12 YEARS A SLAVE

Well, I went to the 10:00 showing tonight on a whim after seeing CSC's ROMEO & JULIET and this is the rare movie that lives up to its buzz and then some.

Every not so often, a movie comes along so powerful and magnificent that you're sort of just left reeling when the lights come up. This is that movie. I admit I'm prone to shed a tear here and there at movies, but 12 YEARS is so powerful that when it ended I wasn't even crying, I was just sort of sitting there staring at the credits with my mouth open. I had to wait a few minutes to register what I had just witnessed. This is a movie for the ages.

There isn't a bad performance in the cast; Chiwetel Ejiofor is just astonishing. He is the anchor that holds this movie together and he does some of the best acting of the year without even saying a word. Everyone else, from the unknowns to the celebrities with small cameos, is fantastic. Fassbender, in particular, is terrifyingly exceptional.

This is Steve McQueen's crowning achievement, and frankly something I did NOT expect from him, given his previous smaller scale (albeit well-made) works. He's crafted a blisteringly brilliant, brutal, heartbreaking, and incredibly important masterpiece.

It's very difficult to watch at times, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't go see it. In fact, it's more of a reason to go out and buy a ticket. This is crucial, essential, and vital viewing. 12 YEARS A SLAVE is filmmaking at it's absolute best. Bring on the Oscars.

Can't wait to hear what you guys all think, as I'm sure there'll be some naysayers and I'd love to hear some differing views. I, for one, honestly can't stop thinking about it.

Updated On: 10/18/13 at 01:41 AM

What's it all about? Alfre.

---

Who do you think will think will be scoring noms in your mind. Yeah, I know it is early.

I have heard nothing but great things about this film. I know it is a small but good role, I hope Sarah Paulson gets some love out of this.

---

Another one to add to my list of "must see's"" once I return to NYC.

Thanks for your review WiCkEDrOcKs, as usual it's clear, concise and well thought out...makes me want to see it even more!

Updated On: 10/18/13 at 10:22 AM

I saw it this week with JRB and it is indeed fantastic. A little long but, as someone who wasn't fond of Steve McQueen's other films, a HUGE step up (this one just tells the story, it doesn't fuss over every damned clammy nuance). This is going to be the one to beat at Oscar time.


Prepare to leave the theater feeling your problems are VERY puny.

---

Seeing it tomorrow. Cannot wait. I ran really hot on Hunger and really cold on Shame (great performances but I had to cling to the movie's subtext to abide by its representation of sexuality), so I am curious about how I will respond to this. A criticism I keep hearing McQueen distracts with his style while it is John Ridley's script that really proves most crucial along with the performances. But you have to admit it is worth-seeing if it is having people really working their own perceptions and opinions of the representation of slaver on film in their reviews.

I am possibly going to a special screening where there is an Underground Railroad reception afterward. One of my former college professors had written a book on Solomon Northup and was something of a specialist on the political history of the US and slavery, so he is getting a lot of local press.

I really hope this can finally be Ejiofor's breakout role. It has been a long time coming.

There was a good DGA discussion between McQueen and Kathryn Bigelow online:
http://www.dga.org/Events/2013/12-December-2013/12YearsASlaveQnA.aspx

"In my opinion, that struggle (which Northup lost) would have been the story to tell."
I think McQueen has made it clear the unique entry point into filming a movie about slavery is that Solomon was free, literate, and employed and that he was a man removed from the classic slave narrative was why he was fascinated by that freedom being taken away.

"I hate to sum up the movie with the following statement, but it felt like just another "slave movie.""

Well there's Amistad, Django Unchained, and Roots, what else could you be talking about?

"The film is great. It's just not what I wanted it to be."

I find this to be a problem in movies of a certain period where there is a dearth in precedent. There is a Solomon Northup mini-series by Gordon Parks called Solomon Northup's Odyssey that appeared on American Playhouse in the 70s. Not sure if that part of Northup's life is given more focus but I also think Gordon Parks was an important African-American filmmaker lost in history and realizing he adapted the story first was fascinating.

WiCkEdRoCkS, what other films can you name that focus on a slave's post-enslaved life? I can't think of a single one.

I feel like I've seen the life of a slave on film before. The labor. The torture. The treatment. The living conditions. Again, what makes Northup different is that he only knew life as a free man. He was educated. Then he was kidnapped and had to learn how to adapt as a slave. We see this on film, and it's remarkable. But there's a whole other part to this story that I wanted to see explored.

The filmmakers told the story that the screenwriter wanted to tell, and did so masterfully. As an audience member, I wish they would have shown us "part 2." Guess I'll just have to Google to find out more.

---

Off the top of my head, BELOVED comes to mind. I'd imagine there are others. But I also didn't comment on films adjusting to post-slave life; I mentioned that "fighting injustice" and a biopic of sorts, with an examination of Northup's life pre-slavery, were banal and unoriginal story arcs. I mean, look at THE BUTLER, which looks like a rote Hallmark movie compared to this masterpiece. 12 YEARS surprised me because it wasn't that. It was riskier, and it worked beautifully. And I've never seen the life of a slave on film before like this. I even Googled afterwards to see a list of movies dealing with slavery and not one of the films I saw on the list even came close to being as brutally honest and unflinchingly intense as 12 YEARS was.

*SPOILERS BELOW*
Also, throughout the movie we see Northup get such horrible treatment practically endlessly. In the postscript, we learn that he attempted to fight his injustices and did not win any of the cases. I imagine it would be unsatisfying and sort of inconsequential, in a way, to watch him go through another hardship only to get knocked down yet again. We see him finally reunite with his family after so long, and that in and of itself is more than enough of an emotional reward. After all, the movie is called 12 YEARS A SLAVE. And that's exactly what it documents.

Just my two cents. :)

Updated On: 10/21/13 at 01:41 AM

Yeah, I have huge issues with calling this movie "just another slave movie." First of all, you should probably list exactly what movies you've seen that tackle slavery head on, the way this film does, puts you right in the thick of it, from the POV of the actual slaves. You say you "feel like you've seen this before" but are unable to point to specific movies. That criticism just basically sounds like you were more interested in seeing the triumphant, inspirational story rather than the difficult part which shows the horrific past we share as Americans. That's the past McQueen is trying to confront us with, this is not a story about how the human spirit can overcome anything; this is a story about the injustices and traumas that an entire group of people went through. This is the first film I've seen that I feel gets at the idea that slavery was the American Holocaust, and I think that makes it a necessary movie, and like nothing I've seen before, certainly not done this well.

---

And upon seeing it, let me join in on the chorus of hosannas thrown its way.

What I like about its movie is that while making it Solomon's story the movie shows enough of the different shades of the slave experience. What makes the ending work is not just because it is this heartwarming reunion but that Solomon is almost apologetic to what happened and in a way, it is to his family but also the 'family', namely Patsy, who he left there. They're in the back of his head much and as an audience-member they were in my thoughts even as they never appeared on-screen again, Adepero Oduye in particular and her children, especially after she told her story, stuck with me.

There is an air of detachment but not by McQueen but by the surroundings and characters. The environment rots humanity away and takes on this other form. This is why you show strictly slavery as an institution. The most shocking scenes aside from the brutality of whips are visuals in everyone's detachment of when Solomon is tip-toeing for his life being hung by a tree and then of course the slave sale scene that does eventually explode into theatrics but the moment where Paul Giamatti's trader has the young boy show his athleticism for potential buyers made my blood go cold. Same thing happened when after Epps fails to win Patsy's heart that he is suddenly holding hands with a young black girl and brings her into his home for candy with such childish wonder.

I was with a really responding audience at my screening. They laughed and scoffed at the ridiculousness of the way people acted back then, a mix of horror and uncomfortableness. When Solomon had to fight, it was like I was watching a boxing match at a bar except everybody was rooting for Solomon. And when the brutality happened, people were horrified though the loudest response was Mrs. Epps attacking Patsy. I heard about the scene, I heard about the sound effect, but to actually see it on-screen made my jaw drop. Even the threats of violence had people let out audible, 'Oh, no!' I heard welps all around me and for the first time I saw my own mother cry during a movie. Then when Solomon recognizes Mr. Barker part of the audience broke into applause. I didn't cry but tears were welling up, probably closest when you have that gorgeous close-up of Ejiofor joining the chorus and almost resigned to his fate. The long-takes and the cinematography by Sean Bobbitt were everything. To me this was McQueen's most grounded efforts. Yes, there were flourishes and some non-linear storytelling happening but I did not find it at all indulgent or too much or too detached or without feeling.

Of my few issues with the movie, I thought the ending felt rushed with the introduction of Pitt's Canadian abolitionist, especially after it was made clear he could be a threat to Epps' operation. Truth be told this character is most certainly in the book and most certainly has this air of 'do-gooder nearly too good to be true'. Maybe if it was not Pitt in the role and he and Garret Dillahunt, very good as the drunk ex-overseer turn laborer, swapped roles it would not have stuck out. And then there is Hans Zimmer's godforsaken score that he takes from his own previous works like Inception and The Thin Red Line. In the scenes on the slave ship it just is so friggin' obvious it was by the same composer of Inception. A movie this great deserved a much better, more solemn score. Was Desplat unavailable?

It should be noted I am not in the Hans Zimmer fan club, so I am already a biased party. I also am one of those people who loved Gravity's score which has also taken a drubbing from other people. FWIW, I thought it got much better after the slave ships scene.

Yes, that line was stunning. People kept talking about one of the last lines Cumberbatch's character says to Solomon but his wife has some really incredible, shocking lines. And the movie does make note that this family as slave owners are 'nice' and 'sentimental' who want to do the right thing but they prefer to remove all seediness and sadness from their property.

Both Epps and Ford use scripture but I like how while Epps clearly has his interpretation that whatever Ford seeks to find in reading the bible is often drowned out by Solomon be it that 'N-word' song spliced in the first reading or the crying slave Eliza disrupting the reading. Solomon has his opinion about God too, that he had long before he became a slave, as does Patsy. I found it interesting how the role of faith was portrayed and it honestly did not go in the direction I was expecting and it was all the better for it.

I saw it earlier today. Excellent storytelling via film in spite of the difficult subject matter. McQueen handled it with aplomb. All the actors delivered the goods. In addition to those already mentioned, I think that Paul Dano was very convincing in the role of the azzhole John Tibeats. Overall, I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

Just a few nits though.

1. Alfre Woodard is a bit long in the tooth to play the master's mistress given the time period. I'm not being ageist; it just wasn't age-appropriate casting considering the era. Slave girls were routinely bred to produce children (preferably male) by their early teens and by most accounts those wealthy land barons and theirs sons obsessed over nubile flesh. A 60-old black woman was a great-grandma back then not really prized by men who had the pick of the litter.

2. The score was too damn loud at times.

3. I'm with CapnHook. I too wanted a depiction of Solomon's life after his return to the homestead but I gather there simply wasn't enough time to develop that arc. Reading the accounts on screen left me a little unsatisfied. I'm not certain that the story would be well served by a sequel though.

4. The scene in which Solomon lost his humanity at Patsy's urging was nearly too much. I'm still mentally debating whether or not it ventured into sadistic territory on two levels. First, it left absolutely nothing to the imagination and went out of its way to illustrate that slave women were clearly at the bottom of the social structure. Then, it revealed how cuckolded kept women would direct their anger at innocent victims instead of their philandering husbands.

After viewing it, I need to watch a mindless rom-com to get it out of my system.

---

Updated On: 10/23/13 at 07:22 PM