12 Years a Slave is sort of a “Roots” for the new generation, with the major difference being that “Roots” was based on a novel, while 12 Years is based on a real person’s story. While slavery has been addressed in other movie forms (Amistad, Django Unchained), 12 Years approaches it with more heart than Amistad and more earnestness than the stylized Django.
Director Steve McQueen (not that Steve McQueen; the actor has long since passed away) and
screenwriter John Ridley have adapted the biography of 19th-century
American Solomon Northrup. Northrup, a free man living with his family in
Saratoga Springs, NY, is offered a two week job in Washington D.C., but it's a trap. Under this ruse, he is taken captive and transported south, where he is sold as a slave.
Many scenes include brutally violent mistreatment of human
beings—whippings, beatings, a near-hanging and rape. It is very difficult to watch.
The horror, heightened by the fact that Mr. Northrup has always known freedom,
is interspersed with gorgeous images of the natural south—Spanish moss curtaining
golden light through the trees, swamps teeming with life, lovely plantation
homes, even a glorious field of white cotton waiting to be harvested. Of
course, these images are haunted by our knowledge of the travesty that undergirds
the way of life there. Seeing this natural beauty through the eyes of a man
living in fear and degradation brought home to me once again the myriad ways
that we corrupt the creation which God intended for delight.
And then there is God’s written Word, which is also
corrupted by slaveowners for their own purposes.
The first slaveowner, played
by the ubiquitous Benedict Cumberbatch, seems to feel he’s doing his best,
trying to stay on a high moral ground in spite of the messy matter of owning
slaves. He’s the “nice” slaveowner, the one who feels he is treating his slaves
well, the one who stages Sunday services for them on his plantation. He stands reading
Scripture in his lovely garden as the slaves sit, a truly captive audience that includes a grieving mother who has been separated from her children by
his purchase.
Another, more vile slaveowner, played by McQueen’s favorite
actor Michael Fassbender, reads to his slaves as well. He reads this (in a
different translation): “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not
get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.”
That verse from Luke 12, in context, is a difficult enough passage, but when
snatched away from surrounding verses, it is a cruel power the master lords
over his slaves.
On the other hand, Northrup finds some solace in singing
spirituals on the death of a fellow slave, showing the way that the spiritual
life of slaves gave them hope for the future, in the next life if not here on
earth.
McQueen ably portrays the complete loss of dignity and the
inhumanity that Northrup and other slaves suffer. Chiwetel Ejiofor is amazing
in the roll of Solomon Northrup, as is Lupita Nyong'o's portrayal of another slave named Patsey; all of the acting is excellent. The cinematography
is stunning. And there are some unusually long pauses in the action that leave
us suspended in time (and sometimes in horror) in a way that helps us enter
into the character’s feeling of being powerless to leave a horrible situation.
My initial reaction to it was a mixture of being deeply
affected (and brutalized, as the director must have hoped) by the story, and at
the same time feeling that there were no surprises. I have seen these
characters before, though more often in books than in movies. That is in part due, as a friend explained to me, that Northrup's story was published in the same time period as a number of slave narratives, and many were written as part of the abolitionist movement's campaign. A George Mason University website has an article about why this story is a little different and considered more reliable than most.
But perhaps it is time for a new generation to look
closely and deeply into the terrible history of slavery in our country. We
cannot face present problems without looking at the way we came to them, and
ignorance of our past systemic inhumanity will serve to continue
misunderstanding and hate. If you want to take the next step, read about what
happened after slavery was officially ended and the subsequent struggles faced
by freed slaves and their descendants in the book The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson. Our collective past
sins affect many generations, including the current one.
The more I thought about that movie, the less I liked it. Like you, I was hit over the head by the reminder of the injustice of Northup's condition and the brutality of the entire slave enterprise. But what bugs me is Fassbender's character. I'm annoyed that McQueen (or is it Northup himself?) presents slavery personified as the sadistic psychopath. I think that gives us too easy an escape from any culpability. He was so psycho that he's just another Hollywood archetype: Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, the Joker in The Dark Knight, (Plankton on Sponge-Bob ;) the list goes on. These characters are just evil for fun. I don't think it adds to the nation's progress on slavery and racism to portray slavery as just another fantasy-evil. It makes it altogether too easy for us to dismiss it all as so much sandbagging. More interesting would have been a closer examination of the slave's condition under the slave owner who was not just evil for it's own sake, but heartless and unsympathetic for the sake of convenience, greed, tradition, privilege, etc. More Cumberbatch, less Fassbender, please! Maybe this is why I liked Django much more. I think Tarantino was more aware of the tendency to portray slave owners as fantasy-evil, so he portrayed both the slave and the abolitionist as fantasy-heroes. Far less realistic, but at least we knew that going in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in many ways Paul, and I would prefer more exploration of Ford's (Cumberbatch) moral ambiguity rather than Epps (Fassbender), but this article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/17/_12_years_a_slave_true_story_fact_and_fiction_in_mostly_accurate_movie_about.html) suggests that Northrup's own account was even harder on Epps and kinder to Ford than the movie is. I've read a couple of other articles too, probably just enough to be dangerous in my ignorance. One (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/the-passion-of-solomon-northup/) said that there was a ghostwriter involved in Northrup's book, and that he likely added a few happier scenes that made it more palatable to the 19th century reader. But the ghostwriter also tended toward stereotypes. Apparently a lot of research has gone into verifying the original Northrup account, and the conclusion has been that it is basically reliable and the article author feels like the movie stays true to the real story.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I certainly don't mean to cast any doubt on the veracity of Northup's story. It may or may not be exaggerated by abolitionist ghostwriters to help their cause. The story is no less horrific and powerful. I just think that by portraying Epps in such a fantasy-villain manner, it makes it more likely that modern audiences will dismiss slavery as so-two-centruries-ago and thereby miss an opportunity to see how our own attitudes toward race are still perhaps complicit with the antebellum slaveowner. I think stories can be "true" without being "factual." And I think I would have liked this film more if it had been more "true" and less "factual". If you know what I mean. I think that's why I was disappointed at the prevailing criticism against The Butler. Poeple complained that it wasn't factual. No, but it was still "true" in many ways.
ReplyDelete