I saw it this week and it’s one of the best historical movies I’ve ever seen, probably the best about slavery. It manages to portray slavery in its full horror while avoiding all of the usual cliches and stereotypes of bad historical movies; both heroes and villains are complex and fully realized.
I have never read Solomon Northup’s book, intentionally avoided it before seeing the film, and haven’t researched how close the movie follows it, but the idea of a free black man becoming a slave is, even if based on a true story, a great framing device.
All of the actors were outstanding, especially the lead of course. I’m not familiar with Chiwetel Ejiofor’s work, but a friend says his performance in Kinky Boots is a total win.) Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Fassbender were great in major roles and Alfre Woodard, Paul Giamatti, and Paul Dano all made supporting roles very real.
Basically, I can’t recommend the movie highly enough to those interested in the period. It’s necessarily graphic, of course, in terms of violence and sex, and those are the least disturbing aspects of slavery depicted; it would be hard to overestimate how well this shows the dehumanizing aspects of slavery.
I saw it and it overwhelmed me. Seeing what Solomon went through, to say nothing of what the other slaves went through too, just broke my heart. People sure can be heartless brutal bastards, that’s for sure.
I thought it was outstanding, definitely one of the best movies I’ve seen all year. I initially thought that the movie didn’t do a good enough job showing the passage of time during Solomon’s enslavement, but after thinking about it for a while, I think it was actually a smart decision. It sort of echoed the "when will this horror show end?"aspect of Solomon’s life during this period; if we had had time markers, we would have been able to say, “OK, eight years to go…OK, six years go to…” Solomon didn’t get the benefit of seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, so neither should we.
Patsy and the soap was the most “How can anybody believe in a merciful God?” Scene.
I thought the scene with the first owner’s wife) and her reaction to Eliza and her children was as disturbing as the physical cruelty of the second owner’s wife towards Patsy. “Get some good food and rest and you’ll forget about them in no time!”. I can absolutely imagine that scene actually happening; I guess it’s because I have seen enough willful cluelessness over the years. I also loved Cumberbatch’s character’s reaction when Solomon tried to tell him about his life; basically I can’t know this because I don’t want to know this.
I really want to learn more about Mrs. Shaw (Alfre Woodard’s character) and whether she was based on a real person. I also wondered if it was actually possible for Solomon to eat in any restaurants in Washington DC or if that scene was dramatic license.
I hated this film. I am too tired to expound much, but I will try to find time to revisit tomorrow. In particular, I hated the lead’s performance. I felt like he immediately sank into a shucky jivey kind of cooning ass roll without me seeing the dignity and poise he had initially fall away in a realistic manner.
I will say that the actress who played Patsy deserves an Oscar. She was the only thing I liked about the film. I will admit Cumberbatch and Fassbender were good in their rolls.
Stepinfetchit mannerisms were and are a survival tactic for racial and religious
minorities. Even more so for a refined black person displaced to the Old South.
Ignorant Southern whites would have doubled down on a slave with any sign
of erudition and savoir faire.
He got the ever loving hell beaten out of him every time he tried to show resistance. He broke, which as much as we’d all like to say we wouldn’t, we probably would. I felt the opposite: it was amazing how much of his dignity and hope he managed to hide and hold onto during the worst days.
Thing the first: Broken doesn’t equal shuckin’, jivin’ and steppin’ and fetchin’. Plenty of actors have portrayed the broken and beaten slave without resorting to coonin’ ass cooning. Actors in that very movie managed it pretty well.
One only need look to movies like The Color Purple for dignified depictions of black people who are abused and dehumanized but manage to bring a certain dignity to the role, regardless.
Also, it is a bit silly for you to speculate for me what I would or wouldn’t do in the same circumstances. I may indeed break beneath the crack of the whip, but that doesn’t mean that I would necessarily bow and shuffle and take on the mannerisms of a cowering sambo. I don’t know that I would ‘break’ n that way, because PUHLENTY of my ancestors did NOT. I don’t think you can stand from your position and tell me what I would probably do.
If they had managed to show the process of him breaking down, I would have liked the movie better. As it was, it looked to me that he jumped from A to Z. The part where he started singing at the funeral…I know the director thought it was a cool touch to show him really Minstrel it up there. But it would have been doper if he had taken that chance to offer a moment for him to be his true self. No white folks were around. He could have straightened his back and sang with the same presence he exuded when he played the violin in the beginning of the film. There was a chance for a subtle yet powerful moment with that scene, but I think the director took it the wrong direction.
I wasn’t speculating on what you personally would do, Iwas being more general. I could not disagree more with your opinions of his acting and characterization, but, de gustibus non est disputandum and all.
My main acting criticism was Brad Pitt as The Great White Savior. Though it did at least tell me he would make a good Brigham Young.
I didn’t see this at all. In fact, as soon as he was kidnapped and he started up with the “I am a free man! You must believe me!” stuff, I was inwardly yeling at him to wake up and smell the shit.
He didn’t beat up anyone (or try to, like Omar on the steamboat). But I didn’t see that as him shuckin’ and jivin’. I saw that as him being a realist. The guy who he was shackled up with advised him on how to survive, and Solomon expressed his reluctance to go along with this “wisdom” quite clearly. But he realized soon enough that the guy was right. I didn’t see a Sambo in him. I saw a guy who, after some initial misconceptions about the value of a black man’s life in the eyes of white folk, realized that fighting wasn’t going to get him out of his situation. And it turns out that he was right. Fighting gets you knifed and then tossed off the side of the boat. Or it gets you tied to a tree by the neck while everyone goes along with their business, silently grieving for your inevitable death.
Celie was not dignified until Shug Avery pumped her up with some girl power. Up till that point she was a damn wreck. Miss Sophie was a strong woman who then got the shit beat out of her and turned into a zombie. Then she resurrected herself and became a human again. Celie and Sophie were not all-dignified or all-pathetic. Just like no person is ever “all” anything. There is no such thing as a perfect, magical negro or anyone else.
I suspect plenty of my ancestors fought too. But I know plenty of my ancestors did what the fuck they had to do to survive. Personally, as much as I love Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner, I know I wouldn’t have been worthy enough to stand in their shadows. I may have broken some tools on purpose or snuck some biscuits to folk out in the fields or created a diversion so that folks braver than me could flee. But I wouldn’t have been sassing off to Massa or Missy. I wouldn’t have led a rebellion. I wouldn’t have killed anyone. This is why I stand in awe of Harriet Tubman and Nat Turner. They had cajones I know I don’t have. If all slaves had exhibited such bravery, they wouldn’t have stood out in history.
And I’m comfortable in saying that I wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t been not just for the Harriet Tubmans and the Nat Turners, but also for the Elizas and the Patsys and the nameless slave who died out in the cane field. And the Pratt’s. They did what they had to do to create another generation.
See, I interpreted that scene in a totally different way. You may recall that he initially wasn’t singing along with the others, as if he was distancing himself from the misery of slave life. As if to tell himself, “I am different from these people. They are singing a slave song and grieving over a slave’s life. But I am not a slave. I am free.” Then, as if finally realizing that he is very much a slave and no different than the others, the words start tumbling out of his mouth. I didn’t see it as a “minstrel” anything, because it wasn’t buffoonery or mockery. It wasn’t playing on any stereotypes. Unless you’re arguing that they wouldn’t have been singing at a gravesite, that’s it’s unrealistic to think black folk would memoralize a dead person in this way. In which case, I don’t know what to say. I mean, certainly there are some cliches and tropes in the fim, but I wouldn’t consider that one of them. I guess I don’t see the “minstrel” in that scene.
I saw this movie over 2 months ago and it still resonates quite deeply with me–certainly the only movie this year that brought me close to tears. A film with many powerful and horrific moments (both physically and psychologically) but a welcome response to the–to my mind–deeply problematic and indulgent Django Unchained.
I have been a big fan of Ejiofor ever since I first noticed him as the lead in the wonderful Dirty, Pretty Things, but he’s usually been very reliable and memorable in supporting roles: Inside Man, Serenity, Children of Men, American Gangster, etc. I think his performance is a complex and remarkable one, especially given how internal and recessive it needs to be because of what Solomon goes through, so I’m exceptionally glad this film will bring him additional attention.
Without belaboring the point, I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider this film the Schindler’s List of slavery–a film that presents with unflinching honesty a tragic and indecent time in history through the perspective of an atypical survivor. That we know that he regains his freedom doesn’t in any way diminish the reality that so many endured what he did from the cradle to the grave, with no hope for them at all. The main difference with the Spielberg film is that this film hits close to our home, our national identity, because this country was built on the bodies of so many like them. It’s not an easy film, but one well worth watching, IMHO.
I only agree with Nzinga, Seated on one point: Lupita Nyong’o deserves the Supporting Actress Oscar, and I can’t even begin to think of another performance this year that comes close to hers. Chiwetel is certainly a front-runner, too, and Steve McQueen has a very good chance of becoming the first black director to take home the Academy Award. There are a few films I personally liked more this year, but it’s a tremendous achievement by all concerned.
This conversation is going to be too frustrating for me. I’m not interested in battling all the straw that grows every time one of these movies comes under discussion. No one is saying that one has to be a Nat Turner or Harriet Tubman. I am saying that I think Hollywood and, because of its influence, the American public in general, has a more sambo like idea of slave behavior than was probably accurate. I base this off of the way I notice Hollywood seems to color a lot of what many white folks I meet believe about Black American culture to this day, where they are often way off. But whatever. I hated the movie. Hopefully the Roots remake will be better.
I really get annoyed when these discussions drift off into everyone rushing to point out how many slaves had to do what they had to do to survive! Shoooot, I woulda been stealin’ a hot cake and dancing a jig or two myself, I’m no magical negro and neither are you…" Come on. There is a middle ground between uppity negro and stereotypical minstrel show.
I seem to recall you really digging Django, Unchained despite how over-the-top that movie was. That was just as “Hollywood” as 12 Years, and that movie was very very far from “middle ground”. I rolled with it because it wasn’t trying to tell a true story, no matter how how deep Tarentino thought he was being with it. I disliked that it seemed to communicate that slaves were either Stephens or Djangos, evil Sambos or valient uber-menschs. As if “regular guy just trying to make it through the day” didn’t exist. But Django, Unchained did put a different spin on the slave genre and it was done well. So no harm, no foul.
McQueen was tasked with creating a totally different film, though. The story he told wasn’t intended to be one about a guy of unusual strength, doing unusual things. Solomon Northrup was a regular guy who survived the way most regular people would have. I didn’t see anything unrealistic in the way he was portrayed. None of it rang particularly “Sambo” to me. Sure, I felt uncomfortable by how passive he seemed in places. But I imagine I’d feel this way if I was observing anyone’s life.
Sorry you can’t hang in there with the conversation. It’s boring when everyone agrees.
As a Black guy, amateur historian, and movie buff, I have almost zero interest in seeing this film. There is just SO MUCH that can be explored with regards to the history of Blacks in America, I’m just tired of all the slavery movies. I’ve seen Roots, Amistad, Queen, Django Unchained, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and all of the various rehashes of the theme. The only thing new explored here is the fact that free-born Northern Blacks were in danger of being abducted and pressed into slavery, which should come as no surprise to anyone.
How about a movie about Marcus Garvey? Or Matthew Henson? Or Harlem during the Renaissance period? or a Biopic about either of the two Great Migrations? Incidentally, I am really in love with the current season of Boardwalk Empire for this very reason. Chalky White, Dr. Narcisse, Daughter Maitland, AC/Harlem in the 20’s. Ahh, refreshing.
Dorjän,how about a based-on-a-true-story Django? I don’t think there’s ever been a movie about Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey or Gabriel. Or just a fictional slave revolt that plays out realistically, without it being mired in horror and tragedy.
I agree with you that we seem flatlined on slave tales. But I am not convinced that we’ve heard all the tales that could be told.
The dialogue in TYAS alone is worth checking out. Apparently it is stylized from Northrup’s writing. I found it hard to follow initially, but I felt it was a nice change from typical slave and white planter class dialect. I’ve been incorporating “luxuriate in the way” in my daily speech.
I am fine with the convo, but not if it turns into a bunch of people pretending that I am proposing that all slaves were Nat Turner or some shit. It goes that way every time and I’m honestly just sick of that.
Django Unchained was a genius movie. Obviously, it wasn’t trying to be a true story, so it isn’t a good comparison.
I don’t see how you can portray a slave revolt realistically without lots of horror and tragedy, although there may be a certain catharsis from said horror/tragedy being on the white folk’s side for once
Now, I’m sure I’ll eventually see TYAS. I’m just in no rush at all to see it. You are right, there are many, many tales to be told about the slavery experience. But they will all necessarily have the broad theme of “Being a slave sucks”. There is a lot of other history out there that would be great to see on the silver screen.
My main complaint was them making the bad guy crazy/bad. They did the same thing in Shindler’s List. The bad guy isn’t just bad, he’s nuts.
I think this gives apologists some room to say: “See he was bad because he was crazy, most slaveholders weren’t crazy like that, they treated their slaves nicely, since they were valuable property and all.”
Which of course misses the point about why slavery is so bad.
I think the really scary thing about the story the movie tells is one that hasn’t been told much, and that was the threat free Blacks lived under even in “free” states.
