There's a reason why this was my most anticipated of the year as proved by this experience tonight.

McQueen really has a way of implementing such an impact with his films which 12 Years doesn't sway away from. Ejiofor really is that good. I appreciated how the film didn't strive on Northup's constant pain of being ssepearted from his family. He makes it clear shortly after that he won't let it hurt him and he has to move on. It's that determination, which Ejiofor shows wondefully, which makes Northup a character to root for unlike any other. The main standout scene is obviously Patsy's beating where Ejifor, Fassbender, and Nyong'o are at their best but there are so many other scenes which are just as gripping such as the final scene between Ford and Northup and many of the scenes which pertain specifically to just Epps and Northup. I also appreciated the ending not being some huge reunion but merely a reserved joy for Northup. Fassbender and Nyong'o are just as strong as Ejiofor and all three deserve Oscar wins here. The film is better than Hunger but I'm not quite sure if it would rank above Shame or not yet (need to re-watch that one again within the next few days). All I have to say is if 12 Years remains on the top of my yearly list as it is right now, McQueen's first three fantastic films as a director will also stand as my #1 favorite films from each of their respective years.

Can't give a review right now but I will say I see what it's the best reviewed movie if the year. A true Masterpiece of our time. Thank you Steve Ncqueen, thank you.

Speaking of the whip lashing sequence which was excruciating and tragic, I'm reminded of a couple others that also were very powerful. That of Denzel in Glory and Caviezel in POTC.

Concerning Patsey, I thought this poor woman was most tragic and sad. I think I'll remember that poor soul more than even Solomon. How she was lashed repeatedly throughout her lifetime for doing nothing wrong disregarding her productivity in cotton picking. That image of her being left behind on that plantation was quite haunting to me.

There of course was that other woman who lost both her children and would later die of something shortly thereafter when I was trying to read up on this story. Also, it's sad to note that the man who helped free Solomon died just a couple months later due to pneumonia, I think.

As far as Edwin Epps, Fassbender certainly brought out the devil in a person if ever. I agree with Libs comparison to Fiennes in SL. Such a horrible horrible time. I couldn't find out what happened to Epps but I really hope he died a terrible death.

I liked it a lot. Has a lot of powerful moments and for me it didn't drag. That said I did feel a little disconnect with the movie, don't know why though. The ending was kinda eh for me. (idk tbh I spent that whole scene thinking that his wife looked mad and I was wondering why lol)

I found the almost-being-hanged-scene much harder to watch than the whipping scene. With the static camera focussed on Solomon it really made me feel uncomfortable very quickly.

The two shots I find most moving and memorable are the one of his letter slowly burning and the one where he gives in and sings along with the other slaves at the funeral.

Finally a real film about American slavery. It is in many respects the only film made about American slavery. Watching this made the absolute abomination that is 'Django Unchained' feel even more incredibly harmful and damaging.

As Manohla Dargis says in her review, "What matters is what has often been missing among the economic, social and cultural explanations of American slavery and in many of its representations: human suffering." At the core, the institution of slavery is about violence. 12 Years A Slave is perfectly and jarringly honest in its depiction of American slavery, and does so from the perspective of the enslaved. What is so frightening is that the film makes clear just how problematic existing movies are that depict American slavery.

The film is absolutely stunning, and should be watched by everyone. A+

Peace,
Mike

Eh, I wish people would not use this to damn Django Unchained. Quentin Tarantino's idea of empowering the figure of the slave by turning him into a pulp action hero in the vein of the Man with No Name is clever and poignant, and audacious, in its own way.

To each his own. I felt plenty of emotion during Django Unchained and became invested in the two heroes' saga.

I am not saying 12 Years a Slave is not the purer, more direct depiction of slavery in the American South. I am just saying I see a lot of people, in various places, using 12 Years a Slave as a tool in a retroactive damning of Django Unchained, which I believe is unfair. Rubbing the audience's faces in blood, piss, shit, and sweat for two hours, while bold, powerful, and valuable, is not the only way to address a harsh topic on screen, and there is just as much creative merit to Tarantino's more left-field approach (historical empowerment through cinematic archetypes or however one chooses to phrase it).

heart-wrenching

I don't think Tarantino's movie was empowering whatsoever. Django is portrayed as stupid and mean and unagentic. Him, and his wife Broomhilda, are no where close to being fully realized human characters - there is not a single scene in the movie where they have a conversation with each other! There is only one scene, a flashback early in the movie, where we see them talking to each other, and it's abruptly blared out by loud music. The one scene in the movie where we have black characters talking to each other, and you blare it out with loud music? Seriously?

Django seems to forget about his wife often, and when he first visits a plantation after being rescued by Schultz, and after spending his life as a slave, we see no reaction from him of what it is like to be visiting a plantation now as a free man. Instead of asking around to see if his wife may be here or if anyone knows where his wife is (remember, his wife, who he is supposed to love and be very concerned about, and who could be anywhere), he instead spends his time deriding other slaves. It is Schultz who is consistently depicted as a fighter for justice, pushing Django along, and who shot Calvin Candie at the end of the film, and who is ultimately more fully realized than Django, who may run around being "badass", but who is not truly empowered.

Moreover, Tarantino's depictions of slavery on these plantations are so grossly inaccurate, depicting slaves strolling around leisurely, farms that are practically empty, and slaves dining with a plantation owner who is said to run the most brutal plantation in Mississippi. Black men on screen are consistently depicted as dumb, and who can't seem to think for themselves. These fictional "zombie slaves" further paint a film that I would hardly describe as empowering.

'12 Years A Slave' on the other hand depicts fully realized black men and women who lived during slavery and who have voices. The film is violent and uncomfortable to watch because it accurately depicts life as a slave. I mentioned 'Django Unchained' not to retroactively put down the film, as the film always was and always will be a terrible movie -- for me, '12 Years A Slave' simply makes that even more abundantly clear.

Peace,
Mike

Holy shit, "unagentic." You are pitching your tent on the most questionable margins of the English language there.

In Django Unchained, I find it fascinating how Django is able to stay more firmly "in character" around extreme cruelty and racism than his white European partner. You are undervaluing the queasy fascination of this dynamic.

Haha, yeah, I had to look it up after I typed it, and it's not really a word, just one of those made up words academics make up!

Also, I'd like to clarify that I generally like Tarantino, even if I hated Django Unchained. But I should stop now before I really drive this thread off topic.

Peace,
Mike

Sorry to be a downer...

I really hate to not love this movie like the rest of the country, but I left the theater disappointed an unmoved. The story of Solomon Northrup is a courageous one, but this movie did little to show what a courageous person he actually was. There was little character development between him and the other slaves, which simply made me not care. It went from a torture scene, to a cry scene, to a scene of them picking cotton, repeat. There was nothing there to make me truly care about the characters. The closest I was to being moved was by Brad Pitt's character and the final scene. I also loved the facts about Solomon at the end of the film, and honestly think they probably could have made a better movie. This man was obviously an important person to the Civil Rights Movement, the film could have spared some development to his character. Chiwetel Ejiofor was very good with the material he was given, but I don't feel like he is deserving of an Oscar for his performance here. The only one I would give a nomination to is Michael Fassbender. He was great here and was truly terrifying. The talk of Lupita Nyong'o or Sarah Paulson being nominated, to be frank, is a joke. Anyway, it wasn't a bad movie and I was never bored. It could have really benefited by an extra 30 or 45 minutes of character development. I understand some truly despicable things happened to these people, but that doesn't mean I am going to care about them right off the bat. Very disappointed in this on and I certainly hope it doesn't win the Oscar for Best Picture. It would be so undeserved.

6/10

Yeah, you caught me.

I did not hate it but I did not like it.

Solomon was too passive in his own story. I get the obvious theme of a lack of control in your own life, but Solomon did nothing other than attempt a letter. Perhaps this is a problem in the source material, but I would have liked to see some of the slaves do some sort of passive resistance to undermine Fassbender beyond perhaps picking less than 200lbs of cotton.

A more interesting story would have been if the film focused more on Cumberbatch's plantation. A plantation with an owner that was struggling with the obvious conflict between owning slaves and the evilness of such ownership. We have not seen that story but we have all witnessed the racist/rapist/torturer slaveowner, which could have been the vast majority of slaveowners, but my point is that it is familiar ground.

I loathed Solomon returning home by copying the freeman from earlier in the film that ran off the boat back to his master and immediately abandoned all others. A broken man. Solomon was not broken or at least was not portrayed that way. I realize he did not have many options, but some sort of recognition to all the others slaves would have been nice. An "I will never cease in exposing the evils of this institution" shout as he was riding off (like was noted in the end titles). Something.

And fuck Brad Pitt's benevolent and kindly white man, a man ahead of the times, that saves the day.

C+

lol, it is fairly amusing how co-producer Brad Pitt casts himself as the charming, rugged white man who delivers a slavery-is-evil-I-tell-you monologue.

I do not mind Solomon's exit, though. He must be scared because they are still deep in the South, piece of paper proving his freedom or not. They could be shot in the night. And he has spent over a decade enduring the mental and physical torment of enslavement. Him rolling away from the plantation with Shaft style gusto would be strange.

Agreed. As the letter was being burned and the flames went out gradually and gave in to complete darkness, it really symbolized how his hope was dashed and all gone.

So you don't care that it was based on a true story?

I wouldn't say that I don't care, see above, but one does not have to follow a story in exact details to get the broad themes of it correct or make it more interesting. Besides, this was a story that was written at least 12 years after some of the events occurred and I doubt there was a second source for many of the specific events. I completely agree that making Solomon some kind of Nat Turner or revolutionary, would be wrong and out of character.

Kingdom of Heaven, for example, blends a number of the crusaders in to single characters or pits characters from different crusades/generations against each other and I would still consider it "based on a true story."

I'd say the kind of "true" story that Kingdom of Heaven tells is far far more removed from the truth and our times than the one in 12 Years a Slave.

Fact is, that I simply do not know the true story good enough to argue in detail here. But IF the film sticks close to the true story, why should anyone make any changes whatsoever only to appease audiences? So what if Solomon never shouted any recogniton, b ut was just happy to save his own skin (like most people would)? And what if Brad pitt's character (who did exist as well) was benevolent and really played a large role in saving Solomon? Does that make the true story bad?

I'm glad someone else has seen the light.

That review is outstanding, thanks for posting

I thought it ended up in an unappealing no man's land between a movie's movie and trying to depict reality. It's quite cinematic visually, probably the strength of the film - while its dialog is extended and polished, almost on bordering on a stage play's speak. In a vacuum this doesn't bother me, I'd rather see ambitious filmmaking like that than a "look how real this is" minimalistic docu drama type of approach. But the problem is the level of polish and especially the dialog, makes it feel weirdly emotionally vacant. Its characters are not organic or feeling as if they exist on a day to day basis in this world. Solomon and N'yongo never feel like they have a history of interacting together or sparking up a kin, likewise when Paulson chews out Fassbender nothing about it feels rooted in the history of their relationship/emotional context. The Pitt scene feels so brutally on the nose because Pitt doesn't feel like a human being, he's racial tolerance lecture device played by a human actor. The characters in the film exist to say their lines or perform actions in the plot. They do not come to life on their own. Part of the reason for this too is that Solomon and Pitt are good and everyone else is evil, period (except for the barely used Cumberbatch who's in the middle), which makes its characters just not nuanced or engrossing.

The film might have been able to succeed in spite of this, other great films have had similarly "constructed for film purposes" non organic feel to them. With Tarantino brought up in this thread, he's a director who never needs organic characters. The problem with 12 Years A Slave is that on this cinematic movie-telling level, it also fails since this is clearly not McQueen's strength. It doesn't have enough story going on, nor reasons to care about a character's conflicts or decisions and it feels long/drawn out. Furthermore there's no suspense to what will happen to Solomon. He will be tortured and then get let out.

In the end, 12YAS neither has its cake or eats it. It mainly just blows.