"The picture, hotly touted and bid over by major production companies, hardly veils an attempt to cash in on a taboo subject currently hot off the press."

"Not to say that's why Parker made it"

...isn't that exactly what you're saying? Parker made the movie, and you state that the movie is made as a clear attempt to cash in on a taboo subject.

So that seems like you accused Parker of making the film to get rich and win Oscars...then try to hedge by saying that's not why he made it?

No mention of the title? I mean, I didn't have to use Google to know what the original was about (just like I don't need to use Google to know who Nat Turner was -- holy shit, how ignorant of history do you think Stranger reader's are)? But the first movie (made in 1915 -- Thanks Google!) was about the Klan. This is obviously a reference to it, but why did the director name it that? I guess I'll ask Google.

According to Wikipedia, Parker decided "that the film would be called The Birth of a Nation in an ironic tribute to the famously racist 1915 film of the same name."

@2,3) #FilmHistoryBurn

Ihave never seen the original Birth Of A Nation.I consider it to be about a Rascist bunch of Clowns the way it was portrayed.I will never see Nate Turner's new version.Blacks can take pride in Nat Turner being one of the first to rebel against slavery.But the actions by his group,killing men, women and children make him the leader of one of the first Domestic terror groups.Where is the justification in killing children.There is none.