creator.
Together, these factors created astronomically high expectations for The Birth of a Nation itself. The promise of a groundbreaking work about slavery and a heroic portrayal of a revolt brought to Hollywood by a rising black filmmaker was enticing. But hopes for the movie and its creator hit a snag as Parker faced scrutiny for his past and criticism for how he handled questions about the rape allegations today. Amid growing disappointment with Parker’s personal life, emphasis on the film’s importance as new addition to the canon of works about black America has only intensified.
Though The Birth of a Nation does little to artistically differentiate itself from its predecessors, it remains a special case of a black person telling a story about black people and, at least at Sundance, receiving applause for it. The Birth of a Nation finds itself in the middle of a national conversation where many who are frustrated with persistent racism and inequality are willing to embrace a tale about the oppressed rising up against their oppressors at any cost. The movie’s reappropriation of the title of one of the most sweeping works of racist propaganda ever created in order to tell the story of a slave uprising is, perhaps, its most clever victory.
But for those who’ve said they hoped to view and enjoy the the film in spite of mixed feelings about Parker and his past, that may prove difficult. The fact remains, The Birth of a Nation is a movie that is solely about Nat Turner, told from Turner’s largely fictional perspective. It is envisioned, written, editorialized, and performed by Nate Parker. Ultimately, the movie isn’t sublime nor can it transcend the personal flaws of its creator—its own failures as a work of cinematic art simply don’t allow it to. Whatever importance The Birth of a Nation does have lies solely in its status as an uncommon film that forces viewers to confront the horrifying and courageous history of black people in America.
Last edited:
Trillfate;9411177 said:IS THIS A JOKE?!
Gillian B White... #bars and self ether at its finest
I wonder When these bedwenches watch the slavery rape scenes, are they disturbed or are they turned on???
She from Chicago too, probably grab lattes with @obnoxiouslyfresh
Last edited:
D0wn;9411311 said:Trillfate;9411177 said:IS THIS A JOKE?!
Gillian B White... #bars and self ether at its finest
I wonder When these bedwenches watch the slavery rape scenes, are they disturbed or are they turned on???
She from Chicago too, probably grab lattes with @obnoxiouslyfresh
Nah bruh Ob is woke af, pro black n all that.. a lil in her feelings over Nate but she as Down as your username, no question.
Last edited:
