Rarely do I support boycotting as an effective way of making a statement, but there are those instances where I think it's worth consideration. One such instance might be in regard to the film opening today (10/7/2016), The Birth of a Nation.
 |
| Theatrical release poster (photo credit Wikipedia) |
Though rumors of this film had been wafting my way in recent months (I don't keep up with the film industry much these days), The Birth of a Nation was fully brought to my attention in a recent report on 60 Minutes which was aired on October 2nd.
Since I don't want to delve too deeply into this, for those who want more information on the controversies surrounding this film I'd recommend viewing the 60 Minutes interview or checking out the Chicago Tribune article regarding the interview. However let me touch upon the points that concern me the most.
For the sake of clarification for any who might be unfamiliar with the film, this new film has essentially nothing to do with the 1915 D. W. Griffith silent epic of the same name that celebrated the origins of the Ku Klux Klan. The 1915 film being a racially offensive film to a great extent, I was surprised that anyone would think a remake would be a good idea. But the new film is not a remake. Instead it's a depiction of the Nat Turner slave uprising of 1831 which occurred in Virginia--a story that I find almost equally offensive since it involves what I would consider mass murder.
Granted that some deem Nat Turner a hero since he was leading a rebellion against the injustice of slavery, there are likely more who would disagree with that assessment. Arguably, Nat Turner's rebellion was almost at a parity with the Manson family murders. No matter how one views it, both incidents were devised with an intention to incite action through violence. My comparison would likely raise the ire of some of the defenders of Nat Turner's conspiracy, but to me murder is murder. Turner and his cohorts viciously and indiscriminately killed men, women, and children in their beds and wherever else they could find them. The reprisals by the white community against innocent blacks not involved in the Turner rebellion were equally reprehensible. In its totality the entire episode is a horrible blot on the history of the United States.
Nate Parker, the film's director who also plays the lead role, stated in the interview that he used the Birth of a Nation title in order that people would forget the Griffith film. To me, this reeks as a bit of revisionist history thinking. Though perhaps not a great film in the eyes of many, the 1915 film is a big part of film history. The film was a box office success by today's standards and even then was a topic of great controversy due to the racially charged subject matter and the insensitive stereotypical depictions of black people. Relatively few today have seen the film and would even likely be interested in seeing an old silent film over two hours in length. But it is history and should be remembered in that context.
The Nat Turner story might be equally obscure to many people today even though there have been a number of books and articles written about the subject. Most famously William Styron released his controversial best selling Pulitzer prize winning The Confessions of Nat Turner in 1967. I bought the book a year or so after it was released and read it when I was a high school senior. It's still a highly regarded book well worth reading if you have not done so yet.
A film version of the Nat Turner story was overdue, but I question the motivation cited by director Nate Parker. In his interview he states that he hopes that Nat Turner's story will inspire resistance through a "riotous disposition toward injustice" and further saying that the film is not a call for violence, but he would like it to be a call to action.
This sounds fine in theory, but how does this read to young people who might be inclined toward action in the sense of violence and societal disruption of a highly negative manner. We already have plenty of racial tension in parts of our country and in the minds of certain segments passionately charged groups that feel they have little to lose in doing harm to others with whom they might feel disgruntled. Nate Parker might have highly idealistic motivations in his hopes for what his film inspires, but the inference that I got from his words is something that might not be good for our country.
Sure, it's only a movie and might not amount to much of anything. Still I'm not particularly thrilled about seeing a big box office return for this film considering what I've heard from its director. I think the film should be boycotted in theaters and any monetary gain be minimized by avoiding adding to the enrichment of those who made the film. I might see it if it comes to Netflix or television, but that is about as far as I would go.
The current buzz about Oscar accolades for the film might fade because of Nate Parker's past rape accusations (you can read the stories about that on the internet). I hope the Academy carefully considers promoting the status of this film by nominating it for any awards. Not that I want to see this film disappear, but I don't know that it should become a big deal or an inspiration either.
But maybe I'm wrong about this. I'm just going by Nate Parker's interview and the articles I read after hearing that interview. I was not impressed by what this actor/director had to say. And not that I want to see the film disappear or be banned, but I don't want it to become a big influence to those disaffected citizens who could be inspired to do the wrong thing.
In closing I'll leave you with this quote from Vinson Cunningham, an African-American staff writer for The New Yorker magazine who previously served as a staff assistant at the Obama White House. Mr. Cunningham said in a fine New Yorker article:
"The Birth of a Nation" isn't worth defending. Nate Parker's retelling of Nat Turner's rebellion does not succeed as art or as propaganda.In the final analysis it's up to you and the public to decide.
Battle of the Bands Results
My previous Battle of the Bands featured versions of the Grace Jones/Astor Piazzolla song "I've Seen That Face Before". The outcome of this Battle somewhat surprised me as I was afraid that the unique vocals of Kovacs might not sit well with many voters. I was wrong about that. The Kovacs version was appreciated by many of you, but the Brady Harris Band had nearly an equal number of fans.
I liked the version by Kovacs immensely. Initially I was a bit iffy about the vocals, but it didn't take long for me to start getting into her jazzy style. Since there are a number of live performances on YouTube of Kovacs performing this song I got a range of her abilities. Sharon Kovacs is an excellent jazz vocalist.
However, from the standpoint of extended listening preference, I much prefer the approach taken by the Brady Harris Band. As some voters also agreed, this version seems especially haunting with the backing vocals, solid bass line, exquisite guitar work, and nifty reverse tape effects. This version has a British invasion flavor somewhat reminiscent of Peter and Gordon and other such groups.
Although I adore what Kovacs does with this song, my vote goes to the Brady Harris Band. And as is often the case, I am in the minority. It wasn't an overwhelming decision, but clearly Kovacs is the favorite with most of the voters. But barely...
Final Vote Tally:
Brady Harris Band 11
Kovacs 13
Next Battle October 15th
I'm going to continue my series of songs with themes that I'm relating to the upcoming presidential election. Again the topic will be just a general question relating to the election and nothing contentious from my perspective. Oh, but those comments can be interesting and fun. Stayed tuned to this blog for some more Battle of the Bands excitement.
Have you seen the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and if so, what do you think of it? Will you see (or have you seen) Nate Parker's new film The Birth of a Nation? Do you consider Nat Turner a hero? Explain your reasoning why or why not.
And to take us out, here is an alternate live version of Kovacs singing "I've Seen That Face Before"
I liked the version by Kovacs immensely. Initially I was a bit iffy about the vocals, but it didn't take long for me to start getting into her jazzy style. Since there are a number of live performances on YouTube of Kovacs performing this song I got a range of her abilities. Sharon Kovacs is an excellent jazz vocalist.
However, from the standpoint of extended listening preference, I much prefer the approach taken by the Brady Harris Band. As some voters also agreed, this version seems especially haunting with the backing vocals, solid bass line, exquisite guitar work, and nifty reverse tape effects. This version has a British invasion flavor somewhat reminiscent of Peter and Gordon and other such groups.
Although I adore what Kovacs does with this song, my vote goes to the Brady Harris Band. And as is often the case, I am in the minority. It wasn't an overwhelming decision, but clearly Kovacs is the favorite with most of the voters. But barely...
Final Vote Tally:
Brady Harris Band 11
Kovacs 13
Next Battle October 15th
I'm going to continue my series of songs with themes that I'm relating to the upcoming presidential election. Again the topic will be just a general question relating to the election and nothing contentious from my perspective. Oh, but those comments can be interesting and fun. Stayed tuned to this blog for some more Battle of the Bands excitement.
Have you seen the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation and if so, what do you think of it? Will you see (or have you seen) Nate Parker's new film The Birth of a Nation? Do you consider Nat Turner a hero? Explain your reasoning why or why not.
And to take us out, here is an alternate live version of Kovacs singing "I've Seen That Face Before"
