Skip to main content

I will keep myself hardy 'til freedom is opportune.

12 Years a Slave
(2013)

Steve McQueen’s third feature has been garlanded with praise from every quarter, so much so that its instant classic status seems unassailable. Tackling weighty subject matter (such as slavery, or the Holocaust) sometimes seems to invoke pre-programmed critical plaudits, so it’s as well that 12 Years a Slave deserves them. Yet I’m not sure it’s the groundbreaking film the kudos suggest. Perhaps what surprised me the most, given the director’s previous work, is how classical in structure and direct in manner it is. 


I say that because McQueen’s great strength seems to be creating atmosphere and resonance that reverberates from the interior, close-quarter emotions of his protagonists (is it a nod to his reputation that the film begins with a Shame–summoning attempt at sexual congress?) And that element is consistently the strongest feature of 12 Years, as embodied by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Solomon Northup. Solomon is a man whose reality is upturned, and whose grip on his own humanity is gradually eroded by continued exposure to his masters’ lack of the same. Early on in his captivity he pronounces “I don’t want to survive. I want to live” but it is exactly survival at which he becomes proficient, and it chips way at him.


John Ridley adapted Solomon Northup’s 1853 memoir of the same name, in which Northup related his experiences as a free black tricked and sold into slavery in 1841. He was transported from Washington to New Orleans where he encountered a succession of owners of varying degrees of brutality, either directly or indirectly.


Trader Theophilus Freeman (Paul Giamatti) sells him to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), the owner of a plantation. Ford, who bears a kinder disposition than most of the whites he will encounter, favours Solomon. But he is an exception even in his own household. We see that his wife (Liza J Bennett) lacks his feeling, walking by unfazed as Solomon hangs from a noose on the brink of expiration. When Solomon first arrives at the plantation, she numbly tells the grieving Eliza (Adepero Odoye) to get some food and rest; her children “will soon be forgotten”. 


Ford’s attitudes are a primer to the sickness of a society built on the possession and exploitation of fellow human beings. It is simply not possible to remain untainted; even if one does not favour mistreatment, tacit support of the status quo inevitably corrupts. When Solomon finally pleads with Ford to help him, explaining his true status, Ford shuts his ears. Solomon’s past is a threat to the bedrock of the South, and any complicity from Ford would endanger his own well-being. Ford is unable to recognise the injustice of slavery. And if all else fails in justifying one’s actions, simple economics is sufficient; he has a debt he must pay. It’s this sliding scale of inhumanity that, in time, will also inveigle Solomon.


But, during the early stages of the film, it is easier to see lines. Ford is relatively well meaning, whereas Tibeats (Paul Dano, exuding an air of inbred weaselry to outdo even his own impressive screen record), a carpenter working on the plantation, relishes the cruelty and debasement he can inflict.  


Once Solomon is sold to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), McQueen and Ridley allow greater complexity to surface. Epps routinely beats those slaves who fail to fulfil their daily cotton-picking quota and sermonises at them with “proof” of their scripturally endorsed inferiority. Yet he is also a man who betrays a mass of conflicts. Frequently drunk and debauched, he earns the enmity of his disgusted wife (Sarah Paulson) as he attends to his lust for female slave Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o). Epps regularly rapes Patsey, and is seized by an uncontrollable obsession with her. If Epps sounds irredeemable, he is. But unlike Tibeats, he is imbued with surprising depth, which serves to make him more than a simple moustache-twirling movie villain. With Epps, McQueen overcomes the impulse to indulge in the snarling caricature of Spielberg’s Amon Goeth; he affords his monsters the understanding that they sorely lack in respect of others.


Another layer is seen in Armsby (Gareth Dilllahunt), the former slave overseer reduced to labouring in the fields as a consequence of his drink habit. Armsby says all the right things, and it’s entirely understandable that Solomon should be seduced into asking for his help. Armsby claims he turned to drink to block out the truth of the evils he inflicted on slaves, saying that the only other alternative would be to lie to oneself that such behaviour was acceptable and warranted. Precisely why Armsby enacts such an about face is unclear (it happens off screen; perhaps Solomon is correct in his explanation) but he betrays Solomon and it is only through quick cunning that the latter survives Epps’ interrogation. In a sense it feels like another hoodwinking, the like of which lured Solomon to Washington and severe misfortune.


And then there is Brad Pitt’s wonderfully enlightened Canadian carpenter with an Amish beard, Bass. He arrives to provide Solomon with hope when all seems lost. Echoing Ford's fears, it’s telling that even Bass, openly debating Epps’ distasteful dogma with him, has pause when Solomon requests that he deliver a message that might also endanger his, Bass’, life. I was amenable to Pitt’s performance in a way some reviewers don’t appear to have been, but there is a cumulative feeling that 12 Years is only so far from becoming “Solomon’s’ encounters with a succession of white movie stars”. 


By the pointBass arrives on the scene we have become more than accustomed to the pervading fear of this world. There is a point early in his captivity with Epps where Solomon runs away, or at least sets out to do so. Yet we desperately want him to stay put, fearful of the punishment that awaits him if (when) he gets caught. His advance through the shrub, only to happen across a lynch mob, serves to reconfirm that the only course of action is to keep your head down and be compliant. Likewise, we question his infrequent decisions to reveal his background to those he hopes will understand or care. He has been told at the outset that his learning will result in certain death if he tells his masters. And this warning is reiterated during the course of the film. McQueen’s achievement is that he ensures we too want Solomon only to survive, not to live.


As I implied above, it’s curious to observe how Solomon’s world is continually positioned in contrast to the white masters he meets. Which is to say, they are the characters whom McQueen chooses to define Northup by, rather than his mostly anonymous fellow slaves (with the exception of Patsey).


McQueen was surely aware of this. One might be cynical of the star quotient cachet, by which such performers punctuate the plot with purple pirouettes. But it is also the case that the monstrous distortions in their moral complexion, the absence of essential empathy, demonstrates this environment as much as the suffering. The slave who advises Solomon to keep schtum doesn’t even look back at him, as Northup desperately calls his name, when his master retrieves him. There is no greater good to look towards; if one is seen only as an object there is only self-preservation.


Over the fullness of time, Solomon’s leaking sense of self is close to reaching the same place of rejection. When he too is rescued, he turns back to bid the distraught Patsey farewell. And then he leaves forever.  He doesn’t make the same choice as his predecessor, but he also takes the relief waiting for him.  It is particularly potent that Patsey, who begs him to kill her and end this continued abuse, should be subjected to the film’s most horrific sustained beating at the reluctant Solomon’s hands (and then those of Epps). When she asks him to end her life, Solomon rebukes her (the sin would earn him eternal damnation), but in the moment where he is reduced to whipping her he afflicts his soul in a much more profound manner (Epps' threat to begin killing slaves if Solomon refuses seems like a rather extreme ante-upper; it would make no financial sense for Epps to make good on that, no matter how agitated he was). Instead of killing Patsey, Solomon “merely” brutalises her.  Another striking scene of loss follows soon after, in which the usually stoic Solomon emotionally collapses as he joins in with the Negro spiritual songs that announce the slave experience; it is an expression of despair, desperation and release. This may be the explanation for his limited interaction with his fellow slaves. Solomon doesn’t see them as his fellows; he’s not really a slave.


Whether or not that is the case, there’s often a tangential, on the outside looking-in, quality to this experience. Solomon wasn’t a slave and then he was, and he spends his most sustained interactions with his owners. As astonishing and moving as Nyong’o’s performance is, hers is not a fully rounded character; Patsey is there as the brunt of mutilation and torture. We get to know her abuser so much better.


The ability to justify slavery occasionally becomes a slightly rote tail wagging the narrative dog. McQueen has little need to preach; the horror of a flagellation speaks a thousand words (and in due deference to him, McQueen knows to use the beatings sparingly so as to yield maximum impact and not lose his audience through a relentless assault). Still, the Pitt scene comes perilously close to spoon-feeding an audience that should know better; having superstar Brad deliver such wisdom feels distractingly calculated. In contrast, while the ever-looming spectre of religion as the backbone of slavery may seem blatant (and this was not the perspective of Northup, a Christian) it deserves calling out as a key means of endorsing and perpetuating the system.


In the final captions, we learn that Solomon become an abolitionist, unsuccessfully attempting to prosecute his captors. The nature of his demise is stated as unknown; while this suggest murky goings-on, it appears the simple truth is that no one knows his fate for sure. But this absence highlights that there are other aspects of Solomon’s life where we are left uncertain. The early scenes of freedom (and flashbacks, accompanied by an idyllically-hued Hans Zimmer score – Zimmer is never one to go for the subtle) won’t really be drawn on Solomon’s perspective on his daily life. He was fortunate enough to be surrounded by appreciative white friends, but was he living a life of respectfully not rocking the boat? The scene in the New York shop, where a slave intrudes and his master fetches him back, suggests much; the apologetic master, who blanches when Solomon tells him there is nothing to apologise for.


Where 12 Years doesn’t quite pay off is in the formal limitations presented by a tight linear narrative. McQueen seems to be pushing at these restraints constantly, never quite at ease with them. Indeed, the structure of the story is so approachable you could imagine Spielberg getting behind it for another Oscar bid (he would no doubt do his best, never quite smart enough to breathe understanding into each frame as McQueen can and layering the emotional beats with treacle). The episodic design is perhaps not McQueen’s best fit. And it’s odd that, for a film whose very title lays the groundwork of its span, you’d be hard-pressed to gauge the passage of time. The only real signal is the flecks of grey in Solomon’s hair (and Patsey’s child with Epps). There is no sense of passing years, or his time with either of his owners; I wouldn’t have realised he spent almost 10 years with Epps.


That may be because McQueen’ presents his characters in the moment. Part of this is down to the meditative visual tone he strikes. There is a constant contradiction between the close-up beauty of the natural world and the horror and ugliness of Solomon’s life. I was put in mind slightly of the sensibility Malick brought to The Thin Red Line, in which the devastation of war is in sharp contrast to the environment on which it intrudes. Unlike Malick, McQueen doesn’t need a voiceover to express Solomon’s inner world. Ejiofor ‘s deep, pained eyes translate his every thought. His might be the performance of the year, so much so that it towers over the tale itself.


It scarcely matters whether 12 Years a Slave takes the Best Picture Oscar in March. I suspect, if it does, it will be seen as a vague anti-climax; the reverential reportage would surely write itself. It wouldn’t be exciting or surprising enough, because they always give the Oscar to issues based-dramas; don’t they? Perhaps the main thing counting against it is that it is  in essence, a very traditional picture (coming from a 160 year old book, that probably shouldn’t be all that surprising). Where McQueen succeeds most is with character, rather than his story. So if I were to put money on anyone here, it would be Chiwetel (and Lupita) winning.


****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

When two separate events occur simultaneously pertaining to the same object of inquiry we must always pay strict attention.

Twin Peaks 1.5: The One-Armed Man
With the waves left in Albert’s wake subsiding (Gordon Cole, like Albert, is first encountered on the phone, and Coop apologises to Truman over the trouble the insulting forensics expert has caused; ”Harry, the last thing I want you to worry about while I’m here is some city slicker I brought into your town relieving himself upstream”), the series steps down a register for the first time. This is a less essential episode than those previously, concentrating on establishing on-going character and plot interactions at the expense of the strange and unusual. As such, it sets the tone for the rest of this short first season.

The first of 10 episodes penned by Robert Engels (who would co-script Fire Walk with Me with Lynch, and then reunite with him for On the Air), this also sees the first “star” director on the show in the form of Tim Hunter. Hunter is a director (like Michael Lehman) who hit the ground running but whose subsequent career has rather disapp…

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.