Steve McQueen's Twelve Years A Slave

[Zeus]

McQueen has no time for idiots...And making guest spots for BET or Chris Rock, Kevin Hart. The man is a serious intellectual and artist. Doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[terry78]

He could just decline the interviews. But that's not good business.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Tavis Smiley is considered a smart and very articulate interviewer as is Charlie Rose (McQueen along with Ejiofor and Fassbender were interviewed by Charlie Rose).

Of course, you have to smart and articulate when working for PBS.

 

[Zeus]

The film is tough to watch, but it wouldnt surprise me if they showed it in schools

 

[Hyde]

i dont want to open a new thread. but its interesting how Mcqueen is always angry when they ask him stupid questions. and they are stupid. he is not playing the hollywood game by giving them long smart answers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbHVhXlbYWA

McQueen's facial expressions there are hilarious pretty much most of the audience questions were stupid, especially the Mexico one.

 

[redhawk23]

This was quite a haunting film. The film knew exactly what to show and when to linger. The violence was of course terrible, but I think the film was measured in it portrayal rather than exploitative. Rather than dwell on the rending of flesh, though it doesn't shy away from it, the film really focuses on the effect of the slave life upon the people themselves, which is sure to stick with me as it has now for the past few hours after viewing the film.

 

[redhawk23]

Spoiler

12 Years A Slave is somewhat like when Bob Dylan went electric. The term 'sold-out' is often spoken unfairly, but Steve McQueen, director of such raw, brutal films such as HUNGER and SHAME, has scaled back his most artistic qualities in favor of mass appeal in 12 Years A Slave. McQueen has shown starving, naked men beat and tortured in HUNGER. He showed the raw, emotional draining life of a sex addict in SHAME. Now, for 12 Years A Slave, when he has a story to unleash these raw emotional feats on a story most deserving of it, McQueen scales back. Whether it was for mass appeal, Academy Award recognition, or the Producer's demands, McQueen's new timid nature on 'Slave' robs a story that could have been as brutal and eye-opening as 'Schindler's List'. Instead, its actually pretty glossy and very safe.

I keep reading reviews at how this film is brutal to the point of being unable to view. There is one beating that is brutal, but nothing comes close to Schindler's List, The Passion Of The Christ, Saving Private Ryan, or even McQueen's first two films. '12 Years A Slave' could have taken the brutality of slavery and shown it more so than we've ever seen before and really been a history lesson at the brutality and evil of mankind's past. Instead, its just like any other oppression story. Quentin Tarantino did a much better job of showing the brutality of slavery in 'Django Unchained'. Its a testament to Tarantino as a director, that he was able to provide a real artistic statement about the subject in a somewhat comical live-action cartoon, because really that's all 'Django' is(which is perfectly amazing). McQueen, known for going balls to the wall, becomes more of an eunuch, losing his balls and delivering a very timid slave story, aside from two scenes. The film is a cookie-cutter award bait film. McQueen is a good director who got an incredible cast, so the film still survives, and even flourishes at moments, but its frustrating wondering what might have been.

'12 Years A Slave' tells the story of a black man, Solomon Northup, born free in the North during the 1800's. He is tricked, drugged, captured and taken to the south to be sold as a slave. The narrative follow Solomon and his agonizing journey from owner to owner, until finally being re-united with his family. Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, which really helps the film work in many ways. The screenplay is written to focus on the physical torment of Solomon, and as I said Mcqueen scaled back his agonizing brutality on screen, so the audience doesn't really feel Solomon's torment based on the script alone. Ejiofor's strong performance helps sell Solomon's torment to the audience, which is a huge key to the film, because little of the script was focused on the psychological torment of Solomon and the psychological aspects of his character. This could be said for the whole cast, who is wonderful. The cast really sells the film. Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender standout as slave owners, the former being mor sympathetic to Solomon, the latter stepping straight out of hell. Fassbender is the greatest accomplishment in the film, giving us an incredible villain that works mostly due to Fassbender.

The screenplay doesn't build the characters very well. Luckily, as stated earlier, the actors save this. However, the screenplay has other issues. The biggest is it's episodic nature. The twelve years flows quickly without much explanation of timing and makes us feel like we're watching events that are somewhat relate-able instead of watching one story. Again, this is somewhat saved by a good director and a great cast which makes many of these events incredibly engaging. The events are not helped by an awful score, which never plays with the audience's emotions.

Despite all of this, the film still mainly works, even if it is much more generic than what's expected from McQueen. The film is pretty much a mountain range, who's lows aren't awful, but simply somewhat dull, but it's highs are outstanding and rather impressive. Ultimately, this comes down to the director Steve McQueen. He goes to his roots of raw, agonizing filmmaking in the film's climax and it works wonders. For whatever reason, he holds this back throughout the rest of the film. He takes a great cast and a weak script, and pieces together a solid film that has a few incredible moments, even if its potential was greatly missed. 8/10

Because people being brutally beaten whipped, begging to be willfully murdered and raped on screen are "glossy and safe."

This film trusts its actors and focuses on the shifting motives for and effects of violence rather than exploitatively lingering upon the business of the acts themselves , which are quite present within the film, mind you. Django and Passion of the Christ may have reveled in the latex and kayro syrup for shock and shame value, but they are lesser films for it.


Sidenote: Tarantino's presentation of slave life is quite bizarre. For one thing, he expends more minute focus and length of screen time upon Christoph Waltz preparing two mugs of beer than he does upon the actual work of plantation slaves. Instead he shows many slave women just kind of casually walking around and a few sitting around in tree swings. He presents a version of southern society in which people are aghast to see a black man on a horse, but then 2 scenes later has black men with guns among the plantation party that confronts Django. But of course absolute historical accuracy is necessarily, so it is therfore necessary to essentially use n****** as a pronoun, again because this cartoon is historically accurate. All of this was just the "way it was."

 

[Hurm...]

Because people being brutally beaten whipped, begging to be willfully murdered and raped on screen are "glossy and safe."

This film trusts its actors and focuses on the shifting motives for and effects of violence rather than exploitatively lingering upon the business of the acts themselves , which are quite present within the film, mind you. Django and Passion of the Christ may have reveled in the latex and kayro syrup for shock and shame value, but they are lesser films for it.

Thank you.

 

[redhawk23]

A history professor from the unversity across the street from the theater I went to last night had gathered some people in the lobby to speak about the film after their screening, which was right before mine. I hung out and listened for a while before the film started.

He made an interesting point in that almost all of the slave narratives that get turned into films, whether they are based on personal accounts like this film or complete fiction like Django Unchained are almost uniformly the stories of individuals who managed to escape slavery whereas such cases were actually so rare. The vast majority of slaves were born, lived and died within the institution.

 

[terry78]

That doesn't make for an engaging story though. Basically to the audience it feels like there is no arc. Though for the slave it may be.

 

[the last son]

I agree with weezerspider. Movie definitely wasn't an epic and as said McQueen definitely held back, which disappointed me. Fassbender overacted as usual. Good performance out of the other leads though. 7/10 for me. Zimmer also disappointed. You only heard the one main track through most of the film.

 

[redhawk23]

McQueen "holding back" and instead focusing on the aftermath of violence rather than the gore of whipping was far more effective, not to mention that the film actually is pretty graphic in that respect.

 

[the last son]

He didn't do enough focusing on the aftermath of it.

 

[Zeus]

I agree I wish there was just something from Solomon towards Epps. Like a line or a stare of anger...Probably would have been a bit hollywood-ish and I think McQueen did not want to make this very hollywood

 

[Hurm...]

^McQueen stayed remarkably accurate to the book, and that's why there wasn't complete closure for some characters. The aftermath involved the trials which they mention before the credits. Anything on Epps would have been complete Hollywood fabrication - something McQueen didn't want.

 

[redhawk23]

He didn't do enough focusing on the aftermath of it.

You could basically see Solomon losing a grip on himself and his individuality.

 

[the last son]

Chiwetel Ejiofor gives best performance of the year.

 

[Zeus]

Chiwetel Ejiofor gives best performance of the year.

Look I love this film...But I saw Dallas Buyers Club too and Matthew Mcconaughey gave the best performance of the year as lead actor. Although Ejiofor is right there close to him.

Fassbender wins though for supporting...Jared Leto was amazing in Dallas Buyers Club too

 

[the last son]

Fassbender overacted as usual. He was nothing special.

 

[Hurm...]

Fassbender overacted as usual. He was nothing special.

Overacted? Have you read Solomon's book?

Fassbender's character was right on the money.

 

[the last son]

I haven't, but might one day. IF you say so, I'll take your word. Just think Fassbender is severely overrated.

 

[weezerspider]

Because people being brutally beaten whipped, begging to be willfully murdered and raped on screen are "glossy and safe."

This film trusts its actors and focuses on the shifting motives for and effects of violence rather than exploitatively lingering upon the business of the acts themselves , which are quite present within the film, mind you. Django and Passion of the Christ may have reveled in the latex and kayro syrup for shock and shame value, but they are lesser films for it.


Sidenote: Tarantino's presentation of slave life is quite bizarre. For one thing, he expends more minute focus and length of screen time upon Christoph Waltz preparing two mugs of beer than he does upon the actual work of plantation slaves. Instead he shows many slave women just kind of casually walking around and a few sitting around in tree swings. He presents a version of southern society in which people are aghast to see a black man on a horse, but then 2 scenes later has black men with guns among the plantation party that confronts Django. But of course absolute historical accuracy is necessarily, so it is therfore necessary to essentially use n****** as a pronoun, again because this cartoon is historically accurate. All of this was just the "way it was."

Spoiler

It was safe for many reasons. One, it followed all the tropes we expect from this type of film. A ‘learned’ slave aspires for something greater than what his overly caricatured owners allow. We get some big insightful Biblical themes about the last becoming the first and what not, and our hero experiences an extremely traumatic experience in the climax, usually with a character deemed ‘innocent’. Last but not least, a revolutionary white man comes in and takes it as his moral duty to free the learned slave. You can say it is based off a true story, sure, but it’s how the material was handled with such stereotypical, formulaic execution that makes it feel so predictable.

Two, there are two ways to tell this type of story: As a more visual experience, with the focus on the brutality of the situation, which is what this film was trying to be, or actually DISCUSSING the issue and digesting it, making it much more of a character piece. I prefer the latter, and perhaps, and it even seems, that McQueen tried a mixture of the two, but the characters are so shallow and the writing doesn’t ask any questions, leaving us to focus simply on the brutality. So we have a visual film, focused on the brutality of the situation. Well if that’s your best card, than throw the whole deck out there. Again, McQueen did not do that. I wouldn’t even put this in the top 20 most disturbing films I’ve seen. The climax is graphic, albeit forced, as we know next to nothing about any of the characters involved to really give us an emotional affection with them, but most of the scenes that were supposed to be brutal, were self-indulgent, and edited at such a slow pace, that we as the viewer simply become bored. Again, this could have been helped if our characters were somewhat more than a few cardboard caricatures. The hanging scene for instance: Sure at first it is rather disturbing, but McQueen holds onto the shots so long as if saying ‘Look At Me! I’m depicting the brutality of slavery! LOOK!’ For his earlier work, HUNGER in particularly, to be so subtle, this quite strange and very ineffective. The point of the film seemed to be to shove our heads into the dirt and demand we watch the brutality. I disagree with that method, though it still could have made for a better film, if executed properly…by either truly showing brutality or giving us some characters to really care for.

As I said, I prefer if he had decided to make a character driven film that really discusses the whole idea of slavery, instead of focusing on the brutality. Obviously this sort of film would still have brutality and perhaps just as much brutality. We don’t get to know Solomon. We’re shown he’s a family man, smart, musically talented, and has a strong moral stance (in regard to not being an a compliance in a suicide). That’s hardly deep. The performance is grand, and really what makes the film work, but the character himself is extremely poorly written. What does this sort of life do to the psychology of a man who was just recently a free man? Was Solomon a man troubled by slavery beforehand, or did he ignore the problem down South as “someone else’s problem” and if he did, does he now feel guilty? What really happens to a man separated from his family, a man who doesn’t get to see his children grow up? What REALLY happens to person when they are treated as property, physically and mentally? Sure, some of these themes were brought up in the film, but hardly really dealt with.

Of course, we also have to look at this at the other side. Fassbinder’s character was a simple, evil villain. Do I doubt that this slave owner was truly a monster? No, of course not. However, did Hitler not drink? Did Hitler not laugh or love? If we REALLY want to deal with the issue regarding what makes a human feel justified with owning another human, we need to see a HUMAN, not a villainous caricature. Depicting the slave owners as these cartoonish monsters reinforces the idea of evil as “other,” where the viewer can easily create a psychological barrier between themselves and the antagonist, as if they are different beings. That’s what’s so wrong about slavery. Humans DID this to OTHER humans. Yet, we never feel like this in the film. Fassbender is as realistic as Heath’s Ledger’s Joker in this film. Whereas, say Spielberg introduces Ralph Fiennes monstrous Nazi in Schindler’s List with a joke and shows much more human emotions than a simple villain, because they were depicting a HUMAN. The film plays off the ‘other’ mentality, which robs it of ever really truly discussing the issue at hand.

Brutality, evil men, all of this was true, but it never was really explored apart from stereotypical tropes in this film. If we really want to make people understand the truth of the brutality of slavery, explore the topic. Getting a prostate exam is tough and cringe-worthy, doesn’t make it deep (God that sounds awfully innuendo-filled, doesn’t it?) . Or if you are going to go the cringe-worthy route, actually make it cringe-worthy.

I gave the film an 8/10. It’s a solid film, mostly helped by great performances. It’s not bad overall by any means, but it’s not something magnificent or some ground-breaking film by any means. It is possible to make bad films about important topics (Uwe Boll made a Holocaust film). I will give McQueen credit for making a solid slave film, though. The topic hasn’t been discussed enough seriously in film.

Regarding the Side-Note: What I loved about Django Unchained is Tarantino took every single trope from these types of slave films and blew them out of proportion. The slave owners are always portrayed as these monsters lacking any human qualities? Let’s play with that and play with every stereotype known to man and really ham up the villain. A white guy with different ideals always ‘saves’ the slave? Let’s have him LITERALLY save the slave and then make the Slave the action hero. ‘Django’ is incredibly historically inaccurate. That’s not the point. My point of Tarantino making a stronger statement about slavery than McQueen is in regards to the fact that Tarantino’s torture scenes were actually disturbing on a visual level and emotional level because we actually cared for the characters. It’s completely fictional and no one would ever have their slave eaten by dogs( Leo didn’t want him to run away because it was a waste of money, so he kills him instead, causing the exact same problem: a waste of money), but it actually makes the viewer feel incredible pain for the slaves and brings up the topic in more organic ways than McQueen ever accomplished.

All My Opinion. People were clearly impacted by the film. That's a good thing, even if I personally don't find the film to be artistically significant. Unfortunately, when a film deals with this sort of topic, sometimes politics and harsh qualities are brought out, so this a simple disclaimer that I simply am friendly debating a film. I love talking about films. No disrespect to anyone.

 

[redhawk23]

Django Unchained was a self important cartoon, or rather a cartoon that the filmmaker himself believed had far more depth and "authenticity" than it did.

I'll defer to Jesse Williams on this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/williams-django-still-chained/

This short bit on CNN is pretty good but his full thoughts, linked at the end of the article, is a great piece of writing.

Also though you say Django torture scenes were more effective because you cared about the characters but are you implying that you don't care for the characters in 12 Years A Slave? That's a little confusing.

Spoiler

Broomhilda is a complete non-character in Django Unchained (there was supposed to be some scenes earlier in the film that would have established here character but were cut when Sasha Baron Cohen dropped out.) On the other hand we spend time with Patsy in her struggles, as she works hard to gain favor only to suffer her owner's pre-occupations and further brutality due to the jealousy of his wife. She is ultimately punished for seeking the minimal dignity of a bar of soap. And even that violence has more emotional and character context than just about anything in Django. Solomon is forced to not just watch as Patsy is whipped but to do so himself, this after she came to him asking him for a release, to be spared, to be killed. Patsy is a character with her own struggles and story separate from Solomon. Broomhilda is essentially a McGuffin, with no real existence within the story other than her relation to Django and his wants and desires. Its little more than a video game plot.

 

[redhawk23]

Spoiler

It was safe for many reasons. One, it followed all the tropes we expect from this type of film. A ‘learned’ slave aspires for something greater than what his overly caricatured owners allow. We get some big insightful Biblical themes about the last becoming the first and what not, and our hero experiences an extremely traumatic experience in the climax, usually with a character deemed ‘innocent’. Last but not least, a revolutionary white man comes in and takes it as his moral duty to free the learned slave. You can say it is based off a true story, sure, but it’s how the material was handled with such stereotypical, formulaic execution that makes it feel so predictable.

Two, there are two ways to tell this type of story: As a more visual experience, with the focus on the brutality of the situation, which is what this film was trying to be, or actually DISCUSSING the issue and digesting it, making it much more of a character piece. I prefer the latter, and perhaps, and it even seems, that McQueen tried a mixture of the two, but the characters are so shallow and the writing doesn’t ask any questions, leaving us to focus simply on the brutality. So we have a visual film, focused on the brutality of the situation. Well if that’s your best card, than throw the whole deck out there. Again, McQueen did not do that. I wouldn’t even put this in the top 20 most disturbing films I’ve seen. The climax is graphic, albeit forced, as we know next to nothing about any of the characters involved to really give us an emotional affection with them, but most of the scenes that were supposed to be brutal, were self-indulgent, and edited at such a slow pace, that we as the viewer simply become bored. Again, this could have been helped if our characters were somewhat more than a few cardboard caricatures. The hanging scene for instance: Sure at first it is rather disturbing, but McQueen holds onto the shots so long as if saying ‘Look At Me! I’m depicting the brutality of slavery! LOOK!’ For his earlier work, HUNGER in particularly, to be so subtle, this quite strange and very ineffective. The point of the film seemed to be to shove our heads into the dirt and demand we watch the brutality. I disagree with that method, though it still could have made for a better film, if executed properly…by either truly showing brutality or giving us some characters to really care for.

As I said, I prefer if he had decided to make a character driven film that really discusses the whole idea of slavery, instead of focusing on the brutality. Obviously this sort of film would still have brutality and perhaps just as much brutality. We don’t get to know Solomon. We’re shown he’s a family man, smart, musically talented, and has a strong moral stance (in regard to not being an a compliance in a suicide). That’s hardly deep. The performance is grand, and really what makes the film work, but the character himself is extremely poorly written. What does this sort of life do to the psychology of a man who was just recently a free man? Was Solomon a man troubled by slavery beforehand, or did he ignore the problem down South as “someone else’s problem” and if he did, does he now feel guilty? What really happens to a man separated from his family, a man who doesn’t get to see his children grow up? What REALLY happens to person when they are treated as property, physically and mentally? Sure, some of these themes were brought up in the film, but hardly really dealt with.

Of course, we also have to look at this at the other side. Fassbinder’s character was a simple, evil villain. Do I doubt that this slave owner was truly a monster? No, of course not. However, did Hitler not drink? Did Hitler not laugh or love? If we REALLY want to deal with the issue regarding what makes a human feel justified with owning another human, we need to see a HUMAN, not a villainous caricature. Depicting the slave owners as these cartoonish monsters reinforces the idea of evil as “other,” where the viewer can easily create a psychological barrier between themselves and the antagonist, as if they are different beings. That’s what’s so wrong about slavery. Humans DID this to OTHER humans. Yet, we never feel like this in the film. Fassbender is as realistic as Heath’s Ledger’s Joker in this film. Whereas, say Spielberg introduces Ralph Fiennes monstrous Nazi in Schindler’s List with a joke and shows much more human emotions than a simple villain, because they were depicting a HUMAN. The film plays off the ‘other’ mentality, which robs it of ever really truly discussing the issue at hand.

Brutality, evil men, all of this was true, but it never was really explored apart from stereotypical tropes in this film. If we really want to make people understand the truth of the brutality of slavery, explore the topic. Getting a prostate exam is tough and cringe-worthy, doesn’t make it deep (God that sounds awfully innuendo-filled, doesn’t it?) . Or if you are going to go the cringe-worthy route, actually make it cringe-worthy.

I gave the film an 8/10. It’s a solid film, mostly helped by great performances. It’s not bad overall by any means, but it’s not something magnificent or some ground-breaking film by any means. It is possible to make bad films about important topics (Uwe Boll made a Holocaust film). I will give McQueen credit for making a solid slave film, though. The topic hasn’t been discussed enough seriously in film.

Regarding the Side-Note: What I loved about Django Unchained is Tarantino took every single trope from these types of slave films and blew them out of proportion. The slave owners are always portrayed as these monsters lacking any human qualities? Let’s play with that and play with every stereotype known to man and really ham up the villain. A white guy with different ideals always ‘saves’ the slave? Let’s have him LITERALLY save the slave and then make the Slave the action hero. ‘Django’ is incredibly historically inaccurate. That’s not the point. My point of Tarantino making a stronger statement about slavery than McQueen is in regards to the fact that Tarantino’s torture scenes were actually disturbing on a visual level and emotional level because we actually cared for the characters. It’s completely fictional and no one would ever have their slave eaten by dogs( Leo didn’t want him to run away because it was a waste of money, so he kills him instead, causing the exact same problem: a waste of money), but it actually makes the viewer feel incredible pain for the slaves and brings up the topic in more organic ways than McQueen ever accomplished.

All My Opinion. People were clearly impacted by the film. That's a good thing, even if I personally don't find the film to be artistically significant. Unfortunately, when a film deals with this sort of topic, sometimes politics and harsh qualities are brought out, so this a simple disclaimer that I simply am friendly debating a film. I love talking about films. No disrespect to anyone.

And what of Cumberbatch's character? His part was smaller than Fassbender's but he wasn't monstrous, which actually made his acts and words even worse. The gift of the violin was supposed to be a benevolent act but his tidings of "I hope it brings you all great joy in the years to come" really drives home to Solomon the situation he was in. His status as a slave wasn't just a mixup that would be sorted out soon but was in fact intended to be permanent. Solomon had thought Ford was "not a bad man, given the circumstances" but as is pointed out to him, the circumstances were that Ford was a slaver.

Even Fassbender's character is shown to not just be driven by malice, but by paranoia and the struggles of his failed marriage. He is shown alternatively raping a woman and offering a young girl candy.

 

[roach]

Django Unchained was a self important cartoon, or rather a cartoon that the filmmaker himself believed had far more depth and "authenticity" than it did.

I'll defer to Jesse Williams on this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/opinion/williams-django-still-chained/

This short bit on CNN is pretty good but his full thoughts, linked at the end of the article, is a great piece of writing.

Also though you say Django torture scenes were more effective because you cared about the characters but are you implying that you don't care for the characters in 12 Years A Slave? That's a little confusing.

Spoiler

Broomhilda is a complete non-character in Django Unchained (there was supposed to be some scenes earlier in the film that would have established here character but were cut when Sasha Baron Cohen dropped out.) On the other hand we spend time with Patsy in her struggles, as she works hard to gain favor only to suffer her owner's pre-occupations and further brutality due to the jealousy of his wife. She is ultimately punished for seeking the minimal dignity of a bar of soap. And even that violence has more emotional and character context than just about anything in Django. Solomon is forced to not just watch as Patsy is whipped but to do so himself, this after she came to him asking him for a release, to be spared, to be killed. Patsy is a character with her own struggles and story separate from Solomon. Broomhilda is essentially a McGuffin, with no real existence within the story other than her relation to Django and his wants and desires. Its little more than a video game plot.

this is a good read