12 Years A Slave (No spoilers in the OP; there may be afterwards.)

Cafe Society
61

I completely agree with all of this. I would never deny a black American the right to feel connected to blacks of the past. It’s completely reasonable, and i’m sure that the persistence of Jim Crow laws and racism in more recent American history make the connection even more tangible.

Well, aesthetics and artistic evaluation are inherently personal, but i really didn’t see any of that myself. My wife is a historian who works on American visual culture, and teaches a college history course on representations of race, including lessons on minstrelsy and the use of blackface in American history. When i showed her your observations, she was quite surprised, and said that she really didn’t perceive any minstrel-type mannerisms in Ejiofor’s portrayal of Northup.

That doesn’t invalidate your perceptions, of course, but i think that you might want to think about whether you’re reading a bit too much into the performance.

Sure, exceptional people exist in all time periods. I guess my point about Amistad is that not to argue that the type of people portrayed in Amistad could never have existed, but to argue that Spielberg’s portrayal of the ways in which whites treated Joadson in the movie was, as a whole, a contrast to the way that historians understand the time period.

Even if there were some exceptional people who would have treated Joadson in the completely respectful way portrayed in the film, the overall impression given by the film misrepresents the extent to which free blacks were accepted in the North in the middle of the nineteenth century. If you make clear that your exceptional character was historically exceptional, that’s one thing. But you shouldn’t imply that exceptional actions were the norm, which is what Spielberg does with his portrayal of the white Northerners and their treatment of Joadson.

You say that “If a story stands out in history, like the Amistad story, I am not surprised to see exceptional people being a part of it.” That might be true, but Spielberg seems to have gone out of his way to portray some of his exceptional characters inaccurately. John Quincy Adams was far less committed to the cause of abolitionism than is portrayed in the movie, especially when he first took on the case. Renowned abolitionist Lewis Tappan did not, as suggested by Spielberg, argue that the slaves of the Amistad should be sacrificed as martyrs to the abolitionist cause. And, perhaps most significantly, if “exceptional people” were indeed part of the Amistad story (and i agree they were), then why did Spielberg feel the need to create a fictional black abolitionist instead of using a real one, when most of his other main characters were actual historical figures?

I’m not arguing that Amistad is a bad movie. I think, in many ways, that its strengths at least balance out (if not outweigh) its weaknesses. But it does have historical problems, and those problems are particularly troubling because they were, in my opinion, so unnecessary to the historical recreation Spielberg was trying to undertake.

Some historians pointed out that Americans of the 1840s didn’t wear beards, as portrayed in the movie. I don’t care too much about that stuff. What i’m arguing here, though, is that some of the more substantive historical alterations made by Spielberg were problematic precisely because they misrepresented central historical characters, and did so in a way that was completely unnecessary. Spielberg did something similar with his more recent movie, Lincoln, where (using Tony Kushner’s script) he had the movie portray two Connecticut congressmen as voting against the 13th Amendment, something that never happened.

Anyway, that’s all something of a hijack from the topic of this thread. When 12 Years a Slave comes out on DVD, i’ll be buying a copy, and i’ll look closely for the instances of minstrel-like acting that you are alleging here.

62

Another great post, there. And yes, I do agree with you, if one shows an exceptional character, they shouldn’t portray that as if it were the norm.

I don’t suspect you will notice the mannerisms I have accused TYAS with, as I haven’t had seen many people outside of a few close friends agreeing with me. But if you DO see it, let me know! And, yes, I have considered the idea that maybe I am too sensitive and reading too much into the performance, but I really don’t think so. I think he hammed it up too much, for sure.

63

I loved the film, and Nzinga’s a bit over the top in a few of her early posts in this thread, but I agree with her in this: 1. the transition from erudite Northerner to subservient Southerner was portrayed just a little too quickly, and 2. His singing style at that “funeral” scene was uncomfortably 'Ol Man Riveresque.

But I think 1, anyway, can be mainly explained as the character’s efforts to disguise his PLACE OF ORIGIN as much as anything else. To affect a Southern regional accent. (His Northern accent was raising questions about literacy, if I recall correctly, which put him in danger.) A brief scene of him alone (or just with fellow slaves) perfecting a feigned Southern accent would have been helpful.

I know Nzinga’s observed “s and j” is more than just this – the stooped posture, etc. – but I think a scene like this might have helped the matter.

Certainly his whipping of the Paul Dana (?) character, and the pigsty scene with the Fassbender character, went a long way to counteract any everyday subservience.

64

Oh, and my only other criticism reflects what’s already been mentioned, mainly about “Amistad”: that he and his family were treated just a little TOO well by whites in their hometown of Saratoga, New York. The contrast (sadly) was never THAT deep between North and South.

I say this because such depictions cheapen the vanishingly rare historical instances when social equality WAS so completely practiced. About 7 years ago, I read a terrific biography of John Brown. It emphasized how Brown went much further than typical Northern abolitionists – not just in the obvious “take up arms” sense, but in how he treated his Black friends as true equals. He founded a small farming community in the Adirondacks (New York State) where Blacks and Whites were absolutely equal. That, to me (and the biographer), was at least as radical in its time as anything he des with guns in Kansas or Harper’s Ferry. But you wouldn’t know how radical that was from the Saratoga scenes in 12YAS.

(The community was a failure, by the way. Not for any racial reason, just because Adirondack soils suck, and Brown was a crappy farmer.)

65

I mentioned earlier that I credulous as to whether he could’ve actually eaten in a restaurant as he is depicted doing in one scene. There were segregated restaurants in the South of course up until the 1960s, but even the “liberal” north had segregated establishments well into the 20th century, and this was in Washington DC, a city where slavery was legal and that was very southern in its atmosphere.

66

I’ve been to numerous plantation homes, slave cabins, old prisons and insane asylums, battlefields, Andersonville, the Lalaurie mansion in NOLA that’s currently featured on American Horror Story, and other sites associated with atrocities, and most are surprisingly, perhaps disappointingly, peaceful. One of the few places that I’ve ever been to that gave me chills is, oddly enough,this pleasant townhouse in Alexandria, Virginia. It used to be this business. Something about it gives me the creeps.

67

Yeah, that scene kind of took me out of the movie. Do you happen to know how it really played out?

68

From the book, it does look like they dined together that evening (since Hamilton and Brown were with him when he was shown back to his room).

Though the nature of the restaurant isn’t said. From this reading I’d assume it was the one they were staying at (a couple pages previous it is said to be the same hotel as Hamilton and Brown though on the back of the ground floor).

69

I finally saw the movie at the late showing on Friday night - I was the only person in the theater. I think everyone else was at the Hunger Games showing next door.

I thought it was good, but I was disappointed over all because based on the buzz I had much higher expectations. I mean, I already knew that slavery was brutal and evil. I knew female slaves were often raped by their masters; I knew families were broken up, and that slaves were treated worse than animals. I felt like the message kept telling me how bad slavery was - as if it were some kind of revelation. I think the real problem was that the movie never let me into Solomon’s head, so I was observing everything from the outside. I never felt like I was suffering with Solomon until the very last scene when he reunites with his family.

So keeping in mind that everything else was great, here’s what I didn’t like:

  1. The insane slaveholder seemed like a stock character, although I’ll give it a pass if it was accurate to the book.
  2. I didn’t feel like there was any passage of time at all. Without the title of the movie, I would have guessed that Solomon spent the summer a slave.
  3. I felt the anguish of the secondary characters - from Omar on the ship to Patsy and the other slaves - much more than Solomon’s.
  4. Brad Pitt stuck out like a sore thumb.

Even with these flaws, it’s still one of the top movies of the year for me. However, it’s such an Oscar-film cliché that I really hope it doesn’t win, except for maybe the actress who played Patsy.

70

I think one of the more interesting things to me (aside from the obvious hideousness of slavery - the scene in the slave house where the mother is separated from her children should be answer enough alone to the John Derbyshires of the world) is how it showed that slave owners themselves were in a sense trapped by the system, and forced into making immoral decisions for the sake of it. Take Benedict Cumberbatch’s character - the “good” slave owner - who even after learning of Solomon’s free status, ignores that because he can’t suffer the financial loss. And this was a preacher! Garrett Dillahunt’s character’s comment about the toil it takes on the soul was spot on (even if he did go and turn Judas).

71

I agree with this. While the brutality and inhumanity of slavery translates well to the screen, the personal anguish of the slave experience didn’t really make the transition in quite the same way. Of course, the latter would be much harder to convey on film; i’m not sure how one might do it.

Yes, and this is something that the director could have done better.

Yep, really bad casting choice. And i like Brad Pitt.

It is worth noting that the conversation between Bass (Pitt’s character) and Epps regarding the morality of slavery is taken virtually word-for-word from Northup’s narrative, but i’m still not sure it was a wise choice to include it in the movie.

Remember, too, that Northup’s own narrative was not actually written directly by him, but was written by a white amanuensis whose main purpose was to excite abolitionist sentiment. I’m not arguing that this makes the narrative bad or even inaccurate, but while it might convey the substance of Northup’s experience, we need to be careful about attributing word-for-word accuracy to conversations dug up from his memory, often months or years after the fact.

72

Pitt was one of the producers of the movie, so I guess if he wanted a part, they would be hard-pressed to say no.

Skammer: The crazy plantation owner was modeled fairly precisely on the book’s narrative. The man would come home drunk and insist that everyone dance and carry on all night, then work them as usual the next day, complete with whippings, which took place for any transgression.

73

I’m sure that’s true, but the only way it changes my argument is in terms of who deserves the blame for such a stupid casting decision.

And Skammer, Chefguy is right that the movie’s portrayal of Epps was pretty much straight out of the narrative.

74

I suspected as much; if a writer made up Fassbender’s character he would (rightly) be accused of ham-fistedness.

And I meant to add that I usually really like Pitt, but is was not a good role for him. All I could think of was his character from Inglorious Basterds because he used pretty much the same accent.

I also forgot to mention that I wish Paul Giamatti’s role was larger. And I smiled to see SNL’s Taran Killam as one of the kidnappers.
ETA: I mean, I was glad for Killam that he got to be in this movie; not that I enjoyed the fact that Solomon was being kidnapped.

75

Oh, one more thing: “I don’t want to survive: I want to live!”

I said the second part of that quote aloud with Solomon (I told you I was alone in the theater). It kind of lessened the impact of that scene to have him quoting one of the more famous lines from Wall-E (Not sure if it’s older than that).

76

My guess is that in order to help get financing, they needed a “name” in the cast–someone with genuine marquee value and not just solid character actor props. Either Pitt knew about the project and volunteered his services, forgoing a paycheck with a producer credit, or he was in on the ground floor with the project as producer, and getting the money to fund the film was easier if he agreed to be in it, even if a part that was relatively small.

77

Probably. I thought Cumberbatch was somewhat jarring, as well.

78

But this doesn’t really make sense, from a financing or marketing point of view. If you need a “marquee name” to get financing, then the people providing the finance generally want that marquee name right there on the marquee, in order to cash in on his or her popularity. Having a marquee name doesn’t work if no-one knows about it.

As someone who teaches about slavery to college students, i followed the release of this film with considerable anticipation, and was committed to seeing it from the moment i learned of its existence. And yet, when i entered the movie theater that day, i had no idea that Brad Pitt would actually be in the movie. Pitt appeared virtually nowhere in the hype and promotion and buzz surrounding this film. His name was not listed up front, and the first i knew of his involvement as an actor was when he appeared on the screen. The only purpose his presence served was to pull me out of the story, and make me think, “Oh, that’s Brad Pitt.”

79

Really? He’s third billed on some of the posters.

80

Well, there you go. I’d never seen that poster, and most pre-release articles that i read focused on director McQueen, and of the performances by Ejiofor, Nyong’o, and Fassbender.

The poster i had seen was this one, where Pitt is 8th in a list of 9, and i never really paid attention to the names on the poster.