Steve McQueen's 12 YEARS A SLAVE, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor

AW proclaims that bloggers and online writers have 'de-professionalized' criticism, so I don't think he would deign to know any of us.

Yup, Armond just reeks of professionalism.

AW proclaims that bloggers and online writers have 'de-professionalized' criticism

Translation: when everyone is racing to be the biggest asshole, it's hard to be the biggest asshole.

all in all, the movie was good in parts but seems now kinda flat to me. "torture porn" is waaaay too exegerating and extreme though

Didn't know about the brad Pitt cameo until the armond review, yeesh.

This was played more straight than I expected, but I think that was a good choice. The material is so overwhelming that anything showier would have seemed out of place. I don't think it's a great film, it's more determined than it is inspired. But it's affecting anyway because how can it not be.

it's more determined than it is inspired

thats well put

yeah that's kinda otm.

the determination (going straightforward)pays the price for the lack of inspiration (not going deep, e.g. one dimensional characters)

this was the problematicest of movies

howso

find it weird that in a lot of the british press, this is mentioned AFTER american hustle winning 3 golden globes. seems a bit suspicious. youd think a british victory would be reported more.

they were impressed w Amy Adams' accent

impressed confused

seems a bit suspicious. youd think a british victory would be reported more.

Countdown to Armond relocating to London...

Note to Armond: we call them 'bin men' over here.

lol he was booted from a critics' group, he is still editing/writing for a site that you will be clicking on for as long as it's there.

i mean ~problematic~ is lazy but

i. all of the fun and impressive acting gets to be done by white people: elijofor just gets to stand there and make the same face the whole time. (when he actually gets to act in the three or four scenes he does so he's pretty good)

ii. part of why this is possible is that the majority of the slaves aren't people, aren't even characters. -- that the only black characters who are fleshed out are fleshed out entirely in terms of their relation to the white ones. (there are arguable exceptions to this -- eliza, mainly. but her arc still isn't about her.)

ii.a. we have no sense ever of northup's relationship with the other slaves -- like, in twelve years, what do you think he talks to these people about, with his entirely different accent and background?

iii. the emphasis the film throws on the act of solomon making a pen and ink seems mendacious on some level--so like it's a trope of slave narratives that the ability to write has a near-metaphysical importance, that it's a way of asserting a self and identity. the grounds of this trope seem to require that the medium we encounter them in is written; that the narrative is first-person and makes conscious reference to the fact of its audience reading the book. i'd want to argue that (for all that it refuses to leave northup) the film's narrative isn't first person and the northup character isn't the author of it.

iv. this makes his being able to write more a marker of what the white characters claim it is, being "larned", seditious, superior. -- when epps is arguing at the end about northup being not a free man the film seemed worryingly close to subscribing to his logic ...

v. i want to tie this together into some larger claim about subsuming the material's requirements into a hollywood-standard narrative of personal endurance (the ending is gross) (particularly what the soundtrack is doing) (man the soundtrack), that reducing the story to the experiential means abandoning any real grasp on the larger social structure except in the most heavy-handed of ways. but i don't think i can quite explain that in a non hand-wavy way, not knowing the history well enough or being quite good enough about the vocab of film to articulate why ..

(disconnected cheap shot:) buncha europeans play plantation owners who just can't understand that black people are people and then brad pitt comes along and explains that they are, great, thanks for that ...

we have no sense ever of northup's relationship with the other slaves

NO sense? I can think of 3 characters who are exceptions to that, at least.

okay, i think i'm exagerrating there and confusing a couple claims:

viz., i., we never do the aspect of s.n.'s experience that is learning to get by and talk to the people he finds himself among on a day-to-day basis

ii., the only figures we see solomon speak to are those marked by their being recipients of white attention

there is an extent to which this could be argued a considered choice: that existing under slavery means you don't get to define yourself independently. but i think the film is arriving at that by accident and naively, for the most part.

I took as a given that being enslaved means you don't get to define yourself independently, in many many ways.

I want to watch it again, but I also got the sense that McQueen and John Ridley thought the audience could not handle a less tidy ending.

(Solomon's return to NY commenced the third act of a horrifying ordeal, as the book shows)

my reaction was similar to yours tom especially re: the 2nd point, but at the same time i think well that was just Mcqueen's approach and i guess i think it was a valid one, isolating solomon like that - just not what i really wanted - Vern puts it well imo - He doesn’t want to take it like anyone else. He doesn’t want to find solace in religion and music, like you always hear about. In one unique scene he sits silent through a long closeup before he finally joins in on the singing. I think he doesn’t want to just be another member of the group. He doesn’t want to give up on being a unique individual. But eventually he has to take the plunge.

I had a problem w/the filming of the sex scenes too: Solomon as passive thing, to which things are done.

if it's Fox Searchlight, even a grim story is ending on an up note.

(particularly what the soundtrack is doing) (man the soundtrack)

that's easily the worst thing about the film, i think. it's not even Zimmer's fault for writing a bad soundtrack (although it's unsubtle), it's McQueens fault for ramming it down your throat. It made me think that McQueen takes his entire audience for cretins.

in twelve years, what do you think he talks to these people about, with his entirely different accent and background?

well, I didn't even get the feeling that 12 years had passed. How long is he supposed to be at Epps'? No one changes appearance or otherwise the entire time.

In spite of this I actually think it's mostly a good film though and sometimes an excellent one. The ending is extremely underpowered though which, considering how hard McQueen pushes some other scenes, is disappointing. I'm sure it's intentional though.

Great post though, thomp. Can you say more about these points?:

i'd want to argue that (for all that it refuses to leave northup) the film's narrative isn't first person and the northup character isn't the author of it.

iv. this makes his being able to write more a marker of what the white characters claim it is, being "larned", seditious, superior. -- when epps is arguing at the end about northup being not a free man the film seemed worryingly close to subscribing to his logic ...

alf: yeah so that sex scene in the beginning s his only prolonged interaction with another character that isn't made explicitly about white ppl, right ...? and even then: ...

ade: yeah that scene is interesting though! like i think its inclusion is the best argument, certainly, that mcqueen is taking this tack deliberately. i found myself resisting being moved by it because, yes, it seemed like a gesture towards the film i'd have rather been watching; also, because elijofor's voice is mixed too high in the sound design in a way that i thought was mendacious

jed like i say i don't know if i can articulate it. the film knows that the modern viewer understands that epps' claim ('if solomon did not have free papers, my treatment of him would be justified') is a wrong one. but i had a fairly queasy feeling watching that scene (and i think an unintentional one -- if i felt like it was deliberate i'd be acclaiming it) that the film had forgotten to establish that this is wrong by its own lights. like the internal logic of the narrative does not address this; instead brad pitt comes along and explains it.

"his only prolonged interaction with another character that isn't made explicitly about white ppl" chronologically after he's kidnapped, i mean.

the soundtrack didnt bug me. when i saw zimmers name in the end credits i was like 'whoa hey, wouldnt have guessed'. i watch a lot of hwood crap though and they all have bad scores... like Lee daniels The Butler

best scores are like, idk, dredd type scores.

greedo

these days anyway, wrt mainstream hollywood

thomp i like your posts, they are interesting. i am too busy to respond with anything for the moment, but i wanted to note that.

I liked the deployment of zimmer he was the skrillex of this film

lol

she's in the film for a total of about 5 minutes but Sarah Paulson blows everyone else off the screen as Epps's wife, imo. Amazing performance.

yeah paulson killed it.

My family was urging me to see this a few months back but between this thread and other critical voices, I'm not sure I ever want to

Man that Hans Zimmer theme that plays endlessly through the movie is basically Brian Eno's "An Ending (Ascent)" and it was kind of driving me nuts.

I'm in the middle of Northup's book and some of the elisions and changes of the film are striking for assorted reasons... eg, the Dano character was actually his second of three owners, and Solomon speaks quite well of his first owner, something you'd be wise not to even attempt w/ voiceover.

Epps was "portly" btw.

For anyone that cares, this explains why McQueen and Ridley snubbed each other during their acceptance speeches last night: http://www.thewrap.com/oscars-rift-fight-john-ridley-steve-mcqueen-12-years-a-slave

Hoberman: http://harpers.org/archive/2014/03/here-there-is-no-why/

yeah, I wondered how ppl saying this film wasn't "hard" enough would react to the book's eye-popping line on "the bright side of slavery."

Northup’s book, transcribed from his oral account by a white man, the New York state legislator David Wilson, is notable among so-called slave narratives for its specificity in names, places, and dates.

this is what most impressed me

oh I see Hoberman's essay is a continuation of his American cultural studies.

btw The American Conservative approvingly dug up an 8-year-old Esquire essay on race and politics by John Ridley:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/new-black-americans-john-ridley/

Solomon speaks quite well of his first owner, something you'd be wise not to even attempt w/ voiceover.

He obviously quite likes him in the film!

yes, but the book explicitly calls him "a good man" and Christian who's a sort of victim of his moral environment. Moreover, it says some similar things about Mistress Epps.