by
Black Girl With Long Hair
This is not an article about the 17-year-old rape allegations against Nate Parker. This is not an article about the black women who went on record expressing discomfort with him, and those who went on record supporting him.
This is about the torrent of social media backlash black women have faced for supposedly singlehandedly sinking Nate Parker’s Nat Turner biopic, Birth of a Nation.
I’m not sure how we, as black women, always end up here — at fault when things go wrong for black folks — but there is just no way that we are responsible for Nate Parker’s film flopping at the box office this weekend. And here’s why;
1. The majority of people who went to see the film were women, and they gave it high marks.
Per Deadline.com;
“One rival female studio executive told Deadline, “It’s very hard to watch this film as a woman,” and yet Birth of a Nation showed a majority of females attending at 61%, and awarding the title an A.”
Clearly the women who spoke publicly about their discomfort with Parker didn’t stop others from supporting and enjoying the film.
2. The majority of people who went to see the film were black.
Per The Washington Post;
“The movie did better with black audiences; 60 percent of ticket-buyers were African-American, and the company remains hopeful for a word-of-mouth surge.”
Black folks showed up.
3. Nate Parker’s challenge was never with black audiences, but with white. 12 Years a Slave gained broad success because it became a crossover hit, appealing to both black and white audiences. Birth of a Nation didn’t make the leap (or it hasn’t so far);
Per Deadline.com;
“For weeks now many saw this critically acclaimed antebellum slave revolt Sundance Film Festival title opening in the single digits, and many in exhibition and distribution point to director/star/producer Nate Parker and co-writer Jean Celestin’s media maelstrom as preventing Birth of a Nation from crossing over beyond its core African American demo (who turned up close to 60% this weekend).”
While we focus so much attention on black women who spoke out against Parker, do we forget that white folks were watching while a black man who (in the eyes of many) gang raped a white woman in college repeatedly expressed no remorse for it, and then appealed to them to pay money to see him murder a bunch of white people on screen? Um, yeah. Black audiences were never going to be Nate Parker’s ultimate challenge.
4. Birth of a Nation follows a pattern of films that are critically acclaimed at the Sundance Film Festival but fail to generate “real world” buzz. While Parker’s film broke acquisition records at Sundance and gained a standing ovation, the festival is notoriously bad at predicting what will become a mainstream hit.
From Buzzfeed;
“Again and again, the most hyped movies out of Sundance have failed to reach their lofty financial expectations once they leave the safe confines of Park City, Utah. Yes, Little Miss Sunshine was an unqualified sensation, but far more often the festival turns out films like Hamlet 2, Happy, Texas, and Son of Rambow that can’t even earn back their purchase price. The Birth of a Nation has already out-grossed all of those films, and yet it still has a long road to go before it can earn back Searchlight’s $17.5 million.”
5. Nate Parker has fared better than controversial actors like Woody Allen and Mel Gibson whose scandals have affected their box office opening, in large part because black fan bases are so loyal.
From Buzzfeed;
“Parker’s last film as an actor, 2014’s romance Beyond the Lights (co-starring Mbatha-Raw), earned $14.6 million domestically, an amount that The Birth of a Nation will almost certainly surpass through the life of its box office run.
Compare that outcome to what happened to Woody Allen’s box office after his daughter Dylan wrote an open letter to Hollywood in 2014 about her allegation that Allen molested her when she was seven. Or consider the precipitous decline of Gibson’s career after his infamous 2006 arrest in which he allegedly said, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and the 2011 release of recordings of Gibson spewing misogynistic and racist epithets at his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. In each case, the commercial viability of Allen and Gibson’s subsequent films dropped significantly, at least in part due to the fallout from their respective scandals.”
6. A mainstream publication — Variety — was the first to publicize the rape allegations against Parker this year and, in the wake of the scandal resurfacing, many non-black film reviewers downgraded their review of the film. Prior to that Birth of a Nation enjoyed unanimously positive reviews. The idea that black women started a campaign against Parker is completely inaccurate.
7. The Academy of Motion Pictures, responsible for determining Oscar nominees, has distanced itself from Birth of a Nation — not just because of Parker’s past — but as backlash against the #oscarssowhite campaign.
“The motion picture academy screening of Nate Parker’s slave revolt historical drama, which opened to a flat $7.1 million at the box office, was about at one-quarter capacity Sunday, with Oscar voters and their guests filling about 250 of the academy’s Samuel L. Goldwyn Theater’s 1,000 seats.
The low turnout wasn’t particularly surprising. Throughout the week, many academy members told The Times they had no plans on seeing “Birth” on Sunday — or any time in the future. The reasons offered ranged from distaste over the details of Parker’s 1999 rape case, disdain for how Parker answered questions about his past while promoting the movie, and a general fatigue with movies about slavery. (Remember: Many academy members never bothered to see 2014 best picture winner “12 Years a Slave,” though some still voted for it anyway.)
Sunday’s shunning of “Birth” also signals the lingering resentment many academy members feel over January’s #OscarSoWhite controversy, when voters were criticized for nominating an all-white slate of acting nominees for a second consecutive year. The academy’s immediate pledge to diversify and broaden its membership angered many voters who believed the timing of the response implied that their balloting had racist undertones….
“Basically, the movie was anointed out of Sundance with the media telling us that if we didn’t vote for it, we would be again be considered racist,” one academy member, a producer, says. “And all the hype seemed less about the quality of the movie itself, but the story behind it and the subject matter. I’m not buying it. And I’m not seeing it, either.”
Adds another Oscar voter, a member of the writers branch: “This guy ruined a woman’s life and then complains how hard it’s been for him. [Forget] him. There’s no way I’m going to support that.””
8. And since we’re talking about black women, Oprah Winfrey reached out to Parker in February expressing enthusiastic love for the film. When news broke of Parker’s past in August, Winfrey wanted to help Parker manage the backlash. He declined her help. Per The Hollywood Reporter;
“Winfrey, along with her friend and CBS This Morning anchor Gayle King, was one of the first people to see Nate Parker’s The Birth of a Nation outside of a festival setting. The women were so enthusiastic that they sent the filmmaker a Feb. 1 Instagram video congratulating him. In August, when news reports began to focus on the 1999 rape charges involving Parker and his Birth of a Nation collaborator, Jean Celestin, Winfrey initially seemed ready to help. (Parker and Celestin were Penn State roommates at the time of the fateful encounter that led to the trial. Parker was acquitted; Celestin’s conviction was thrown out on appeal.)
Sources say Winfrey suggested Parker address the matter in an appearance with King on her CBS program. But Parker declined.”
Birth of a Nation emerges at a time when American race relations are particularly heated, and many are rethinking long-held beliefs about consent and sexual assault. Instead of understanding the film’s performance in this complicated landscape, the black community has opted to turn to a familiar scapegoat. And that is perhaps what’s most disappointing of all.
33 Responses
I saw it. It was ok. I I got teary-eyed at a few scences. I saw the Accountant too…that was just ok. I don’t let the media or critic sway me, go see it and judge it for yourself.
None of us were there during the incident to call him a rapist. Do you really think a black man in america can get away with raping a white woman? The same country where black men are executed for wearing hoodies and having wallets? He was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The fact that everyone is calling him a rapist because the media says so is really sad. No one boycotted beyond the lights, but now all of a sudden we have to boycott a movie about black strength and solidarity. Birth of a Nation is nothing like 12 years a slave. I would call it a more serious and realistic version of Django with less graphic gory content. Plus this movie is black-owned unlike the other slave movies.
Forgive my ignorance, as I don’t watch TV, so can someone please tell me who the rapist is and what the problem is?
The word “blame” needs to be eliminated from the discourse on this boycott. Black women are not the “blame” for the film’s failure. Black women were successful at waging a boycott against the film of a rapist and they won. This is nothing to be shamed and blamed for. They are now trying to guilt trip black women for not supporting a film made by rapists, at a time when black women are waking up and realizing that they are not obligated to use their dollars to support everything oppressive black males do. It’s completely insidious.
To say that they should now be “blamed”, indicates that some sort of a criminal or negligent act happened here, when it was in fact a conscientious one that happened instead. No one would ever say that black people who boycotted the buses in Montgomery were to “blame” for the bus company closing. They would say that they were successful at shutting it down. Yet when black women make a conscious step to not support a film made by rapists and are successful at it, suddenly they are to “blame”. That word needs to be completely eliminated from the discussion on what happened with this film BECAUSE BLACK WOMEN HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR.
Black women were successful at a boycott and should be applauded for it and continue to not support it and nothing less, no matter what these ignorant people say or what that patriarchy pusher Roland Martin says or any other self hating woman or misogynist says. Black women will continue to win if they say “No more” and let their dollars speak for them. This is what should continue to happen with this film and black women should be proud of it. The only blame that needs to be leveled is at the rape apologists.
Well congratulations, ya’ll made your point….not sure what was or what you’ll were trying to accomplish but you made it.
This is a point of view we hadn’t really considered, so thank you for giving us the food for thought. For those black women who deliberately lobbied against the movie based on Parker’s lack of remorse for his past actions, this is a win.
But we do have to stand by the point that black women’s boycotting of the film is not what ultimately sunk it. To drive that point home would be to ignore how Parker’s own persistent hubris sunk his efforts. It also absolves the men who — anecdotally speaking — spent lots of time shaming black women for speaking out against the film, but did not ultimately go buy tickets to see it. As well as white audiences who perhaps hid behind Parker’s former allegations as a reason to avoid a film that challenges the narrative of the ‘docile slave.’ Oh, and there’s the fact that Parker wrote, starred in and produced the film himself, although many reviews suggest that he perhaps is not a talented enough wordsmith to take on a subject of this magnitude.
I don’t fault black women for being relieved that Parker’s effort underperformed at the box office. But I also don’t accept the logic that this film would have performed miraculously if not for a black woman boycott. This film had a lot working against it — including many issues that Parker himself generated.
To often when black men publicly flail or flounder, black women are cast as convenient scapegoats.
The impact of the word of mouth that flew around the web among black women is being underestimated here. Yes there were other factors that contributed but black males and the media content they create has ALWAYS depended upon the financial support of black women and their approval. This is a well documented fact.
Black women’s groups on and off line were speaking about this situation and the black woman’s impact on the box office receipts were obviously enough to send Rolland Martin, the fake doctor Umar Johnson and all of the other misogynistic black males, on a rampant rant across the web and on television, castigating and guilt tripping black women left and right for taking a principled stance. They didn’t berate white people or black males or any other groups. Their targeted diatribes were laser focused on black women, decrying feminism along the way.
They obviously recognized black women having an organized voice and a realization of their buying power as a real threat to their bottom line as black males. Why others are trying to minimize this is beyond comprehension. Black male misogynists and perpetrators of sexual violence have been officially put on notice that black women will no longer be pimped by them. Black women are waking up more and more daily and realizing that there is no conceivable reason to put money into the black male’s pocket when he creates harm to women and girls.
It is also contradictory for these black males who are always touting this “pro black” line about the patriarchal black family and who rake black women over the coals regularly for now dating and marrying out more (but nowhere near as much as they have for centuries), to insist that black women give their dollars to black males that aren’t in the least bit interested in them. Nate isn’t even married to a black woman so the idea that black women are now responsible for supporting he and his white wife, is just ridiculous. Black women are not to be castigated for deciding not to support him and have that decision relegated to mere jealousy. It is a major point about race loyalty, that they are always touting that cannot be minimized. Black women are blamed and shamed by these patriarchy pushers regularly because they are aligning themselves with feminism, (which these black males have falsely and inaccurately deemed as supporting white supremacy, a blatantly false analysis since black women invented feminism). Yet they are also shamed for not supporting a black male with a white woman on his arm. The contradictions are glaring.
None of these factors are lost on black women who are insulted by the idea that they are automatically suppose to support black male projects no matter what, simply because they are black and male. That insult translated into box office receipts that weren’t what hey expected and hopefully it will continue. I personally encouraged black women to stay home instead of going to put money in Nate Parker’s pocket and watch Michel’le’s biopic instead. I am hoping they did as it is much more important to see the work of black women directors and support their work if they are in fact providing a platform for the voices and stories of black women. Let’s all hope the trend continues and the awakening as well.
Black women make and break careers. Believe it.
Tyler Perry has put out a bunch of seriously flawed movies chock full of stereotypes. HOWEVER, Tyler Perry did attempt to put black women who look black at the center of his movies and also had that black woman be the sympathetic protagonist in a way black male directors just couldn’t be bothered with for decades and decades
Perry started off making church plays before he made his first movie. And black women gave him his career from start to finish. Yeah white people came along to watch his movies later…but they came along LATER
Do NOT underestimate our power as black women
Black women, especially black feminists got that rape trial story repeated and repeated until mainstream media picked it up again because of the rape trial transcripts.
There is a very vague version of the rape trial story in white male dominated main stream media. But most black women of integrity were very angry at what they found in transcripts and even some of words used by Parker’s rape culture saturated defenders
1) “You put yourself in that situation” was are words from Nate Parker recorded by police. I’ve heard that phrased used on women like raped@Spelman more than once. I know that means “Too bad. Don’t get drunk next time. Gotcha. Don’t be a sore loser.”
2) A male friend defending him said that Nate had told him that “We ran a train on ________” (Anybody over the age of 18 should KNOW what that’s code for gang rape) adding the words “but it was consensual” is b.s.
A lot of us have had before in regards to a woman that’s considered ho and therefore un-rape-able.
But the most important thing in those transcripts of the trial is that Tamerlane Kangas, a black man, described Parker inviting two other men to have sex with his unconscious date.–that’s sounds like rape where I come from.
Tons of historical stories by white people about white people have been jazzed up so as to be entertaining. That’s not why his movie failed.
When he showed his arrogance during the last two interviews he shot himself in both feet. Furthermore, even if Tamerlane Kangas had NOT removed doubt about that woman being unconscious –Parker says he didn’t think about her again? Even if he REALLY thought it was a misunderstanding, he didn’t think about somebody who tried to commit suicide again? Really?
Yes, we black women raised and re-raised this issue until it affected his movie. No we didn’t do it alone but we were the head of the spear.
Believe it
Very interesting perspective . Would like to share elsewhere if OK
Please do.
Please do as Ree Walker.
Thanks
Well stated!
You’re awesome!
Thank you!
Thank you! And whenever I write on this subject I, and others, take full credit for a SUCCESSFUL boycott just as you said.
Unbelievable. I don’t want to see the movie just because I vowed not to watch any more slave movies and because it might not be told accurately knowing Jews control hollywood. I want to see revolutions. I am sure the movie was outstanding.
It was not told accurately due to the black men in charge in the making of the movie.
I’m not sure about majority women supporting it. But I do know that the movie was poorly promoted.
Are you serious? It made a decent buzz all the way up to the point where the info about Nate Parker’s old info came out.
Not really. I only heard about it for the past month and realized two days ago that I never knew when it actually premiered.
What?! His white wife and her friends and community didn’t come out and support? Big surprise but black wen are obligated too. GTFOH
This comment has me weak. I am crying. LOL
Right! Because he claims she’s “woke”!
I saw the movie and liked it. The majority who were there were black (with the majority being women). I’m not surprised it didn’t do well because one 1). I do think his past allegations did hurt him. 2). While the majority of his supporters have been black I have heard a number of black people complained about movies being promoted are slavery movies. 3). Even if not for the allegations I do think the timing of this movie is a factor because of the current race relations and the #oscarsowhite as the writer mentioned. Either way black women aren’t at fault for the lack of performance at the box office. There aren’t enough of us in the U.S. to make that type of impact so whom ever is blaminf black women needs to try again.
That was what it was for me. Personally I have problems with Nate Parker, but I didn’t go see it – and don’t plan to – because I am so, so, so tired of slave movies. I want to watch black people in film and TV who are not slaves. I plan to watch and enjoy Queen of Katwe and Hidden Figures when that drops.
I am looking forward to seeing Queen of Katwe!
I get that people are tired of slave movies but this was a slave rebellion which is a much different story that what audiences are used to. Black defiance in film is arguably rare. To be honest, I’d rather see a slave movie told by someone black than the boxed in plots usually peddled that get the audience off on torture porn.
The slave rebellion is the reason why I wanted to see the movie and I agree that black defiance in film is rare.
I haven’t heard anything about this backlash. Where exactly is it happening?
Correction: the movie was featured at the Toronto Film Festival. Not at Sundance.
If you’re talking about BOAN, it was at Sundance. It won 2 prizes there.
It was featured at Sundance. That’s where the deal was made. http://mashable.com/2016/08/16/nate-parker-birth-nation-sundance-old-rape-allegations/#_IK1LPTHY5qn