All News History

“Birth of a Nation”: Complete Fabrication

The Jewish-Canadian film Birth of a Nation—supposedly about an 1831 black slave uprising—has been panned as a “complete fabrication” by Ohio State University’s leading African American and African Studies professor Leslie Alexander.

The film, produced by Aaron Gilbert’s Bron Studios in British Columbia, is supposed to be based on fact—but there is not a single fact in the movie, professor Alexander said.

birth-of-a-nation-still

Edited by well-known U.S. film editor Steven Rosenblum, the movie was written by black author Nate Parker and his wife—both of whom stood trial for rape of a young woman in 1999, Alexander wrote in an article in the Nation.

“Across the country, social media lit up as people debated Parker’s guilt, questioned whether to boycott the film, and expressed outrage about violence against women,” Alexander wrote in her article, titled “‘The Birth of a Nation’ Is an Epic Fail.”

the-nation-bon-fail

“As the storm raged, however, one critical issue went ignored. No one questioned the fundamental value or quality of the film. Based on the standing ovations it received at the Sundance Film Festival, we assumed that The Birth of a Nation was inherently valuable, inspirational, educational, and transformative.

“We were wrong. The Birth of a Nation claims to tell the true story of Nat Turner, leader of the bloodiest slave rebellion in United States history.

“A film on Turner is long overdue, and as a professional historian of the black experience in the nineteenth century, I have anxiously awaited one.

“I was especially encouraged by September’s issue of Vanity Fair, in which Parker stated that he had become ‘obsessed with the idea of telling Nat Turner’s story’ and that he sought to create ‘historical fidelity in his depiction of the leader of the rebellion.’

“After attending an advance screening of the film, however, I now know that Parker failed miserably in his mission.

“Contrary to his promises of ‘historical fidelity,’ Parker created a deeply flawed, historically inaccurate movie that exploits and distorts Nat Turner’s story and the history of slavery in America.

“Nearly everything in the movie—ranging from Turner’s relationship with his family, to his life as a slave, and even the rebellion itself—is a complete fabrication.

“Certainly the film contains sprinklings of historical fact, but the bulk of Parker’s story about the rebellion is fictitious: Nat Turner did not murder his owner, nor did he kill a slave patroller.

“Turner’s rebellion was not betrayed by a young boy, or by anyone else involved in the revolt. To the contrary, the rebels fought until the bitter end. The shootout depicted in Jerusalem, Virginia, never happened, because the rebels were stopped by the militia before they ever reached Jerusalem. The list of inaccuracies, distortions, and fabrications goes on and on.”

Alexander went on to point out that distortions in the historical record of this nature are “damaging and insidious.”

Although she does not say it directly, it is clear that reference here is being made to the portrayal of white people in the film as utterly evil.

“Consider, for example, the film’s troubling depictions of black women. A crucial turning point in the movie occurs when Turner’s wife, Cherry, is brutally gang raped by a group of slave patrollers—an attack the film portrays as the spark that ultimately drove Turner to launch his rebellion.

“But there is not a shred of historical evidence to suggest that Cherry was ever raped by slave patrollers, nor is there any evidence to indicate that an attack on his wife inspired Turner to rebel,” Alexander wrote.

“I will let others speculate on the reasons why Parker and Celestin decided to fabricate a story line about rape—specifically gang rape—to spin a false tale about the motivation for Nat Turner’s rebellion. I will simply say that their story is not only untrue but it also perpetuates destructive lies about black women,” Alexander added.

“Parker and Celestin’s portrayal of slavery is also shallow and superficial. At its core, The Birth of a Nation is a collection of every cliché image and story line from every movie you’ve ever seen about slavery: Slavery was bad. Black people were treated badly. Black people got whipped, tortured, raped, and killed. Black people fought back, but still got whipped, tortured, raped, and killed.”

aaron-gilbert-bronstudiosAn article in the Jewish Independent quoted Aaron Gilbert from Bron Studios as saying that “being Jewish certainly influences his decisions and the kinds of material he’s attracted to.

“‘My parents have always been so active in the Jewish community and that’s part of who I am and how I live my life, overall. I’m not in synagogue every Saturday, but I’m Jewish and culturally aware, and I know my roots.

“I’m definitely attracted to real-life stories about how Jews live in our existing world,’” Gilbert said.

4 Comments

  1. The reviewer is bringing up rape charges against Nate Parker because he didn’t ‘whitewash’ Nat Turner enough, though he’s probably more chagrined by the word ‘murder’ than he would be ‘execution of a tyrant who exploited white privilege’. It’s difficult even for the most inveterate scourge of white villainy to win outright approval of the cultural Marxist establishment, even a black one, if he has the temerity to refer to the actions of a politicised paragon in any but the most glowing terms.
    But no one condemns Parker for plagiarism. The DW Griffiths 1915 “Birth of a Nation” has been travestied in this pc version. Griffiths was aware of how the liberalisation of blacks, apart from emancipation, would give birth to a nation that would implode as blacks were given the whip hand. He was aware of their predatory sexual behaviour towards white women and examined the reason for the rise of the Ku Klux Klan during the Reconstruction, which was actually a period of extended pillaging, quite different to the reconstruction of Iraq or Afghanistan or South Korea. This new film will just plagiarise the title and turn Griffiths theme on its head.
    Nor will it engage in the cinematic pioneering as Griffiths did, having invented the flashback, or “switchback” returning to a past time to explain how it impacts on the present; the new film will use this technique but it won’t acknowledge the inventor. Griffith also used of parallel editing, cutting back and forth between two scenes that occur simultaneously, to show how cinema could tell a story differently to a stage production. This film’s audience has probably never seen a stage play or a silent movie.

     
    Reply
  2. Well, the good news is that this movie tanked at the box office. It was purchased at Sundance Film Festival for just over $17 million, and only made $7 million in its opening weekend, and that’s after being shown on over 2,200 screens across the U.S. As with nearly all films, it will most likely experience a 40%-60% drop in its second weekend. Not only is the film an epic historical fail; it’s an epic financial flop. These were the box office stats as of a few days ago.

    I guess Whites are finally getting fed up with paying money to be exposed to lies that tell them how horrible they are. If White people wanted to do one thing that would seriously impact the funding behind so much of the efforts that are working against them, they’d STOP going to the movies and watching TV. Whites are probably the largest group contributing to the financial success of a Hollywood that’s working overtime to trash us and our history. Why would we support that on any level? It’s easy to dump TV and movies, especially when nearly everything produced in the last decade has been a sequel, prequel, remake and distorted anti-White history, not to mention the massive glut of superhero movies that shows no sign of ending. They don’t make films for grownups anymore, and they certainly don’t make honest ones. I ditched TV over a decade ago and haven’t seen a film in a theater in the last two years. Dump Hollywood.

     
    Reply
  3. Pretty well every purportedly “historical” (“based on real events” or “based on a true story”) production emanating from the US film industry is bogus and designed primarily to bolster impressions of a mythological past. The Westerns, the war movies, the gangster movies, etc., are all intended to implant nonsensical fiction in our minds. It is part of “education” that is tantamount to communist re-education, with the difference that people voluntarily expose themselves to it (except for school kids, who are forced to watch certain propagandistic “historical” films, sometimes the same one repeatedly).

     
    Reply

Post Comment