# Stuff and Things > Sights and Sounds >  Hollyweird stirring the pot again/Solomon Northup Movie

## Trinnity

This is race-war baiting. Again. Wait til the brutha's in east LA flood into Hollywood and Beverly Hills and start killing white people. Will it be good enough then? WHY are they constantly stirring up racial hatred? Liberals are crazy; don't they know they're fomenting their own demise, literally? They think angry young black men are ever gonna be their allies??? They're friends? They think they'll be loved and respected by them?
None of this makes any sense.




> *The story that will torment America's soul: A new film that brutally portrays the horrors of slavery threatens to reignite racial tensions*
> 
> 
> 
> **Solomon Northup's harrowing tale has been made into a Hollywood film 
> ***The movie is based on his memoir 12 Years A Slave, published in 1853***Northrup was born a free man but kidnapped and sold into slavery 
> ***Movie is so powerful some critics walked out while others left in tears*
> Northup wrote about his terrible experiences in a book published in 1853 called 12 Years A Slave, which shocked the American public, and, according to some historians, helped to bring about the American Civil War, in which President Abraham Lincoln led the Yankee North to victory against the South, partly because he was determined to end slavery.
> 
> ...


It's been about 150 years since the slaves were freed. No one living today was a slave or owned a slave. White liberals just won't stop with the cultural self-hatred and it serves no good purpose; all it does is give often poorly educated younger black generations more reason to hate whites who did thim no wrong. The liberal teaching cartel and Hollywood are destroying this country with this cultivated hate they constantly tend and grow.



Liberals. Progressives. Destruction.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Brace Yourselves America...get ready for a new round of 'dis ih fo Solomon' attacks'.   

This story is about a black man named Solomon Northup who was abducted and sold into slavery from the north to the south during the 1800s.   Northup wrote the book with the help of a white man. The book was lost and then recently found by a white woman professor big into black history.   He chronicles his 12 years as a slave in his book and it is pretty violent in its denunciation of the slave business in Louisiana at that time.
Here's wiki's article on Mr. Northup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Northup 

this is reported in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-tensions.html

Personally.   I find it all just a little convenient.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

I have no idea what you're trying to convey. It's a piece of entertainment, for heaven's sake. If you have a problem with the movie industry churning out works based on historical fact, write to the producer.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I have no idea what you're trying to convey. It's a piece of entertainment, for heaven's sake. If you have a problem with the movie industry churning out works based on historical fact, write to the producer.


I think the idea being conveyed is that this is all about Obama's secret plan to foment a race war in the United States so that blacks rule the country and whites are treated, well, just whites have been treating blacks for the past several hundred years.  

Frankly, I'm not worried but have the movie on my Netflix list for when it comes out.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I've been thinking about this this am.   I think this is Hollywood taking revenge on its customers after what the viewing public did to them this summer.   Brad Pitt is in this movie, Chewetel Ejiofor, and the Cumberbatch guy.   

Why put out a movie like that AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME...knowing full well the resulting violence that will surely ensue.   

they know full well what the result will be.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I've been thinking about this this am.   I think this is Hollywood taking revenge on its customers after what the viewing public did to them this summer.   Brad Pitt is in this movie, Chewetel Ejiofor, and the Cumberbatch guy.   
> 
> Why put out a movie like that AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME...knowing full well the resulting violence that will surely ensue.   
> 
> they know full well what the result will be.


Violence? It's a sympathetic and mature portrayal of life as a slave. What hostilities are you expecting?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I've been thinking about this this am. I think this is Hollywood taking revenge on its customers after what the viewing public did to them this summer. Brad Pitt is in this movie, Chewetel Ejiofor, and the Cumberbatch guy. 
> 
> Why put out a movie like that AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME...knowing full well the resulting violence that will surely ensue. 
> 
> they know full well what the result will be.


It's all about the money.  Besides, most movies take about two years to plan, make, edit and put out.  

FWIW, this isn't the first time Solomon's story has been told.  There was another movie about him in 1984.....a full 8 years before Miley Cyrus was born!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088148/



> *"American Playhouse" Solomon Northup's Odyssey (1984)*
> 
> This is based on a true story. Solomon Northrop is a black man in the mid 19th century before slavery was abolished. He's a born freeman who works as a carpenter and is also a part time musician. One day he is approached by some men who want him to play for them. However, that is not their intention; they have kidnapped him and sold him into slavery. Now he has to endure the hardships that he has been spared because of his status as a freeman. And his family who don't know what happened to him is searching for him but where do they go? And Solomon also wishes to let them know where he is so that they could get him but unfortunately no one believes his story or is willing to help him.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

Doubt I'll bother with it. There was once a time when people could make philosophical, thought-provoking films with such subject matter, even on a studio budget. Nowadays, they manifest as blatant attempts at grabbing as many Oscars as possible.

Remember that film about the slum kids a few years back? I liked it, but it may as well have been subtitled "that Indian poverty exploitation movie". It served to draw as many sympathetic croons from middle-aged women and pretentious film critics as possible.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Doubt I'll bother with it. There was once a time when people could make philosophical, thought-provoking films with such subject matter, even on a studio budget. Nowadays, they manifest as blatant attempts at grabbing as many Oscars as possible.
> 
> Remember that film about the slum kids a few years back? I liked it, but it may as well have been subtitled "that Indian poverty exploitation movie". It served to draw as many sympathetic croons from middle-aged women and pretentious film critics as possible.


So what movies do you watch, if any? 

Deep movies are good, but most people just want to be entertained.   Look at the ones that made the most money over the past several years; LOTR trilogy, Avatar.  Good adventure movies, but not exactly ones the equivalent of Plato's _Republic_.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> So what movies do you watch, if any? 
> 
> Deep movies are good, but most people just want to be entertained.   Look at the ones that made the most money over the past several years; LOTR trilogy, Avatar.  Good adventure movies, but not exactly ones the equivalent of Plato's _Republic_.


_Avatar_ was crap. Revolutionary from a technological perspective, but an overwhelmingly shallow film. I'm acknowledge there are people who feel differently.

Kubrick's stuff was cinematic art, as was Coppola's. I have collections of both. It's true that there's an obvious entertainment factor to them, but there was also a genuine depth you don't get much at present.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> _Avatar_ was crap. Revolutionary from a technological perspective, but an overwhelmingly shallow film. I'm acknowledge there are people who feel differently.
> 
> Kubrick's stuff was cinematic art, as was Coppola's. I have collections of both. It's true that there's an obvious entertainment factor to them, but there was also a genuine depth you don't get much at present.



Because, say it with me, "it's all about the money".     When movies cost over a hundred million dollars, investors want to go with a formula guaranteed to show a return.   Like "Avatar", take a old, favorite story themes, throw in some mind-blowing special effects and just wait for the money to come rolling in.

Avatar cost ~$237,000,000 (rivaling the budgets of about 3 dozen nations) to make and raked in $760,505,847 as of November 2010.   It's profits like those that allows some people to make much cheaper "art" films.

----------

usfan (09-20-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

white have been treating blacks badly for the last 100 years?    yes.  I'm so sure.   Looks like Hollywood has rotted your brain out long ago.

Look at the number of blacks that have made millions in sports, entertainment, POLITICS, reality shows, media, business.

There are prominent blacks in all walks of life.   MOST commercials feature blacks and many sitcoms feature black actors.   

We need to unload this myth of bad treatment of blacks.  It is false.

----------

Roadmaster (09-24-2013)

----------


## Archer

> _Avatar_ was crap. Revolutionary from a technological perspective, but an overwhelmingly shallow film. I'm acknowledge there are people who feel differently.
> 
> Kubrick's stuff was cinematic art, as was Coppola's. I have collections of both. It's true that there's an obvious entertainment factor to them, but there was also a genuine depth you don't get much at present.


Movies? Other than Sci-Fi most are shit full of hypocrites!

Oblivion was a good one! Smurfs was great (both of them)! GI Joe movies were fun... Other than that I think television does a great job these days. 

I do agree that most drama and comedy and other shit suck ass on the big screen these days.

----------


## St James

> I have no idea what you're trying to convey. It's a piece of entertainment, for heaven's sake. If you have a problem with the movie industry churning out works based on historical fact, write to the producer.


accurate historical events and Hollywood are never synonymous with each other. Very few movies are hardly accurate.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-20-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> accurate historical events and Hollywood are never synonymous with each other. Very few movies are hardly accurate.


Agreed.  Their first priority is to make money and the best way to make money is to tell an entertaining story.  So often, history is long stretches of boredom splattered with bits of excitement.

----------


## Trinnity

> Brace Yourselves America...get ready for a new round of 'dis ih fo Solomon' attacks'.   
> 
> Personally.   I find it all just a little convenient.


It's always convenient for race-baiting liberals, isn't it? Hey, the Trayvon thing is dying down. Time to stir it up again. Good grief. Cultural resentment over slavery; it's not helping anyone.

----------


## Trinnity

*Threads merged~*

----------


## Trinnity

> I've been thinking about this this am.   I think this is Hollywood taking revenge on its customers after what the viewing public did to them this summer.   Brad Pitt is in this movie, Chewetel Ejiofor, and the Cumberbatch guy.   
> 
> Why put out a movie like that AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME...knowing full well the resulting violence that will surely ensue.   
> 
> they know full well what the result will be.


_The Butler_ was a bust. Hollywood is trying so hard to continue to stir up racial tension. WHY??? What good does it serve? Is it better for us to hate and kill each other over what the govt AND people did that ended 150 years ago? Will we be killing each other over it a hundred years from now? It's stupid.

----------


## kilgram

> So what movies do you watch, if any? 
> 
> Deep movies are good, but most people just want to be entertained.   Look at the ones that made the most money over the past several years; LOTR trilogy, Avatar.  Good adventure movies, but not exactly ones the equivalent of Plato's _Republic_.


Avatar was shitty. And even they could not respect how were the original characters in the Animation series.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

And Cameron is laughing all the way to the bank.

So much so that there is a sequel in the works.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1630029/

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> _The Butler_ was a bust. Hollywood is trying so hard to continue to stir up racial tension. WHY??? What good does it serve? Is it better for us to hate and kill each other over what the govt AND people did that ended 150 years ago? Will we be killing each other over it a hundred years from now? It's stupid.


Why would any business try to stir up racial tension?  Agreed, what good does it do?  A little controversy is good for business, but racial tension breeds hate  and is bad for business.

As for "The Butler";  it cost $30M and, so far, has grossed over $100M.  It'll be up for the Oscars and then DVD sells, so I think they'll make money.   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327773/?ref_=sr_1

....enough money that next year we might see a movie titled "The Kenyan Muslim".   :Smile:

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Avatar was shitty. And even they could not respect how were the original characters in the Animation series.


character authenticity doesn't matter.. it's the message...America bad.  US Military badder.   :Wink:

----------

St James (09-20-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Why would any business try to stir up racial tension?  Agreed, what good does it do?  A little controversy is good for business, but racial tension breeds hate  and is bad for business.
> 
> As for "The Butler";  it cost $30M and, so far, has grossed over $100M.  It'll be up for the Oscars and then DVD sells, so I think they'll make money.   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1327773/?ref_=sr_1
> 
> ....enough money that next year we might see a movie titled "The Kenyan Muslim".


they're a business alright but they are also an arm of the democrat party.  Not to mention they're crazy as hell in their own right and eaten up with Hate America First.     If this drives conservativism under ground or out of existence that will be a good thing....If it causes black on white violence what does Hollywood care....have you seen them concerned over any of the black on white violence going on daily?  How about the preezy.  Does he seem concerned?   


Those awards and Oscars and nominations are not based on what the public likes/doesn't like.  It's based on What THEY, the committee likes or doesn't.   The Butler was a bust...whether you realize it or not.    It didn't gross nearly what they had hoped for...>If Oprah had kept her racist ugly mouth shut they may have done much better.   But shutting a liberal up is a difficult task at best.   

If Hollywood had cared about racial hatred being bad for business there are a lot of films that would not have been made... They were and Hollywood does not.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> they're a business alright but they are also an arm of the democrat party.


If Hollywood was simply an arm of the DNC, then why are they making money and the DNC is losing money?

----------


## Calypso Jones

why do you say the DNC is losing money?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> white have been treating blacks badly for the last 100 years?    yes.  I'm so sure.   Looks like Hollywood has rotted your brain out long ago.
> 
> Look at the number of blacks that have made millions in sports, entertainment, POLITICS, reality shows, media, business.
> 
> There are prominent blacks in all walks of life.   MOST commercials feature blacks and many sitcoms feature black actors.   
> 
> We need to unload this myth of bad treatment of blacks.  It is false.


Slavery sounds like maltreatment to me.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Same goes for Jim Crow laws and "selective" justice.

Just so we'r perfectly clear, I, too, am tired of the race card.  Blacks constitute 13% of the general population, but from all the noise pro-black groups make, you'd think they outnumber women.   There are instances of racism in this country, prejudice and discrimination, but not every person who happens to be black and is slighted by an employer or another citizen is being slighted because they are black.  Some are just idiots, assholes or the next person to be fired.   To claim otherwise is racist itself since it is using race to subvert truth.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Same goes for Jim Crow laws and "selective" justice.
> 
> Just so we'r perfectly clear, I, too, am tired of the race card.  Blacks constitute 13% of the general population, but from all the noise pro-black groups make, you'd think they outnumber women.   There are instances of racism in this country, prejudice and discrimination, but not every person who happens to be black and is slighted by an employer or another citizen is being slighted because they are black.  Some are just idiots, assholes or the next person to be fired.   To claim otherwise is racist itself since it is using race to subvert truth.


The race-card is abused by black groups - there's been massive progress in American society over the last century. But I still don't see what Calypso's qualms are with dramatizing the brutality of slavery. It's as if she can't bring herself to admit Afro-Americans have been subject of institutional mistreatment at a number of points in history (including recent history).

----------


## Max Rockatansky

I don't get what she's after either.  I think her intentions are honest, but misguided.

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (09-20-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

Liberal-agenda propaganda films, that's what.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Liberal-agenda propaganda films, that's what.


The portrayal of a historical reality is "liberal" now? Depicting the truth on screen (or something close to it) must have a political agenda?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> The portrayal of a historical reality is "liberal" now? Depicting the truth on screen (or something close to it) must have a political agenda?


you automatically consider it truth?   The timing is more than suspicious.  The politics of the 'finder' of this book is just right.   The Timing for the making of this movie is just right.  The tension in this country is just right and the intent of the president is just right.   So let's all just gobble it up.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> you automatically consider it truth? The timing is more than suspicious. The politics of the 'finder' of this book is just right. The Timing for the making of this movie is just right. The tension in this country is just right and the intent of the president is just right. So let's all just gobble it up.


This isn't Pakistan. People don't riot over films.

As for its authenticity, I think it's fair to assume that slaves were treated like animals.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Im sure some slave owners did that.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that this particular black man was.   I wonder if he was trying to cash in as did Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote her fictional anti-slavery book.    And then, miracle upon miracles a left wing activist feminist uncovers the book long forgotten.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Im sure some slave owners did that. But it doesn't necessarily mean that this particular black man was. I wonder if he was trying to cash in as did Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote her fictional anti-slavery book. And then, miracle upon miracles a left wing activist feminist uncovers the book long forgotten.


I think it's a fair assumption that he was.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> you automatically consider it truth?   The timing is more than suspicious.  The politics of the 'finder' of this book is just right.   The Timing for the making of this movie is just right.  The tension in this country is just right and the intent of the president is just right.   So let's all just gobble it up.


I won't be seeing it for at least six months when it comes out on Netflix.  I'll give you an update on how much of a pot stirrer the movie is.  Probably no more than the 1984 version and a lot less than the 1977 miniseries "Roots". 

In fact, if there was a "liberal-agenda", why isn't this on television????   If the purpose is to stir the pot to advance liberal ideas, why not broadcast it on television for all to see?  Even replay it a couple times?   OTOH, if this is about making money, then the movie theater is the way to go.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> This isn't Pakistan. People don't riot over films.
> 
> As for its authenticity, I think it's fair to assume that slaves were treated like animals.


No, religious groups often protest movies they haven't seen.

Remember Martin Scorsese's 1988 "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Monty Python's 1979 "The Life of Brian"?   Mel Gibson's 2004 "The Passion of the Christ"?

Not just religious groups get offended.  Gay activists protested William Friendkin's 1980 "Cruising" for "implying that homosexuality inevitably leads to murder". 


http://movies.amctv.com/movie-guide/...s-of-all-time/

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> No, religious groups often protest movies they haven't seen.
> 
>  Remember Martin Scorsese's 1988 "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Monty Python's 1979 "The Life of Brian"?   Mel Gibson's 2004 "The Passion of the Christ"?
> 
>  Not just religious groups get offended.  Gay activists protested William Friendkin's 1980 "Cruising" for "implying that homosexuality inevitably leads to murder". 
> 
> 
> http://movies.amctv.com/movie-guide/...s-of-all-time/


 I don't recall any of those turning violent (except for _The Passion of the Christ_, where a French Christian group torched a showing). This movie doesn't have a controversial religious theme, and I expect it to be sympathetic towards the central characters.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't recall any of those turning violent (except for _The Passion of the Christ_, where a French Christian group torched a showing). This movie doesn't have a controversial religious theme, and I expect it to be sympathetic towards the central characters.


Civilized nations have rarer instances of violent protests, except the French, but any protest can have violent elements as you noted such as the Oakland Occupy protests where Anarchists started destroying private property and committing arson.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Im sure some slave owners did that.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that this particular black man was.   I wonder if he was trying to cash in as did Harriet Beecher Stowe when she wrote her fictional anti-slavery book.    And then, miracle upon miracles a left wing activist feminist uncovers the book long forgotten.


I am sure some were too but you also have to remember many selling themselves to stay in America and not be deported. None of my ancestors owed slaves but a few knew of some that were treated like family. But remember less than 1% in the south owned slaves and many were owed by blacks in Louisiana. The south didn't bring them to the US the north did coming as already slaves from other countries. The Irish were the first servant slaves but they could only keep them for 5 years and couldn't be of a different race than them, then they got land. It was against the law in the US to have a slave of a different race at that time. It was the north that broke our own laws saying they were already slaves from different countries. It would be nice to actually teach History instead of making the south look bad.

----------

Perianne (09-24-2013),Trinnity (09-24-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

I didn't know that, @roadmaster.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I didn't know that, @roadmaster.


 It's true. After the north used them they were going to deport them and many sold themselves to not be  deported back. The souths and US rules were only 5 years and then allowed land of their own. They got away with it claiming these were already slaves from another country and it didn't apply to them. That's when they started selling the kids of slaves. It should have never been allowed to happen.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Any references to the details you mentioned @roadmaster?  I'm aware of indentured servitude as a side show of the overall subject of "slavery in America".  The Dutch were the ones who started the slave trade in America in 1619.  The African slaves imported to the Americas was not the same as indentured servants.

http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html



> *1619
> *The other crucial event that would play a role in the development of America was the arrival of Africans to Jamestown. A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America. The popular conception of a racial-based slave system did not develop until the 1680's. _(A Brief History of Jamestown, The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Richmond, VA 23220, email: apva@apva.org, Web published February, 2000)
> 
> _
> The legend has been repeated endlessly that the first blacks in Virginia were "indentured servants," but there is no hint of this in the records. The legend grew up because the word slave did not appear in Virginia records until 1656, and statutes defining the status of blacks began to appear casually in the 1660s. The inference was then made that blacks called servants must have had approximately the same status as white indentured servants. Such reasoning failed to notice that Englishmen, in the early seventeenth century, used the work servant when they meant slave in our sense, and, indeed, white Southerners invariably used servant until 1865 and beyond. Slave entered the Southern vocabulary as a technical word in trade, law and politics. _(Robert McColley in Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery, Edited by Randall M. Miller and John David Smith, Greenwood Press, 1988 pp 281)
> 
> _
> Jamestown had exported 10 tons of tobacco to Europe and was a boomtown. The export business was going so well the colonists were able to afford two imports which would greatly contribute to their productivity and quality of life. 20 Blacks from Africa and 90 women from England. The Africans were paid for in food; each woman cost 120 pounds of tobacco. The Blacks were bought as indentured servants from a passing Dutch ship low on food, and the women were supplied by a private English company. Those who married the women had to pay their passage--120 pounds of tobacco. _(Gene Barios, Tobacco BBS: tobacco news )_
> 
> ...


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1619.html



> *1619*
> At Jamestown, Virginia, approximately 20 captive Africans are sold into slavery in the British North American colonies. 
> 
> *1612* 
> The first commercial tobacco crop is raised in Jamestown, Virginia.
> 
> *1626* 
> The Dutch West India Company imports 11 black male slaves into the New Netherlands.
> 
> ...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Uhm...it's race-baiting to make yet another historical-based movie? 

You realize they've been doing this for years now, after they ran out of original ideas? I mean, for heavens sake, they just made Lincoln a movie.

----------

