The Birth of a Nation (2016) | Based on a True Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 02. 2017
- Today I’m going over The Birth of a Nation. No not that one again, thank goodness, the new one about the Nat Turner Rebellion of 1831 in Southampton County, Virginia. But this is not a vindication, because it’s not accurate, but not as horribly as Braveheart. Unlike that movie, The Birth of a Nation at least gets the surface dressing correct, and even some much-needed corrections in recent Hollywood depictions of slavery, but the narrative is still corrupted by its inaccuracy.
Episode on the original Birth of a Nation:
• The Birth of a Nation ...
------------------------------------------------------------
references:
Primary Sources:
Thomas Gray, The Confessions of Nat Turner (VA: TW White, 1832).
Samuel Warner, Authentic and Impartial Narrative of the Tragic Scene (NY: Samuel Warner, 1831).
A great resource for everything: www.natturnerproject.org/
Secondary:
www.thenation.com/article/the...
deadline.com/2016/10/birth-of-...
www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/opinion...
www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2...
www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Tur...
------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS:
czcams.com/users/subscription_c...
contribute to my Patreon:
/ cynicalhistorian
LET'S CONNECT:
/ cynicalcypher88
/ cynical_history
------------------------------------------------------------
Wiki:
The Birth of a Nation is a 2016 American period drama film based on the story of Nat Turner, the enslaved man who led a slave rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in 1831. Co-written, co-produced and directed by Nate Parker (in his directorial debut), the film stars Parker as Turner, with Armie Hammer, Aja Naomi King, Jackie Earle Haley, Penelope Ann Miller and Gabrielle Union in supporting roles. Parker also petitioned financiers to invest in the film, ultimately getting an $8.5 million production budget, and started filming in May 2015 in Georgia.
The film premiered in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival on January 25, 2016. Fox Searchlight Pictures bought worldwide rights to the film in a $17.5 million deal, the largest deal at the film festival to date. At the end of the festival, the film won the Audience Award and Grand Jury Prize in the U.S. Dramatic Competition and was highly praised for its directing, acting, soundtrack and cinematography. The film was theatrically released in the United States on October 7, 2016 by Fox Searchlight Pictures and grossed $16 million.
Because The Birth of a Nation attracted increased attention due to possible Oscar nominations, there was significant press coverage of a 1999 alleged rape that Parker and co-writer Jean McGianni Celestin were accused of having committed, and the fact that the accuser committed suicide in 2012.[3][4][5] While Parker was acquitted and Celestin was initially found guilty, but then later granted a retrial that never went ahead, the controversy surrounding the alleged rape and Parker's initial responses to the controversy cast a shadow over the film.[6]
------------------------------------------------------------
Hashtags: #History #BirthOfANation #TurnerRebellion #Review #BasedOnATrueStory #NatTurner #slavery #SlaveRevolt
![The Israelites: NAT TURNER DOCUMENTARY [OFFICIAL]](/img/n.gif)
11:40 i was mistaking short drop hanging for long drop. On short drop, your larynx is broken causing a short period of twitching. Still, no one would be smiling after having their larynx broken
The Cynical Historian I was about to comment on that but you corrected it a month ago. I do believe though that there were short drops too short to break the larynx which left people twitching for 10 to 15 minutes in the worst case. I would have to double check on that. Also, there were long drops where the drop was too long that the rope broke and the person had to be re-hanged.
he was being lynched not hung on some British style pirates of the Caribbean 12ft tall gallows
While hanging is typically intended to kill almost immediately, it was not uncommon for particularly despised criminals to be hung in such a way that they would slowly choke to death as a way to make them suffer more.
The Cynical Historian but what if they simply throw a rope over a limb and pull you up by the neck like they showed in the clip? You'd strangle, not just have the neck break...
mproducer do you understand that there are gradations in all of humanity and society, and there could be sympathetic plantation owners that due to geography and social structure, had grown up in this type of society, yet doesn't choose to wield their status and power over another with violence and cruelty? Just because of the stereotype and general idea of the whip swinging, abusive, rapist slave owner, we can't entertain the idea that some of those people _were_ nice and didn't beat their people and gave them reasonable accommodation? but that wouldnt serve our easily delineated (no pun) black and white history that makes it easy to decide who is the "good" guy and who is the "bad" guy...
"12 Years A Slave" DID show different kinds of owners - the first owner, while weak, was shown as a far more decent person than the second.
Except he wasn't. Director Steve McQueen even made his opinion known he considered the "nice" slave owner to be the worst one.
Why? Because he was completely aware what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway. People like Epps were violent sociopaths, sure, but it was people like Ford who kept the entire institution alive, turning a blind eye to atrocities they enabled (splitting apart of families) while pretending to be good Christians.
Well Solomon himself said that he was a good person and that's all folks
@@WildWestSamurai How would he inherently know that slavery was wrong? Being kind to your slave must've been like being kind to your hunting dogs, Ford wasn't sadistic to his slaves because that wasn't the kind of man he was. Even Solomon had nothing but kind words for Ford.
@@WildWestSamurai if McQueen thinks that, he's a chronological egotist, just people in the past by modern sensibilities. There are multiple things going on today that can be considered morally reprehensible, yet are mostly ignored because of how our society is run. Destroying the environment, taking advantage of impoverished countries, mass killing of animals to satisfy an unnecessary meat affinity . . . I shudder to think about what the humanity of 200 years in the future will think about us.
@@aaroncohen2700 Of course Solomon had nothing but kind words for Ford. Ford treated him well. Solomon was not Eliza, however. And she most certainly did NOT have kind words for Ford.
Hey, minor correction here; theres a variety of forms of hanging and given the year, Mr. Turner would likely have been killed with a 'short drop' as the forms used to break the neck only come into common usage later, the other option being 'suspension' where there was no drop at all.
The 'mid drop' used in the 1860s that was more upto chance than anything else as to if it broke the person's neck or not, with the *ahem* "Modern" form coming about in 1872 with William Marwood's calculations creating the 'long drop' method where a person's death by broken neck was relatively assured so long as everyone did their math right, it could cause decapitations however so it was further "refined" as time went on.
Even after the introduction of the mid and long drops many countries continued to use the older versions because 'its supposed to be a punishment,' the United States and the British Empire and her Dominions switched to the long drop in short order though.
Not to defend Hollywood but MOST hangings shown in film where the person survives are short or mid drops, its even possible to survive the long drop if the executioner screws up the calculations, so they're kinda off the hook on this one.
Best Wishes,
-Timon
Timon Ferguson holy shit you know a lot about hanging folk
I have imagined a rebuttal film to the film of 1915. A Nation Reborn, using 1915 technology. Black actors in Whiteface portraying the evil Slaveowners, the vile Confederates, and the cowardly Klansmen. They get their butts kicked by the noble Federal troops, both Blacks and those in Whiteface.
completely agree but want to add the fact that no one smiles and looks up while being hanged. I wouldn't believe so at least.
.
There is nothing, nothing positive about slavery, in any time, in any place. This is the most essential truth about how people act and react. Put yourself in the position of a slave for ONE hour, and tell me you don't understand.
For real. Why tf do people always mention “nice slave owners”? Sorry bud, even if a slave owner whipped a little less, THEY STILL FUCKING OWNED PEOPLE.
true but people also must recognize that every race at one point in time was enslaved to someone else its another essential truth the name slavery comes from the slavs of Europe they were slaves so long they became the name for the practice and we should remove all the hatred and racism when talking about the past
The very fact that human beings were treated as property is enough to morally condemn slavery; there's no reason to show it as worse than it was to further condemn it. Some slave owners did indeed treat slaves better than others did; that's just historic fact. But it's not the cruelty of other slave owners that made slavery morally wrong; that is just an additional wrong to treating human beings as property. Even if every slave owner was as kind as the kindest ones, slavery would still be wrong. You don't need to make it out to be worse than it was to come to that conclusion.
@Shreyas Misra Well the US is not so different. The example you brought up of North Africa shows it. The Haratin/Chouachin, both the indigenous people of that name and West Africans that are called that (similar to slavic/slave, haratin means also slave) have darker skin, speak their own language and are socially segregated in ghettos. In some North African countries like Mauretania they are still enslaved.
In India you have the Dalits in the same position.
In Japan you have the Eta (dirt) and Hinin (non-humans) which are Japanese, look like Japanese and speak only Japanese, but are still discriminated because of their family names. Appearance is not necessary for discrimination, sometimes just one symbol, you are assigned to, is all that matters.
Edit: What I want to say is that there is a kind of "americocentrism" involved in the discurse of slavery here.
By refuting the bias of white Americans, African-Americans create another bias that marginalizes the experience of black Arabians and other people.
@@zanseinofan01 I heart you even with that im very proud of my hungarian and slavic heritage
Disempowered women in a movie regarding a crushed slave rebellion? I think everybody was disempowered.
Why would anyone fear revenge from those they have abused, sold, mutilated, raped, worked harder than beasts?
I mean, what kind of cowardly hyppcrite is afraid to face to consequences of their own actions and inactions?
Because we're humans
@@zyanego3170 We?
One of the first videos I made was about Nat Turner! Such an interesting figure in American history.
Mr. Beat. Very cool seeing you here & awesome that one of your first videos were of Nat Tuner. A person who is interesting and that I would suggest you to take a look at is Sister Rosetta Tharpe. Her story is different in subject matter but interesting and impactful.
Strangulation based hanging is more historically accurate than neck-breaking based hanging, and movies tend to go with the latter more than the former. Neck-breaking was only introduced in 1866.
Accuracy problem with this video:
There were no buffalo soldiers in the civil war, they did not come about until the Indian Wars after the civil war
Rather, the name came about later - Freedmen and recently-freed slaves did serve during the war in units the that would eventually become known as Buffalo Soldier units.
If I have to say Nate Turner is a perfect example is what not to do in a rebellion.
Then it just turns into a Cambodia type event.
Unless our world becomes like Star Wars, rebellions will 99% of the time fail not matter how correctly one rebels.
Niko Bellic That was because they had the French on their side and didn't have to fight the full force of the British army...
TheStewieOne nat turner killed the abolition movement in its cradle
@Niko Bellic
With a "little" help from France!
Short drop hanging wouldnt break the neck. It was slow strangulation using that method.
Agreed.....two types of hanging....strangulation (shown in the movie) and long drop (victim fall through trap door) designed to break the neck.
You increase the height of stand but only enough rope to still have in the air say about 2 feet of slack on rope then drop suddenly with the hangman noose on snug on the 3rd vertebrae --snap quick.
I remember I learned about him in history class in my sophomore year in college.
The professor said that the slaves ruthlessly slaughtered white masters and their families.
My response? *sarcastically* "😮Oh my! Slaves killing their oppressors. How dare they want revenge and freedom!"
@@zanseinofan01,
APSOLUTELY. There's a difference between Turner and people like Tubman. Tubman took her freedom and used it to free others. Turner never gained true freedom, as he would fight and murder for the rest of his short life, and he forced other slaves into that lifestyle. There was never a chance that they would survive, and Turner knew this. His entire plan was to live long enough so that he could kill as many as possible. Nat Turner was a horrible person.
@@zanseinofan01, peasant, serf, or slave revolts had a pretty consistent modus operandi from Appalachia to Japan. Kill the masters down to the smallest child - so that no one local can inherit. Burn the property and tax records so that outsiders can't know who "owns" what. Destroy whatever strongholds you can.
Enslaved people killing the children of slavers is the inevitable result of slavery.
@@jacobvardy the problem is that when that happens, there's often simply a mass-killing or redistribution of those captured slaves.
Žan Ujčič I wonder if you share the opinions on collateral damage. Like bombings... like those that were dropped on Germany in WW2.
It’s hilarious to think that slaves should hold mercy for their owners.
The only thing sparing a child of the master you just killed does is make that child 100% probably a super mean master when they grow up.
Now I’m not arguing whether or not child murdering is bad, but whether the act at sparing the child does any good (probably not)
@@acceleration4443 Thank you, this was my first thought. Every German child was no Nazi Youth but we don't talk about it in World War II films and it is not considered a necessary criticism. Same for the bombing of Japan. Just like we don't talk about the 'innocents' in Spartacus's rebellions. Just like we don't see movie depictions of the Crusaders killing Muslim, Jewish, and even Christian children who were mistaken for Muslims since they weren't European. Does every depiction of the French revolution include discussion of the children of the wealthy being harmed?
Every time I see a film about colonization, I only see tribal warriors against a European army, with the effect on children, women, the elderly, or just men who weren't fighting glossed over. Why don't films take some time to review the sexual violence against women by invading armies in war movies? Even in war films were I see Japanese people as the antagonists, were is the mention of comfort slaves.
To be clear, I don't wish such brutality against anyway white people, but I don't see this criticism elsewhere. It seems more apt to criticize war and mass violence in general. I want to point out, I am not calling anyone racist. I just want everyone to be aware of when we hold the oppressed to a different standard. There were people who did not own slaves that were still slave catchers, slave auctioneers, who invested in the slave trade, who participated in the degradation of humans in slavery and of course those who did none of those things.
To the person who said "live by the sword, die by the sword" tolerate enslavement, get killed by slaves. I don't feel sorry for them anymore than I feel sorry for the white people John Brown's raid killed or the people killed in Native American raids against white settlers. Treating human beings with dignity and humanity could have prevented all of this and its a shame anyone had to die, but there are consequences to the destructions of human lives for everyone. I hate the brutal destruction of life, but this was the logical conclusion of slavery.
I am angry at both the people who bought slaves and those who sold them (including African kingdoms who sold their prisoners half way around the world) because they, not Nat Turner, set the stage for this to happen, as well as the Civil War, and the years of racial tension and violence that followed.
You make a great observation about accuracy in historical films not necessarily being super important. What is more important is if it captures the attitudes, beliefs, nuances, gender/social dynamics of whatever time period or event it is attempting to depict.
It's unfortunate that many of these inaccuracies portray a consistent bias, it could have and should have been more ambiguous to challenge peoples views not oversimplified. Overall not terrible but it had more potential it just fell into many of the usual narrative paths and cliches.
They obviously paid no attention to the styles of the time period either, except for a few of the trousers, everything else smacks completely of 1860s and 1870s, not the 1830s.
I do think the U.S. military uniforms were pretty close, I believe.
Really enjoyed your video, you make some really great points and I think I might now have to watch it to see for myself! Thanks for taking the time to make this video :)
History With Hilbert you should make a video about the atlantic slave trade and slaves in the USA it would be an interesting video
One of your best reviews! Well edited and paced. I wasn't even aware that this movie existed, and I'm not sure I'll go beyond your video. I find these types of films really hard to watch.
Nonetheless. Well done! Enjoying your series with Step Back as well.
Thanks. Hard to watch because of the inaccuracies and hammy-ness, or the purposefully harsh violence?
BTW, I've been waiting for your next president vid. The Jackson one was quite enlightening. When's the next one?
It might be a few months. I'm trying to keep the content diverse, so the next video is about the February Revolution. Should be out this week **crosses fingers agressively while knocking on wood**
How come historic videos that show how Black people were/are treated so hard to watch? However fight videos, gory horror films and raw action films aren't?
nubian cornflake lots of other races in jail too, unless one cannot be racist towards whites :).
nubian cornflake Holy shit you are the biggest racist I have ever seen.
There's alot of kinds of hangings and not all of them break your neck. Getting pulled up from the ground like they show in this movie would lead to strangulation. It's one of the worst ways to go as far as hanging is concerned
Most of the complaints of making the movie about men saving women is people mad because he wouldn’t apologize for being acquitted for something he didn’t do.
I'm not convinced it would be possible to portray the institution of American slavery accurately in a single 90 minute film. Because the institution itself endured for decades, it was a vastly different experience for people (all of whom should not have been subjected to it) depending on where and when they experienced it. Almost however it is shown on screen it will be legitimate for critics to say that it was too harsh or too lax a depiction compared to a certain time or place or that the time and place didn't represent the institution as a whole.
The media sabotaged this movie
great review dude. your impartial and yet hit the point, its why i subscribed to your channel recently, keep it up!
"Slaves! Submit yourself to your masters. Let's play raid:shadow legends!"
You do good work with these reviews. Enjoyable reviews but not with an agenda nor a predetermined POV. Thanks.
Pretty much.
The only thing problematic about this movie is that slavery actually existed and racism still does.
@@freespeechforablackmanii4308 "The only thing problematic about this movie is that slavery actually existed"
Huh..... yeah, it did, this doesn't contradict the film at all.. and racism existed 3,000 years before the film. And still does...
Great review! If you have time for it, can you review Harriet if possible? As a history buff, I saw some scenes that didn’t match up with Tubman’s bio (the final confrontation with her former owner comes to mind), but at the same time, it had some moments that I liked about it (such as the network of people on the Underground Railroad that she worked with).
The theme of inner power was driving the plot. Power to act, power to take charge of your destiny despite circumstances being against you. That was clear... so choosing what images to include or exclude was driven by that, more than the need to be historically accurate. Which is valid because movies are a lense... A view point taken on an event. Fictional or historical. We know very well people don't die like that after a hanging. It's interesting to me that the discussion of hanging styles is where people go to criticize or comment on the scene rather than addressing the most obvious question. - Why would the director choose to do that? The ending was all about inner power and choice just like all the other actions in Nate Turners depiction. Wonderful movie. Wonderful perspective.
Every single unsuccessful American slave rebellion failed in large part to a traitor. The lesson is you have purge them out first. After slavery, the sellouts were allowed to live with the newly freed. That carries on till today. Before you can fight the enemy outside, you must purge the enemy inside.
Don't be ridiculous! It would've failed anyways. It just fought local militias not full blown armies.
@@MrNebelschatten Don't be rediculous. LOL What full blown army in the south? There were forts (bases) but nothing to the scope and size that it wold quell it quickly. The vast majority of the area is rural and at best a local militia. Whites in the south were outnumbered and all the rebellion had to do was spread to other plantations and they get a hold of guns from the individual owners and areas that had guns. You completely underestimate the fear and panic of such revolts. Plus ample room west to move to. The south would have been in total disarray socially and economically. Picture a version of Spartacus' rebellion.
@@arsena1816 which was brutally crushed after the legions arrived which would've happened here as well eventually. You just need to mobilize your armies, the rest is most likely a chicken shoot.
@@MrNebelschatten What "legions"?, it was a hastily assembled group of men. They weren't a standby army. They were only able to get the advantage from a snitch. Try again.
@@arsena1816 you try again my dude en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus
And dont use the knowledge learned from a garbage series produced for housewives.
Braveheart gets a little too much hate. It being inaccurate doesn't really make it a bad movie. At the end of the day, it's still a very well written, well shot and competently made movie despite how terribly inaccurate it might be in some places. I think a historical movie being accurate may enhance it but it doesn't necessarily account for how engaging the plot or characters are. A movie could be historically accurate but then at the same time, be a bad movie because the story and characters aren't interesting. I can understand if historical inaccuracy is a deal breaker for people that watch such movies to see how meticulously the film recreates the important historical figures and iconic events of the time but I don't think that deviation from historical facts is necessarily the only thing that decides whether a historical films succeeds or fails. If the historical inaccuracy of Braveheart had caused it to be forgettable or just downright terrible, then I think people would be right in attacking the historical inaccuracy with as much zeal as they do as that could argued as the reason it failed or didn't perform well with audiences. I think people are harsh towards movies like Braveheart because they incorrectly assume that the people watching it are treating it as if everything presented within in it are cold hard facts. I'm not so sure the general movie going audience is this naive. I think everyone or at least most people are aware that what they see in historical movies, no matter how accurate they are, still feature embellishment or the twisting of certain historical facts. I don't think anyone's is necessarily going to Braveheart to attain an in depth knowledge about the wars of scottish independence. If anyone wanted to do that, they'd most likely look to the many books and documentaries created to educate people on that particular subject. That being said, a movie or tv mini series about a much more accurate version of William Wallace and the events surrounding him would be insanely cool and it'd be neat to contrast what is essentially a historical fantasy epic that is very much a product of 90's hollywood with a contemporary historical film or mini series that could deconstruct Braveheart and similar movies by presenting it's story and characters in much more ambigous or cynical manner. Suppose Outlaw King is the next best thing until then.
I think he just doesn’t like it because Mel Gibson lol
New subscriber here but this is my favorite review so far.
Great analysis man.
The characterization of the US Army in this film damns the flick.
Nice video, would like to hear your thoughts on Alexander.
Both this movie and the original "The Birth of a Nation" were made with some racial undertones behind them and some historical revisionism. However, this movie did get a lot right and it looks beautiful.
Yeah, I remember watching this movie and going "Am I remembering some things incorrectly or did they just take some liberties?", it was the latter.
There is no limits to mans cruelty
I like your review! It was balanced and informative. I just have one thought. The original Birth of Nation (OBN) was an example of monumental history, history that idealize and valorizes it’s subject. The myth OBN was trying to preserve/promote was white supremacy. Accuracy was not OBN’s main tool, it was symbolism. Maybe the director of the new birth of a nation was using the monumental history format and a heavy dose of symbolism to write the wrongs or at least to counteract the evil myth of OBN. The goal of the new film was not to give an accurate account of Nat Turner’s rebellion, but to create a new mythology. A mythology for an demographic in the United States which was forced to adopt the dominant demographic’s perspective. Food for thought!
Holy fuck, the ending with the buffalo soldier was awesome.
Aren't the beards a mistake? My understanding is that beards didn't come in fashion until the mid-1850s. When you look at portraits or photos of men from before the mid 1850s, you rarely see beards.
*"Don't let facts get in the way a good story"* - The Movie.
Every biopic
There were no buffalo soldiers in the Civil War, they came after the Civil War during the Indian wars and got their names from the Indians. However there were black units such as the 54th Massachusetts
Man i remember reading about this
2020 we are living today.
If your looking for entertainment to be a literal representation of life then it will be void of all mythos that stories are supposed to metaphorically represent
I think taking liberties for the purpose of entertainment with historical films is perfectly fine. However, I am not a fan of manipulating the audience. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that will never actually bother to learn the real history regarding events in film and walk away from it thinking what they just watched is what happened because the beginning of the movie said "based on a true story". Take shows like Spartacus on stars. Portraying the rebellion as freedom fighters that wouldn't stoop to the level of their former Roman masters. Portraying Spartacus as even handed and overly virtuous and preventing his cohorts from doing to the captives what the Romans had done to them. This is patently false. Furthermore every single culture that made up the Spartacus revolt engaged in taking battle slaves themselves. It was common practice in ancient times. The reality is there was largely no difference from an "ethics" perspective from the Romans and any of their conquered enemies.
@@tsdobbi although what u say is true all cultures have mythos & with time the gray areas of the truth get xd out for creating a united vision or singular path & the winner ultimately wins that right whether we like it or not myths are what ultimately stories whether true or not become my friends didnt believe that till I asked them to think of 10 great boxers, they didn't say but they all thought of who? rocky balboa, was he real? no, but he has become a symbol for the sport, so much so that he (a fictional character) represents a city that had one of the greatest heavy weights (joe frazer) where i met ppl from philly who had no clue Frazer was from there, those who do diligence are in the minority sadly most ppl go along w/ what is just told to them, but if we only went by strictly truth we wouldn't have anything to look up to
Underrated film!!! It was GREAT!!!! Well done by Nate Parker!
The Nat Turner Rebellion, like so many historical events, was a conflict between different shades of black (or perhaps very, very dark grey). But this doesn't make for a "good movie". I guess Parker figured he needed to give the audience someone to root for, and wanted to make sure it wasn't the proto-KKK. Even so...couldn't he have at least made it dark-white-versus-black, and kept the other forces on the sides they were actually on?
A movie can only be so long
The original Birth Of A Nation is complete crap, but people believed that mess. I would rather watch this.
Cool, you should do a crossover with nick hodgens from history buffs!
thank you for this review. ive been wondering about this movie. I tend to lean away from historical dramas because i'm more interested in truth than being entertained or pandered to. some things dont need to be sensationalized: they speak for themselves. that said, i'm not against them either and think they can pay tribute to a past way of life or idea that still has great merit. i wasnt so sure about this one. think i'll give it a watch sometime :D
Braveheart was not accurate but an amazing movie
This movie seemed very similar to The Last Samurai, glorified the underdog in the story and glossed over the atrocities they committed, only difference is that Birth of a Nation wasn't very entertaining.
That was pretty awesome
George Bancroft is from Worcester Massachusetts. I have lived in the Worcester area my whole life.
Have you done a review of “Glory”?
The largest slave rebellion in the US was that of the German Coast in Louisiana in 1811; the death tolls --95 blacks v 2 whites--- make it seem small but it was run as a proper military campaign, by the slave planners, and spread over a couple of parishes, north of New Orleans.
Atun-shey has a great little video about it.
The ending is to create Nate Turner as a Christ figure. Hollywood has always been about the message. What’s new?
Armie Hammers beard looks like some 70s bush gone rogue
Since someone has already mentioned the various forms of hanging, I'll just make one observation. You refer to the boy in the finale as having been a 'Buffalo Soldier' in the Civil War. Whilst it is indeed true that there were Black troops in the Civil War, they were not 'Buffalo soldiers'. Buffalo Soldiers originally were members of the 10th US Cavalry, a regiment raised on 21 September 1866, well over a year after the war had ended.
I just saw the movie in preperation for this video, and I have to say that I liked it. But I also have to say that I don't think the title they choose was very fitting. Something like "The seed of Rebellion" or "The seed of Freedom" or something along those lines, which is putting more emphasis on these people's struggle for freedom would have been a better choice.
The name had to be intentional to wash the record of the first from Hollywood history.
To Timon Ferguson: where can I find a comprehensive description of thr different ways of hanging slaves at that time (with reference to the "drops" you've mentioned).
Nat Turner was a fucking G hands down and Nate Parker did an amazing job with the movie. Atleast he made the movie 🎥.
Nate Turner is not Toussaint Louverture but is still one of the great American heroes.
jacobvardy - Negus please 🙄
LOL
I would do some more research into hanging due to the fact it was strangulation of a short drop until 1866.
"The standard drop involves a drop of between 4 and 6 feet (1.2 and 1.8 m) and came into use from 1866 when the scientific details were published by an Irish doctor, Samuel Haughton. Its use rapidly spread to English-speaking countries and those where judicial systems had an English origin". Wikipedia
Dan Carlin, hardcore history: Painfotainment
Will yoou do Glory?
I understand that all humankind can be evil I understand why they killed the man and the woman but the children? It's simply prove no matter what religion or color you are we can all be evil or good choose for yourself
Until the issue was settled in the civil war? I do believe there where still mannnnny issues!
Hi one big thing you didnt talk about in this vid that dealt with some of the inaccuracies you critisized was that hollywood wasnt trying to allow the director to realease or make this film so he had to frame the movie in a certain way to get it realeased. I.E the hit pieces about his rape charge even though it was public knowledge before he made this movie.
I think the fact they called it “The Birth of a Nation” was so that that name no longer bares the hatred and bigotry that it currently holds. They wanted you to see a different image when you think of that name
Fun fact: Canada fully ended slavery by 1833
Dont be silly. Canada does not exist
I haven't seen 13 Years A Slave. Sequels never measure up.
What sequel??! This is about a GREAT historical figure and HISTORY 😒 not some bs slave story. They have ZERO to do with each other! 🤦🏽♂️
Buffalo soldiers were post civil war during the Indian wars. Moniker coined by the Native Americans liking the black soldiers hair to that of a buffalo.
I just watched this movie last night. I have been waiting for a story about a rebellion that depicts people with knowledge (Bible) to test the words and live by them. The word of GOD whom ever your Creator is to you comes thru and in the moment you know the TEST of your CREATOR surpasses what only you could Imagine.
The bible condones slavery, so long as its a person from a neighboring nation. So technically Americans should have been only able to own Mexicans and Canadians.
What are you even talking about?
I knew there was little chance this movie would get the history right...
The title put me off seeing the movie due to the connection with the film that kickstarted the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan
the way the film depicts hanging with the victim being raised by some one pulling on the other end of the rope would choke someone to death would it nor, as i understand it what brakes the neack is the sudden drop and the waight of the knot coming down on the back of the neck
This is infuriating but good video
There was a broomstick wedding in Roots
Very good, thank you.
Just one minor criticism: honestly, I can't stand the accusation of "pretentious". I hear it all the time and it's just too subjective an idea to be in the least bit useful. When I press people on what they actually mean when they say it, it always just boils down to "I don't like this so I don't think the director should have done it. Directors should only do what I want, like and am comfortable with. If they go beyond my desires and comfort, they're pretentious."
What criticisms _aren't_ subjective? What criticisms _don't_ boil down to "I don't think the director/author/whatever should have done it"?
EyeLean5280 its only pretentious because of Nate Parker. A good portion of people in Hollywood have been accused of rape or molestation yet thats barely ever used for other movies. The point is that any propaganda or movies that show blacks as victims who fought back are given unfair criticism. The cynical historian is guilty of the same. Despite overwhelming personal accounts of how violent chattel slavery was. He goes out of his way to only agree with one dimension. Oh slavery wasnt that bad.
Let's face it any historical movie beats the birth of the nation(old)
A better director could of turned this into a fantastic movie. Nat turner is such an interesting figure in American history. But instead he turned it into more about showing himself as a good person in response to real life allegations.
Calling it birth of nation possibly the first blockbuster ever isn't fair it tells a completely different story and a specific historical character i would have called it may king or rebellion: nat King, not birth of a nation the name originally made me avoid it, it's not a remake of Howard Griffith.
You should do a cross over or collab with "History Buff" channel. As you are more of a historian, he is more off an average buff. His content is nice, and he goes over a lot of films about historical accuracy, and he shares your views about braveheart.
Still an awesome movie
The word lynch did exist. It was coined in the late 18th Century during the American Revolution by either Charles or William Lynch and became popularized along with Lynch Law (a punishment, not necessarily an execution, without trial during war time). The term as a euphemism for hanging blacks, however, was not generally used until 1835, only four years after the Nat Turner Rebellion.
false, and I encourage you to watch the episode on that before claiming otherwise
Why do so few movies get things historically correct?
Many reasons. Agenda but you often hear the studio who funds films will want a different direction than the writers and/or directors.
Nobody should ever state something as historical fact because they saw it in a movie. Even the most well-documented non-fiction book can include things that are not accurate, or at least, in dispute.
Don't usually care about already dead pll, but still sad this legend died 😭😭😭😭😭
people who share the same birthday
me
groucho marx
nat turner
ghandi
william haynes
this movie was excellent
I feel like it's strange for the movie to exaggerate the successes of the rebellion when they could have just adapted a more successful rebellion like the Haitian revolution for example if they wanted something inspirational and empowering (and also a place in history Hollywood has refused to adapt). And I don't think movies about slave rebellions need to whitewash the brutality that may occur for us to side with the enslaved in their rebellion, even if it doesn't occur the way we would've liked to imagine it, if you aren't willing to honestly depict the brutality of real life resistance while still standing by the principles of that resistance, then you aren't very committed to those principles in the first place. For some reason people who lived under slavery are held to a higher moral standard than made up people like Walter White or real police officers that get away with murder. Liberals and centrists want to act like they aren't racist but they can't stomach the realities of actual lived resistance or unrest
Besides the Mel Gibsoneque pretension the only thing that bothered me about this movie is that it did not show the massacre of whites without any discretion by blacks. If it were the other way around, they would have shown it. It wanted to show that the blacks were somehow on only a moral crusade for their freedom instead of indiscriminate killers as was the truth of that rebellion. If Turner just killed slave masters he would have been hailed a hero and slavery probably would have ended earlier; instead, it probably extended slavery and that led to the Civil War. Not very bright. Great review though!
Inaccuracy on your review Cypher. Buffalo soldiers were not black infantry in the civil war. Buffalo soldier refers to the black cavalry units established in 1866 and some later on. Specifically the 9th, 10th, 24th and 25th cavalry regiments. The US Colored Troops were the units established durring the civil war.
+Brendan Davison yeah, but historians often refer to black troops in the US army of any sort as Buffalo soldiers - kind of an honorific bestowed retroactively. You'll find there's a lot of language used in that manner.
Why is that the black media took the name of a controversial movie? Like Kyle Barker and Aaron Mcgruder's "Birth of a Nation" that had a black community broking off due to not!2000 Election controversy and voter suppression on black communities, and this.
2:56 welp there goes my rosy image of them
There's an instance of his men going into a secluded schoolhouse and butchering the children in there one by one. The kids were chopped apart by axes and there bodies were mutilated as much as possible.
@@beatthegreat7020 ok how a preacher justified that i will never know
@@spartanx9293,
Neither will I. It all seemed to be the whole *God wills it* thing.
Beat The Great don’t blame god, blame a man who had the wrong idea of god.
@@jimmy5391,
I'm sorry if it seemed like I was blaming God. I was more commenting on the people that use God as an excuse for stuff like this.
I watched it and loved the movie but after listening to your review, kind of disappointed...I know why Hollywood changes these types of storylines, because it needs to sell but still...do whats right
A Great Film fine rebuke of Original and Parker through artistic interpretation gets it right Nat Turner is a Hero to the Black Community...this Message resonates with the African American Experience and a Testament to Why Oppression has a Cost which I think is what this Young Director has accomplished......All Bio Pics suffer some inaccuracies the ones in this Pic aren't changing the Facts...this Film reminds Black Folk they really aren't crazy...Different tactics same result more sinister.
Honestly, this movie was kinda boring!
If this movie Focused more on the actual REBELLION rather than the same ole slavery story I would most definitely buy this film on blu ray. This movie held its punches.
Braveheart was good from like a film standpoint (not amazing but good) but it’s retardedly inaccurate
I thought this was the 1915 version.
I wonder why the slave revolt in Haiti was successful while the one in U.S and even other Caribbean islands were not. They all started very similarly but yet only one (Haiti) was a success. What exactly was so different? Why exactly Nat Turner couldn’t recreate what Toussaint had done in the islands. Especially considering they had more room to maneouver plus U.S at that time wasn’t an empire or at least not as strong as France.
Definitely an interesting question that I would like to see a video on!
@@masterofrockets Thanks for your explanation!
Some say its because Haiti used the help of their ancestors voodoo helped them
Just found your channel I love your content but definitely noticed you like to bash on Braveheart.
you aren't wrong
Who doesn't though? That movie was so inaccurate its a joke.