6.5
of 10
“12
Years a Slave” takes an unflinching look at American slavery. How it worked, how people operated in the
system, and how people took advantage of it.
Unfortunately, it never achieves more than that.
The story, based on the autobiography of the
same name, tells the experience of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free
black man who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. We follow him as he is transported south and shuffled
between a series of “masters” who each approach the treatment of their slaves with
varying levels of depravity.
The performances are
universally solid, with exceptional work from Michael Fassbender and Sarah
Paulson as particularly chilling owners.
Ejiofor is the undeniable star here, adeptly playing a man who’s beaten
but not broken. Benedict Cumberbatch,
Paul Dano (giving the weakest performance of the bunch), Paul Giamatti, Lupita
Nyong’o, Brad Pitt, and Alfre Woodard also star.
Director
Steve McQueen (“Hunger,” “Shame”) shows every bit of the violence that occurs,
from the flesh flying off a woman’s back as she is whipped to a paddle breaking
in the middle of a beating – the man continues the beating with the broken
paddle. It’s truly cringe-worthy, daring
the audience to turn away from the screen and in doing so turn away from the
reality of what slavery really was. If
nothing else, depictions such as this makes writing off American slavery as “our
peculiar institution” impossible.
The
technical aspects of the movie are spectacular, with the sets, costumes, and
makeup working together to make the movie as realistic as possible. Cinematographer Sean Bobbitt continues his
impressive year with this and the previous “The Place Beyond the Pines” and
“Byzantium.” The shots here are
deceptively intricate, drawing attention to the environment surrounding the
characters without being obviously showy.
What’s missing from the
film is a sense of Solomon himself. McQueen
brings his usual rigorous level of detachment to the proceedings, inhibiting
the audience from emotionally connecting to Solomon. It’s an odd choice for a film that focuses on
one man’s experience of slavery, and robs the ending of the emotional impact it
should have had.
Without a true
investment in Solomon’s story, the film is left without a sense of
purpose. Does it exist simply to point
out that slavery is wrong? To shed light
on how horrific it truly was? To make
some larger point about how humans, specifically Americans, treat each other
while professing to believe that all men are created equal? The first point has been made before, and
most of the movie’s audience already agrees.
It certainly succeeds at the second point and hints at the third, but does
so without bringing anything new to these discussions. We all have access to the information
presented in this movie, and a person’s knowledge on the subject largely
depends on how willing they are to seek it out.
And if a person is unwilling to seek it out, wouldn’t they just avoid
this movie?
Other
Notes:
Ø Despite
all the violence, the most horrifying scene for me was when Mrs. Epps stopped
the slave’s forced midnight dance to offer them something to eat. The dancing scenes were always creepy, but
the way this scene escalated revealed much about the Epps relationship and left
you knowing that things would only get worse.
Ø Many
of the actors listed as stars actually have very little screen time. Giamatti appears very briefly while Paul
Dano, Brad Pitt, and Alfre Woodard only have small roles. If these people qualify as stars, then Garret
Dillahunt should be included as well.
Ø McQueen
provides steady employment: Fassbender,
Bobbit, and editor Joe Walker have worked on all three of McQueen’s feature
films.
No comments:
Post a Comment