12 Years a Slave (Steve McQueen)

First_October

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

He still seems nice in the film though. He allows Solomon to try his idea for moving the logs, he saves him from hanging and tries to protect him from Tibeats, eventually selling him to save him. He even tries to buy Eliza's kids to keep them together. Apart from the scene where Eliza questions his lack of action to help Solomon there isn't really that much done, in the film, to paint him as a villain.

I agree, he is at worst morally ambiguous in the film. I don't understand why McQueen thinks he's "the biggest villain in the film".

Tar.Aldarion

First_October wrote: »

I agree, he is at worst morally ambiguous in the film. I don't understand why McQueen thinks he's "the biggest villain in the film".

The idea is that these misguided men really thought that slaves were below them, as in it didn't factor in that they could possibly be doing wrong, the same as many/most people view animals now. A slave was the same as a piece of farming machinery or animal. You forget, what your "main villain" was doing was what everybody did then, it was a norm. There were thousands of people that were the same, more even, and often worse than him.

However this man knew it was wrong - it was against his morals and he did it any way, he knew he was ruining peoples lives that deserved equal rights, in a disgusting inhumane manner.

Mickeroo

Yeah, I totally see where McQueen is coming from with that. Epps completely thought he wasn't doing anything wrong, he didn't see the slaves as human no more than he would have viewed a farm animal or an ape human. Ford seemed conflicted over it though I'm not entirely convinced he didn't see the slaves as inferior either.

When Solomon is crumpled on the floor and tries to tell him who he really is Ford doesn't want to hear it, it almost seemed like he felt trapped by the system, that if he helped Solomon he'd be putting himself in danger somehow and was scared. It probably was the case considering Pitt's character too seemed scared and Epps more or less threatened him when they were having their philosophical discussion.

First_October

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The idea is that these misguided men really thought that slaves were below them, as in it didn't factor in that they could possibly be doing wrong, the same as many/most poeple view animals now. A slave was the same as a piece of farming machinery or animal.

However this man knew it was wrong, he knew he was ruining peoples lives that deserved equal rights, in a disgusting inhumane manner.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that just because they didn't believe they were doing wrong exonerated them in any way.

beauf

I've not seen the movie or read the book. But I did catch the Culture show.

From my memory McQueen suggested it because hes doing something he's morally opposed to for financial reasons, which hes not sure really is enough of a justification. McQueen though did relent and say something about him being trapped in the situation and not having any other options. I don't think it was as Black and White as some are suggesting. I think McQueen was interested in the conflict within the character.

It was an interesting discussion especially because they set it up with a bit of background of american culture and cinema's treatment of slavery in US history.

beauf

First_October wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that just because they didn't believe they were doing wrong exonerated them in any way.

I think the idea is that Ford knows exactly this.

Tar.Aldarion

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah, I totally see where McQueen is coming from with that. Epps completely thought he wasn't doing anything wrong, he didn't see the slaves as human no more than he would have viewed a farm animal or an ape human. Ford seemed conflicted over it though I'm not entirely convinced he didn't see the slaves as inferior either.

When Solomon is crumpled on the floor and tries to tell him who he really is Ford doesn't want to hear it, it almost seemed like he felt trapped by the system, that if he helped Solomon he'd be putting himself in danger somehow and was scared. It probably was the case considering Pitt's character too seemed scared and Epps more or less threatened him when they were having their philosophical discussion.

He also knew he was breaking the law, he knew that his salve was freeman by law, he also was sending him to a man known to treat his slaves horribly and he knew it. You could see from teh outset that he felt for these people, when he was buying slaves and trying to keep a family together, but greed and his eay life was getting the better of him, and that was pretty horrible imo.

Now look at the "bad guy", while he is a horrible person he is actually going along with social norms and what was believed at the time, and believed for hundreds of years. Horrible yes, but the former slavemaster knew exactly what he was doing.

It's like how I would view myself. I dont eat meat for ethical reasons, but if I did eat it I would think I was a worse person than somebody who didnt believe it was wrong to eat meat, as I am going against what I think is right in a serious way. This man knew black people were no different in his heart, knew his salve wa sa freeman anyway and then sent him to that evil bastard for money, now that is disgusting.

First_October wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that just because they didn't believe they were doing wrong exonerated them in any way.

It certainly doesn't exonerate them, all slave owners were bad people, but it's pretty bad to believe it is wrong and send a freeman illegally to a sadist for money.

poundapunnet

First_October wrote: »

Ford did sell Solomon to Tibeats (Dano), but only because of difficult financial circumstances, and before Tibeats made any attempts to kill him. This section of the film differs greatly from the book. For example, Tibeats attempts to kill Solomon several times and Solomon goes on the run through the Pacoudrie swamp only to be saved by the intervention of Ford. Ford even forces Tibeats to sell Solomon as he knows he will kill him eventually.

All I'm saying is that Ford is undoubtedly a good character in the book; McQueen seems to have removed most of Ford's good qualities and deeds from the film in order to have no good slave-owners. For McQueen to then call him a villain is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Ok I get what you're saying but I think it's fair to say that McQueen's comments like "Ford is the biggest villain in the film" are definitely referring to the character as presented in the film. I know in the book Solomon said things to the effect that if more slavers were like Ford then the evil of slavery would have been a lot less. Also McQueen did make a big deal over how closely the film stuck to the book, so he should have gone into more detail when talking about Ford about to what extent he was talking about the man and the character in the film.

And I would put myself as definitely in the camp of "there are no good slave owners, there are less bad slave owners". That's not to say most of us wouldn't have done exactly as Ford (in the film) did, if even, it's just saying that's wrong. And the book and the film are different.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

poundapunnet wrote: »

Ok I get what you're saying but I think it's fair to say that McQueen's comments like "Ford is the biggest villain in the film" are definitely referring to the character as presented in the film. I know in the book Solomon said things to the effect that if more slavers were like Ford then the evil of slavery would have been a lot less. Also McQueen did make a big deal over how closely the film stuck to the book, so he should have gone into more detail when talking about Ford about to what extent he was talking about the man and the character in the film.

I suppose that depends on what you consider to be the "evils of slavery". At the time Solomon wrote his book slavery was the norm so it's understandable that the very idea of people owning people wasn't considered to be the biggest evil of all. For a modern day audience though it's hard to see any slave owner as a good slave owner. They all profited off the back of these people, whether they were nice to them or not.

Irish Aris

Saw this yesterday, having avoided all discussions/reviews.
It grabbed from the first few minutes and never let me go until the end.
I found the story extremely powerful and the fact that it wasn't turn into a melodrama made it even more powerful.
Reading today this thread and the discussion about the "villains": while I was watching the film, I got the impression that most of the slavers were weak, pathetic men that circumstances made them "the masters". Certainly for the characters that portrayed by Cumberbatch and Dano, less so for Fassbender-he came across to me as pathetic at certain scenes, but when the saddist kicked in, he was repulsive. Not his best performance ever (difficult for me to top what he did in Shame), but quite good.
McQueen does justice to some of the supporting characters, even on the limited time they have on screen. As mentioned earlier, I also found Sarah Paulson brilliant: in true Marie-Antoinette style ("some food and rest will help you forget your children"), she dominated the scenes she had, even outshining Fassbender. Alfre Woodard in the one scene she had, she gave authority to her character. Paul Dano, very solid as the detestable Tibeats. Lupita Nyong'o absolutely perfect as Patsey.
And then Chiwetel Ejiofor. At first it seemed as that the weight of the character would lead his performance. No such thing. He is just perfect. Three scenes in particular:

the funeral, the whipping of Patsey and the family reunion

. I am sure he was helped by the filming style of McQueen that allows room to his actors, but he was Solomon Northup from start to finish.

Not that I bother a great deal about the Oscars, but I would love to see this winning over Gravity or American Hustle.

A great film experience.

SamAK

Great film, powerful and all that...but I thought the ending was vague and weak.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Irish Aris wrote: »

McQueen does justice to some of the supporting characters, even on the limited time they have on screen. As mentioned earlier, I also found Sarah Paulson brilliant: in true Marie-Antoinette style ("some food and rest will help you forget your children"), she dominated the scenes she had, even outshining Fassbender.

Not disagreeing with you at all but it was actually Ford's wife who said some food and rest would help her forget her children. But yes, everything else you said was spot on.

I was actually wondering... should Lupita Nyong'o have been nominated for best actress rather than supporting actress, and Sarah Paulson would have been deserving of a best supporting actress nod. I mean, if Judi Dench can win one for 5 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love I don't see why not?

Irish Aris

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you at all but it was actually Ford's wife who said some food and rest would help her forget her children. But yes, everything else you said was spot on.

I was actually wondering... should Lupita Nyong'o have been nominated for best actress rather than supporting actress, and Sarah Paulson would have been deserving of a best supporting actress nod. I mean, if Judi Dench can win one for 5 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love I don't see why not?

you're right of course, I mixed up the scenes.

Not sure if Lupita Nyong'o could be in the best actress category. The criteria seem to be rather unclear.
I remember a debate the year of "The Hours". I recall reading somewhere that Nicole Kidman's character has less screen time than Julianne Moore's but was considered more important (or something of the sort) so she ended up at the best actress category and Moore at the supporting actress.
As for Dame Judi Dench, she said it all in her acceptance speech back then: "I feel for 8 minutes on the screen, I should only get a little bit of him". I mean, of all her great performances throughout the years, she got the Oscar for something that easy, just because of the hype of the film. Too much "politics" in the Academy Awards to deal with them seriously (although I recall waking up in the middle of the night to watch them live when I was younger. . .)

arsenal1991

Amazing film.

darced

This post has been deleted.

e_e

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:eek:

Did you watch it on a tv perchance? This was one of best pure cinema experiences I had in a while.

NoelJ

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I saw it and thought the exact same. It really didn't live up to the hype. There wasn't anything that really interested me throughout the movie.

hedgehog2

NoelJ wrote: »

I saw it and thought the exact same. It really didn't live up to the hype. There wasn't anything that really interested me throughout the movie.

We must have watched a different film as I see this as probably one of the best movies in the past 10yrs.
I was unaware of the story and delighted to know it now.

johnny_ultimate

One simple example of how the film is, most definitely, not on 'made for TV' level (among many, it should be said): aesthetics.

TV has grown up a lot in recent years, whether that's the mood colouring / costume design of Breaking Bad or the slick, widescreen and sombre presentation of something like House of Cards or The Bridge. But 12 Years a Slave illustrates how there's still a huge gap in cinematography and teletography (yes, I think I just made that word up), and I say that as someone who's really excited about the leaps and bounds many programmes have made in that regard. This is storytelling where the camera is as important as any of the literal events being portrayed on screen, and how it enhances the emotion, themes and overall depth of the piece. It pains me when I hear people dismiss this film as 'conventional' or mere Oscar bait, because McQueen actually brings an experimental or at least deeply cine-literate spirit along with him. The way he uses long takes, close-ups, moving cameras and (not cinematography, but still) diegetic music puts it well and truly above the level of visual and audio storytelling we typically experience on television, only a handful of truly exceptional shows aside, and indeed far, far above your bog standard cinematic historical recreation. The film also manages an elegant balance between what is explicitly verbalised and what is left unsaid - there's much subtlety underneath the charged, emotive outbursts or acts of violence. Just look at that Roll Jordan Roll scene - everything that needs to be said transmitted through a song, Ejiofor's performance and the decision to keep the camera in intimate close-up. TV ain't got nothing on that.

e_e

Agreed. I struggle to think of a single scene from TV's supposed "golden age" that says so much through so little as the

hanging

scene does here. I had that rare gut feeling, tingle down the spine and lump in my throat that only cinema can offer during many moments in 12 Years a Slave.

hefferboi

e_e wrote: »

Agreed. I struggle to think of a single scene from TV's supposed "golden age" that says so much through so little as the

hanging

scene does here. I had that rare gut feeling, tingle down the spine and lump in my throat that only cinema can offer during many moments in 12 Years a Slave.

The

throat cutting

scene in Breaking Bad is the only t.v scene that comes close to this feeling for me.

e_e

That's a strong scene but it is over the top graphic and is pretty much there to show

Gus's

callousness, doesn't really say as much about society as a whole.

The power of the 12YAS scene is in how quiet and understated it is, really shows the banality of the institution of slavery and how this kind of thing was really not uncommon at the time. The distance + length of the scene and the portrayal of life carrying on regardless was so strong to me. I got a greater sense of the structure of American society from that one long take than I did with the majority of Django Unchained.

Da Shins Kelly

I actually think there were moments in The Sopranos and The Wire that had a lot more to say about American society than Breaking Bad (not that Breaking Bad isn't fantastic), and a lot of films, particularly in Hollywood. In The Sopranos the whole idea that these mobsters pretty much embody the concept of the American Dream and yet are despised and pretty much live on the peripherals because of it was pretty interesting to me. There's a great scene where Tony explains to Melfi how he doesn't even consider himself white really, and that he sees himself as totally separate to his white upper-middle class neighbours. Not to mention all the suburban anxieties of American life at play in that show (early morning epiphanies, trying to explain complex issues to children, etc.). The Wire is culturally and racially significant and displays a truth about those who have been left behind in urban America. It sheds light on the gross inequities and complete hopelessness for some people really in American society.

It is a golden age for television and those shows could put a lot of Hollywood to shame with the acting talent on display and the depth and attention to detail in the writing. 12 Years A Slave is one of the only films I've seen recently that I would look upon with the same kind of fondness that I'd look at The Sopranos or The Wire with.

Da Shins Kelly

In fact, on the topic of saying a lot through so little, in season 1 of The Wire. The politics of the street explained through chess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0mxz2-AQ64

e_e

Yeah I was considering putting The Wire as an exception in my past post, but those shows are more cumulative than individual movies so they do have time to explore their theme.

I think 12YAS is a great piece of work for entirely different reasons though, because it uses cinema to an advantage with extraordinary aesthetics, use of widescreen and impressionist editing of the story that next to no TV does. Sometimes the directness and simplicity of a 2 hour film can express ideas more strongly than a 12 hour season of television.

e_e

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

In fact, on the topic of saying a lot through so little, in season 1 of The Wire. The politics of the street explained through chess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0mxz2-AQ64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfidBh_hAOE

Also when it's called back upon here, powerful stuff. Then again though there's little here that can't be portrayed in a lengthy novel either since it's much to do with the dialogue.

Da Shins Kelly

e_e wrote: »

Yeah I was considering putting The Wire as an exception in my past post, but those shows are more cumulative than individual movies so they do have time to explore their theme.

I think 12YAS is a great piece of work for entirely different reasons though, because it uses cinema to an advantage with extraordinary aesthetics, use of widescreen and impressionist editing of the story that next to no TV does. Sometimes the directness and simplicity of a 2 hour film can express ideas more strongly than a 12 hour season of television.

I think a lot of movies fail to utilize their two hours effectively though. 12 Years A Slave is an example of a film not wasting a second and pretty much saying something important all the time. It's a perfect film, for me.

Television does have the advantage of being drawn out over potentially years, giving time to develop characters and plots and allowing actors to fully embody their characters convincingly. In truth, The Sopranos isn't anything we haven't seen before (Goodfellas, The Godfather, etc.), but it's so much more fleshed out to the point you were so thoroughly invested in the characters and the story by the end that it was sad to see it finish. It was beautifully shot too with some unbelievable performances. The dynamics between James Gandolfini and Edie Falco were incredible.

Would The Wire really have worked as a novel though? It's novel-like in its writing and multi-layered plot, but I'm not sure it would have come off the page as well as it did off the screen! Television is arguably a much more powerful tool these days than books too. Showing something like The Wire on television and having it reach a lot of people is pretty commendable.

e_e

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Would The Wire really have worked as a novel though? It's novel-like in its writing and multi-layered plot, but I'm not sure it would have come off the page as well as it did off the screen! Television is arguably a much more powerful tool these days than books too. Showing something like The Wire on television and having it reach a lot of people is pretty commendable.

Yeah I agree with this, especially for the show as a whole. Was just comparing that one chess scene to the one I mentioned in 12YAS, which I feel wouldn't have worked as well in any other medium.

darced

This post has been deleted.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I mentioned this before but personally I didn't find the violence shocking or the overall story to be all that surprising. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of slavery in the US should know all of these things happened and worse.

What was shocking was the attitude that everyone had towards it, the slaves on display like merchandise in a shop, children taken from their parents, the casual attitude that even the other slaves had towards the violence inflected on them. That's what was shocking.

I'm not sure I've seen that many people praise it for the violence it portrays.

johnny_ultimate

I do think there's a hell of a lot of brilliantly written, acted and directed television out there - I finished watching season two of The Bridge last night which was emotionally devastating stuff. But I still think filmmakers are telling stories and creating images in ways that TV hasn't come near yet, although I do think that can be explained by a number factors (the nature of serialised storytelling, the more commercial nature of TV, an 'arthouse' / auteur culture that is still finding its feet on television, not forgetting the basic practical differences between shooting a feature and TV). Of course, TV also has the luxury of being able to tell stories in more elaborate ways, and obviously there's countless benefits to being able to tell an epic story over multiple seasons rather than a two hour film. Funnily enough, while I adore many of the shows mentioned above to absolute bits, I think Louie is the most radical example of television art yet. The complex, imaginative and subtle ways Louis CK communicates his themes and stories never ceases to amaze me, as well as being really ****ing funny.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't really think the violence was meant to 'impress' us - not the word I'd use anyway, and I certainly don't think that's the reason the film has received such accolades. It's to McQueen's credit, I believe, that he's able to aim the camera at images other than just the bloody, raw violence. The first scene of Solomon's torture is particularly uncomfortable because it focuses on his facial reaction rather than the horrible deed itself. Portraying brutality can be done in far more thoughtful ways than mere shocking shots of blood and guts.

If you do end up watching again, pay attention to the way Patsey's whipping sequence is filmed - it's one of many key and expertly realised sequences in the film. It features stunning, unbroken camerawork, and it drifts between perspectives and focus to give a more thorough examination of the incident - rather than just dwelling on the violence, it also communicates the reactions of Solomon, Epps, Patsey and more. The way the camera moves enhances the drama and terrible intimacy of the sequence, far more so than if McQueen had simply pointed it at the graphic whipping itself - I have to say, though that the brief glance we got, IMO, was extremely brutal and shocking.

Obviously everyone has a different response to a film - I find it genuinely emotionally harrowing, but I can't reasonably expect that everyone else did and there's only so far anyone can describe their own personal reaction. But you definitely seem to have misinterpreted why the film has received such praise - to me, it's not because of sheer shock value, it's because it's a powerful story told in a fascinating and complex way.

Psychedelic

Not shocking in any way (how can anyone be shocked by seeing someone being whipped and beaten, it's been done in tons of films), no deep meaning and no surprises, it played out exactly as the trailer showed it would.

Slavery is bad, the end. That was all this film meant to me. It was certainly not a bad movie, but just very ordinary. I also got a made-for-TV vibe off it.

e_e

Psychedelic wrote: »

Not shocking in any way (how can anyone be shocked by seeing someone being whipped and beaten, it's been done in tons of films), no deep meaning and no surprises, it played out exactly as the trailer showed it would.

Were people expecting a snuff film or something?

Watch the film again not expecting to get off on violence, you may appreciate it. Again I am utterly baffled by the "made for tv" claims.

e_e

It's not even remotely as straightforward as "slavery is bad" either.

tunguska

Finally got around to seeing this at the weekend and I was blown away by it. I'd heard very mixed reviews so expectations werent high or low going in. I had heard this film being compared to the passion of the christ and wasnt overly enthusiastic about seeing another torture porn flick. But it wasnt anywhere near what the passion of the christ was in terms of brutality. I mean there were some scenes that were pretty vicious but nothing like people had made out.
But from start to finish I loved it. The acting from everybody was in a different league, fassbender was phenomenal. I thought he was great in shame but he's taken it to another level here. Jared leto will probably get the oscar but for me its fassbender's oscar. He reminded me a lot of Ralph fiennes in schindlers list......only times 100. He could be a nice guy one minute and then a complete psychopath the next. I've known some crazy mother ****ers in my life and that is one trait they all shared, that unpredictability, where they can change into monsters in the blink of an eye.
Great film.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I





If you do end up watching again, pay attention to the way Patsey's whipping sequence is filmed - it's one of many key and expertly realised sequences in the film. It features stunning, unbroken camerawork, and it drifts between perspectives and focus to give a more thorough examination of the incident - rather than just dwelling on the violence, it also communicates the reactions of Solomon, Epps, Patsey and more. The way the camera moves enhances the drama and terrible intimacy of the sequence, far more so than if McQueen had simply pointed it at the graphic whipping itself - I have to say, though that the brief glance we got, IMO, was extremely brutal and shocking.

Obviously everyone has a different response to a film - I find it genuinely emotionally harrowing, but I can't reasonably expect that everyone else did and there's only so far anyone can describe their own personal reaction. But you definitely seem to have misinterpreted why the film has received such praise - to me, it's not because of sheer shock value, it's because it's a powerful story told in a fascinating and complex way.

The shot that stayed with me the most was when Solomon was just left there strung up and people were going about their business in the background, just another day on a plantation, the camera lingers to a point where its just uncomfortable watching time try to stay on his toes and not choke.

darced

This post has been deleted.

e_e

I understand that but am a little bemused at people complaining about lack of brutality, as if they were only watching the film to see torture porn. One of the strengths of the film imo is how it walks a line between being difficult to watch and merciful for both the characters and audience.

I literally just saw the film for a second time today and am in awe all over again at how the film handles violence. I'm also very thankful that it didn't go all Passion of the Christ (probably one of my most hated films) when it came to the tougher scenes, that would have been an easy out for McQueen to just inflict pain on the audience and it would have been truly tactless for both the subject and the people who paid money to see it.

wandatowell

Boring film. Im not bothered by the lack of violence. I cant take it or leave it when it comes to torture scenes and the like.

The movies was average. I didnt care about the characters like I did in other movies. I will never watch this film again.


Cannot understand the w*nkfest over it. I'd give it a miss if you haven't seen it yet.

e_e

wandatowell wrote: »

I'd give it a miss if you haven't seen it yet.

Why turn people away from a film they may end up loving? You're clearly in the minority.

Even with films I hated I'd say "Give it a go, you might like it more than me."

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I really don't understand these "made for TV" comments.

To me "made for TV" movies are the abysmal melodramatic nonsense churned out by Lifetime and the likes. "My Baby's Baby Lost Her Job At The Factory and I Have to Sell My Body to Pay The Bills but I Formed a Union and Now We're Grand" type of things.

I don't see where people are coming from when they call this film "made for TV". I get that some people just don't like it, but how is it in anyway "made for TV".

Someone needs to elaborate for me.

Psychedelic

e_e wrote: »

Were people expecting a snuff film or something?

Watch the film again not expecting to get off on violence, you may appreciate it. Again I am utterly baffled by the "made for tv" claims.

From what I picked up on from reviews & comments beforehand, it seemed like the violence was a key part as to why people thought it was powerful.

To be honest I can't figure out why myself but I just felt at times there was something 'made for tv' about it.

e_e wrote: »

It's not even remotely as straightforward as "slavery is bad" either.

That was all I really got from it.

e_e

They wouldn't have spent millions of dollars and used such painstakingly detail to tell the story just to say something as banal as "slavery is bad". It's more about sharing in the character's remarkable experience, seeing his crisis of identity as well as the psychological and physical torment that was inflicted on him and other black people.

I think narrowing it down to one simple message is really reductive given how much there is to consider in the film, from the class structures presented to the systematic dehumanization to the inner conflict of the oppressors. It's to the film's credit that it's in no way didactic or condescending with any of this.

Da Shins Kelly

An interesting dimension to it that I found was the lack of solidarity between slaves that is depicted. Solomon starts out saying "I want to do more than survive, I want to live", but by the end it's all about simply surviving. Part of that means turning your back on your own people at times in order to save your own skin. Also, the sheer normality of it all -

that someone should be left to hang from a tree for a whole day

without anyone saying a word or doing anything - shows a real desensitization to it all. Solomon had the unique perspective of an individual who knew life as a freeman before he knew life as a slave, and so knew that it didn't have to be this way. Many slaves didn't realize this and as such the brutality that was brought upon them was seen as part of life, part of their lot, and so trying to create mutual support between slaves with common goals and desires became a lot more difficult. How do you explain to someone who knows no different and is beaten day in day out for anything that could be considered a transgression that there is more to life than simply surviving?

The film raises lots of interesting questions beyond the banal "slavery is bad".

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

An interesting dimension to it that I found was the lack of solidarity between slaves that is depicted.

A thing that stood out to me was the use of the "N" word by the slaves themselves. They used it as a derogatory term themselves. On the ship on the way down to Louisiana one of the guys is saying the others won't help because they're useless N******, and again later some of the characters use it to distance themselves from those who work in the fields.

Obviously the white slave owners used it to demean their slaves but it was surprising to me that they used it themselves, and not in the way that rappers and such use it now. I'd love to have a conversation with someone who is an expert on black history and see what they have to say about the use of the word now.

timthumbni

tunguska wrote: »

Finally got around to seeing this at the weekend and I was blown away by it. I'd heard very mixed reviews so expectations werent high or low going in. I had heard this film being compared to the passion of the christ and wasnt overly enthusiastic about seeing another torture porn flick. But it wasnt anywhere near what the passion of the christ was in terms of brutality. I mean there were some scenes that were pretty vicious but nothing like people had made out.
But from start to finish I loved it. The acting from everybody was in a different league, fassbender was phenomenal. I thought he was great in shame but he's taken it to another level here. Jared leto will probably get the oscar but for me its fassbender's oscar. He reminded me a lot of Ralph fiennes in schindlers list......only times 100. He could be a nice guy one minute and then a complete psychopath the next. I've known some crazy mother ****ers in my life and that is one trait they all shared, that unpredictability, where they can change into monsters in the blink of an eye.
Great film.

Now I can't agree regarding Ralph Fiennes character in Schindler's List. To say that fassbenders character was 100x a bigger head the ball is simply untrue. Whilst fassbenders character was unsavory he was practically mother Teresa compared to SS officer Amon goeth.

I still think that Fiennes performance in that movie was one of the best I can recall from any actor. I've watched Schindler's list probably upwards of a dozen times and each time my jaw drops at the performances.

Regarding 12 years a slave I watched it and thought it was ok but will never watch it again. I can see why people say it has the vibe of a made for TV movie.
I didn't find it particularly interesting nor shocking and I have a inkling that a lot of the critical praise stems from the subject matter as opposed to the movie itself.

Fassbenders performance was ok but I never really lost myself in the film and was left checking how long was left a number of times. (Possibly the biggest warning sign for me that I wasn't really entertained)

Would have suited a tv slot over 2 nights better methinks. ;-)

hefferboi

timthumbni wrote: »

Now I can't agree regarding Ralph Fiennes character in Schindler's List. To say that fassbenders character was 100x a bigger head the ball is simply untrue. Whilst fassbenders character was unsavory he was practically mother Teresa compared to SS officer Amon goeth.

I still think that Fiennes performance in that movie was one of the best I can recall from any actor. I've watched Schindler's list probably upwards of a dozen times and each time my jaw drops at the performances.

Regarding 12 years a slave I watched it and thought it was ok but will never watch it again. I can see why people say it has the vibe of a made for TV movie.
I didn't find it particularly interesting nor shocking and I have a inkling that a lot of the critical praise stems from the subject matter as opposed to the movie itself.

Fassbenders performance was ok but I never really lost myself in the film and was left checking how long was left a number of times. (Possibly the biggest warning sign for me that I wasn't really entertained)

Would have suited a tv slot over 2 nights better methinks. ;-)

I watched it before all the hype and didn't know an awful lot about it other than it was about slavery and had a very strong cast. I don't really care about subject matter when deciding if I like a movie or not. I just take it for what it is and at the end of 12 Years I thought I'd watched one of the best movies I've ever seen. I honestly can't understand the made for t.v comments. I just think its the usual type of people who go against the grain when anything is universally lauded. This movie has gotten great reviews so naturally a few people will go into the movie with the mindset from the start that they don't like it because everyone else does.

Snickers Man

Saw it a few days ago and I have to say I was hugely disappointed by it.

It has a strong cast and there are some very good scenes such as the funeral scene and the "Roll Jordan Roll" scene to which some have earlier alluded but I don't think there was much in the script that was at all enlightening or subtle about the depictions of the relations between the slaves themselves or between those and their various masters.

Any such scenes that were there were very understated and so short as to be of a "blink and you miss it" variety.

One such is the scene with the wife of the neighbouring plantation's owner hinting to Patsy that if she makes herself available to her abuser she just might become mistress of the plantation one day, because after all, it worked for her. OK. Not too subtle at all really

I note that Steve McQueen considers Benedict Cumberpatch's character to be the greatest villain in the film, greater presumably than the array of kidnappers, floggers, lynchers and rapists that are elsewhere depicted. Well, he might have had a point if that character was more fully drawn, had a tad more dialogue or lasted longer in the movie than the short period he was given.

A film which set out to explore the moral turpitude of a God-fearing evangelizing "nice" slave owner like Cumberpatch/Ford might have been a good one, certainly better than this gore-fest which uses a sledge hammer to crack a nut. And indeed, a nut that has already been opened.

I disagree that this film would be unpopular in the US because of its being close to the bone, historically and morally. On the contrary, the fact that it IS so far in the past allows Americans to damn previous generations as hypocritical brutal self-centred and barbaric safe in the knowledge that "we're not like that now". The more brutal the depiction, the more distance we can clear between the people of then and now.

But that is merely providing a comfort blanket for today's generation. "We don't wup **** at the post

just because they incur the massa's wife's jealousy

any more. Because we're better than that." And of course that provokes the corollary: "So what have they still got to complain about?"

A better film would have teased out the more uncomfortable moral issues by making the characters more familiar to today's audience and showing the seductive techniques of enslavement as much as, or at least as well as, the more brutal ones.

Who needs to be told that flogging people to within an inch of their life is wrong? Do we really need to be on our guard against public lynchings as indicators of a society in crisis? For much of the film, the depiction of moral dilemmas was depressingly infantile.

That is not the fault of the actors: it's the fault of the script, which last night won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

How it did so is beyond me. Or it would be if I thought that genuine writing merit was what garnered this award.

Not a great movie at all.

upstairs for coffee

Why did Steve McQueen totally blank the writer and look very upset?

Penn

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

Why did Steve McQueen totally blank the writer and look very upset?

I saw on some news link that apparently McQueen feels he should have gotten a co-writing credit for the Adapted Screenplay instead of it just being the writer. Not sure how true any of that actually is though.

Was I the only one who didn't think Lupita Nyong'o's performance was Oscar-worthy? I thought she did a perfectly good job in the film but in terms of acting performance, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender were much better. I wouldn't have considered her performance to be near that level (though obviously, neither Ejiofor nor Fassbender were nominated for Supporting Actress ).