"12 Years A Slave": The Movie

Hollywood is in the business of making money via producing ENTERTAINMENT. The topics you describe have about as much commercial potential as trying to sell Slim Whitman albums to hip-hop fans.

 

Am hoping to get to the theater to see this film this week. Meanwhile, I've printed out the source narrative and am going to give it a look. For anyone who is interested, the original published narrative is in the public domain and available online here: http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/northup/northup.html

There is also a course that's just begun on Coursera (meaning it's open to anyone, and free) on the history of slavery in the American South, which I mention partly because a portion of Northrup's narrative is on the required reading list, for week 7 (March 3-9) (which is how I found it online), so presumably there will be some discussion of it in the course. The course is taught by Stephanie McCurry, a professor of history at Penn. Having just listened to the first lecture, I think it looks to be a very strong course: https://www.coursera.org/course/slavesouth

 

I thought it was an excellent film, the best film I've watched for a long time, well scripted, acted and shot, McQueen definitely has an artist's eye for shots. I think he handled the material perfectly, it's a very powerful and emotional film without a hint of Hollywood spin, although I would have preferred a lesser known actor for the Brad Pitt role, it definitely deserves some Oscars.

 

Can't remember what he has said exactly regarding this point. Although, both 'Django Unchained' and 'Inglourious Basterds' are revenge fantasies that wildly divert from historical fact. IIRC, Tarantino stated in an interview that he was originally inspired by a scene in 'Roots' where an ex-slave acts mercfully towards a former slave owner and does not kill him when given the chance. Taratino said something to the effect, "Of course, we - the audience - want him to kill the ex-slave owner." [I think that's in the Charlie Rose interview, linked below.]

Tarantino has impressed me as an intelligent guy, but I don't know how well read he is. I've always gotten the impression from interviews I've seen or read is that his knowledge of history was gleaned for the most part from films not books.

Here's his interview on 'Charlie Rose' regarding 'Django'.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/film...-django-unchained-9__lPM7CTCClTOt75SjmEQ.html

 

Movies like these are simply part of the historiography of historical events or times. That is, a continuum of how present society interprets its past for present consumption. With the arrival of filmmaking a separate new field was added to the mix. Movies rarely depict prior history 'accurately,' but rather, try to convey a feeling or a message to the sensibilities and emotions of the modern audience, and ideally; present a good, moving story. The old south with all its civil war, slavery, and cultural history is probably second only to the portrayal of the westward movement when it comes to creating film drama of our own history. Both genres tend to fixate on or emphasize stereotypes that play into the big mythological drama - because thats what makes a movie interesting. I love watching these sort of movies for the settings and the story or plot, even if I cringe occasionally at the more technical inaccuracies. With Tarantino movies, they have to be viewed as style over substance. They remind me of the best Hong Kong gangster flicks, implausible at moments but thrilling and very 'artistic.'

 

Both 'Roots' the book and the subsequent tv mini-series were promoted as the depiction of true life events that occurred within Haley's family - i.e. fact, reality. The book was a work of fiction - loosely based upon Haley's family history/ lore - and in fact was a plagiarized work of fiction. Haley was sued by another author who claimed Haley had plagiarized his novel dealing with similar subject matter. Haley eventually settled [in favour of the plaintiff] and made a public statement admitting to plagiarism, but not before he was was publicly condemned as a plagiarist by the presiding judge and it was made quite clear that Haley had in fact lied about his knowledge and copying of the other author's book. I'm not certain when it occurred, but the publisher started to label the book a "novel" on the cover. Haley's own purported, extensive research into his genealogy traced back to Africa was also concretely brought into question and it was shown that [to use a polite term] much it was fudged and made up. The various accusations of Haley either lying or cheating were solidly based upon fact.

Whether any of that interferes with the appreciation of the themes and messages of the book and the tv mini-series is another question.

 

So I went ahead and saw it this afternoon. I thought the film was tremendous, very effective, gut-wrenching and moving and well-done. Among many others one thing is does quite well is illustrate the horror of the antebellum South from top to bottom, by which I mean not only the brutality of slavery on persons enslaved (though it conveys much of that), but also the hideousness of much of white Southern culture in that period as well, warped as it was by the political economy as well as the twisted psychosexual relations between male slaveowners and female slaves.

Yes, I think that's all pretty much right. It occurred to me that the direction was better for not being too obtrusive and demonstrative. The power of the material deserves a more subtle technique. There is though quite a bit of weight placed on Chiwetel Ejiofor, in a number of mid-range and close-up shots. His physical demeanor presents the character extremely well. I'd be flabbergasted if he didn't win the Best Actor award.

And it was a little jarring to see Brad Pitt there. He is so recognizable now that it can hardly be otherwise. But ultimately not disruptive, and he does fine.

 

I just wanted to put in a strong recommendation for Steve McQueen's first movie, Hunger, about an IRA hunger strike. I think it is one of the top ten best films I have ever seen. And remember, Fassbender was just a fine actor in it (this was before he became more of a "star"). Yes, I've seen Shame as well (didn't do much for me), but Hunger is just brilliant - - - it's McQueen's finest work IMHO.

 

Way overrated.

Exactly.

 

And I would include True Romance - Hopper/Walken trade off was a slice of sublime cinema.

 

Django Unchained made $421 million and won 2 Oscars (plus three more nominations), plus 2 Golden Globes (and three more nominations), so I think it was rated about right. No question, it was a silly, violent, preposterous, over-the-top film, but I don't see why it's not possible to appreciate a popcorn movie like this and 12 Years a Slave as well. They're both good films, just like sometimes you want a Big Mac and sometimes you want a fine steak. I think there's a place for many different kinds of films, as long as they're well made. I can appreciate a film like Django just on the basis of the cinematography, the sound, and the editing, and I also think the performances were very good.

No question, it's not a film to be taken seriously, but I think Django succeeded at what it was intended to do (beyond just making money). And I'm not always a Tarantino fan, either.

 

I still like Pulp Fiction the best, In fact, after this thread I just watched it last night. Brilliant. Funny, smart, clever. His whole homage to grindhouse is just a bad idea.

 

Don't know what he was thinking. Took to much up of his valuable time, he should have thinking of more creative endeavors. Perhaps get a job back in the video store eh.

 

True, but... both the book and the series were excellent stories, told very well. I don't give a crap whether a fictional film is based on fact or not, as long as it's entertaining and done competently. The difference is when you portray historical people (like Lincoln or, god forbid, Walt Disney) and put words in their mouths that they never said, or fudge the situation to suit the screenplay (as was done with Saving Mr. Banks). I don't have a problem when you invent fictitious slave owners and slaves during the 1800s and tell a story that's loosely based on historical facts.

I can't disagree with that. Pulp Fiction is a terrific movie, but I was kind of aghast and bored by Death Proof.

 

the movie was just released over here , went to see it this morning
i like it very much , very moving film with great acting ( the actress who played Patsey in particular ) and directing with beautiful Louisiana shots
some compared it to the "Passion of the Christ " as far as relentless violence was concerned but its not like that at all
The whipping scene in Mel Gibson movie still gives me nightmares to these days , that movie ( which i liked as well ) can bee seen by some as a non stop torturing scene
the two more disturbing scene in my opinion were the hanging scene ( with the kids playing in the background) and the night scene where Fassbender's confronts Solomon about the letter ( the tension !!! ) with the master sadistic grin

 

Watched this tonight and thought it was very good.....actually it surprised me. Probably the best film of 2013