I’d love to see a movie about John Horse, the Black Seminole leader. His revolt is considered one of the only successful slave revolts in the history of the Americas, even though success meant they got to accompany the rest of the Seminoles in the forced removal to Oklahoma (but, better than being enslaved again).
It also brings up the largely forgotten “South to Freedom” trail. Slaves in the Deep South (Georgia, the Carolinas, Mississippi and Alabama) had almost no chance of making it to freedom in the north- the vast majority of the slaves who made it to freedom lived in border states or on the Mississippi River, and even for them the odds weren’t good- but until the 1820s many got their freedom by escaping south into Florida.
Me too! After the first round of whipping, I would’ve told them whatever it was they wanted me to say and then some. Dignity be damned.
One minor shortcoming to the story, I think, is that it seems to suppose that the protagonist’s situation was extra injust because he was a free man. There was a element of “But I’m free man, so you can’t do this me!”, as if the wrongness had to do with his legal status not his humanity. While I agree that his situation was tragic because he was ripped away from his family and life, his experience doesn’t underscore the horror of slavery any more than other victim does. It would’ve been great if another slave had pointed that out to him.
I wish we’d learned more about Solomon’s views towards slavery prior to his kidnapping. Was he indifferent to what was happening to enslaved blacks prior to becoming one of them? Was it possible that he even considered himself better than them? I would have loved to see this explored more. To me, the scene where he is singing at the funeral signified his transformation from a guy who saw himself as being apart from other slaves to a guy who saw himself as being among them. But this wasn’t fleshed out as well as it should have been. In the very next scene, he was rescued.
Overall, I thought the movie was very well done; some of the scenes of brutality will never leave my mind. What I especially like is how it illustrates how slavery warped the minds of slaveowners. Fassbender’s character, as crazy as he was, came across as realistic to me. The need for control and domination drove him to do evil in the service of making money, but at a certain point, it stopped being about making money and all about power.
Yeah, media has been* making sure* to beat us in the head with this sentiment about black people. Sure would be refreshing to see some other angles represented. I mean, we know for a fact that all black people didn’t respond this way. I would love to have Hollywood stop pandering to audiences that lap up Blindsided, The Help, 12 Years, Precious and so on. Sigh. Maybe only geniuses like Spielberg can whet my whistle with these kinds of topics. I do remember what a great job he did with Amistad. Of course, the masses didn’t like that one so much. Heh.
I’ve not read the thread, as I want to see the film. But I can recommend the book. If you buy it, get the annotated version which provides cites for the material in the book, such as census records and other materials that verify the author’s assertions.
What sentiment? That a beaten man who is beaten hard and long enough will eventually breakdown? Do you have a philosophical issue with this portrayal in general, or only when it’s black people involved?
I have a harder time accepting movies about slavery when I can tell there’s an agenda to make the victims possessive of superhuman levels of courage and unflappability, all in the name of “dignifying” them. Not just because this distorts the truth, but also because it downplays the brutality they actually endured. Portrayals of black folks actually breaking under the inhumane pressures they dealt may not make us feel proud and happy, but not every portrayal is supposed to generate those feelings.
I actually believe we’ve been beaten over the head with more images of the archetypical strong, emotionally invincible, ever-resilent black person who can withstand whatever oppression the white man throws at him. Think Denzel silently taking those lashes in Glory or even Kunta Kinte’s footless self in Roots. Those with the audacity to cry, give up, sing the spirituals as they worked, or play “step 'n fetchit” tend to be made out to be weak, blind, flawed and misguided individuals, even villans even. In slavery depictions, the heroes are usually strong and non-compliant. Not “weak”.
Solomon never lost his dignity in the film, so your comments are a bit of a head scratcher. He spent most of the movie clinging to the belief that he could appeal to the white man’s sense of fairness by being excellent and smart. Stooping and playing the fool would’ve went against his agenda. If you really think him singing at the funeral represented him “minstreling up”, I must’ve seen a totally different movie than you did. He could’ve whipped out his violin at that point, I guess, but unfortunately, he bashed it to pieces after he was betrayed by the white man who gave it to him.
'K.
I think the contrast between Solomon and Eliza sheds light on forms of resistance.
Solomon got fed up with Eliza for bawling over her kids. The mistress and slaveowner were also pretty tired of listening to her. Her cries rang out through the plantation. I was tired of it.
But it was clear wailing was the only way she had left to fight. Hence, why she was so angry at Solomon in that scene. He was essentially demanding she surrender her only last shred of humanity. She’d already sacrificed so much of herself, and here he was compelling her to sacrifice more. I got her completely (despite the difficulty I had with the dialogue). The fact that she was sold (farther) down the river underscores that she was indeed rebelling.
Eliza’s behavior put a different spin on the word “dignity”. All those tears and snot, on the surface, seemed so undignified. But they became that way when used as a weapon.
I’m trying to be fair to Nzinga and search my memory for incidences of minstrel/Sambo in Solomon. I’m still coming up empty (shrug). I keep thinking of the scene where he beat the hell out of the assistant overseer. That was some Frederick Douglass badass shit right there. Seems to me this is the exact opposite of a servile “yassah” slave. That he was rewarded with a noose around his neck and then transfered to the Worst Plantation Evah is a sin of reality, not of the film. I’m curious (maybe Nzinga would care to comment?) on how they should made Solomon more realistic.
If you don’t want to be in the conversation, don’t be in it. Drive-by sniping like this is just stupid.
I’d suggest that nearly everyone, if beaten and threatened with death, would change their actions and demeanor. That isn’t cowardice and weakness, it’s human.
Good point. Silently enduring the situation with a stiff upper lip is exactly what the slaveowners were counting on her to do, as it would allow them to carry on without feeling guilt.
Haha! I don’t like the movie. I stated my reasons. You can’t force me to like it and you can’t limit my posts. If I feel someone is rambling off and not really honestly engaging my points, I may post a dismissive post to let them know that I see their bullshit. You may think my posts stupid, but please don’t labor beneath the idea that you can limit or dictate my posts. I didn’t like the way the director failed to show h descend into the bowing, scraping man I watched him become. Not everyone falls for some of these pandering ass movies about the black experience. Deal.
ETA: there was NOTHING undignified about Eliza’s performance. She didn’t shuck or jive an ounce. It was the least shuffled over to her and tried to get her to sambo it up as if she weren’t in pain.
Pandering would be if Solomon was played as if he had superhuman strength and resolve and never bowed to anyone. No matter what horrors were done to him, he was always going to stand up for himself and never back down. Even if it killed him, he’d never give in. That would be pandering.
And now you’re going to respond to this with another dismissive “K” because you don’t actually want anyone to reply to anything you’ve said. We get it. You’re “Strong Black Woman!” and anyone in a film who is not a “Strong Black Woman/Man!” is therefore pandering, shuckin’, jivin’, coonin, shuffling and whatever other words you really really love to say.
Who the hell is forcing you to do or like anything? Seriously, the thread ain’t all about you.
You really haven’t made any, though. “Hollywood doesn’t know my people like I know my people” isn’t really a point of criticism. It’s an opinion.
Just because someone does not see something the way you do does not make it “bullshit”. Just because they post their experiences and opinions to counter your experiences and opinions doesn’t mean anything either. If you don’t want people to “bullshit” with you on an emotional minefield, you could try not going there with them. Like by bringing in what your ancestors did in a conversation about a freakin’ movie. That’s some bullshit right there. The movie is not about you. Or your ancestors. It’s about one man in a specific time and place. It ain’t supposed to be a feel-good movie.
I quoted the one post I thought was stupid. One. Please stop exaggerating.
Whatever. You’re just being silly now.
Can you see how this is not only a criticism of the film, but of people who don’t have the same opinions are you? Why wouldn’t I, as a black person, not be offended by your insinuation?
I’m glad you agree with me?
This was a pretty good take on the movie, IMHO: 12 Years a Slave's Reminder: Slaves Didn't Win Freedom by Being Manly - The Atlantic.
Oh boy. Ok. I can’t really post on the dope much anymore, because I am working too hard lately and am always too exhausted, but I’mma go 'head and tackle this one, because frankly, you are starting to annoy me. Obviously you aren’t forcing me to do anything…you said, “…don’t post” and you realize that was an impotent thing to say, so let’s just pretend you didn’t say it. I will let you back pedal that one.
I’m not one of those people who backs down when black folks say in a room full of white folks, “Stop whining about how white folks don’t understand!” That kind of stuff doesn’t shame me. I still have a tshirt from the 80s that says, “It’s a black thang: you wouldn’t understand”.
Again, I don’t care about folks telling me that slavery movies aren’t about ‘me’. Yes, they ARE about me. That is my history and I feel very connected to it, I don’t care how many people try to tell me different. Trying to paint me as someone who all of a sudden started crying about my ancestors is disingenuous. Someone ELSE brought up my ancestors and I responded. If you AREN’T black and you tell me that “we all probably would have…” anything about what black folks did during slavery, you are getting called on it.
I called her response bullshit because she purposefully presented her post as if it were a response to what I said, when it wasn’t. I said, “Breaking doesn’t equal shucking and jiving.” She responded with, “oh, you have a problem with black people breaking when they’ve been beaten?”
So, let me ask you. If she read my post that specified that I don’t equate breaking with shucking, don’t you think it smells a bit bullshitty to go on to speak as if she never saw that?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, sorry if I said “posts” instead of “post.” Like I said, it was silly to tell someone not to post in a thread, so we will go back to pretending you never said it, since you don’t want me mocking it.
I don’t care if you have a different opinion. I only care when straw men get erected in these conversations. It is EXHAUSTING. It happens everytime. I think he cow towed his ass off, and you don’t think that. No need to paint my position as if I said I think all slaves were Nat Turner, or that I wouldn’t break or any of that. That kind of thing is dishonest and annoying and no one is going to debate you seriously once they catch you doing that. You are going to start getting dismissed and driven by sniped or whateverthehell.
[/QUOTE]
Yes MA’AM. This we agree on entirely. I just want to be sure no one tries to paint my position as if I think every broken slave is shucking and jiving. ELIZA WAS NOT. PATSY WAS NOT.
There is a difference between breaking and surviving and shucking and jiving. Hollywood knows what that difference is and they know certain audiences love to see it and they pander to that. Eliza’s character was dropping jewels on Soloman about why you have to keep your humanity even when you have nothing else. If you notice their postures in that scene, you can literally see him in that posture that is associated with the stereotypical sambo.
I know the internet taught you that is an insult, but not to me.
It shuts down a conversation that you started, though. If you didn’t want hear any responses and you’re so frustrated by the topic, then why bother posting at all?
Yeah. WE KNOW. This is your schtick…to remind everyone–black people included–how misinformed we are about the True Nature of Black People. It doesn’t seem to ever matter to you that no one has appointed you to do this job, that your perspective isn’t any keener than anyone else’s, and that you’ve always got more opinions than actual knowledge to substantiate your claims. We’re wrong, you’re right, and we just need to take your word for it. Uh…no. I’m not an intellectual lightweight. If you don’t have a cite, then you’re just another person with an opinion. I will ignore you just like I ignore the jackasses in GD. Your blackness is not enough to convince me about anything.
So does this also apply to black people? If I tell you I agree with Sampiro, does that mean I’m as not connected to my ancestors as you are? On what basis are you going to call me out for not agreeing with you?
I’m going to be frank. The only physical connection to my ancestors that I have goes back to my grandmother. I never met my great-great-great grandfolk. My ancestors could have stood or fallen for anything, for all I know. All I really know is that they survived. I don’t need to convince myself that I know how they were as people to feel good about myself. Because they aren’t me. They are in the ground. And they don’t need me to rally for them. They did that for themselves.
I don’t have a need to see my ancestors’ stories told in any way except that which rings true according to the accounts history has provided us. If history shows that my ancestors were as diverse and nuanced as any other people are, I’m 100% fine with this. Personally, I saw that in TYAS. Even if Solomon was a Sambo, as you’ve noted, Eliza and Patsy weren’t. Diverse and nuanced, that’s all I want.
But if I thought it had been cartoon distortion of reality? I would accept it for what it is. A dumb movie not worthy of being taken seriously! No different than the over-the-top slave movie we talked about last year or the thousand other depictions of black people that I don’t particularly care for. Making it an indictment against the honor and memory of black Americans would be giving stupid movies WAY too much power. Of course, you’re free to disagree, as I suspect you do. All I know is that there’s something to be said for some emotional detachment. It is possible to critique a movie about slavery without conjuring up what one’s ancestors would or wouldn’t do. If I watched movies always expecting to find self-affirming messages and images in them, I’d be a million times more neurotic than I already am.
And you keep saying he was shucking and jiving without explaining what you mean by it. It’s obvious that it wasn’t OBVIOUS, since no one else has made the same observations. Maybe if you could be more specific in your critique, we’d have something to chew on. Could you maybe cite a slave depiction that was more realistic? Because I can’t, and I’ve feasted on more than a few of these kinds of films.
Even if I agreed with you that Solomon was a Sambo, I don’t know if I’d criticize the film for this. IMHO, a film should present “truth” in characters. Valient, brave, courageous. And also shucking and jiving, if that is the artist’s vision for them. There must have been slaves who shucked and jived, 'cuz there are plenty of people who are shucking and jiving now (where’s Armstrong Williams? I haven’t seen him around lately!) So even though I don’t think Solomon was a stereotype, if he HAD been, that would have been an indictment against his character moreso the film, IMHO. Just like Tony Soprano is a psychopath, but that doesn’t mean The Sopranos is an awful show…or that a psychopathic Tony Soprano is a greater message about the morality of Italian Americans. It’s just a story of one flawed man.
You liked Eliza, so obviously the film got her right in your opinion. How did you feel about Patsy? Or Alfre Woodard? Or any other aspects of the film? “Hate” is such blanket condemnation for a film that had a lot going on it.
Sorry, but you haven’t made it easy to figure out what your point is because there’s a defensive tone in all your posts. By all accounts, the movie has been well-received. I have read a lot of reviews from a variety of different perspectives, and no one has described the portrayal of Solomon Northup the way you have. Using inflammatory language like “shuckin’ and jivin’” and “minstrel” and “sambo”–without really breaking it down so people can see what you’re talking about–is just begging for a certain response. If you lob a grenade into a crowd, “straw” is just about all you’re gonna get.
If you can take the hot lead enema, you can cast the first stone
- Lenny Bruce
I thought the scene where he started singing at the funeral was powerful. It’s easy to forget my that time that Solomon was a musician. It seemed to me that he realized mid-song that singing was going to be his final connection to that part of his life. I’m not sure whether it was resignation or defiance driving it. I do know there’s a world of difference between spirituals and minstrelsy, though.
I swear on everything I love, I wrote a long ass post and lost it.
Sigh. I am sooo exhausted yall. My emotional, racially sensitive ass should have never started on this. But I’m in the kitchen now, so Imma handle the heat.
Monstro: First, I thought I DID explain how I thought he shucked it up, but I maybe I didn’t well enough, because I thought everyone understood what it is. It is a demeanor that Hollywood created to depict black people as naturally subservient. It is something actors were taught when they did blackface. Basically things like grinning extra hard, stooping and walking bent over, clutching their hat in hand. Tooting their lips to make fun of negroid features. When they sing, there was a certain minstrel style that was developed. Basically, it was what some people THOUGHT old negro spirituals sounded like to THEM. But to someone without a biased or racist ear, it doesn’t sound like that, and black people don’t really sing like that either. I can’t explain it any better than to say that when Platt was singing that song, it wasn’t in the manner that he would have sang before his enslavement. And that is FINE. I am fine with him singing in a hurt or broken manner, but he changed the manner to a specific kind of demeanor that I recognize bad impression of true blues or negro spirituals.
That was just my take on it. I think, in that moment, the director should have chosen to have Solomon straighten his back and sing for the fallen slave, in that sacred moment when he was among his people and no slave masters were around to punish him for his absence of bowing and scraping. I think McQueen missed an opportunity to a better way.
The main scene where you can really see his tommin’ is when Eliza has to try to jewel him that there is no such thing as a ‘kind slavemaster’ just slave masters who are different levels of wicked-doing. You can see it in there postures in that scene…through her tears, she remains upright… She stands straight and he is doing that ol’ bend and stoop thing that I keep trying to describe.
I have already said that Patsy was stellar, so I don’t know if you aren’t really reading my very short posts or what, but I won’t go on about that again. She did a great job.
It is the lead that I hated. If the movie had been about everyone else, I may have liked it. The thing is, if the director had peeled back the layers to reveal him breaking down under the brutality of it all, I may have liked the movie. It is easy to break under the whip, but it is hard to truly change your nature. To me, it seemed he went from a to z fast as lightning without the director really showing how he got there. I didn’t relate to him as a real man at all, to be honest. I related to Patsy, Eliza, the villains…other characters.
I don’t mind sharing my thoughts, but not when it starts, right from the beginning, of people misrepresenting what I’m saying. Because that happens on racial topics A LOT on this board, and during this busy time in my life where I have almost zero free time, I don’t want to respond to outright bullshit interpretations of what I have clearly said.
I didn’t realize that you perceived my rep on this board as the one with the schtick you described. I thought I was a well rounded poster across the board, albeit a tad emotional on certain racial issues and struggling with some racial issues in general. Nevertheless, you remain on my favorite poster list, even when, shit probably especially when, you annoy me.