"There's No Good Reason to Support Nate Parker"
August 18, 2016 4:40 PM Subscribe
"They believed the power of a film, and the potency of Parker’s narrative, would be enough to “deflect” from the events “17 years” in the past. . . . But a different mode of accountability is necessary: on the part of those who perpetuate the abuse, but also from those within the industry whose machinations have, in the past, made it disappear and, in so doing, effectively enabled its continuation. To “spin” a story, after all, is to discredit, erase, or deflect so that one’s client’s viability within the industry remains unfettered — which is exactly what has happened to victims of sexual assault for decades." Anne Helen Peterson on Nate Parker's Alleged Rape and The Limits of Hollywood Damage Control (tw: rape, suicide)
Writer, Director, Actor, and Producer Nate Parker made a film about Nat Turner and his rebellion that was on track to become the indie hit of the year, and an Oscar darling (Previously on Metafilter: The Birth of a Nation(wide Release)).
In the past week, however, despite Parker and his studio's attempts at damage control through controlled interviews in Variety and Deadline, the news that Parker and his co-writer were arrested, investigated, and tried for raping a fellow Penn State student who also alleged that the two men had harassed her and who later died by suicide, has refused to go away. Parker was not convicted; his co-writer Jean Celestin was convicted, but when his conviction was overturned on the basis of inadequate counsel, the state declined to try him again.
The Daily Beast explored the police and trial records in great detail, as well as the victim's devastation and her life in the wake of the trial. Meanwhile, Michael Arceneaux, summing up the prevailing sentiment, explained "There's No Good Reason to Support Nate Parker."
As Peterson says, "even Parker’s recent Facebook post, and its declaration that “as a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith,” he now looks “back at that time, my indignant attitude and my heartfelt mission to prove my innocence with eyes that are more wise with time,” feels like the words of a desperate man backed into a dismal corner — not one who has contemplated the way his defense, both then and now, contributes to rape culture, or considered its potential effect on his co-star and rape survivor Gabrielle Union, or what binds the rape that takes place in the film with what happened in his dorm room in 1999."
Peterson also explores the variety of reasons why this time might be different:
Writer, Director, Actor, and Producer Nate Parker made a film about Nat Turner and his rebellion that was on track to become the indie hit of the year, and an Oscar darling (Previously on Metafilter: The Birth of a Nation(wide Release)).
In the past week, however, despite Parker and his studio's attempts at damage control through controlled interviews in Variety and Deadline, the news that Parker and his co-writer were arrested, investigated, and tried for raping a fellow Penn State student who also alleged that the two men had harassed her and who later died by suicide, has refused to go away. Parker was not convicted; his co-writer Jean Celestin was convicted, but when his conviction was overturned on the basis of inadequate counsel, the state declined to try him again.
The Daily Beast explored the police and trial records in great detail, as well as the victim's devastation and her life in the wake of the trial. Meanwhile, Michael Arceneaux, summing up the prevailing sentiment, explained "There's No Good Reason to Support Nate Parker."
As Peterson says, "even Parker’s recent Facebook post, and its declaration that “as a 36-year-old father of daughters and person of faith,” he now looks “back at that time, my indignant attitude and my heartfelt mission to prove my innocence with eyes that are more wise with time,” feels like the words of a desperate man backed into a dismal corner — not one who has contemplated the way his defense, both then and now, contributes to rape culture, or considered its potential effect on his co-star and rape survivor Gabrielle Union, or what binds the rape that takes place in the film with what happened in his dorm room in 1999."
Peterson also explores the variety of reasons why this time might be different:
"The context that distinguishes Parker’s case is, in many ways, what Searchlight failed to understand — and also so tangled that it’s best presented as a list:Writer Ashley Ford says: "Important black narratives and stories should not be traded for the bodies of women."
1.) That the allegations against Allen and Polanski arrived after they had established themselves as behemoths of Hollywood art cinema, not as they were attempting to do so.
2.) That during and after the allegations, neither Allen nor Polanski starred in their films, only directed them, and thus were not the public face of their films.
3.) That Parker’s alleged abuse took place on a college campus — the current flashpoint when it comes to malfeasance and mishandling of sexual abuse and sexual abuse victims — and that the university’s claims that they properly handled the case would be called into question.
4.) That at Penn State, Parker was a member of the wrestling team, and the suit against Penn State for mishandling the Parker case took place just as the university was beginning to investigate football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was later found to have molested eight boys over the course of his tenure at the school.
5.) That Parker’s accuser attempted suicide in the aftermath of the harassment, and would later commit suicide by swallowing 199 sleeping pills.
6.) That Parker is black and his victim was white, and the allegations and trial became racially charged, dividing the campus and pitting women’s rights advocates against black student groups.
7.) That Parker’s sexual history takes place against a long history in which black male sexuality has been portrayed as animalistic and predatory, especially when it comes to “vulnerable” white women, and that a black man’s relationship with a white woman has been cause for castration or lynching.
8.) That Parker had already drawn scorn for his prescriptive understanding of how black masculinity should be represented on film, declaring that he would not play a gay character because he wanted to “preserve” black masculinity.
9.) That transcripts of both the trial and the subsequent case against Penn State, detailing the night of the alleged assault, Parker’s subsequent attempts to diffuse the event, and the victim’s harassment, were not only publicly available but would circulate broadly on the internet.
10.) That Parker’s acquittal would be viewed not as an exoneration but as a failing on the part of a system that, as demonstrated by myriad cases over the last decade, has systematically failed victims of sexual abuse.
11.) That a distinctly old-school approach to neutralizing scandal would crumble when exposed to the policing force of social media — and Twitter in particular."
This is a pretty devastating quote from the first (Buzzfeed) link WRT Parker's attempts to emphasize how far in the past the rape occurred: “Nate Parker wrote a movie about something that happened in 1831 and then said his rape charge was a long time ago and he’s moved on.”
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:36 PM on August 18, 2016 [67 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:36 PM on August 18, 2016 [67 favorites]
I made him a virgin mojito about a week and a half ago. A young lady at one of the high hats got all in his face, got a selfie, then told me who he was later. I'd never heard of him, but I knew who Nat Turner was because Kyle Baker came across me.
So, I made him a soft drink, and have nothing else to report.
posted by vrakatar at 6:04 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, I made him a soft drink, and have nothing else to report.
posted by vrakatar at 6:04 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not about to quit watching Chinatown which is one of my favorite movies ever and I wouldn't boycott this movie either. You don't have to appreciate the artist as an individual to appreciate the art, and viewing a piece of art or entertainment isn't an endorsement of the whole life of its creator
posted by knoyers at 6:48 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by knoyers at 6:48 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've been really hyped for Birth of Nation, but these new details give me pause. I'll probably still go see it, but the more I read about the rape case, the less esteemed Nate Parker looks.
I don't even know if he could admit that committed rape and then be forgiven. That's a big question, but before we can even have that discussion, he'd have to admit he did something wrong, and that isn't going to happen. It's fine to wonder about redemption or how much a single act should determine the course of one's life, but if the person never seems to repentant, then that just puts a stop to everything.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't even know if he could admit that committed rape and then be forgiven. That's a big question, but before we can even have that discussion, he'd have to admit he did something wrong, and that isn't going to happen. It's fine to wonder about redemption or how much a single act should determine the course of one's life, but if the person never seems to repentant, then that just puts a stop to everything.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:04 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Noooooooooooo, nononononono.
This might be easy because you happen to only enjoy Cinema to the point of qualifying for the "Nerd" title. Which is fine, btw. You Do You.
But I've got the "Wrestling Mark" title, so I have to deal with Chris Benoit. Old School Football Nerds have to deal with OJ. The Artist Is The Art.
But ya know, I really don't think this is necessarily the argument here, cause I think the bigger thing is that this is a dude in the middle of a Rise To Power/Fame. Chinatown is decades old, Parker is literally on the press tour for an upcoming (possibly great?) movie. This is about stopping someone before they become Too Big To Fail.
So the key here is, Don't go see the movie. That first weekend, 95% of the ticket price goes directly to the studio. Don't buy it. If you want to go see the movie, go buy a ticket to something else and sneak in. But don't support this movie.
When the allegation against Bryan Singer came out, people looked at me like I had three heads when I refused to go see the xmen movie that he made. But it at least gave me a tiny sliver of Morality that I wasn't supporting someone in the small little way I could. Now in that case, I went and bought a ticket the week I found out it was a false allegation, but it seems like we've got all the fact here.
Just don't go see it. Stop supporting bullshit.
posted by WeX Majors at 7:10 PM on August 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
This might be easy because you happen to only enjoy Cinema to the point of qualifying for the "Nerd" title. Which is fine, btw. You Do You.
But I've got the "Wrestling Mark" title, so I have to deal with Chris Benoit. Old School Football Nerds have to deal with OJ. The Artist Is The Art.
But ya know, I really don't think this is necessarily the argument here, cause I think the bigger thing is that this is a dude in the middle of a Rise To Power/Fame. Chinatown is decades old, Parker is literally on the press tour for an upcoming (possibly great?) movie. This is about stopping someone before they become Too Big To Fail.
So the key here is, Don't go see the movie. That first weekend, 95% of the ticket price goes directly to the studio. Don't buy it. If you want to go see the movie, go buy a ticket to something else and sneak in. But don't support this movie.
When the allegation against Bryan Singer came out, people looked at me like I had three heads when I refused to go see the xmen movie that he made. But it at least gave me a tiny sliver of Morality that I wasn't supporting someone in the small little way I could. Now in that case, I went and bought a ticket the week I found out it was a false allegation, but it seems like we've got all the fact here.
Just don't go see it. Stop supporting bullshit.
posted by WeX Majors at 7:10 PM on August 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
Here's the link to the full text of Parker's Facebook post. I put here because the cherry picked parts in some of the articles painted the post as completely horrible and selfish and I don't think it's that bad. And he doesn't use her name probably because even her family didn't use her name, as were her wishes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:18 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:18 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was also really looking forward to the movie, and I wonder, given its possible cultural importance, is the way to go is to talk about the movie while also not forgetting about this allegation.
posted by cendawanita at 7:28 PM on August 18, 2016
posted by cendawanita at 7:28 PM on August 18, 2016
the cherry picked parts in some of the articles painted the post as completely horrible and selfish and I don't think it's that bad
I think of myself as fairly immune to what are popularly known as triggers, to the point where I think of myself as having no particular relationship to them at all, but although I can and have read many details and particulars of the case and paraphrases and summaries of Parker's position and statements, reading his own words at that length made me feel dizzy. that's new. it is actually sickening. Everybody should read it, if they can handle it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:33 PM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
I think of myself as fairly immune to what are popularly known as triggers, to the point where I think of myself as having no particular relationship to them at all, but although I can and have read many details and particulars of the case and paraphrases and summaries of Parker's position and statements, reading his own words at that length made me feel dizzy. that's new. it is actually sickening. Everybody should read it, if they can handle it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:33 PM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
You know what? Here's the Wikipedia page about Nat Turner. Go read that. There are a bunch of links to books about Nat Turner at the bottom. Read those. I'll never watch Chinatown or any other Polanski movie again, and I'm not going to see this movie, either.
posted by Huck500 at 7:38 PM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Huck500 at 7:38 PM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I mean, I get it. Parker might be a bad guy. He might have done bad things. But if he's making a movie that might be culturally important that has deep things to say about race and culture and where we stand now, who gains from burying the movie under this scandal?
Having read the Daily Beast link that goes into detail about what transpired, at the very least Parker was being an manipulative lying asshole that night and for days afterward. He lied to the woman about two men having sex with her, kept insisting it was just him until she falsely claimed she was pregnant and basically begged to know who might have fathered the child. Only then did Parker finally admit another man was there and that's just a terrible way to treat another human being. Everyone does stupid shit at times, but that's beyond that pale.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on August 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
Having read the Daily Beast link that goes into detail about what transpired, at the very least Parker was being an manipulative lying asshole that night and for days afterward. He lied to the woman about two men having sex with her, kept insisting it was just him until she falsely claimed she was pregnant and basically begged to know who might have fathered the child. Only then did Parker finally admit another man was there and that's just a terrible way to treat another human being. Everyone does stupid shit at times, but that's beyond that pale.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on August 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
I hear what you're saying knoyers, and I've also been thinking about this phrase, "You don't have to appreciate the artist as an individual to appreciate the art". But I think the focus on that quote is misplaced. I don't think this is about appreciation, it's about money.
The the thing I keep coming back to, is that I don't know if you can separate the art from the artist, particularly when art is being sold as a commodity. Every coin spent on fantastic art, goes into the pocket of the questionable artist in cases like this. Directly or indirectly, consumers are in every sense of the word, supporting the artist. This isn't about singling you out, knoyers - just something I'm putting out to the universe.
I don't know what happened, but there came a moment where I just needed to purge my collections of the Polanski, Allen, etc. films, and the R. Kelly, Michael Jackson albums, etc.
Is my life less rich? I don't know. There is so much fantastic art and so many fantastic artists out there, I'd say it's more a different sort of richness.
It's a small thing - I mean, nobody's going to go broke because I didn't buy their song on iTunes or pay $12 for their film. And I don't think this is about being smug or judgmental (though I'm not saying anyone here is saying that it is).
Everyone needs to make their own decision, and when I read the Daily Beast article, not separating the art from the artist just feels more right for me.
posted by anitanita at 7:50 PM on August 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
The the thing I keep coming back to, is that I don't know if you can separate the art from the artist, particularly when art is being sold as a commodity. Every coin spent on fantastic art, goes into the pocket of the questionable artist in cases like this. Directly or indirectly, consumers are in every sense of the word, supporting the artist. This isn't about singling you out, knoyers - just something I'm putting out to the universe.
I don't know what happened, but there came a moment where I just needed to purge my collections of the Polanski, Allen, etc. films, and the R. Kelly, Michael Jackson albums, etc.
Is my life less rich? I don't know. There is so much fantastic art and so many fantastic artists out there, I'd say it's more a different sort of richness.
It's a small thing - I mean, nobody's going to go broke because I didn't buy their song on iTunes or pay $12 for their film. And I don't think this is about being smug or judgmental (though I'm not saying anyone here is saying that it is).
Everyone needs to make their own decision, and when I read the Daily Beast article, not separating the art from the artist just feels more right for me.
posted by anitanita at 7:50 PM on August 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
That's all I am saying. Who gains by having this information come out right at this moment, when publicity for the film is starting to go into full swing?
The studio does. And he does. Because if they get in front of it now, this story has already cycled and died by the time Oscar season rolls around
posted by thecjm at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
The studio does. And he does. Because if they get in front of it now, this story has already cycled and died by the time Oscar season rolls around
posted by thecjm at 7:58 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, having read the details now I can no longer in good conscience pay to see the film.
posted by graventy at 7:59 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by graventy at 7:59 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, people should read it. I went in pretty skeptical, but having read it I'm 100% certain he's a piece of shit even if his story was partway true. And most of what he says badly fails a plausibility test (a college freshman will have sex with a guy she kind of likes and his friend she doesn't know? Infinitely less plausible than her story. Which agrees better with every other witness.)
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:02 PM on August 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:02 PM on August 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
Everyone does stupid shit at times, but that's beyond that pale.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on August 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
What in the actual fuck? If the premise is that he knew she didn't know how many people were inside her and thus lied to her about it, THE PREMISE IS THAT HE KNEW THEY RAPED HER.
You know what's surprisingly triggering? The gas lighting. The "he's not so bad." The endless, endless litany of excuses and rationalizations in support of a man who raped an unconscious to semiconscious woman and invited his friends to join in, then stalked her afterwards. She is DEAD. He stole her life.
Not that bad?
I knew it was a terrible fucking idea to read this thread.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:02 PM on August 18, 2016 [58 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on August 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
What in the actual fuck? If the premise is that he knew she didn't know how many people were inside her and thus lied to her about it, THE PREMISE IS THAT HE KNEW THEY RAPED HER.
You know what's surprisingly triggering? The gas lighting. The "he's not so bad." The endless, endless litany of excuses and rationalizations in support of a man who raped an unconscious to semiconscious woman and invited his friends to join in, then stalked her afterwards. She is DEAD. He stole her life.
Not that bad?
I knew it was a terrible fucking idea to read this thread.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:02 PM on August 18, 2016 [58 favorites]
I was on the fence until I read the Daily Beast article. The details there are just damning. Especially considering there is a graphic rape scene in the film. I would be sick watching that.
Part of what sickens me is, he knew this was a possibility. We are starved for films by, about, and staffed by people of color. He knew that too. People's hopes and dreams were tied up in this movie. Now I feel a bit cornered...how can I not support this movie? But how can I support this man whom I unequivocally think is not just a rapist, but someone who intentionally ruined the woman's life he raped, and who still doesn't get it?
This movie could have been really important. But the movement is bigger than this film. The movement doesn't need and doesn't have to settle for this film, this tainted thing. That's where I landed.
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 PM on August 18, 2016 [47 favorites]
Part of what sickens me is, he knew this was a possibility. We are starved for films by, about, and staffed by people of color. He knew that too. People's hopes and dreams were tied up in this movie. Now I feel a bit cornered...how can I not support this movie? But how can I support this man whom I unequivocally think is not just a rapist, but someone who intentionally ruined the woman's life he raped, and who still doesn't get it?
This movie could have been really important. But the movement is bigger than this film. The movement doesn't need and doesn't have to settle for this film, this tainted thing. That's where I landed.
posted by sallybrown at 8:03 PM on August 18, 2016 [47 favorites]
But they aren't getting in front of it, or at least that's what the entire content of this FPP is about.
They tried, and failed, because they underestimated the seriousness of the problem and the intensity of the pushback (which was led in a lot of ways by women of color, who think the conspiracy stuff about this is total BS).
posted by sallybrown at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
They tried, and failed, because they underestimated the seriousness of the problem and the intensity of the pushback (which was led in a lot of ways by women of color, who think the conspiracy stuff about this is total BS).
posted by sallybrown at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
This isn't news, it hasn't been hidden, and anyone who's asking "why now" and wondering about devious purposes to this hitting the news would be well served by reading this piece.
The relevant piece... and the last line in particular is extremely important: The breaking of this news is not a ploy to bring down another successful Black man, as conspiracy theorists and staunch protectors of straight Black masculinity may suggest. Nate Parker will forever be marked and linked to this story. I find it hard to believe that Parker or anyone on his team thought otherwise. This is the kind of thing that does not get buried and it’s resurfacing now because of Parker’s newfound fame. Yes, he’s been around for a minute, but when your film is purchased by Fox Searchlight for $17.5 million at Sundance, the highest acquisition ever made at the prestigious festival, you’re going to get some attention. Not to mention all of the Oscar buzz that has been surrounding Birth of a Nation for months now, long before Oscar season. Clearly, Parker’s star has been on the rise and when you’ve got such a large spotlight on you, it’s searching for dark and less than flattering spots. If you knew what to search for, by the way, you could have found details about Parker’s case, as the information was on his Wikipedia pages for years.
posted by amelioration at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
The relevant piece... and the last line in particular is extremely important: The breaking of this news is not a ploy to bring down another successful Black man, as conspiracy theorists and staunch protectors of straight Black masculinity may suggest. Nate Parker will forever be marked and linked to this story. I find it hard to believe that Parker or anyone on his team thought otherwise. This is the kind of thing that does not get buried and it’s resurfacing now because of Parker’s newfound fame. Yes, he’s been around for a minute, but when your film is purchased by Fox Searchlight for $17.5 million at Sundance, the highest acquisition ever made at the prestigious festival, you’re going to get some attention. Not to mention all of the Oscar buzz that has been surrounding Birth of a Nation for months now, long before Oscar season. Clearly, Parker’s star has been on the rise and when you’ve got such a large spotlight on you, it’s searching for dark and less than flattering spots. If you knew what to search for, by the way, you could have found details about Parker’s case, as the information was on his Wikipedia pages for years.
posted by amelioration at 8:05 PM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
This is partly where structural patriarchy and racism is at its worst - it forces a kind of zero sum game where you can feel like there are so few opportunities for one excluded group, that you ask well is getting this opportunity to have this film made worth trading in this other excluded group?
The larger answer is to have a lot of opportunities so that Parker is only one possible candidate among many.
The timing - they're lawyers bringing together a suit on behalf of a woman who's died, and they're working from Penn State so presumably they're thinking strategically about timing and media strategy.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
The larger answer is to have a lot of opportunities so that Parker is only one possible candidate among many.
The timing - they're lawyers bringing together a suit on behalf of a woman who's died, and they're working from Penn State so presumably they're thinking strategically about timing and media strategy.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Like there's such a shortage of black genius? Like there aren't a gajillion other black voices that don't belong to unrepentant rapists?
I'm also going to note that if your first instinct in a thread like this is to jump in and talk about studio politics and conspiracy theories -- you know, abstractions that have no actual bearing on your life, just fun little games for you to think through -- maybe stop, think that through, and then use your delete button.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [46 favorites]
I'm also going to note that if your first instinct in a thread like this is to jump in and talk about studio politics and conspiracy theories -- you know, abstractions that have no actual bearing on your life, just fun little games for you to think through -- maybe stop, think that through, and then use your delete button.
posted by schadenfrau at 8:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [46 favorites]
Tragedy is when a tree, instead of bending, breaks. Utz Mcknight shows us how his daughter didn't break, and what that means for him. And--for me at least--it's the only thing that ever needs to be said about the director of that Nat Turner movie, ever again.
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:13 PM on August 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:13 PM on August 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
What happened to the woman that Nate Parker and his friend raped is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine. She was gang raped at 18 (if you have any doubts at all, read the transcript of the phone call between her and Parker). Her university wrote letters of support to the men who raped her. Men who had sexually assaulted her proceeded to harass and bully her to the point that she attempted suicide multiple times. Ten years later, she killed herself.
Say what you will about "separate the art from the artist" but I don't have the emotional resources to watch a movie starring a man who did this to a woman.
I hate living in a world in which people who do this to women get to marry and have five daughters and write and star in prestigious films. I hate it so much. While their victims are bullied to the point of suicide. All I could possibly think about while watching this film is how many women kill themselves or try to kill themselves after being raped on college campuses and the incredible amount of lost human potential that that represents. It makes me so sick.
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:15 PM on August 18, 2016 [73 favorites]
Say what you will about "separate the art from the artist" but I don't have the emotional resources to watch a movie starring a man who did this to a woman.
I hate living in a world in which people who do this to women get to marry and have five daughters and write and star in prestigious films. I hate it so much. While their victims are bullied to the point of suicide. All I could possibly think about while watching this film is how many women kill themselves or try to kill themselves after being raped on college campuses and the incredible amount of lost human potential that that represents. It makes me so sick.
posted by armadillo1224 at 8:15 PM on August 18, 2016 [73 favorites]
Why wasn't this part of public knowledge back when he was making the film?
As Peterson says in TFA, this was and has been on his Wikipedia page since the film was at Sundance at the earliest, because that's when she saw it. This has been a matter of public record since it happened, since court cases are public record.
Why didn't anyone care? Is that what you mean to ask? That exercise is left to you to complete, but I assure you it's not because nobody knew about it. Plenty of people knew.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:20 PM on August 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
As Peterson says in TFA, this was and has been on his Wikipedia page since the film was at Sundance at the earliest, because that's when she saw it. This has been a matter of public record since it happened, since court cases are public record.
Why didn't anyone care? Is that what you mean to ask? That exercise is left to you to complete, but I assure you it's not because nobody knew about it. Plenty of people knew.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:20 PM on August 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
Utz Mcknight shows us how his daughter didn't break, and what that means for him.
Wow, thank you for that. That was what I needed to read today.
posted by sallybrown at 8:21 PM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Wow, thank you for that. That was what I needed to read today.
posted by sallybrown at 8:21 PM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm just not gonna see the movie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The guy did something horrible and I can live my life never seeing the movie.
posted by gucci mane at 8:21 PM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 8:21 PM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
it must be so nice to have the immense hilariously gargantuan societal privilege to say "oh of course it's terrible what he did but we should be able to SEPARATE the ART from the ARTIST" because after all who really fucking cares about the constant neverending relentless victimization of women when ART IS HAPPENING, important art
posted by poffin boffin at 8:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [102 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 8:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [102 favorites]
how about you separate your head from your ass for a change, humanity
posted by poffin boffin at 8:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 8:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
At first I thought I'd wait until it came out on DVD and then check it out from the library. Now I'm not even going to do that. Fuck both Parker and the Oscar acceptance speech he'd probably already started writing.
posted by fuse theorem at 8:56 PM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by fuse theorem at 8:56 PM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't support rape and am not taking sides on this issue in any way
not supporting rape pretty much requires taking a side.
I do not generally favor interpreting silence and neutrality in the worst possible ways, but when you have one alive self-loving successful man and one raped dead woman - sorry, I should follow Parker: not a raped woman, an encountered woman, a woman to whom an incident occurred -- neutrality is distasteful.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:57 PM on August 18, 2016 [30 favorites]
not supporting rape pretty much requires taking a side.
I do not generally favor interpreting silence and neutrality in the worst possible ways, but when you have one alive self-loving successful man and one raped dead woman - sorry, I should follow Parker: not a raped woman, an encountered woman, a woman to whom an incident occurred -- neutrality is distasteful.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:57 PM on August 18, 2016 [30 favorites]
Parker might be a bad guy. He might have done bad things. But if he's making a movie that might be culturally important...
So let's continue this thought to the ultimate conclusion. If it's acceptable to let a man get away with rape because of the culturally important art he does, then isn't the next step for society to supply him with women to rape? If his work is more important than a single woman, doesn't it follow that it's more important than twenty, a hundred, ALL women?
Because that's the argument- seeing a piece of art has zero intrinsic value. So if a man's artwork is valued at more than the lives of living, breathing women, it's because the value of those women is set to less than zero.
In other words, I'm constsntly amazed at how men who claim to be allies of women abandon those principles when it comes to their entertainment.
posted by happyroach at 9:22 PM on August 18, 2016 [48 favorites]
So let's continue this thought to the ultimate conclusion. If it's acceptable to let a man get away with rape because of the culturally important art he does, then isn't the next step for society to supply him with women to rape? If his work is more important than a single woman, doesn't it follow that it's more important than twenty, a hundred, ALL women?
Because that's the argument- seeing a piece of art has zero intrinsic value. So if a man's artwork is valued at more than the lives of living, breathing women, it's because the value of those women is set to less than zero.
In other words, I'm constsntly amazed at how men who claim to be allies of women abandon those principles when it comes to their entertainment.
posted by happyroach at 9:22 PM on August 18, 2016 [48 favorites]
I have been excited about this movie since first hearing about it before Sundance. The reviews post-Sundance got me even more excited. The story has me enraged and heartsick. A movie that was so unabashed about confronting the US's racial history with anger, that demonstrated Black resistance, a movie involving slavery that wasn't just slavehorror-porn but illustrated Black agency, there just aren't a lot of pieces out there like that and there certainly aren't a lot that get this kind of attention and marketing investment.
But as is often the case with art made by members of underrepresented communities, the under-representation means you have so little options to choose from the pool of artists that you find yourself having to choose between the art and wanting to advocate for the advancement of the views of that underrepresented group, or not wanting to support the artist's disgusting personal behavior.
Parker's history with this, his comments about homosexuality, and his comments about the case demonstrate an investment in a particular type of toxic masculinity that raises questions about how women are treated in this movie and whether that rape scene and the women are treated with respect, or whether it's the worst kind of Women-In-Refrigerators bullshit.
I was going to see this opening night, and now I don't know what the fuck. I'll probably end up seeing this via the magic of Bittorrent, and instead of spending my money to see this I'll go see Ava DuVernay's new documentary The 13th instead, which is on Netflix and in some theaters the same day.
posted by Anonymous at 9:42 PM on August 18, 2016
But as is often the case with art made by members of underrepresented communities, the under-representation means you have so little options to choose from the pool of artists that you find yourself having to choose between the art and wanting to advocate for the advancement of the views of that underrepresented group, or not wanting to support the artist's disgusting personal behavior.
Parker's history with this, his comments about homosexuality, and his comments about the case demonstrate an investment in a particular type of toxic masculinity that raises questions about how women are treated in this movie and whether that rape scene and the women are treated with respect, or whether it's the worst kind of Women-In-Refrigerators bullshit.
I was going to see this opening night, and now I don't know what the fuck. I'll probably end up seeing this via the magic of Bittorrent, and instead of spending my money to see this I'll go see Ava DuVernay's new documentary The 13th instead, which is on Netflix and in some theaters the same day.
posted by Anonymous at 9:42 PM on August 18, 2016
Fuck Polansky, fuck Allen, and fuck Parker.
There's a disturbing number of people willing to let terrible things slide as long as the perpetrator is sufficiently talented, and we need to stop accepting that.
posted by aramaic at 10:54 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
There's a disturbing number of people willing to let terrible things slide as long as the perpetrator is sufficiently talented, and we need to stop accepting that.
posted by aramaic at 10:54 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
If there's art that can be separated from the artist I don't believe this film falls into that category. It seems to be a very personal passion project for both men; something they've really poured their hearts and souls into for years.
Not to mention they'll be tied to it by millions and millions of dollars.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 11:28 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to mention they'll be tied to it by millions and millions of dollars.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 11:28 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
For this woman .
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 11:36 PM on August 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 11:36 PM on August 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Here's when you get to separate the artist from the art: never. The artist informs the art.
Here's how many people are (perhaps) worth sacrificing for great art: one. Of course, this is the artist -- if their need to make art outweighs their need to do the things needed to survive. And even then...I don't know. Van Gogh has brought more pleasure into my life than any other artist and yet...I'm sure if I was told I could affect the past and make him happy and mentally well but all of his art would disappear, what other choice would I have but to wave goodbye to the canvases?
How do we know we didn't lose someone who would produce equally great or even greater works in their field than Parker has in his? We have plenty of people, 99% of whom will never know if they could do ____ because they are never given a chance.
Supporting the "good art" of awful artists is shitting on their victims, and shitting on the people who never get a chance because the spotlight never swings their way.
And I believe in rehabilitation and second chances; I don't think once a felon always a felon. But, critically, that involves work and awareness on the part of the criminal; Parker does not seem to think he's done anything wrong at all, or at the very least, is completely unaware of severity of what he has done, dismissing the monstrous as trivial.
The movie can never communicate anything important about race and the United States at this point. I call it "art with asterisks" where your knowledge of the awfulness of the artist has you making mental footnotes--and every footnote reduces the importance of the art.
posted by maxwelton at 12:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
Here's how many people are (perhaps) worth sacrificing for great art: one. Of course, this is the artist -- if their need to make art outweighs their need to do the things needed to survive. And even then...I don't know. Van Gogh has brought more pleasure into my life than any other artist and yet...I'm sure if I was told I could affect the past and make him happy and mentally well but all of his art would disappear, what other choice would I have but to wave goodbye to the canvases?
How do we know we didn't lose someone who would produce equally great or even greater works in their field than Parker has in his? We have plenty of people, 99% of whom will never know if they could do ____ because they are never given a chance.
Supporting the "good art" of awful artists is shitting on their victims, and shitting on the people who never get a chance because the spotlight never swings their way.
And I believe in rehabilitation and second chances; I don't think once a felon always a felon. But, critically, that involves work and awareness on the part of the criminal; Parker does not seem to think he's done anything wrong at all, or at the very least, is completely unaware of severity of what he has done, dismissing the monstrous as trivial.
The movie can never communicate anything important about race and the United States at this point. I call it "art with asterisks" where your knowledge of the awfulness of the artist has you making mental footnotes--and every footnote reduces the importance of the art.
posted by maxwelton at 12:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
i dont know how not to word this in a super controversial manner but i think some of the contemporary progessive, feminist ways of dealing with these issues are problematic. i understand how sex crimes are massively underreported, underprosecuted and perpetrators go massively underpunished. resultingly, its seems like there is this idea that therefore anyone who is accused but unpunished/unconvicted should therefore be at a minimum convicted in the court of public opinion and resultingly be denied any kind of public success. the logic for this conclusion being it is very likely they were in fact in the wrong despite the legal system failing to find the accused so.
the motivation for assuming guilt seems to be in part that if only we had more stigma associated with rape there would he a lot less of it. my response is first, humans are pretty shitty, stigma is definitely not going to be the perfect pancea, it hasnt been so thus far and we are probably already at the diminishing returns portion of the curve i would imagine. additionally, treating what is clearly not actual fact as fact lessens the legitimacy of the stigma, even with those actually convicted (at least in the eyes of many nonprogressives). the is demonstrable socially by all the antifeminism pushback amongst non progressives. like the process for progess in the realms of racism and homohobia, you dont have to convert old people to your progessive agenda because fortunately they die, but sadly a huge swath of the unconverted are young men. i dont think this strategy speaks well to that demographic and that segment of the population is most urgently in need of conversion for obvious reasons.
as a side note, i wonder if any of these authors are supporting hillary clinton who has partnered in life and business with a man accused of assaulting women. by the exact same logic bill clinton shouldnt he allowed in the public eye a la cosby.
ultimately, i dont know how society should deal with shitty people but something about these articles seems off to me. i read, i think, but i just cant get to the finish line. im sure i have a lot to learn, so i guess ill keep.reading...
posted by forgettable at 12:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
the motivation for assuming guilt seems to be in part that if only we had more stigma associated with rape there would he a lot less of it. my response is first, humans are pretty shitty, stigma is definitely not going to be the perfect pancea, it hasnt been so thus far and we are probably already at the diminishing returns portion of the curve i would imagine. additionally, treating what is clearly not actual fact as fact lessens the legitimacy of the stigma, even with those actually convicted (at least in the eyes of many nonprogressives). the is demonstrable socially by all the antifeminism pushback amongst non progressives. like the process for progess in the realms of racism and homohobia, you dont have to convert old people to your progessive agenda because fortunately they die, but sadly a huge swath of the unconverted are young men. i dont think this strategy speaks well to that demographic and that segment of the population is most urgently in need of conversion for obvious reasons.
as a side note, i wonder if any of these authors are supporting hillary clinton who has partnered in life and business with a man accused of assaulting women. by the exact same logic bill clinton shouldnt he allowed in the public eye a la cosby.
ultimately, i dont know how society should deal with shitty people but something about these articles seems off to me. i read, i think, but i just cant get to the finish line. im sure i have a lot to learn, so i guess ill keep.reading...
posted by forgettable at 12:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
i dont think this strategy speaks well to that demographic and that segment of the population is most urgently in need of conversion for obvious reasons.
Ignoring it and speaking occasionally earnestly to them about how women kinda don't deserve to be raped (if they're nice girls; if they're of the same race/class/etc. as you) doesn't seem to have worked either. Maybe one or two wildly successful dudes need to be sacrificed now and then even if they only admit to "unfortunate encounters" and "youthful indiscretions". Nothing else has worked; let's give that a go.
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 AM on August 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ignoring it and speaking occasionally earnestly to them about how women kinda don't deserve to be raped (if they're nice girls; if they're of the same race/class/etc. as you) doesn't seem to have worked either. Maybe one or two wildly successful dudes need to be sacrificed now and then even if they only admit to "unfortunate encounters" and "youthful indiscretions". Nothing else has worked; let's give that a go.
posted by Etrigan at 1:13 AM on August 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
His accuser got a $17,500 settlement and his movie was bought for $17.5 million.
I never thought decimal points could have that much emotional impact.
posted by lumensimus at 1:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
I never thought decimal points could have that much emotional impact.
posted by lumensimus at 1:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
No.. just no. I refuse to participate in the cultural process of anointing this man as a hero/genius (which is 1000% the point of a joint director/actor/writer/etc Oscar campaign), and granting him all that comes with that status. And, for my own sanity, I refuse to participate in the "debate" about whether this is right, when my time could be so better spent seeing OTHER wonderful movies and talking about THOSE genius creators, some of which will inevitably be ignored by the corrupt, cynical floating garbage patch that is Oscar Season. I WILL however be keeping a list of the unrepentant Woody Allen fans in my life who piously cite this as the reason why they're not watching what I'm sure is otherwise a very important film about slavery...
I'm not trying to support Parker with any of this. I just find the timing really curious. It feels like something very manipulative is happening with this, something that is intended to silence other black/POC/minority artists.
As Anne Helen Petersen explained in her piece, this story first "resurfaced" (as in, became more than a line on Wikipedia) during Sundance via this post on Oh No They Didn't, which is a smart, independent entertainment/gossip community with a very large POC membership. ONTD as a community tends to be very intolerant of sexism, racism, shitty remarks/actions etc-- perhaps excessively so, and probably more so than any other online community I've ever known. This kind of exposé is classic ONTD and has nothing to do with bias against POC or Nate Parker specifically. (For instance there's a very large contingent of members who have zero tolerance for anyone who appears in Woody Allen films, and never fail to bring up those issues when those actors are mentioned.)
With that said, ONTD posts don't become "mainstream" news particularly often, and this post did not (until now, when Nate Parker himself joined the conversation). But, obviously, someone would have dug up this information at some point during the Oscar race. Probably not until the movie was actually released, had Nate Parker not given those two interviews. So the only manipulation happening is by himself/the studio.
posted by acidic at 1:54 AM on August 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm not trying to support Parker with any of this. I just find the timing really curious. It feels like something very manipulative is happening with this, something that is intended to silence other black/POC/minority artists.
As Anne Helen Petersen explained in her piece, this story first "resurfaced" (as in, became more than a line on Wikipedia) during Sundance via this post on Oh No They Didn't, which is a smart, independent entertainment/gossip community with a very large POC membership. ONTD as a community tends to be very intolerant of sexism, racism, shitty remarks/actions etc-- perhaps excessively so, and probably more so than any other online community I've ever known. This kind of exposé is classic ONTD and has nothing to do with bias against POC or Nate Parker specifically. (For instance there's a very large contingent of members who have zero tolerance for anyone who appears in Woody Allen films, and never fail to bring up those issues when those actors are mentioned.)
With that said, ONTD posts don't become "mainstream" news particularly often, and this post did not (until now, when Nate Parker himself joined the conversation). But, obviously, someone would have dug up this information at some point during the Oscar race. Probably not until the movie was actually released, had Nate Parker not given those two interviews. So the only manipulation happening is by himself/the studio.
posted by acidic at 1:54 AM on August 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Etrigan, sacrificed is an interesting choice of words. I disagree with this kind of utilitarian thinking. Respecting the autonomy and humanity of individuals is so central to feminism, if you teased them out you'd be left with something incoherent
posted by forgettable at 2:05 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by forgettable at 2:05 AM on August 19, 2016
Respecting the autonomy and humanity of individuals is so central to feminism, if you teased them out you'd be left with something incoherent
Then incoherency is what you are left with. Because if feminism is about "everyone matters", it has already lost. "Respecting the autonomy and humanity" of women is something I can accept and get aboard with, because women did and do get a raw deal. If feminism is actually about all "individuals" instead, then it has already lost, because "all lives matter". I can't respect that, because it erases women.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 4:18 AM on August 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
Then incoherency is what you are left with. Because if feminism is about "everyone matters", it has already lost. "Respecting the autonomy and humanity" of women is something I can accept and get aboard with, because women did and do get a raw deal. If feminism is actually about all "individuals" instead, then it has already lost, because "all lives matter". I can't respect that, because it erases women.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 4:18 AM on August 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
Here's when you get to separate the artist from the art: never.
So you're taking a stand against the whole Death of the Author thing?
posted by gimonca at 5:16 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
So you're taking a stand against the whole Death of the Author thing?
posted by gimonca at 5:16 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Birth of Nation sounds like an important film that has something to say about the black experience and history in America. Parker's previous actions, horrible as they are, don't destroy what the film itself is saying. Obviously those actions, the rape, stalking, gas lighting and harrasment says a lot about the man himself and none of its good, but it's worth seeing the film to see what it has to say, IMO.
That said, it's perfectly fine if others refuse to see it or organize a boycott. Actions matter, whether they were seventeen or 300 years and they impact the present and the future. If Parker has a problem with that, then he has only himself to blame for what he did that night, the months afterwards and his recent awkwardly sanitized statements about what occurred.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:29 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said, it's perfectly fine if others refuse to see it or organize a boycott. Actions matter, whether they were seventeen or 300 years and they impact the present and the future. If Parker has a problem with that, then he has only himself to blame for what he did that night, the months afterwards and his recent awkwardly sanitized statements about what occurred.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:29 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
i dont know how not to word this in a super controversial manner but i think some of the contemporary progessive, feminist ways of dealing with these issues are problematic.
I'm curious whether you actually read the details of this specific case, or whether you just saw this post as an opportunity to present your thoughts on contemporary cultural treatment of alleged rapists? Because it doesn't seem very applicable to the current situation, in which it is very clear that this man got away with raping a woman, encouraging his friend (a stranger to the victim) to also rape this woman, facilitating a campus-wide harassment campaign of her, dragging her through years and years of trial and litigation, all to the point at which she died by suicide (on her third attempt).
If your concern is still with "ahhhh I'm not sure shaming is the right way to deal with men suspected of rape"...
posted by sallybrown at 5:31 AM on August 19, 2016 [47 favorites]
I'm curious whether you actually read the details of this specific case, or whether you just saw this post as an opportunity to present your thoughts on contemporary cultural treatment of alleged rapists? Because it doesn't seem very applicable to the current situation, in which it is very clear that this man got away with raping a woman, encouraging his friend (a stranger to the victim) to also rape this woman, facilitating a campus-wide harassment campaign of her, dragging her through years and years of trial and litigation, all to the point at which she died by suicide (on her third attempt).
If your concern is still with "ahhhh I'm not sure shaming is the right way to deal with men suspected of rape"...
posted by sallybrown at 5:31 AM on August 19, 2016 [47 favorites]
I'm frequently okay with separating the artist from the art, but not when the artist bullied their victim into suicide. And not when the artist's homohobia increases dangers for far more vulnerable LGBT people.
If you must watch this movie, then please find a way to do so without giving them any money. Ideally, avoid your watching method giving it any free endorsement either, so like maybe only use a magnet link do that only the tracker can count the torrent download.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:32 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you must watch this movie, then please find a way to do so without giving them any money. Ideally, avoid your watching method giving it any free endorsement either, so like maybe only use a magnet link do that only the tracker can count the torrent download.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:32 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Then incoherency is what you are left with. Because if feminism is about "everyone matters", it has already lost. "Respecting the autonomy and humanity" of women is something I can accept and get aboard with, because women did and do get a raw deal. If feminism is actually about all "individuals" instead, then it has already lost, because "all lives matter". I can't respect that, because it erases women.
The incoherency is because you're responding to a comment from a man making this all about men.
posted by winna at 5:35 AM on August 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
The incoherency is because you're responding to a comment from a man making this all about men.
posted by winna at 5:35 AM on August 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
I am very concerned about the idea of this person being placed in a position of authority that would seem logical and inevitable when talking about someone whose film commanded him $17 million.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:04 AM on August 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:04 AM on August 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's no doubt in my mind that if this sticks to Parker when similar accustations didn't stick to Polanski, Allen, or Singer it will be because he's black and they're all white. No doubt.
But the problem is that Polanski, Allen, and Singer didn't deserve to get passes, not that Parker doesn't deserve to get a pass as well.
Also, I have to pause briefly to side-eye the fuck out of the Death of the Author reference up above. Death of the Author is a critical tool wherein the critic tries to analyse a work without reference to the creator's intent. Is is emphatically not a moral or ethical tool. We don't have to pretend the author is dead when we're choosing what works to support with our money.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:23 AM on August 19, 2016 [41 favorites]
But the problem is that Polanski, Allen, and Singer didn't deserve to get passes, not that Parker doesn't deserve to get a pass as well.
Also, I have to pause briefly to side-eye the fuck out of the Death of the Author reference up above. Death of the Author is a critical tool wherein the critic tries to analyse a work without reference to the creator's intent. Is is emphatically not a moral or ethical tool. We don't have to pretend the author is dead when we're choosing what works to support with our money.
posted by tobascodagama at 6:23 AM on August 19, 2016 [41 favorites]
There's no doubt in my mind that if this sticks to Parker when similar accustations didn't stick to Polanski, Allen, or Singer it will be because he's black and they're all white. No doubt.
Times have changed and people are much less willing to forgive/forget/ignore shit like this, which is a good thing. The entire environment is much different from 10 or even five years ago.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Times have changed and people are much less willing to forgive/forget/ignore shit like this, which is a good thing. The entire environment is much different from 10 or even five years ago.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I realize that we all live in our own social media bubbles, and mine may be influencing my perception here, but I think that all of the anger and hurt that I've seen about this has specifically been from black women. Ashley Ford, who is cited in the OP, for instance, is a black woman who identifies as a survivor of sexual assault.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on August 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on August 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh man, that article is sharp as a /knife/.
But I could tell that Smith, Mt Holyoke, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr didn’t care really, or that they couldn’t care in this way, because so many many of their students had been assaulted, so many would be in the future. I will never forget Wellesley, how everyone looked with contempt at her in her armor, her different clothes, and at me, the Negro father with no clue. Why was I bothering, why was she here, except so they could say, that a Negro and her father had been by today, haha, and did you get a load of his story, of the gall to think that just her trauma, just that event, should be enough to make us understand, for us to believe in her. She never had a chance. And she really really liked Smith. And the people at Bryn Mawr were so nice to her. Not a chance. And all because of a boy with no name.posted by corb at 6:43 AM on August 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I realize that we all live in our own social media bubbles, and mine may be influencing my perception here, but I think that all of the anger and hurt that I've seen about this has specifically been from black women.
Same here. Again, it could just be my bubble, but it seems more than ever before Black women are Extremely Fucking Over any approaches to social justice that exclude intersectionality. So, not only feminists who do not incorporate the unique experiences of different WOC, but also anti-racists who do not acknowledge the unique struggles that come from being WOC versus MOC. Historically, Black women involved in Civil Rights were expected to subsume their experiences as women to their experiences of Blackness, frequently to their own detriment and dis-empowerment. That doesn't fly any longer. And part of that is not pretending like Black women aren't disproportionately victims of social pressures to dismiss and silence victims of sexual assault.
posted by Anonymous at 6:53 AM on August 19, 2016
Same here. Again, it could just be my bubble, but it seems more than ever before Black women are Extremely Fucking Over any approaches to social justice that exclude intersectionality. So, not only feminists who do not incorporate the unique experiences of different WOC, but also anti-racists who do not acknowledge the unique struggles that come from being WOC versus MOC. Historically, Black women involved in Civil Rights were expected to subsume their experiences as women to their experiences of Blackness, frequently to their own detriment and dis-empowerment. That doesn't fly any longer. And part of that is not pretending like Black women aren't disproportionately victims of social pressures to dismiss and silence victims of sexual assault.
posted by Anonymous at 6:53 AM on August 19, 2016
Also, I have to pause briefly to side-eye the fuck out of the Death of the Author reference up above
It was an unrelated bit of nonsense to drop into the thread, and its brevity made it feel more like a shitty "gotcha" drive-by than a meaningful contribution.
Please don't do that sort of things, gimonca.
posted by maxsparber at 6:56 AM on August 19, 2016
It was an unrelated bit of nonsense to drop into the thread, and its brevity made it feel more like a shitty "gotcha" drive-by than a meaningful contribution.
Please don't do that sort of things, gimonca.
posted by maxsparber at 6:56 AM on August 19, 2016
On the other hand, here is this particularly infuriating piece of garbage that showed up in my Medium feed this morning in which the author tries to argue that we should NOT assume women are telling the truth about sexual assault and should even consider letting lesser sex offenders out of prison, because mass incarceration is bad and oh, yeah, Parker is a genius and all.
posted by jfwlucy at 7:40 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by jfwlucy at 7:40 AM on August 19, 2016
Uh... the people who are lumping Bryan Singer in with Polanski and Allen may want to note that it's not the same thing at all.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:42 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:42 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
additionally, treating what is clearly not actual fact as fact lessens the legitimacy of the stigma, even with those actually convicted (at least in the eyes of many nonprogressives)
It actually turns out that even if you pursue only the most unimpeachable, unquestionable cases of violence against the marginalized, the "nonprogressives" will still find reasons to discount or deny them.
This argument is about one step from the "because one woman makes a false claim of rape, all claims of rape are discredited"/"I wasn't racist until that one POC lied about being assaulted" narrative. If your not being a bigot hangs on that slender a thread, you actually already are one.
posted by praemunire at 8:22 AM on August 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
It actually turns out that even if you pursue only the most unimpeachable, unquestionable cases of violence against the marginalized, the "nonprogressives" will still find reasons to discount or deny them.
This argument is about one step from the "because one woman makes a false claim of rape, all claims of rape are discredited"/"I wasn't racist until that one POC lied about being assaulted" narrative. If your not being a bigot hangs on that slender a thread, you actually already are one.
posted by praemunire at 8:22 AM on August 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
Jeez, that Facebook post of his is one sorry sad boner story. This has been *so* hard on you, Nate, especially with your daughters and being a man of faith, as you remind us.
You know what, Nate? One day, your poor daughters might go to college. How are you going to protect them from the likes of you?
posted by jasper411 at 8:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
You know what, Nate? One day, your poor daughters might go to college. How are you going to protect them from the likes of you?
posted by jasper411 at 8:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
There's no doubt in my mind that if this sticks to Parker when similar accustations didn't stick to Polanski, Allen, or Singer it will be because he's black and they're all white. No doubt.
To a point, I agree with you. Black men (and women) have traditionally been held to different sexual standards than their white counterparts by the media. Also, as Brandon B. notes above, it's a different world, people are more aware, and it's much easier to find information now. Polanski and Allen, especially, benefitted from a world where it was possible to interact with their work while knowing nothing of their lives.
On the other hand, the man is a rapist. And it's not honest or just to say "well, these guys got away with it, so why draw a line now?" No amount of genius filmmaking is going to make him not a rapist, so maybe those opportunities could go to genius filmmakers who are also not rapists? That doesn't seem to be a huge ask.
Maybe they could screen the film with Parker's name replace with "a rapist" and the studio and producers' names replaced with "profiting from a rapist." That would play well at the Oscars.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:31 AM on August 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
To a point, I agree with you. Black men (and women) have traditionally been held to different sexual standards than their white counterparts by the media. Also, as Brandon B. notes above, it's a different world, people are more aware, and it's much easier to find information now. Polanski and Allen, especially, benefitted from a world where it was possible to interact with their work while knowing nothing of their lives.
On the other hand, the man is a rapist. And it's not honest or just to say "well, these guys got away with it, so why draw a line now?" No amount of genius filmmaking is going to make him not a rapist, so maybe those opportunities could go to genius filmmakers who are also not rapists? That doesn't seem to be a huge ask.
Maybe they could screen the film with Parker's name replace with "a rapist" and the studio and producers' names replaced with "profiting from a rapist." That would play well at the Oscars.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:31 AM on August 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
i understand how sex crimes are massively underreported, underprosecuted and perpetrators go massively underpunished. resultingly, its seems like there is this idea that therefore anyone who is accused but unpunished/unconvicted should therefore be at a minimum convicted in the court of public opinion and resultingly be denied any kind of public success. the logic for this conclusion being it is very likely they were in fact in the wrong despite the legal system failing to find the accused so.
Did you actually read the details of this case or is this just your general belief on rape accusations? I read your whole comment and it seemed like a very circuitous way of saying that the culture has gotten too far in believing accusations of rape--and that you expressed this in a very roundabout way simply because just saying that outright would lose you progressive points. If this isn't it, what were you trying to say?
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:18 AM on August 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Did you actually read the details of this case or is this just your general belief on rape accusations? I read your whole comment and it seemed like a very circuitous way of saying that the culture has gotten too far in believing accusations of rape--and that you expressed this in a very roundabout way simply because just saying that outright would lose you progressive points. If this isn't it, what were you trying to say?
posted by armadillo1224 at 9:18 AM on August 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
If you're concerned that not buying a ticket to this film will undermine opportunities for people of color in the film industry, take the $16 (I live in Los Angeles, that's what a ticket costs at my local) plus whatever you'd spend on snacks and go find a project you like on Kickstarter or Indiegogo started by and representing people of color, and give them the money instead.
In my opinion, rape culture thrives in "hollywood" because many of the personality traits that usually accompany it are felt to be necessary to "make it" as a director. Essentially, being a selfish, manipulative bully is part of an aspiring director's toolkit in the industry, not a character flaw. Add entitlement and poor impulse control, and rape is a point on that spectrum, not a separate anomalous thing. I suspect that"hollywood" directors as a class of people contains rapists and abusers at a higher concentration than the general public. It's toxic masculinity all the way down.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:24 AM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
In my opinion, rape culture thrives in "hollywood" because many of the personality traits that usually accompany it are felt to be necessary to "make it" as a director. Essentially, being a selfish, manipulative bully is part of an aspiring director's toolkit in the industry, not a character flaw. Add entitlement and poor impulse control, and rape is a point on that spectrum, not a separate anomalous thing. I suspect that"hollywood" directors as a class of people contains rapists and abusers at a higher concentration than the general public. It's toxic masculinity all the way down.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:24 AM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is a good opportunity for another studio to very publicly greenlight their own movie about Nat Turner directed by a non-rapist. It's an important story, one that should be told widely. There's obviously an audience.
I mean, there's a well-established precedent of similar movies coming out around the same time. We had Deep Impact and Armageddon in the same cycle, Volcano and Dante's Peak, Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down... why not a couple Nat Turner movies in the same cycle?
I recently saw a really terrible play about Nat Turner. The subject matter was not the reason it was bad. I'd definitely go see a Nat Turner movie that was helmed by a non-rapist.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:46 AM on August 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
I mean, there's a well-established precedent of similar movies coming out around the same time. We had Deep Impact and Armageddon in the same cycle, Volcano and Dante's Peak, Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down... why not a couple Nat Turner movies in the same cycle?
I recently saw a really terrible play about Nat Turner. The subject matter was not the reason it was bad. I'd definitely go see a Nat Turner movie that was helmed by a non-rapist.
posted by under_petticoat_rule at 9:46 AM on August 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
We don't have to pretend the author is dead when we're choosing what works to support with our money.
I'd explore this further, and I think we'd find we're on the same side, but maybe later, and not in this thread.
posted by gimonca at 9:52 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd explore this further, and I think we'd find we're on the same side, but maybe later, and not in this thread.
posted by gimonca at 9:52 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
This argument is about one step from the "because one woman makes a false claim of rape, all claims of rape are discredited"
"If Ryan Lochte lied about that robbery, how can we ever believe any man's allegations of robbery?"
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:34 AM on August 19, 2016 [31 favorites]
"If Ryan Lochte lied about that robbery, how can we ever believe any man's allegations of robbery?"
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 10:34 AM on August 19, 2016 [31 favorites]
Maybe they could screen the film with Parker's name replace with "a rapist" and the studio and producers' names replaced with "profiting from a rapist." That would play well at the Oscars.
Calls to mind the Mr. Show sketch, Larry Kleist: Rapist: "People don't seem to be interested in insurance these days. I think the industry's in a slump."
posted by palindromic at 12:35 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Calls to mind the Mr. Show sketch, Larry Kleist: Rapist: "People don't seem to be interested in insurance these days. I think the industry's in a slump."
posted by palindromic at 12:35 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a woman, as a feminist, as a steadfast fan of cinema, as an artist who believes you can not judge art by the personal life of the artist -- the thing that gets under my skin here is this is not Polanski. This is not some guy making an action film. This is not a nut-job actor who doesn't know better (because actors often don't, which is why we shouldn't take political advice from them, either). This is a person who considers himself an activist, who made a politically charged film about civil rights, but is glossing over (if not outright dismissing) his part in the rape of a fellow student with a person he continues to associate himself with today who is also involved in the film. Much in the same way one might make an example of a conservative christians who push for legislation against LGBTQ and then are revealed to be engaging in gay sex, the hypocrisy in making a statement about civil rights violations while distancing himself from his own, actual past is pretty distasteful, convicted of the rape or not.
I would really like to see a good film about Nat Turner. Who wouldn't? 22 years of living with a film critic, my instincts tell me that written/directed/produced/starring isn't often a signifier of good art, anyway. And lots of mediocre films get better reception by way of being "important" or "historical."
Not that any of this will sink the film ultimately. Outside of adding more buzz to the existing hype, I don't think popular culture cares that much about a woman being raped. I'll assume the rape scene in the film is man on woman, not man on man because that might threaten Parker's masculinity.
posted by palindromeisnotapalindrome at 12:43 PM on August 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would really like to see a good film about Nat Turner. Who wouldn't? 22 years of living with a film critic, my instincts tell me that written/directed/produced/starring isn't often a signifier of good art, anyway. And lots of mediocre films get better reception by way of being "important" or "historical."
Not that any of this will sink the film ultimately. Outside of adding more buzz to the existing hype, I don't think popular culture cares that much about a woman being raped. I'll assume the rape scene in the film is man on woman, not man on man because that might threaten Parker's masculinity.
posted by palindromeisnotapalindrome at 12:43 PM on August 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
I wish that one of the many successful people who's done something atrocious would set a precedent and admit guilt, regret, and reform. That is the basis by which I think most Polanski apologists grant him forgiveness, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it's a forgiveness he asked for along with an admission of guilt. I don't think anyone should have to cross their own moral code to support someone like Parker, but I do believe that people who've done monstrous things can reform.
Right now there's no incentive for anyone to admit guilt, just deny deny deny, and hope that people forget. The closest thing we have is a few people who've served their time after being found guilty in court and not fought it subsequently. It's weird to think that Mike Tyson and Michael Vick might have a little more honor, although it was forced upon them, than so many of our great artists and deep thinkers and musicians.
This is a lose lose lose lose situation. The film has already profited a rapist whose victim is now dead, and any success will continue to benefit him, and because of the world we live in, if it's a failure, it will be black filmmakers and black filmmaking and black casts and black historical narratives that will take the hit in an industry that's very slowly starting to recognize their worth.
posted by elr at 2:18 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right now there's no incentive for anyone to admit guilt, just deny deny deny, and hope that people forget. The closest thing we have is a few people who've served their time after being found guilty in court and not fought it subsequently. It's weird to think that Mike Tyson and Michael Vick might have a little more honor, although it was forced upon them, than so many of our great artists and deep thinkers and musicians.
This is a lose lose lose lose situation. The film has already profited a rapist whose victim is now dead, and any success will continue to benefit him, and because of the world we live in, if it's a failure, it will be black filmmakers and black filmmaking and black casts and black historical narratives that will take the hit in an industry that's very slowly starting to recognize their worth.
posted by elr at 2:18 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish that one of the many successful people who's done something atrocious would set a precedent and admit guilt, regret, and reform. That is the basis by which I think most Polanski apologists grant him forgiveness
Until and unless Polanski returns to the USA to face the repercussions of his actions there is no real regret or reform.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on August 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
Until and unless Polanski returns to the USA to face the repercussions of his actions there is no real regret or reform.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on August 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
This is a person who considers himself an activist, who made a politically charged film about civil rights, but is glossing over (if not outright dismissing) his part in the rape of a fellow student with a person he continues to associate himself with today who is also involved in the film.
This is (also) what I find so disingenuous about his defenders. It's not just, “Nate Parker wrote a movie about something that happened in 1831 and then said his rape charge was a long time ago and he’s moved on" but also, if you want to say, "Why now? Why is this coming up now? What larger forces are plotting here?"....
...it's called "the right moment in history." We're on the heels of the survivor of the Stanford swimmer rape setting the internet on fire by talking back, a President and VP who are fronting aggressive federal efforts to move on Title IX cases, an enormous amount of awareness unprecedented in US history on the issue of acquaintance rape and the rights of women to control their own bodies and yes, the breakthrough anger of women who have waited this long....you want to talk about how we're at the right historical moment for a film on Nat Turner, how you want to "hold audiences hostage" and unable to look away? You've just been caught up in the same. Sweeping historical movements aren't a conspiracy theory just because you're the one suddenly finding himself on the wrong side of history.
posted by blue suede stockings at 5:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [25 favorites]
This is (also) what I find so disingenuous about his defenders. It's not just, “Nate Parker wrote a movie about something that happened in 1831 and then said his rape charge was a long time ago and he’s moved on" but also, if you want to say, "Why now? Why is this coming up now? What larger forces are plotting here?"....
...it's called "the right moment in history." We're on the heels of the survivor of the Stanford swimmer rape setting the internet on fire by talking back, a President and VP who are fronting aggressive federal efforts to move on Title IX cases, an enormous amount of awareness unprecedented in US history on the issue of acquaintance rape and the rights of women to control their own bodies and yes, the breakthrough anger of women who have waited this long....you want to talk about how we're at the right historical moment for a film on Nat Turner, how you want to "hold audiences hostage" and unable to look away? You've just been caught up in the same. Sweeping historical movements aren't a conspiracy theory just because you're the one suddenly finding himself on the wrong side of history.
posted by blue suede stockings at 5:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [25 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher: "Here's the link to the full text of Parker's Facebook post. I put here because the cherry picked parts in some of the articles painted the post as completely horrible and selfish and I don't think it's that bad. And he doesn't use her name probably because even her family didn't use her name, as were her wishes."
I grabbed a snapshot, via archive.is, in case it changed AND because I hate using graphic screenshots, since you can't highlight stuff to search the web with it and such.
posted by Samizdata at 8:15 PM on August 19, 2016
I grabbed a snapshot, via archive.is, in case it changed AND because I hate using graphic screenshots, since you can't highlight stuff to search the web with it and such.
posted by Samizdata at 8:15 PM on August 19, 2016
Roxane Gay, of course, wrote a pretty amazing response.
Mr. Parker is being forced to publicly reckon with his past, and he is doing a lousy job. I want to have empathy for him, but everything he says and does troubles me. You see, what happened in 1999 was a “painful moment” in his life. Most of what he has to say about that “painful moment” involves how he felt, how he was affected. The solipsism is staggering.posted by ChuraChura at 3:41 PM on August 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
I have my own history with sexual violence, so I cannot consider such stories with impartiality, though I do try. It is my gut instinct to believe the victim because there is nothing at all to be gained by going public with a rape accusation except the humiliations of the justice system and public scorn. Only an estimated 2 to 10 percent of rape accusations are false. And to have sex with a woman who said she was blackout drunk, to do so with a friend — that is a crime, whether the justice system agrees or not.
When it comes to sexual violence, I do not know what justice looks like; no one does. According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, out of every 1,000 rapes, 344 will be reported to the police, 63 of those reports will lead to an arrest, 13 cases will be referred to a prosecutor, seven of those cases will lead to a felony conviction and six of those perpetrators will serve prison time. They will serve that time in a broken system that incarcerates without offering offenders any kind of real rehabilitation.
Two men (at least) performed simultaneous sex upon a woman, without her consent. One of these men, Jean Celestine, was convicted of sexually assaulting her; the other man, Parker, was acquitted in large part because he'd previously had consensual sex with the victim. Because sexual consent is apparently a one-time unlimited access fee that can never be revoked.
That's already enough fucked-up sexist bullshit in itself to justify electrocuting humanity with my brain.
Everything else (and there is SO MUCH ELSE) aside: That Parker not only maintained a relationship with his rapist co-defendant Celestin, he co-wrote his Important Artistic Movie™ with Celestin, is all the indication I need that Parker is still a garbage fire human who has learned nothing about consent, guilt, justice, or compassion in all these years.
posted by nicebookrack at 12:27 PM on August 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's already enough fucked-up sexist bullshit in itself to justify electrocuting humanity with my brain.
Everything else (and there is SO MUCH ELSE) aside: That Parker not only maintained a relationship with his rapist co-defendant Celestin, he co-wrote his Important Artistic Movie™ with Celestin, is all the indication I need that Parker is still a garbage fire human who has learned nothing about consent, guilt, justice, or compassion in all these years.
posted by nicebookrack at 12:27 PM on August 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Roxane Gay's response is eloquently brutal.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:31 PM on August 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:31 PM on August 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
The American Film Institute has cancelled a screening and Q&A.
posted by Etrigan at 10:49 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 10:49 AM on August 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Parker gave an interview to Ebony. Roxane Gay tweeted a (very tentative) response.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:07 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:07 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the Ebony article:
After the American Film Institute canceled a Birth of a Nation screening and Q&A session with the filmmaker last week, Parker took to the stage Friday night at the Merge Summit in Los Angeles to give his first interview since all hell broke loose... After answering a question about why he chose to make “yet another slave film,” Parker addressed the controversy head-on.
.
.. the 36-year-old actor and director told the audience. “When I was first met with the news that this part of my past had come up, my knee-jerk reaction was selfish. I wasn’t thinking about even the potential hurt of others; I was thinking about myself'"....
Then the Ebony interview directly:
...[Parker] paid attention to the backlash his recent comments on the case generated, and asked some female friends where he went wrong. He realized that men enjoy a lot of privilege, but often fail to see it because "if it's in the air they breathe and the culture supports them, sometimes they never have to think about it at all."
...Honestly, when I started reading them comments I had to call some people and say, What did I do wrong? What did I say wrong?
I called a couple of sisters that know that are in the space that talk about the feminist movement and toxic masculinity, and just asked questions. What did I do wrong? Because I was thinking about myself. And what I realized is that I never took a moment to think about the woman. I didn’t think about her then, and I didn’t think about her when I was saying those statements, which was wrong and insensitive.
...EBONY.com: Because, you know, now it comes off like, two weeks after the fact, the criticism is up and now you have to say something because…
Nate Parker: Let’s just put it like this: if a person was accused of being a racist when he was young–he said some racially insensitive thing or someone had him on tape calling someone the n-word or whatever–and then you fast forward and he feels, Oh, back then I didn’t say this or that. He’s not thinking about the person that he hurt when he said what he said, or however it came out, or the effects that it could have had. He’s not thinking about it. He’s thinking about his own self and how he feels.
...I can see that there are a lot of people that have been hurt, a lot of people that are survivors. I’m finding out people in my own circle that are survivors that I didn’t even know. There are people on my film that are survivors that carry that pain, and I had to call and talk to them all, like, how you feel about what’s happening? What do I need me to do? What do I need to get?
All I can do is seek the information that’ll make me stronger, that’ll help me overcome my toxic masculinity, my male privilege, because that’s something you never think about. You don’t think about other people. It’s the same thing with White Supremacy. Trying to convince someone that they are a racist or they have White Privilege–if it’s in the air they breathe and the culture supports them, sometimes they never have to think about it at all. I recognize as a man there’s a lot of things that I don’t have to think about. But I’m thinking about them now.
People may say that, “Oh, now is good timing.” I don’t know what to say to them except I’m trying. I’m trying to transform behaviors and ideas that have never been challenged in certain ways in my life. I’m not the kid that I was at 19.
My head is spinning. I was all about this movie, and then the info surfaced about the rape and there was Parker's horrible reaction to the info coming out. Now I see him saying all the things that one would hope and pray that a rapist would say. He's even drawing the very clear parallel between male privilege and white privilege, and he seems to start to be able to get that the mindset that he was in a similar mindset about women that white supremacists are about people of color.
I hope this response is genuine, and that Parker's really started on this journey to learn about male privilege and about rape culture and about toxic masculinity. If he can "get" the similarities between white privilege and male privilege, maybe, just maybe....
Still not buying a ticket for the movie...yet. Still trying to decide if I should be cautiously optimistic.
posted by magstheaxe at 11:18 AM on August 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
After the American Film Institute canceled a Birth of a Nation screening and Q&A session with the filmmaker last week, Parker took to the stage Friday night at the Merge Summit in Los Angeles to give his first interview since all hell broke loose... After answering a question about why he chose to make “yet another slave film,” Parker addressed the controversy head-on.
.
.. the 36-year-old actor and director told the audience. “When I was first met with the news that this part of my past had come up, my knee-jerk reaction was selfish. I wasn’t thinking about even the potential hurt of others; I was thinking about myself'"....
Then the Ebony interview directly:
...[Parker] paid attention to the backlash his recent comments on the case generated, and asked some female friends where he went wrong. He realized that men enjoy a lot of privilege, but often fail to see it because "if it's in the air they breathe and the culture supports them, sometimes they never have to think about it at all."
...Honestly, when I started reading them comments I had to call some people and say, What did I do wrong? What did I say wrong?
I called a couple of sisters that know that are in the space that talk about the feminist movement and toxic masculinity, and just asked questions. What did I do wrong? Because I was thinking about myself. And what I realized is that I never took a moment to think about the woman. I didn’t think about her then, and I didn’t think about her when I was saying those statements, which was wrong and insensitive.
...EBONY.com: Because, you know, now it comes off like, two weeks after the fact, the criticism is up and now you have to say something because…
Nate Parker: Let’s just put it like this: if a person was accused of being a racist when he was young–he said some racially insensitive thing or someone had him on tape calling someone the n-word or whatever–and then you fast forward and he feels, Oh, back then I didn’t say this or that. He’s not thinking about the person that he hurt when he said what he said, or however it came out, or the effects that it could have had. He’s not thinking about it. He’s thinking about his own self and how he feels.
...I can see that there are a lot of people that have been hurt, a lot of people that are survivors. I’m finding out people in my own circle that are survivors that I didn’t even know. There are people on my film that are survivors that carry that pain, and I had to call and talk to them all, like, how you feel about what’s happening? What do I need me to do? What do I need to get?
All I can do is seek the information that’ll make me stronger, that’ll help me overcome my toxic masculinity, my male privilege, because that’s something you never think about. You don’t think about other people. It’s the same thing with White Supremacy. Trying to convince someone that they are a racist or they have White Privilege–if it’s in the air they breathe and the culture supports them, sometimes they never have to think about it at all. I recognize as a man there’s a lot of things that I don’t have to think about. But I’m thinking about them now.
People may say that, “Oh, now is good timing.” I don’t know what to say to them except I’m trying. I’m trying to transform behaviors and ideas that have never been challenged in certain ways in my life. I’m not the kid that I was at 19.
My head is spinning. I was all about this movie, and then the info surfaced about the rape and there was Parker's horrible reaction to the info coming out. Now I see him saying all the things that one would hope and pray that a rapist would say. He's even drawing the very clear parallel between male privilege and white privilege, and he seems to start to be able to get that the mindset that he was in a similar mindset about women that white supremacists are about people of color.
I hope this response is genuine, and that Parker's really started on this journey to learn about male privilege and about rape culture and about toxic masculinity. If he can "get" the similarities between white privilege and male privilege, maybe, just maybe....
Still not buying a ticket for the movie...yet. Still trying to decide if I should be cautiously optimistic.
posted by magstheaxe at 11:18 AM on August 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, that's pretty much how one would want Parker to respond. I had already made up my mind to see the film and then make a judgement, but what he's saying now does sound good.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:07 PM on August 28, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:07 PM on August 28, 2016
He has been a grown man for decades, he went through a criminal trial and a civil trial related to rape, and then he wrote, produced, directed, and acted in a film featuring a graphic rape scene crucial to the plot, but he only started thinking this way about rape, consent, and women after the past month? I'm not buying what he's selling, in any sense of the word.
posted by sallybrown at 12:13 PM on August 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 12:13 PM on August 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
I read that article, and he still never takes responsibility for what he did. He still never says the victims name or acknowledged the impact on her life. This is not how I want him respond. I want him to say "yes, I lied and deceived this specific woman, and invited my friends to gang bang her." That was not a fuckkng "threesome", that was a rape.
posted by corb at 12:53 PM on August 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:53 PM on August 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is not how I want him respond. I want him to say "yes, I lied and deceived this specific woman, and invited my friends to gang bang her."
Curious, what do you see happening if Parker did say that? Because if that happens, there's really no way he can go where he won't be thought of and treated as a pariah in society. Yeah, the reason are understandable and Parker brought this on himself, but American society doesn't have means of coping with someone admitting to rape, who isn't in prison. So there's no incentive for anyone to be that forthright in a public space.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:22 PM on August 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Curious, what do you see happening if Parker did say that? Because if that happens, there's really no way he can go where he won't be thought of and treated as a pariah in society. Yeah, the reason are understandable and Parker brought this on himself, but American society doesn't have means of coping with someone admitting to rape, who isn't in prison. So there's no incentive for anyone to be that forthright in a public space.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:22 PM on August 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm wary of saying someone needs to have incentives to be a decent human being (within this context). I mean, you're not *wrong* about it probably helping, but still.
posted by CrystalDave at 2:42 PM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 2:42 PM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I never examined it, nobody ever called me on it.Nobody ever called him on it?
His victim called him on it.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA CALLED HIM ON IT.
Dude, the call was loud and clear. You chose to ignore it for seventeen years.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:35 AM on August 29, 2016 [12 favorites]
From The Establishment:
Let’s Not Pretend Nate Parker Has Redeemed Himself
"Parker’s interview is not progress, it’s terrifying. It’s terrifying that he still doesn’t know what rape is. It’s terrifying that he thinks consent is about chivalry. It’s terrifying that he can apologize to everyone except his alleged victim. It’s terrifying that on his third attempt, he still can’t stop centering himself. It’s terrifying that he views what happened as a threesome. It’s terrifying that he might teach young boys about consent when he clearly does not understand it himself. It’s terrifying that he has a platform to passive-aggressively taunt his alleged victim even in her grave.
But more terrifying than anything is how quickly we are willing to accept hollow words instead of demanding substantive change. I’m more bothered by the fact that we are so allured by beautiful language, that we didn’t seem to much care if this accused abuser did the work of restorative justice or not. I’m bothered that we live in a world where we privilege jargon over understanding, and where rapists have to do very little to be accepted."
posted by colt45 at 4:44 PM on August 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
Let’s Not Pretend Nate Parker Has Redeemed Himself
"Parker’s interview is not progress, it’s terrifying. It’s terrifying that he still doesn’t know what rape is. It’s terrifying that he thinks consent is about chivalry. It’s terrifying that he can apologize to everyone except his alleged victim. It’s terrifying that on his third attempt, he still can’t stop centering himself. It’s terrifying that he views what happened as a threesome. It’s terrifying that he might teach young boys about consent when he clearly does not understand it himself. It’s terrifying that he has a platform to passive-aggressively taunt his alleged victim even in her grave.
But more terrifying than anything is how quickly we are willing to accept hollow words instead of demanding substantive change. I’m more bothered by the fact that we are so allured by beautiful language, that we didn’t seem to much care if this accused abuser did the work of restorative justice or not. I’m bothered that we live in a world where we privilege jargon over understanding, and where rapists have to do very little to be accepted."
posted by colt45 at 4:44 PM on August 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
Op-Ed 'Birth of a Nation' actress Gabrielle Union: I cannot take Nate Parker rape allegations lightly
posted by gladly at 6:45 AM on September 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by gladly at 6:45 AM on September 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Academy president on Birth of a Nation: People need to judge the movie
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on September 2, 2016
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 PM on September 2, 2016
He has been a grown man for decades, he went through a criminal trial and a civil trial related to rape, and then he wrote, produced, directed, and acted in a film featuring a graphic rape scene crucial to the plot, but he only started thinking this way about rape, consent, and women after the past month? I'm not buying what he's selling, in any sense of the word.
I don't know how to feel about that interview. But I would not at all be surprised if this is the first time he has considered any of this, and I am also not surprised if he is not going to directly say "Yes, I raped her."
How many men make it all the way to the end of their lives defining rape as "guy in bushes with a knife"? Even men who, in all probability, actually raped someone? If you ask guys if they've raped anyone, they'll say no. If you ask them if they've ever had sex with a woman who was too drunk to verbally agree, or unconscious, or they used physical force, then suddenly that number goes up. What about the number of men who say they'd rape a woman, if you don't call it rape?
The rape scenes in Birth of a Nation are, by all accounts, of the "guy in the bushes with a knife" variety--the enslaved woman clearly does not want to have sex with the white guys controlling her. To Nate Parker--to a lot of men--that's what rape is. The woman never shows interest, never flirts, and fights back when propositioned.
He talks about women being "down". That's what many men, especially young men, think consent means. Did she give you the green light to do [X]? Then you've got the green light to do [Y], [Z], and the rest of the alphabet. Because by doing [X], it means she's down for everything.
We want to believe that a man who shows a powerful, nuanced understanding of the oppression in his own life to turn that same intellect towards the oppression affecting others. But Nate Parker is not the first person to demonstrate these blind spots. See: Tina Fey, Lena Dunham, Eldridge Cleaver, Jennifer Cramblett . . . history is full of people who catch the shit falling on them only to throw it at others.
I am not defending his blind spot. Only saying that it is totally, extremely likely that this truly is the first time he has ever contemplated anything like this.
This is not how I want him respond. I want him to say "yes, I lied and deceived this specific woman, and invited my friends to gang bang her."
When I read that interview, it seemed pretty clear to me that he recognized it was rape, but he was trying to figure out a way to express himself without outright admitting to it--likely because of the legal, personal, and professional shitstorm that would result.
I could believe the words in the interview . . . I could also believe that this is a panicked attempt to rescue an Oscar campaign. I think my belief rests on how sincere he is about trying to amend for his past actions. But then, the woman he raped is dead, and what recompense can be made for that?
posted by Anonymous at 8:35 PM on September 2, 2016
I don't know how to feel about that interview. But I would not at all be surprised if this is the first time he has considered any of this, and I am also not surprised if he is not going to directly say "Yes, I raped her."
How many men make it all the way to the end of their lives defining rape as "guy in bushes with a knife"? Even men who, in all probability, actually raped someone? If you ask guys if they've raped anyone, they'll say no. If you ask them if they've ever had sex with a woman who was too drunk to verbally agree, or unconscious, or they used physical force, then suddenly that number goes up. What about the number of men who say they'd rape a woman, if you don't call it rape?
The rape scenes in Birth of a Nation are, by all accounts, of the "guy in the bushes with a knife" variety--the enslaved woman clearly does not want to have sex with the white guys controlling her. To Nate Parker--to a lot of men--that's what rape is. The woman never shows interest, never flirts, and fights back when propositioned.
He talks about women being "down". That's what many men, especially young men, think consent means. Did she give you the green light to do [X]? Then you've got the green light to do [Y], [Z], and the rest of the alphabet. Because by doing [X], it means she's down for everything.
We want to believe that a man who shows a powerful, nuanced understanding of the oppression in his own life to turn that same intellect towards the oppression affecting others. But Nate Parker is not the first person to demonstrate these blind spots. See: Tina Fey, Lena Dunham, Eldridge Cleaver, Jennifer Cramblett . . . history is full of people who catch the shit falling on them only to throw it at others.
I am not defending his blind spot. Only saying that it is totally, extremely likely that this truly is the first time he has ever contemplated anything like this.
This is not how I want him respond. I want him to say "yes, I lied and deceived this specific woman, and invited my friends to gang bang her."
When I read that interview, it seemed pretty clear to me that he recognized it was rape, but he was trying to figure out a way to express himself without outright admitting to it--likely because of the legal, personal, and professional shitstorm that would result.
I could believe the words in the interview . . . I could also believe that this is a panicked attempt to rescue an Oscar campaign. I think my belief rests on how sincere he is about trying to amend for his past actions. But then, the woman he raped is dead, and what recompense can be made for that?
posted by Anonymous at 8:35 PM on September 2, 2016
« Older Gawker.com, 2003-2016 | Cats and dogs, living together, mass adorableness Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Other than that, the only thing I can say is: heartbreaking.
Thank you for posting this. I look forward to the discussion.
posted by anitanita at 5:14 PM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]