It's guaranteed to win Best Picture. They will sweep what the director did under the rug

It's guaranteed to win Best Picture. They will sweep what the director did under the rug.

Other urls found in this thread:

newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's not.

Tell me how it own't with the Oscars being a major platform for social justice.

Because there are better, less controversial films released this year.

Every time I see this thumbnail I think it's black zombies

>They will sweep what the director did under the rug.

No they won't. He's on gonna be on 60 minutes.

>the academy doing anything based on merit and not what it feels is right.

Knowing very little about the movie and judging by that picture alone I'd say it looks like a black Braveheart.

Yeah, and it'll be a sympathy piece. They're not going to vilify him.

There are better black films released this year.

Just because something is better doesn't mean it's going to win.

Then it wont win, Cred Forums

>Stanford swimmer fingerbangs drunk girl
>people literally compare him to hitler

>black director rapes a girl so bad she kills herself
>well he made a movie about slaves so he gets a pass

no fuck this shit

That's how it's going to happen. Screencap it.

If the movies good who cares

It'll blackwash the behavior of infanticidal Nat Turner also

You do realize that SJW's hate this film right?

newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending

fucking white genocide
i'm so sick of this oppression
he'll be the king of the interracial breeding grounds come november

They don't watch movies anyway, so it winning Best Picture is not for them.

I was willing to give this movie a chance up until the newest commercial had black lives matter spliced into it.

Now there's no chance in hell I see it.

t. A minority

No but it is for leftist academy fart sniffers who read the new yorker

>from the New Yorker

Damn!

And now you know why it's going to win.

>does not succeed as art or propaganda

So they're openly admitting it's propaganda

Wait... that Stanford student didn't even fuck the girl??

People are getting tired of these movies. It will get a lot of awards but won't make a lot of money.

Does the movie include Nat Turner and his mob murdering children?

>birth of a nation wins all the awards
>they do another lady gaga and biden anti rape thingy at the oscars again


I would kek if they happend at the same time

Actually it feels to me like the writer was taught a very southern version of the events of Turner's uprising. He specifically mentions Turner's brutality when in reality the rebels deliberately spared non slaveowners, and far more civilian casualties were caused by retaliating slaveowners

Nah, it's the blacks' time now.

>He specifically mentions Turner's brutality when in reality the rebels deliberately spared non slaveowners

I wasn't aware that the infants they murdered were out there whipping slaves in the fields.

>murdered children
>DEY GUD BOYS DEY DINDU NUFF'!

You obviously can't control everyone in a rebellion, there's gonna be some loose cannons. They were collateral damage.

because the slave owners never hurt children

>enslaving children is fine, though

>it's morally acceptable to murder children if your enemy treats children poorly

Damn, and that was written by a black man.

Exactly, now you're getting it. Welcome to the real world.

>main actor is a rapist
>implying it wont be ignored because that would bring attention to a PoC rapist and they cant have that

Literally not an argument

No one is saying the slave owners weren't bad aswell

Yeah, and they got what they deserve.

You reap what you sow and all that

>we have a piece of shit film that was trying to be a Django unchained
>oh god it's complete shit what do we do
>there's a black lives matter shitstorm lets add that to our trailers!
>FUND IT

I wonder how many people will go strictly because it had BLM in the trailer.

Nope! Isn't the media wonderful?

>better
Good thing quality of a film isn't a metric in choosing Best Picture

>sweep what the director did under the rug

You mean get acquitted for a rape that an actual non twitter-based court of law ruled that he did not commit?

Why would you kill your own property?

>You obviously can't control everyone in a rebellion, there's gonna be some loose cannon

Except Nat Turner said "there was an infant sleeping in its crib...WE went back and killed it". They weren't loose cannons, he was an active participant. He also proudly confessed to the murder of his master's wife (although she was hardly innocent tbf).

>dude he only fingered her against her will behind a dirty dumpster and ran the fuck away when caught, don't believe the liberals

I'm not saying that the slave owners were any better, but painting Nat Turner as some kind of hero is ridiculous. It wasn't collateral damage, he and his soldiers were actively trying to murder women and children in addition to the slaveowners. He's about as heroic as Curtis LeMay.

You're delusional if you think there's not a difference between fingering and fucking

This. I don't understand why people equate shit like this to violent, painful rape. Don't get me wrong, he's a scumbag, but he didn't jump a random woman on the street, rip her clothes, and forcibly penetrate her.

She was passed out and he figured he'd have a taste.

Yeah, sticking your fingers inside a drunk girl's vagina against her will while hiding from everyone else and running off when caught are surely the signs of an innocent sex act. Rape? So removed from this situation.

Judging from the trailers, it looks pretty cheesy. Dialogue looks off and the way he says rebell, no heart in his performance. Oscar snub without a doubt.

lol nope

>but painting Nat Turner as some kind of hero is ridiculous
I've yet to see someone on Cred Forums do this.

WOAH BUT MAN HE RAN THE FUCK AWAY WHEN BEING CHASED

literally no proof lmao

The movie is, though.

I think there's a kino about a gay black guy that can replace it.

I didn't say he was innocent you fucking word twisting strawmanning faggot

newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/the-birth-of-a-nation-isnt-worth-defending

Confirmed btfo. That movie by the Selma director will do well, though.

>literally no proof lmao
The court seemed to think there was enough proof to convict him.

Really? The film came to life and declared the guy a hero?

Remember when people used to respect court rulings

bro.....

You're an idiot.

>They'll sweep what the director did under the rug.

You'll mean they'll sweep what the director didn't do under the rug.

And you're pathologically threatened by a mostly passive form of art. I'd say we're even.

A doctor doesn't put his cock up your ass and ejaculate AIDs inside of you when checking your prostate.

But why not though? It's the same thing.

Do you have drunken back alley prostate exams often?

>If Tarantino reimagined slave clichés along the lines of the spaghetti Western and the blaxploitation film, and McQueen redrew them in the lines of plein-air painting, Parker’s secondary influence is the contemporary superhero flick.

Ouch.

I'm not saying that Cred Forums is calling him a hero. But many people are, mainly those who are praising this movie for how "powerful" and "socially relevant" it is and will swear up and down that it deserves an Oscar even if they never actually watch it.

holy fuck. i saw a commercial for this shite with literal black lives matter footage spliced in between clips and speeches from the movie.


they are trying so fucking hard.

>You'll mean they'll sweep what the director didn't do under the rug.
I was in town when that shit happened, The prosecutor who handled it was known for being a colossal douche bag. He inserted himself into every sexual assault case out there, and frequently exaggerated the events. he had another case thrown out after he charged some football player with slapping a girls ass after they had been going at it all night. From what I remember the DA had to resign a few years later because he was sexting crime victims.

Just from what I know about the DA at the time and that town, I'm more inclined to believe Parkers versions of events.

I despise any type of sexual assault but can you please fuck off? The girl clearly consented and then passed out, that's why she originally told the parole officer she didn't think, and I quote, "I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars" - and you can look that quote up if you don't believe me.

This case was all the cause celebre of some Stanford feminist professor who knew some people in public relations so she spread the story and it hit big on twitter. That's literally all we're dealing with here, the kid had a good legal team and he shaved maybe a few months off an attempted sexual assault sentence. There are so many mitigating circumstances in the case that it becomes obvious why any halfway decent lawyer could get Turner a reduced sentence. The kid still has to register as a sex offender for life, that's being lost in all this.

That was well written.

>but painting Nat Turner as some kind of hero is ridiculous.

Why the fuck is no one making a Harriet Tubman movie? It would tick literally all the boxes.

>And you're pathologically threatened by a mostly passive form of art.

Pseudointellectual nonsense.

this article is from the future
spooky

I know the court said Parker was innocent, but I think I speak for all Americans when I say I trust jingoistic internet bloggers whose income is predicated by clicks a hell of a lot more than I do some bullshit made up concept like the "law".

While i'm 99% sure this will be oscar bait i'm really interested in the scenes where he starts planning the revolt and the build up to the actual thing. Also to see if it'll end up as a less fun Django

FACT: If Nate Parker's incident played out EXACTLY the same but he was a white guy and had just made an anti-semitic movie, you neckbeards would be saying he's 100% innocent

Now go ahead and cry JIDF and reddit you diabetes ridden faggots

>2016
>Still caring about the Oscars
user, I...

This is now a 40k thread

The New Yorker has always been pretty based, as far as public opinion goes.

The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Wall Street Journal are really the only bastions of unbiased journalism in this day and age. Literally the only straight rods in a whole case of packers and pushers.

The fact that any of them deny this is why my respect for them is 0; I don't consider anyone on Cred Forums to be human. Lying every time you open your mouth or touch your keyboard disqualifies you from belonging to the species.

they need to put out a new promo still because this looks like a screengrab from a cheap history channel documentary.

>strawmanning this hard

>Against her will
She consented while drunk, he was drunk too.

See She fucking consented. iirc she was dating someone else at the time so when she sobered up she said she didn't.
Whether that boyfriend thing is true or not, she did consent earlier in the night and they tried to fuck before getting too wasted so he just continued.

Also the guys who found him were Swedish, which is very much worth noting.
>Drunk
>Finger banging drunk girl who wanted to fuck you before
>Two gangly retards spot you
>Start screaming some buzzwords and running at you
>Drunk, running away from the buzzword spewing gangly retards seems like a good idea
Eat cock.

The director, Nate Parker, was found NOT GUILTY on all four counts of sexual assault brought against him in criminal court in Pennsylvania in 1999.

This despite the fact that the girl who cried rape was white and the jury was majority white.

The dude is innocent.

>Cred Forums can't decide between defending the black guy or the feminists

kek

>was found NOT GUILTY

so was OJ

>black guy rapes white girl
>it's feminist to tell him to go fuck himself

jesus christ. gender politics has disillusioned the educated and absolutely destroyed the retarded.

>The New York Times
>unbiased
They aren't even claiming that much themselves. They literally came out and supported Hillary.

The New Yorker is alright though and the Wall Street Journal still usually tries to approach issues from the perspective of economists and investors.

They got Chris Rock to host after he beat Rihanna to a pulp so no kidding.

You're thinking of Chris Tucker.

I checked, Chris Brown actually. My bad