"12 Years A Slave": The Movie

I didn't realize it was Fassbender in the movie.... Solid actor.

 

The most emotional moments for me were bloodless. And character development was superb, especially in making the villains (the Epps, for example) complex, conflicted and three-dimensional.

It sounds like you were distracted by the violence.

 

When you look at Roots, it is shot like a TV show and paced like a TV show. It doesn't have the stunning cinematography of 12 Years a Slave, nor does it take the same risks in frame composition and pacing. Roots would have never had the nerve to show Kunta Kinte hanging from a tree, toes barely touching the ground, for several minutes. Nor would they have known how to properly increase the feeling of claustrophobia during the initial beating scene to show how there was no escape from Solomon Northup's fate. Steve McQueen is far more sophisticated of a filmmaker than Marvin J. Chomsky, John Erman, David Green and Gilbert Moses were--those guys were mostly TV guys, albeit Emmy winners, who had to deal with the limits of the medium.

As I said, I liked Roots, and it was certainly revolutionary for 1977 television, but it's not at the same artistic level as 12 Years a Slave in my opinion.

 

We are comparing apples & oranges...TV & film. Prior to some of HBO's recent material, slow pacing on TV could only be found on public television (i.e. Upstairs, Downstairs). Why was that? Fear of losing viewers?
Limits indeed.

 

Plus there's the whole issue of the source material. Roots was basically a genealogy study by a writer about his family, while 12 Years a Slave was a first-hand account. That's part of the reason why Roots looks like a re-enactment with actors, and 12 Years a Slave offers a more realistic portrayal of how it actually might have been.

 

No, I wasn't "distracted" by anything - I was left cold by the lack of character development and the general absence of a story beyond "whip whip scream scream". The lead character was essentially a cipher - only Patsey demonstrated the closest thing to a three-dimensional personality. I feel the director relied on the graphic violence because he wasn't able to make an impact on the viewer without it...

 

I'm not convinced. I saw a different film, one where there was only one scene that was truly bloody. Much of the violence was implicit--there was always the threat of it, which made it seem like it was more omnipresent than it was. (It's sort of like Psycho and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where people think they saw much more violence and gore than they did.) When it did culminate in that scene, however, it was shocking because the director set it up that way...here is the horror that you, the viewer, have been anticipating, and it's far worse than you imagined.

The idea that Chiwetel Ejiofor didn't deliver a fully developed performance boggles the mind. Much has been made about his ability to show Solomon's dignity throughout the film, but I especially enjoyed how Solomon's intelligence was able to get him into hot water in the short term, but protect him in the long term. You could see it all in Ejiofor's eyes, when we lost his will, when he regained it as he sung the spiritual, how he dumbed himself down to save his own life, how he lit up when he encountered--or thought he encountered--someone who would be sympathetic to his plight. And if the final scene wasn't great acting, I don't know what is.

 

Saw it a few days ago and it didn't stick with me, really.

I think it was a good film, but not great. Or maybe it was pretty great but short of being a classic. Overrated IMO.

The subject matter is rough - really rough - but it's no The Pianist, which the film reminded me of a bit.

I didn't feel for Solomon the way I did for the main character in The Pianist. I understand that the events were mostly happening around those main characters, but I can think of many films about horrific times in our history and beyond-despicable actions committed by people on others that were better.

This does not feel like the end-all-be-all of films about an American's journey through this dark part of Africa and America's history (actually, they didn't touch on Africans selling other Africans) - so just the US at that time. I have to check out The Color Purple again as I remember it being far better than this film.

12 Years feels authentic (partly owing to the bordering-on-ridiculous extended takes perhaps) - but this is more of an actor's film than a film film. I mean, it's a showcase for the leads and they are all great. Those long takes, allowing the actors to subtly chew the scenery in a subdued way) felt like a Director's trick and I kept falling out of the film and getting back to the mindset of "Steve McQueen is directing a movie about slavery and wants his actors to get an Oscar".

If you see the film - and it's worth seeing - you won't learn anything you don't know about the subject already unless you've been living under a rock your whole life, but you will see excellent performances.

Jeff

 

I never said he did a poor job in the role - I said the character was a cipher.

You thought the movie was great, I didn't - oh well!

 

Right now, i'm trying to decide if I really want to jump in here, since I have a different perspective on this than most of the people on this forum. But, what i'm wondering here is why would we want to avoid repeating any negative aspects of it. Are there any positives?

It's getting really hard to stay out of this...but, what I would have to say would go over your heads or piss you all off anyway, so...

Damn straight! Most of the South, White, Indian, and Black were poor, and left even in worse shape after the war.

 

But, to make the impact, people must see the truth, not the "Gone With The Wind" crap that wound up romanticizing it.

Slavery, as we recognize it, is over, and it's great that this film was made. But, what I think is more important to tell is of what happened after the Reconstruction, with the rise of hate groups. "Rosewood" was one of the very few films that ventured into that territory as of yet.

 

I guess it's distracting if your a movie buff, which I know you are. Me? I don't pay much attention to actors. I just pay attention to the story that is being told.

Yes, seemingly "good" people have racist attitudes, either by cultural nurturing, or by something else. But, I fail to see how a racist can be a good person, because those attitudes affect the way they treat others.

 

I think you misunderstood my comment about "good people". That had nothing to do with the characters or anyone who historically had slaves - it regarded the actors involved in "Roots".

I think psychologically, it has more of an impact if "TV nice guy" Lorne Greene plays a mean slave-owner than if, say, Jack Palance plays the role. We associate Palance with bad guys and will encounter no cognitive dissonance when he abuses humans.

But to see Greene - or Robert Reed, or Ralph Waite - engage in malicious behaviors? That's gonna create a disconnect that makes it harder for the viewer to simply shrug and say "only 'bad people' had slaves" or whatever.

Actors bring their public histories to roles - they don't act in a vacuum. I mean, don't you think it'd be more startling and unnerving to see Mr. Rogers whip someone rather than Peter Lorre?

 

I've never endorsed projects that "romanticize" the slave days. I agree that "Gone With the Wind" is pretty awful in terms of its political viewpoint - the whole movie is a wistful apology for slavery.

I just think other projects have told the tale of slavery-related horror better than "12 Years" is all...

 

I got your point the first time. What you say can be true for most movie fans, I suppose, but, there isn't such a disconnect with me. I can totally see someone like Alan Alda playing a bad guy.

 

Of course GWTW was made in a different era in a different culture, before the world changed in the 60s and 70s.

 

I thought the film was very effective and the acting was quite good...I would be surprised if this movie was not nominated for best picture. I think it has a very good chance of winning although I did enjoy Gravity a little more because of the 3D effects.

 

Heck, given the makeup of the Academy I'd say it's odds-on favourite for Best Picture.

 

It'll definitely be nominated. Even if the Oscars still limited the BP slate to 5 films, I think it'd get a nom, but with the option of up to 10 films, I think it's a lock for a nom.

A WIN is a different matter, though - still a bunch of potential contenders yet to hit screens, so who knows what'll be the favorite?

 

My inside sources, who are right most of the time (except for last year, when there was no clear consensus in a very unique year), say that it's currently the front-runner for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor and possibly Best Supporting Actor (Fassbender). These predictions do tend to change after the nominations come out and the publicity machines rev up, but all the indicators are there for a decent sweep.

Almost everything that will be released this year has been seen by most of the industry (Scorsese is still working on his film, but I know people who have seen the rough cut), so it's unlikely that something will come out of the woodwork at this point. Gravity is the biggest rival, and it's hurt by the fact that it's not scientifically accurate and by the fact that sci-fi does not do well with the Academy. Bullock, however, is the front-runner for Best Actress, and it has a good chance for Original Screenplay. Other films likely to be nominated are Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, Nebraska, Inside Llewyn Davis, Lee Daniels' The Butler, American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street and Dallas Buyers Club.

In addition, Chiwetel Ejiofor could be upset by one of two underappreciated vets...Bruce Dern and Robert Redford. And Tom Hanks did deliver what many feel is his best performance ever. But 12 Years a Slave is going to be the big winner overall.

 

I had a dream last night the Cohen Bros were hugging, highfiving, while hoisting the little man. Never bet against those guys.

 

Why? They've only won once out of many times.

The word on Inside Llewyn Davis is that it looks and feels like a low-budget indie, and that it's a real downer. That's not exactly Oscar bait. That said, it's supposed to be great and it will please many Coen Brothers fans. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

I know people who are still bitter about the Watts riots out in L.A. in the 60s, and the post OJ Simpson riots in the 90s. They're still talking about Reginald Denny.

 

Both of you are right. I think all Beatlematt was saying is that other regions in the country were/are also guilty of the same mindset. They just somehow get a pass because they are not in the south.

 

Or, Chicago!

The whole period in our history is one that has not been told properly. Many groups sympathetic to the confederacy, twist everything to suit their agenda. But, the truth is there, and must be told, every ugly bit. But, even during the early-to-mid part of the 19th century, there were actually mixed-neighborhoods in places like Indiana an Ohio, and free Blacks even rallied together for labor rights. For a time, Whites and Indians lived in peace. Western towns were not lawless. Hollywood has done a lot to distort history and alter people's perceptions of what was.

"Roots"? The film didn't do a whole lot to change minds. As I recall, it exposed the racism in a lot of people, and I remember Alex Haley being accused of lying, among other things.

Some people today will tell us that slavery has never really gone away. Target Black, indigent males, put them in prison based on bad, discriminatory drug laws, and, instantly, they are once again held captive with no freedoms, making licence plates and picking up litter on the side of the road with the "overseers".

Nothing much changes.