Nate Parker’s film “Birth of a Nation” received acclaim at the the Sundance film festival and Oscar buzz was in the air. Then the circumstances of a rape accusation against he and his college roommate, who also contributed to the film, began to circulate. Parker was acquitted in the rape case but his roommate served time until his conviction was overturned. The victim took her own life several years ago. Should his role in the sexual assault in 1999 affect the success of his film? Details here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html
I don’t like what he did -the group thing- but when alcohol is involved 18-year olds do dumb things. Certainly they do dumb things when alcohol is nowhere in sight. The critical fact here is that he was acquitted…and his buddy’s conviction was overturned. If you want the justice system in this country to have credibility, the results of a trial must be regarded as legitimate, barring no error or misconduct. I am much more sympathetic to an exonerated 18-year old than to a middle-aged Woody Allen.
IDK, the whole things creeps me out. Sex with an unconscious woman?
" you want the justice system in this country to have credibility, the results of a trial must be regarded as legitimate, barring no error or misconduct. I am much more sympathetic to an exonerated 18-year old than to a middle-aged Woody Allen. "
worth repeating. Totally agree
Edited to add - also much more sympathetic to a an exonerated 18-year old than to Roman Polanski
Sounds like the prosecutors dropped the retrial. “Too hard to track down witnesses”. Really?
There was a trial. He was acquitted.
It’s also safe to say it wasn’t his finest hour.
Hollywood and the Academy do not care about men who abuse women. Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby and others who are serial adulterers who publicly humiliate their wives (Affleck, Schwartzennegger and others). So will this affect his Oscar chances? I doubt it.
Leave it to the media not to be able to review the film on the film’s merits alone. I agree with what you say Lake Washington. Hopefully the media will move on soon and let the movie go forth and be judged upon the movie’s merits rather than rehashing a case that has already been tried. The men involved have no obligation to feed the media beast at this point with any kind of comment. The trial is almost two decades old. I feel sorry for the woman’s family that all her ills and history are now also being dredged up. I think their response to the NYT says it all;
Parker was acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Few people reading that article would suggest he is “innocent.” As for the dirt bag Celestin – he was convicted. A retrial was ordered only because a court decided he had poor representation. At that point the victim “was ready to testify all over again… But prosecutors felt that tracking down all the former witnesses would be impossible and let the case drop.” Celestin was never exonerated.
Polanski and Allen came to my mind too. I find that my opinion of them and their work has been negatively affected by their past behavior, and I suspect others will feel the same way about Parker. Fair or not, a level of cynicism clouds our justice system so I’m not sure the fact that charges were dropped will help these filmmakers. From the description of the amount of alcohol consumed by all parties in the incident it seems everyone had impaired judgement. It’s going to be interesting to read commentary on this story once the movie is in wide release.
It wasn’t just a rape. They also aggressively stalked and harassed her to the point that she feared for her life. And then she committed suicide.
His co-rapist was convicted of sexual assault and served a whopping 6 months. Why one was convicted and the other not for the same crime, I don’t know. Probably because as hard as it is to not put a victim on trial today, it was that much harder almost 20 years ago.
No project associated with him will ever get my dollars.
If you read some of the testimony, it is clear that this was a gang rape of an unconscious woman. The most similar incident was the recent Vanderbilt case, but there were no cell phones with video back in 1999. Parker and Celestin should have spend alot more than six months in jail.
Is the movie story any less crucial because of the story teller? It also “kind of” squelches all the media chatter about the racial inequity in sentences…and this goes back almost two decades. I don’t see any of the media attention to this as “positive” on any level. So don’t see the movie and do see the movie, the movie stands on its own.
I don’t see Polanski or Allen movies. I just couldn’t stomach that my $10 was furthering their lifestyles.
From the article it seems as though Parker was engaging in sex with an unconscious woman. During the act, he motioned Celestin into the room to join him. I don’t see how he, Parker, got acquitted of rape. He was at least guilty of accessory to rape (althought his may have been a lesser included charge for which he was acquitted also).
In any event, it turns my stomach just to think about it.
Whether 18 or 38, an adult male should know that having sex with an unconscious female is rape. Alcohol or no alcohol. I understand why reviewers are having trouble discussing the film on “its merits” alone. Sort of how sportwriters were having difficulty discussing Ray Rice’s football accomplishments in light of the assault on his fiancee.
It’s hard to be objective.
The complication, in my mind at least, is that there is a big difference in moral maturity between 18 and 38. Is the present day Parker who has created a moving and meaningful film the same person who took advantage of/raped an intoxicated woman 17 years ago? I guess it boils down to the concept of redemption, and the fact that some crimes may be unforgivable.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/496439/?client=safari
I would like to read transcripts.
I read the military man’s testimony.
In your opinion…it always warms me the willingness of (most) human beings to forgive.
Rape plays a part in the film too. How can we watch that, knowing what the creative mind behind it all has done in the past? It can’t be ignored. For me to believe in redemption, he needs to publicly come clean with what he did, how it was wrong, and how he has changed because of it. The woman he raped committed suicide years later too. Just awful all around.
I agree greenwich, in his references to the incident he discusses how it was a painful time- for him- and that he wants to move past it. In interviews 17 years ago after the victim filed her report he is contrite and remorseful for his behavior, but he clings to the “acquitted” outcome of the trial now as though no further dialogue is needed. Given the potential of the film I’m surprised he wasn’t better prepared to address the scrutiny.