12 Years a Slave

Greetings again from the darkness. Should this be labeled a historical drama? Is it one man's extraordinary tale of strength and survival? Does this fall into the "art film" category that so divides the movie-going public? The answer to all is YES, and I would add that it's a masterfully crafted film with exquisite story telling, stunning photography and top notch acting throughout.

The movie is based on the real life and writings of Solomon Northrup, a free man who was kidnapped and sold into slavery from 1841-53. Northrup's story provides us a look inside the despicable institution of slavery. Needless to say, it's a painful and sad process made even more emotional by the work of director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame). McQueen takes a very direct approach. Not much is left to the imagination. Torture, abuse, cruelty and misery take up the full screen. The only subtlety comes from the terrific work of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Northrup. His facial expressions and eyes are more powerful and telling than any lines of dialogue could be.

You will not find many details from the movie here. This is one to experience for yourself. It lacks the typical Hollywood agenda when it comes to American history. Instead this era is presented through the eyes of a single wronged man and his quest to return to his wife and kids, no matter the inhumane obstacles. We see Paul Giamatti as an emotionless, all-business slave trader. Benedict Cumberbatch is a plantation owner who has a heart, but lacks business savvy. And finally we enter the world of cotton farmer Michael Fassbender, who twists Bible scripture into threats directed at the slaves - his "property".

Fassbender dives deep into evil to find his character, and along with Ejiofor, Sarah Paulsen (who plays Fassbender's icy wife), and Lupita Nyong'o (who plays slave Patsey, the center of the two most incredible scenes in the film), provide more Oscar worthy performances than any one movie can expect. You will also note Quvenzhane Wallis (as Northrup's daughter) and Dwight Henry (as a slave) in their first appearances since Beasts of the Southern Wild. Other strong support comes from Scoot McNairy, Taran Killam (SNL), Michael K Williams, Alfre Woodward, a nasty Paul Dano, Garret Dillahunt and Adepero Oduye.

Steven Spielberg gave us a taste of the holocaust with Schindler's List, but not since the TV mini-series "Roots" has any project come so close to examining the realities of slavery. Northrup's story seems to be from a different universe than the charming slaves of Gone with the Wind. I would argue that what makes this watchable (though very difficult) is the focus on Northrup's story. While tragic, his ending actually deflects from the ongoing plight of those not so fortunate. It's a story of a man who states he doesn't wish to merely survive, he wants to live a life worth living.

McQueen's direction will certainly be front and center come awards season, as will many of the actors, John Ridley (the screenwriter), Sean Bobbitt (cinematographer) and Hans Zimmer (score). The only question is whether the subject matter is too tough for Oscar voters, who traditionally lean towards projects a bit more mainstream.

Let's be honest about it: this spotlight on the darkest days of American history is a particularly British triumph. The brilliant director (and artist) Steve McQueen and outstanding Chiwetel Ejiofor, as the eponymous Solomon Northup, are both British; even Michael Fassbender, in the main support role as a sadistically brutal slave-owner, is half British; and Benedict Cumberbatch makes an appearance as a 'kinder' slave owner.

But, of course, there is a vast array of American talent here too. As always, Sean Bobbitt is inspiring as director of photography, making full use of the Louisiana locations. And a host of fine US actors make cameo appearances, notably Brad Pitt (who was one of the 10 producers), Paul Giamatti (looking as if he had walked straight out of the TV mini series "John Adams"), Sarah Paulson and Alfre Woodard. In her first film role, Lupita Nyong'o gives a heart-rending performance as a young slave who is horrendously abused. Original music by Hans Zimmer and use of contemporary songs add to the searing atmosphere of the work

McQueen is unrelenting in his focus: except for short pieces at the beginning and the end of the film, all the time is the period in captivity and, except for occasional glimpses of humanity, we see the slaves subjected to humiliation and horror again and again and again. McQueen's style is slow and penetrating with some long and wordless scenes totally captivating.

As a piece of social history, this movie is simply stunning - a virtual blow to the solar plexus. As a cinematic work, it has some challenges: there is no conventional narrative arc in which a plot unfolds or a character develops because Northrup is confined to a small geographical space where he can only survive by keeping as low a profile as possible; the characters are literally black and white with little subtlety or nuance; and there is not really a sense that the period of incarceration is more than a decade.

At the start and finish of the film, we are reminded that this is a true story based on the book written by Northup in 1853, once he finally re-acquired his freedom (in a pedestrian act of bureaucracy rather than anything more dramatic or violent). As if Northup has not suffered enough, we learn that his legal actions against both those who sold and bought him failed in the courts. A special award should go to McQueen's Dutch partner Bianca Stigter who discovered Northup's book and recommended it to the director.

If any contemporary director deserves to be in the mainstream spotlight without compromising their style, it's Steve McQueen. His debut, Hunger, already had the hand of a confident filmmaker taking a fly-on-the-wall style to the grimy art-house. Shame was one of the finest films of its year for its impeccable depiction of an addiction to one of humanity's primal survival instincts resulting in self-destruction. I'm so happy that his latest film has gracefully conquered early Oscar favourites from the output of David O. Russell, Martin Scorsese and the now delayed film from George Clooney to become this year's Oscar frontrunner. During its festival run when the buzz first began, I took it upon myself to read the screenplay. While I can usually sink scripts within a few hours, the poetic density of 12 Years A Slave took several sittings across a week or two. Even on the page it was a harrowing, exhausting experience. It's a film that needs a have a gut to truly display the length of time, but the script is bloated in its brilliance.

Naturally, scenes were cut (whether in the editing room or pre-production I don't know) and that's a blessing and a curse. Now in the film, we rush to Solomon Northup's capture, opening with scenes we shall revisit later on. I understand the decision to enter the world as quickly as possible, but I do feel it hurts its first act. As much as I jump for joy every time Scoot McNairy hides himself in a film, the transition from ordinary life to becoming kidnapped feels jarring and contrived. Who is Solomon Northup as a free man? What does he want? Maybe we don't know because there is no source for the matter. Maybe McQueen isn't interested in telling that story. At the very least, we definitely know that Solomon is a compelling character during his capture. Chiwetel Ejiofor is an actor I've always liked but he's never made an impression until now. His passion and commitment to his portrayal of Solomon is utterly captivating. While he can slink into the background of some scenes where he is not the focus, when it's time to shine he bursts a fuse.

Unfortunately during this cluttered first act, it concerns itself too much with subplots that we know will not succeed. While they accomplish establishing the stakes at hand and rule out the 'why doesn't Solomon just…' there's just too many abridged tales. Perhaps this is distracting just because I know the full stories from the script, but they should've went all or nothing with them. It results in editing that frustratingly refuses to let us into Solomon's headspace. We're along for the ride, but too frequently not Solomon's ride. During then we only get rare and rewarding glimpses into how he feels and his perspective on his past life stolen from him. Fortunately the film vastly improves once Solomon is free from the deliciously cruel Paul Giamatti to the spiteful live-wire Paul Dano. As the film focuses on his one-on-one conflicts and moral dilemmas, the film reaches intimate and truly challenging moments which is where the film's power lies. Fruitless subplots are dropped in favour of heartbreaking ones as we're introduced to the pitiful Patsey on the pathetic Edwin Epps' plantation.

Michael Fassbender and Steve McQueen have been one of the most enthralling director/actor combination in recent years. They always bring out the best in each other. Here, it feels like they've reached their finest work yet, but still feels like their collaboration has just began. Fassbender's Edwin Epps is the film's most fascinating and complex character, a man who sincerely refuses to believe he is evil. He demonstrates the thesis of the film in that the authoritative caucasians didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. Many people have laid claim that he is pure evil, but I don't think that's the point, he belongs in a misguided world where he thinks his lust and affection is apt praise for Patsey's talent. While I may not have sympathy for him, he is a tortured soul, a regrettable and irreversible tragedy of mankind and this is thanks to Fassbender's incredible performance. His victim Patsey, played by talented newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, is an utter revelation. She may not have a fully developed character but in at least two powerful scenes, she makes the best out of what she can for a character that warrants the tears you will inevitably shed.

One of the most consistent aspects of McQueen's films is the magnificent taste in cinematography and production design. Presumably from his art background, he's great at immersing you into his bleak visual worlds. Working with Sean Bobbit again, the cinematography is reliably enchanting. In true McQueen style, if a character must endure patiently, in this case Solomon hanging from a noose on the tips of his toes, we must endure with them. No shot this year, not even in the extraordinary Gravity, has been as stunning and unforgettable as the infamous long take of Patsey's lashes. It's a filmmaking masterclass in just a few short minutes. Despite the shaky first half hour, it's all redeemed in its harrowing final 15 minutes. It's the greatest sequence I've seen in a long time and I've never had a scene make me a blubbering mess quite like it. Yes, the jump to his kidnapping feels abrupt and there's no sense of relief to his inevitable freedom, but this is all calculated to mirror the struggle of his experience and we've felt every beat. 12 Years A Slave is a powerful testament to the endurance of the human spirit with its theme of injustice applicable to any point in history that earns the right to be one of the best of the year. After a string of lightweight Best Picture choices from the Academy, this will be a refreshing choice.

9/10

I watched this movie right after reading the book and it felt like watching the summary of it. Events mentioned in the book are presented mostly accurately but some events are squeezed to save time. Plus, I didn't feel like emotions of the book portrayed as well as they are portrayed in the book. For example, Solomon's life before enslavement and Eliza's Separation with kids, which is very emotional and difficult part of the book, seems rushed over. Probably because of it, viewers of movie can't connect with this part of story as well as the readers of the book. They also skipped one important event mentioned in the book. Solomon had a fight again with Tibeats and he successfully escaped to save his life but after some time, he returned back to Ford. They also didn't mentioned that why he didn't escape, like there were guards, hired by planters, patrolling the roads and anyone can ask slaves for the travel paper and in the absence of it can hand them over to authorities. There are also some other events mentioned in the book skipped in the movie for time or some other reason . Anyway, it is still a good movie and people who haven't read a book probably will enjoy mor.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Who can possibly argue against the power of this kind of movie, and the injustice that it waves as a welcome reminder? Superbly directed and acted (especially leading man Chiwetel Ejofor playing Solomon Northup), and set with high levels of realism in pre-Civil War America, there is little to separate what the filmmakers intended and what they achieved. A work of excellence.

It is not, however, quite the masterpiece it might have been. I don't mean the story or the level of competence here at all. I mean the way the story is told, the choice to simply tell it like it was.

That means that the presentation is quite linear (excepting a few gratuitous flashbacks that seem like a last minute editing decision). And uncomplicated. This is the biggest surprise. I mean, the basics might seem enough—a free black man in Saratoga goes to Washington and is kidnapped and made a slave, and he remains a slave until his recovery 12 years later. But that is actually the entire movie.

Oh, I know, the details are missing in that sentence. But it is these details where the movie succeeds too well. We are shown the horrors of slavery and made to experience them. It isn't that this is ignoble or unimportant. On the contrary, this is an "important" film and should be seen. But in some weirdly surreal way, we already know everything that happens in these details.

Do we need to see a woman, naked and tied to a post, whipped and whipped and whipped, with screaming in our ears? Many will say yes. We need to feel that horror even a little bit (through a movie) to understand how utterly unbelievably horrible slavery was. I would just argue back that I don't really want to be tortured directly to confirm what I already fully agree with. It's just a choice you want to make as a moviegoer. It's similar to watching a kidnapping movie—do you want to experience the inner and outer torments of the kidnapped, or see some larger view of a kidnapping situation and the complexities of that kind of plot?

For me, then the movie was excellent at being literal, but that's not enough. For example, there is absolutely no hint at what the family did when Solomon didn't return home after his trip to Washington. Did they search? Worry? How? Who helped, who ignored them? Etc. That's just one of many complexities the movie avoids for the sake of a direct experience of the protagonist.

I hope that gives a sense of where this unpleasant, terrific movie leaves you, and whether to watch it.