"12 years a Slave" review

[madmac]

Spun this on BD the other day and let me say right outta' the gate that I was immediately annoyed at the BD format. Why you ask????......Well.......because the disc would NOT let me skip to the main menu but rather, FORCED me to watch ALL the previews. Now, normally I like to watch previews but only the one's for films that I have not seen. In this case, the previews were for films that I HAVE seen so I wanted to skip them. NO CAN DO CHARLIE BROWN!!. Sorry, but we here in Hollywood say that you HAVE to watch them!. ARGH!!. Also, When I spun the BD version of "All is lost", it initially would not play........ Why???........Oh, you have to do this long firmware update to see it.....sorry!!. DO IT JERKY BOY!!.....or I'm sorry......you can't watch it!!.

I'm sorry but this aspect of BD technology is simply unacceptable and yes, a friend of mine told me that I could have fast forwarded through the previews,,,,but,,,,,,,WHY do I have to do that??!!. As I said.....UNACCEPTABLE!!.:M .........OK.....I've blown off some steam now!!. :

Now on to this film that won 'Best picture' at the Oscars. Should "12 years a Slave" have won best picture???......ya....I guess......I suppose..... There's nothing wrong with this film but it's nothing new and nothing that I have not seen before in other films. Slavery has been covered many times (Like holocaust movies) before in many other films (Recently like "The Butler") so I was not shocked, moved or surprised by what I was watching. That said, I was entertained by this movie and all the acting, cinematography, writing and directing were great. Brad Pitt's role was very small in this film but well done. Still.....in 2014, we can look at this film and be shocked at the fact that at a certain time in human history, blacks were considered PROPERTY to others and could be tortured and/or killed without regard and prosecution. Unbelievable!!. Now, the U.S has a black president!!. Tell that or predict that to the people back then and see what they would have to say!!. :lol:

8/10 stars for this film.......it's GOOD!!........Trust me!!! :T :W

[aud19]

Reading the book now, looking forward to watching the movie too :T

[bigburner]

Interesting review Dan. I'm not sure I want to be traumatised once again by watching man's inhumanity to his fellow man. However I'm pleased that this film has been made as there's a large section of humanity that needs to be traumatised out of their ignorant complacency. Sadly most of them probably won't watch it.

Nigel.

[mjb]

I've not seen it, but I agree with Dan: the subject is getting a little old, unless its got a new twist like Django Unchained. Perhaps it does, I'd like to think it won all those oscars on merit and not guilt.

[madmac]

I've not seen it, but I agree with Dan: the subject is getting a little old, unless its got a new twist like Django Unchained. Perhaps it does, I'd like to think it won all those oscars on merit and not guilt.

The only different twist to this film from other films about slavery is that the main character gets kidnapped from the free U.S north as a free, educated, musically gifted black man and transported to the south and sold as a un-free slave with no means of escape. Everything that happens once he's there (which happens quickly) is standard slavery plot that I've seen many times before. Don't get me wrong.....it's good....well filmed....well acted......just......nothing super new is all.

[wkhanna]

...........as there's a large section of humanity that needs to be traumatized out of their ignorant complacency.

Nigel.

The fight against bigotry & racism require constant education.
As for such movies which deal with slavery, I seldom hear anybody say there are too many made about the Holocaust.

[Ovation]

I do. But usually not by Americans. I suspect such sentiments are more frequent in the countries where the events took place--not necessarily out of a lack of sympathy but out of a "we get it already" perspective. On an individual level, such a perspective might be fair (i.e. John Doe is sufficiently aware of history to understand the ramifications of...). However, as someone who has been teaching history at various levels for over 20 years, I can attest two things. One--repetition is critical for learning. There are exceedingly few things that are learnt well in one try. Two--while there can be many films (historical feature films are an ongoing research interest of mine) about an historical topic, most people see a small percentage of them. For those who see more, it can seem like "what, another one", but in the aggregate, far fewer people actually see many films on the same historical topic.

If we take slavery on screen (there is a short, excellent book by the historian Natalie Zemon Davis on this topic), what are the major cinematic works on the subject? Here is a link to Wikipedia that lists films on the subject. It is incomplete but appears to include all the major works.

The number of works where slaves are the central focus of the story are rather few. Lincoln is about freeing slaves but we see few of them. Glory is about the army--again, few portions of the film are focused on slavery itself. Amistad is about free blacks captured and illegally transported as slaves but they never actually become slaves, ultimately regaining their freedom from incarceration. Only Roots (1977) and 12 Years...(2013) focus on slavery itself among the major films on the list (the are others on the list that do so but they had marginal viewership). Django is a separate case (Tarentino is not claiming historical authenticity) and Gone with the Wind is both quite old and not about slavery. That leaves The Birth of a Nation (1915)--not a film with the slave perspective in mind.

In the end, I don't think we can argue that there have been a huge surplus of films telling a story from the slave point of view with widespread viewership.

[madmac]

I don't know about the term 'Huge' surplus of films on the topic (and ONLY films based solely on that topic), but many films have touched on both the topic/ variations of the holocaust and slavery many times. The very most recent slavery 'touched on topic' film occurs at the beginning of "The Butler" as mentioned above. To be honest, the brutality of slavery and what it might have been like is better touched on and reflected in those first 15 mins of 'The Butler' than in the whole 2 hours of "12 Years a Slave".

I agree though with the above statements that history education is essential and we need to pass down to future generations the horrors and inhumanity of the past so that it does not repeat itself. I for one am embarrassed at humanity's past on many levels. Three big one's come to mind:

1. Slavery and black segregation in the U.S (And probably many other parts of the World). Watch 'The Butler' to get a taste of it.

2. The holocaust.......Unimaginable to be honest.....but....it happened.

3. Over the course of my life, I still think of this.....can't get it out of my head....but.....The dropping of 2 nuclear weapons on civilians (Men, women and children) in Japan by the U.S is just mind boggling..... 100K people snuffed out in seconds. I understand that it ended the war but.... OMG............Think of it!. I hope that ended nuke war forever. Lesson learned I hope??!!.

[Ovation]

I've not seen The Butler yet (the factual basis of 12 Years... is more well-established, but accuracy and authenticity are not necessarily synonymous, so I'll reserve judgement on a comparison between the two films for the moment). However, my point is there have been very few films that have both provided us with the perspectives of slaves as the central focus of the story AND that have had wide viewership. The Butler may well have a compelling treatment of the slavery issue, but that is not its central focus.

As to films about the Holocaust, I understand the general public's tendency to lump them in with films depicting slavery, but (occupational hazard) the two phenomenon are not identical and the historian in me wishes the general media's discussion of these types of films would be more careful to make the distinction.

Anyway, I should get back to my (rather less interesting) pile of marking. So much of it that I can't even take time to watch a movie.

[impala454]

I'd like to see this one at some point. Thanks for all the reviews. I'd think the topic at hand is pretty irrelevant to whether it was a good movie though. Perhaps to whether or not you'd like to see it.

Just FYI, usually if the BD forces you to watch the previews (i.e. won't let you skip), you can still fast forward. I agree it's pretty stupid though. I like HD-DVD for having a unified menu format.

[bigburner]

The dropping of 2 nuclear weapons on civilians .... I understand that it ended the war

A common misconception. The real objective of those bombs was to send a strong message to the Soviet Union about who was going to be the top dog in the post-World War 2 world.

Nigel.

[Ovation]

A common misconception. The real objective of those bombs was to send a strong message to the Soviet Union about who was going to be the top dog in the post-World War 2 world.

Nigel.

Sorry, but no. This is a topic I cover at least one semester a year in my world history class and this revisionist reading of the dropping of atomic weapons does not hold up to scrutiny. Richard B. Frank's excellent book, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, conclusively demonstrates that the decision to drop the atomic weapons was NOT primarily motivated by a desire to show who was "top dog". That narrative is based largely on the self-serving memoirs of Japanese leaders in the immediate aftermath of the war who wanted to salvage what was left of their reputations. The leadership lied about their willingness to surrender prior to the bombs and got away with the lie because the documents revealing their actual intentions were only declassified in the 90s and it took several years to sift through the material. By then, the story that the bombs were unnecessary had become firmly anchored. In reality, the leadership was not even prepared to surrender after the first bomb--declassified minutes of the cabinet deliberations of the Japanese "gang of six" prove this. Moreover, when Truman was given his options, he had two from which to choose. One--use the bomb and hope for a quick surrender. Two--order the implementation of Operation Olympic, an invasion of Japan similar to D-Day in Europe. That option projected 250,000 US casualties and nearly two million Japanese dead (mostly from starvation after the railways and ports were to be decimated in the initial phase of Olympic). The decision to use the bombs was not made lightly.

Was there a component of the decision that included the ramifications on US-Soviet relations? Of course there was. The US administration was not naive. But it is a serious distortion of the facts to suggest that that was the only, or even primary, motivation for the use of the bombs. It was an important factor but it did not outweigh the more concrete concerns regarding the effects of a full-scale invasion.

[impala454]

Although off topic, very interesting Ovation, thanks.

[aud19]

Although off topic...

Don't go in the Blue Jasmine thread :lol:

[Chris D]

Blue Waffle?

[madmac]

How about a re-make of both 12 years a Slave and Gravity??. "Gravity II- Slaves in SPACE" !!! Oh YA!!!.......in 3D of course!.

[aud19]

Watched 12 Years a Save last night and have to say I wish I'd read the book after.

Don't get me wrong, the movie was VERY good, and most of the acting was stellar but as disturbing as many of the scenes (Pastey's whipping in particular) were, it didn't touch the drudgery, despair, cruelty and hopelessness that the book does.

In fact it may have been a better mini-series to better translate the weight of time and oppression (and detail) that I feel the movie had to downplay because of the obvious restrictions of the medium.

That said, on it's own I'd still give it a solid 9/10. It really is an EXCELLENT movie with a supremely talented cast. I just wish it hadn't felt as much like a "Coles Notes" version of the book as it did.

For any of you who enjoyed the film....I HIGHLY recommend the book.

[aud19]

Another complaint I have was that I actually found the score quite jarring at times actually taking me out of the story. Zimmer could have used some more subtlety IMO rather than trying to hit me over the head with the musical "drama".

[bigburner]

Sorry, but no. This is a topic I cover at least one semester a year in my world history class and this revisionist reading of the dropping of atomic weapons does not hold up to scrutiny. Richard B. Frank's excellent book, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, conclusively demonstrates that the decision to drop the atomic weapons was NOT primarily motivated by a desire to show who was "top dog". That narrative is based largely on the self-serving memoirs of Japanese leaders in the immediate aftermath of the war who wanted to salvage what was left of their reputations. The leadership lied about their willingness to surrender prior to the bombs and got away with the lie because the documents revealing their actual intentions were only declassified in the 90s and it took several years to sift through the material. By then, the story that the bombs were unnecessary had become firmly anchored. In reality, the leadership was not even prepared to surrender after the first bomb--declassified minutes of the cabinet deliberations of the Japanese "gang of six" prove this. Moreover, when Truman was given his options, he had two from which to choose. One--use the bomb and hope for a quick surrender. Two--order the implementation of Operation Olympic, an invasion of Japan similar to D-Day in Europe. That option projected 250,000 US casualties and nearly two million Japanese dead (mostly from starvation after the railways and ports were to be decimated in the initial phase of Olympic). The decision to use the bombs was not made lightly.

Was there a component of the decision that included the ramifications on US-Soviet relations? Of course there was. The US administration was not naive. But it is a serious distortion of the facts to suggest that that was the only, or even primary, motivation for the use of the bombs. It was an important factor but it did not outweigh the more concrete concerns regarding the effects of a full-scale invasion.

Fair comment Ovation. I defer to your greater knowledge of history.

Nigel.