12 YEARS A SLAVE

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 1:41am

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

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 1:59am

All I care about is knowing how my Alfre is.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 2:13am

What's it all about? Alfre.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 2:38am

Alfre is fantastic. She only has one scene, but she's got one of the most interesting characters in the movie. She plays a "mistress" of sorts to a plantation owner. She has a great scene with Ejiofor and newcomer Lupita Nyong'o where she talks about her precarious situation as a black woman at that time; not of "high society," yet also not working in the fields.

And I had no idea Quvenzhané Wallis was in this! She has no lines and is only in the first few minutes of the movie, but I still didn't realize she was part of the cast.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 3:01am

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.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 3:08am

Sarah Paulson is wonderful as well; dripping with jealousy and contempt for Fassbender's lust for Lupita Nyong'o's character, Patsey. She has some absolutely despicable moments with Nyong'o. I really mean it when I say there isn't a single bad (or even mediocre) performance in the whole cast.

Lupita Nyong'o, Michael Fassbender, and Chiwetel Ejiofor are locks for nominations. They have the biggest, juiciest parts.

And I will say, there were a couple of moments where the score seemed too heavy-handed and obvious, something I usually don't notice. But for the most part, it's a lovely score. It's best when it's most restrained, though. Updated On: 10/18/13 at 03:08 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 10:22am

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

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 3:45pm

WickedRocks, thanks for the review, I couldn't agree more. I got to see it Sunday at the tailend of the New York Film Festival, and I had the exact same reaction. I teared up a few times, but the most powerful moment came at the end, you just don't want to get up of your seat or talk to someone right after. It's undescribable, few movies can do that.
Steve McQueen just gave us a masterpiece, and it's a movie that will spark a strong debate and will be written about in film criticism for years to come. The story is powerful on its own, but in the wrong hands it could have been such a disaster. McQueen avoids any sense of sentimentality or fake inspirational tones from the movie; instead, he confronts you with the darkest parts of this story, and its implications. The images are so filled with history, and intensity, and mastery. **MINOR SPOILER***There's a particular long take that features lynching that's one of the most powerful images I've ever seen******END
I agree the ensemble is strong across the board. Ejiofor's performance is extraordinary, he gets this character so well, and he is in just about every scene in the movie; it's one of the great performances and it will be remembered come award season. Lupita Nyong'o is haunting, she might be able to win the award, it's that kind of performance, her scenes are vibrant and I almost want to see a movie about her character. Michael Fassbender is expectedly great, and Sarah Paulson is at her best here, she gets a really shocking moment at the beginning that defines her character, and she nails every one of her scenes. She won't be nominated, but it'll be a real shame, she's fantastic.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 6:25pm

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.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 1:32pm

I saw it this morning and echo everyone's comments. It unseated Short Term 12 as my favorite film of the year and simply perfect in every way.

I loved Shame, but this is on a whole different level. It is a masterpiece and should win Oscars for Picture, Screenplay, Director, Actor and possibly Supporting Actress.

Ejiofor (who played Lola in the Kinky Boots movie btw) is so BRILLIANT is this and had me in tears more than once. Even though he's only acting you have to wonder what kind of trauma a human being might sustain playing a part like this. The whole thing feels so period and real that I fear for the mental health of the actors. I read an interview with Sarah Paulson where she said she can never play a character like that again.

Unlike The Butler this doesn't play on forced sentimentality or cheesy inspirational music. Every emotion is real and earned.

The theater was PACKED. This should not be missed.

Btw- Ejiofor's next film is about the struggle for independence in Nigeria and will co-star Anika Noni Rose, so keep an eye out for that.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 2:45pm

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

[CapnHook]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 10:00pm

I saw this today.

Yes, it is a good film. Yes, the performances are great. Yes, it will be nominated for many awards.

For me, I wanted it to be different from what it is. What is unique about this story is that Northup was a free man who was kidnapped, sold into slavery, and managed to escape his situation and return to his family after 12 years. The film was too heavy with Northup's years as a slave. I wanted the film to continue to tell Northup's story after he was reunited with his family. Instead, we get 4 paragraphs that sum up the rest of his free life. I hate to sum up the movie with the following statement, but it felt like just another "slave movie." The last scene has tremendous emotional impact, and as a witness to his injustice, I wanted to see his fight for justice. In my opinion, that struggle (which Northup lost) would have been the story to tell. That, and how his years as a slave motivated him to take part in the Underground Railroad.

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

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 10:23pm

"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]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 10:59pm

but it felt like just another "slave movie."

I couldn't disagree more. I truly thought this felt like a movie I've never seen before. I don't think Hollywood has ever addressed the horrifying truths of slavery the way this film does.

To me, the film may be a sweeping epic in scope and production values, etc, but at its core, it's a character study of this man's devastating experience. It isn't interested in giving us an expansion of Solomon's life before he was kidnapped, nor is it interested in having us see him fight these injustices. To me, either of those films would be something I've seen before. Numerous times. It's interested in tracking this man's virtually unbreakable spirit being shattered and then patched together, over and over again.

And, understandably, that may not be what most people expect going into the film. But all expectations flew out the window for me, as this film surpassed them and still sort of has me reeling three days later. Updated On: 10/20/13 at 10:59 PM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 10/20/13 at 11:36pm

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.

[pushdabutton]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:30am

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. It opens this coming Friday in my city.

Thanks for the reviews and comments.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 1:41am

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

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 8:23am

"I feel like I've seen the life of a slave on film before. The labor. The torture. The treatment. The living conditions."

But you don't cite a single movie to support your assertion that this portrayal on film has been done before and is typical.

The source material the movie is taken from itself is pretty strictly on these events of Northup's life. It was published in 1855 pre-Civil War and post-Uncle Tom's Cabin (far more credited as a trigger for the anti-slavery movement but it is a fictionalized account by somebody from the North and has had a lot of retrospectives written on just how problematic it is as a text- most interestingly by African-Americans). The movie appears to have been faithful to the source material. If people want their Part 2, part of it would have to come from wanting to feel a little better about the brutality shown on screen. Say what you want about McQueen but nothing in his filmography ever pointed to a filmmaker that would do that. I'd love to see a movie on the whole IRA movement in the seventies and eighties but I am not thinking I was robbed of that in Hunger because I only saw brutality and starvation and not the signage of the Good Friday Agreement. McQueen is more interested in the specific points and personal stories in history of a larger history.

I agree with WiCkEDrOcKS. Amistad had the inspirational fighting injustice trajectory that of, among other things, included a John Quincy Adams anti-slavery speech featured.

I read 12 Years a Slave in school, I live near Saratoga Spring FWIW, so I guess I am just surprised people are calling this narrative typical yet missing key ingredients to be this narrative people throw hosannas at. The whole point of reading that narrative was because of just how un-typical it was from other slave narratives.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 12:29pm

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:41pm

I saw the film today and agree with almost everyone that it truly is a masterpiece. There are very few movies about slavery when you get down to it and it's arguably the darkest period in the history of this country, so it's strange it's not covered more. But regardless of that, it was a story that I did not know and introduced facts about slavery that I never knew so I'm very interested in reading the book now to see what was not covered.

As far as the acting goes, Lupita Nyong'o was the standout to me. For this only being her 2nd feature film, she turned in a performance that I'm pretty sure will win her the Academy Award, if not almost every other major award this awards season. But like has been said before, there is not one flawed performance anywhere to be found or even one flaw in this film. It's that rare movie that is absolutely perfect and sure to be remembered as one of the great films of our time.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:47pm

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?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/13 at 11:53pm

I have to say, I disagree about the score. I was waiting to hear something that sounded awful or out of place and (to me) I just didn't. I thought it worked wonderfully.

And I think you can use the "tip-toeing scene" to pinpoint why this film stands out as different. There's not many filmmakers that would stay on that shot for as long as McQueen did. It was almost more brutal than any whippings seen in the rest of the film.

And I forgot to say that there is one line that just sticks with me and made me gasp out loud when I heard it. The first "Mistress" who tells the mother that she'll "soon forget her children". I think that right there so early on in the film summed up the mentality of the slave owners and shows that there really was absolutely no hope to be had there.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 10/22/13 at 12:04am

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.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/22/13 at 12:52am

*SPOILERS*

The main moment when I thought the score was way too heavy-handed and a bit out of place was after Solomon and Paul Dano's character are fighting and Dano comes back on horseback with the two other men. It was (if memory serves) something like three or four booming, bellowing notes played over and over (almost INCEPTION-like, but not that intense) and it almost felt like Batman was gonna appear or something. But, like I said, for the most part, the score is strong. I just tend to hate when a score is so obvious in trying to wring an emotion from the audience. We know he's in for trouble the second Dano threatens him and disappears. I didn't need the score highlighting, underlining, and circling the tension by basically warning me that something horrible was about to happen.

These are the minor-est of quibbles with a film I have no problem calling a brilliant instant classic, though.

Can we just talk about that absolutely gorgeous sequence when the woman starts singing at the slaves' gravesite? God, I was knocked out by that scene. Nothing is spoken, yet we are able to understand so much about this shared experience for these people. And as Solomon joins in, we're exposed to even MORE layers to the character, simply by Ejiofor's vocal inflections and facial expressions.

[javero]

Posted: 10/22/13 at 7:22pm

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