Ship of Fools: 12 years a slave

Thread: 12 years a slave Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026728

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I know film threads usually run in heaven, and/or I'm sorry if one already exists and I haven't spotted it, but I want to discuss this film with erstwhile shipmates.

I saw this film this evening, and it is grim. Relentlessly, unremittingly grim.

The slave trade was really truly and utterly terrible. Yes, it really was. Everyone who took part in it or turned a blind eye to it was equally culpable. The implications will go on reverberating for a hundred years or more.

But as a story, where is the heroism? Where is the spark of goodness we need to believe resides in dark places? I came out of the cinema with more empathy for Germans who failed to save Jews, because the overriding message seemed to be, do what you must to survive. That is all.

At the very end, in words on the screen, the later life, the outcome, of Solomon's life is mentioned. And as far as I can see, that should have been the material for two thirds of the film. A third terrible pointless suffering,a third trying to bring perpetrators to justice and finding the system sucked, and a third taking physical action by assisting escaping slaves on the railroad.

I feel I was coined by artful advertising, and it makes me not want to bother going to the cinema again, except to watch action films for the CGI.
thank God I didn't take my sons. They'd have been traumatised. There were people sobbing in the toilets, afterwards.
Not a fun evening out.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
The slave trade was really truly and utterly terrible. Yes, it really was. Everyone who took part in it or turned a blind eye to it was equally culpable. The implications will go on reverberating for a hundred years or more.

<snip>

Not a fun evening out.

Have you considered that if you're looking for "fun", a film that realistically portrays what is notoriously one of the more brutal institutions of human history is probably not what you're looking for?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I haven't seen 12 years a slave, since I know enough about the time and place that a realistic story is not going to be a happy outing.
I skip a lot of Holocaust movies for the same reason. It's one thing to learn from a documentary, it's another to look for entertainment.

The usual complaint is that Hollywood movies usually put a happy ending on absolutely everything. Even if it's done skillfully, as in "Nebraska", it's a cloying optimism that insists that Everything Is For The Best. "Schindler's list" is a popular Hollywood movie; the Jews are all saved. "Saving Mr. Banks" is about how nice Mr. Disney rescued Mary Poppins from the gloomy grasp of the author.

There are happy tales, and valiant tales and tales of treachery and brutality. Are you arguing that the latter shouldn't be made into movies or must be turned into a happy affair?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I'm discussing a film that was sold as moving and inspirational. What I got was two hours of misery and tension. Would you like to discuss the film at all, or just criticise me for my opinion?
X posted with next person.

[ 30. January 2014, 23:01: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

To answer pamplist, I didn't like Schindlers list much, and didn't see the other two you mention. No,I hate unrealistic Hollywood treatment... but there is usually a point to a story somewhere... people tell stories to encourage and teach and warn and so on. In this film the only hero was the black man on the boat, who stands up for a woman, only to be stabbed and dumped overboard.
Solomon may keep his dignity, whatever that means, but he never takes action to help anyone, fails to offer comfort to a woman who begs him to kill her (a hug, even?) And never once uses his wonderful gift of music to bring any pleasure to his fellow slaves. Not a single melody.
And he tortures his friends when instructed to do so.
The film ends with him escaping, leaving behind, realistically, that same friend. But the story didn't end there, he took the kidnappers to court but failed to convict them, and he became active in helping runaway slaves to freedom. He died in murky circumstances.

I'm not so much saying films should be this or that, but exploring my own reaction to it and wondering what stories are for. Sometimes they are just sad. Maybe I would have felt a cathartic sense of something if I could identify with Solomon or Peggy, rather than the crap white people. Who were all either stupid, greedy, weak, evil or Batshit crazy.

[ 30. January 2014, 23:22: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I haven't seen the film yet, but I plan to go next month. The topic is of personal interest to me. Hearing the good first reports of the film was enough; I haven't read enough reviews to be misled by expectations of being 'inspired'.

What we know is that the film is based on a true story, and that the writer was one of only a minuscule number of the millions of slaves in the Americas who lived to put their story on paper. Perhaps this is where the inspiration lies.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

I'm not so much saying films should be this or that, but exploring my own reaction to it and wondering what stories are for.

Perhaps so that we do not forget. That we do not live in the fiction that we would be heroes, that we would necessarily do good rather than just survive.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm discussing a film that was sold as moving and inspirational. What I got was two hours of misery and tension.

I would argue that's a problem with the advertising, not with the film.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I've heard 12 Years a Slave described as the progressive version of The Passion of the Christ. Seems like the same arguments pro and con can be made for both films. Don't know for sure. I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave. I live in podunk so I'll be waiting awhile.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I was hoping to get some thoughts from people who have seen it, but thanks everyone, anyway.
I hope I haven't spoiled it for anyone who is planning on going.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

I'm not so much saying films should be this or that, but exploring my own reaction to it and wondering what stories are for.
Perhaps so that we do not forget. That we do not live in the fiction that we would be heroes, that we would necessarily do good rather than just survive.

But who is it meant to speak to?
Who is going to walk out of a cinema saying, oh my god,I thought slavery was ok sometimes!

Yes it was a fault of the advertising, but I'm trying to get beyond that now and understand who enjoys that kind of film at all. Or is 'enjoy' just a stupid expectation on any level? My 16 year old son has been told the film is 'brilliant' and planned to watch it on DVD. I'll advise him not to. He can't possibly learn anything from it.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

This may be U.S. centric, but there's still a nostalgia for the old South as exemplified in "Gone With The Wind" and arguments about whether state flags should include the Confederate flag as part of "heritage". So there's still people arguing that yes, slavery is bad, but it had a good side.

That aside, a historical view that shows unvarnished evil is useful to make one think about how you might deal with a situation that compromises your integrity. It's all too easy to identify with the white hats of history.

That said, without having seen the film I can say that helping fugitive slaves was a high risk affair since in many places the law was in the service of those trying to hunt down the runaways.
It's also hard to see a happy ending when one individual's misery is about to be followed by the misery of a conflict that escalates into a total war.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
My 16 year old son has been told the film is 'brilliant' and planned to watch it on DVD. I'll advise him not to. He can't possibly learn anything from it.

When I was a teenager we were taken to the imperial war museum and saw footage of the liberation of Belsen. It wasn't enjoyable but it was important. As a child, a teacher also read us eye witness accounts of the aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. Again, it was not enjoyable but it was important.

There are thousands of people living in slavery today, and political and lifestyle choices you and your son make, will have an impact on that. (As everybody's do.). Perhaps it is important to see the unvarnished brutality at least once, even if the exact context has changed.

It can be not so very different nowadays.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

That aside, a historical view that shows unvarnished evil is useful to make one think about how you might deal with a situation that compromises your integrity. It's all too easy to identify with the white hats of history.

I haven't seen this yet-- very much want to-- but the discussion reminds me of another controversial film, "The Grey Zone." It is about the ill fated prisoner rebellion at Auswitch, and centers around the Sonderkommand, a group of prisoners that are given a better standard of living and privileges in exchange for overseeing crematoria operations. The sub-officers do incredibly dirty work for their captors while secretly using their position to gather the resources for the bombing of the crematory.
There is one scene that happens that is recounted in a couple Holocaust survivor narratives, so it apparently happened-- a Sonder Komandant (played by David Arquette in the film) is supervising prisoners who are getting ready for the showers, and he spies an older man taking off a very expensive watch. He demands the man hand it over, and when the man refuses, kicks the man to death.

I don't know what basis this next has in reality, but director Tim Blake Nelson speculates that the guard's motives center around the possibility of trading the watch for munitions they are gathering for the revolt. He even seems to be trying to drop his voice and reason with the man, who is too angry and disoriented to catch on. When the man is dead, Arquette sits down with the coveted watch in his hand, and the shattered expression on his face sums it up-- here is a man who has crossed the line from fighting evil to resembling it.

The scene is brutal and heartbreaking.The entire movie is depressing beyond words. Yet, I feel it is one of the most important movies I have ever seen. Every minute of it was torture, yet it changed the way I looked at things. The story of a rich German buying Jewish freedom is inspiring and rewarding, but "The Grey Zone" really made me think, "Shit, that could be me. Or anybody."

I guess it comes down to whether or not you think film is primarily a way to entertain folkl or whether it might be a way to tell stories that would otherwise go untold. If I were not a Guillermo del Toro fan, I probably would not know a thing about Franco Spain and the ways people resisted his rule. If I wasn't a Mike Leigh fan, the poverty and unemployment in Northern England would not be something on my radar. If I hadn't seen "Innocent Voices", the idea of child soldiers would have been distant and academic to me.If I hadn't sat through difficult movies like "The Hurt Locker" and "In the Valley of Elah", I still might want the troops to come home, but not as desperately.

Art serves the dual function of entertaining and informing. It's OK to have movies with satisfying storylines, but it is also very important to respect those filmmakers who take the idea of sharing stories seriously. Society will never evolve if we restrict ourselves to stories that keep us comfortable.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

You are very right about telling untold stories, it is vital. Soldier blue is apparently a true and vivid account of the native Americans, marched about Dakota til they died.
I may watch it one day, on the tv, on my own.

I definitely take the point that some people defend slavery, and have romantic notions... sadly I don't think many of them would watch this film.

My kids and I watch documentaries, of course.
And read books and newspapers. S1 knows more about world situations eg Korea, than I do, because he trawls the web for information.

My husband and I were celebrating yesterday because he sent off his OU assignment and I sent off my tax return and we'd decided a trip to the cinema was a reward, and we'd seen trailers for this powerful, moving film, and we said, let's go....

Also, I feel that the guy is unfairly taken at his word. If you survived when others didn't, you'd feel shit, hey? I wouldn't be glorifying myself with small details of personal bravery and goodness, when I rode away and left my friends.
So maybe he did, and was, but didn't include it in his 1857 memoir. So it feels unfair to dramatize, and yet give him no heroic dimension at all. Maybe.

I'm still trying to get to grips with something here.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm discussing a film that was sold as moving and inspirational. What I got was two hours of misery and tension. Would you like to discuss the film at all, or just criticise me for my opinion?
X posted with next person.

I haven't seen the movie yet but the reviews certainly do not suggest a moving and inspirational story.
Rotten Tomatoes - 12 Years A Slave

"a difficult movie to watch"

"In its portrayal of violence and spectatorship, it stays in the mind."

"Involving and disturbing"

" pit-of-the-stomach venturing, queasy-making drama"

"There's little doubt that this painfully authentic adaptation of former slave Solomon Northup's memoir is an important film. But it is not an easy one to sit through."

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Yes. I'll read reviews in future.
We hardly ever go out...

ETA my husband felt it was a good film and was glad he watched it. I would have quietly left after the first half hour, otherwise.

Years ago I went to see pulp fiction at the cinema, I'd never heard of Quentin Tarantino, had no idea of content but had heard it was a brilliant film.
I walked out of that after 20 minutes.

I'm not comparing the two!
Just observing that one person's brilliant film is another person's ... not.

[ 31. January 2014, 08:36: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Not sure about this issue. There is a value in focusing on things which are "good and lovely". These is a value in having one's eyes open to uncomfortable truths. Drama can play a part in both. Might seem banal, but I caught a rerun of an ancient "Little House on the Prairie" episode very recently which portrayed both, and without sentimental overflow. Found it uplifting; not something I would always have said about that series, which often seemed to romanticise pioneer life.

I get very similar vibes from "Les Miserables".

Stories can picture redemption in very helpful ways. But I guess you can't ever be sure whether they will, or you are just being got at. Unless you try.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

An afterthought. These factors are in play, whether we are watching, or reading, fact , faction, fiction or fantasy. Happy endings, fulfilment are not guaranteed.

Reminds me of some powerful comments by Aldous Huxley about the tragic ending of "Brave New World" the dystopian future in which everyone was taught by "hypnotic techniques" that everyone's happy now, and if they weren't a drug induced holiday was freely available. A new arrival, with more profound values, tries to change it, tries to integrate with it, finds he cannot do either, commits suicide. Huxley regarded the ending as very fitting. I agree.

People come a cropper in our present dystopian cultures, and do not always find anything redemptive in that. That is no more the complete picture than the notion that people will always have that opportunity in this life. But drama is not meant to reflect everything, just illustrate something.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

I definitely take the point that some people defend slavery, and have romantic notions... sadly I don't think many of them would watch this film.

I'm not sure films like this are meant reach those who believe "The South will rise again", those who fondly reminisce of days of Empire or think the Holocaust an exaggeration. They are meant for those who might listen to them. For those who ignore these things happening now.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
My 16 year old son has been told the film is 'brilliant' and planned to watch it on DVD. I'll advise him not to. He can't possibly learn anything from it.

I would advise him to watch it. I think you are suffering from mismatched expectations. Had you been prepared to see a disturbing portrayal of the horrors of slavery you might feel differently.

But I suggest you are learning something about your reaction to suffering, a need to see something redemptive coming out of suffering to make sense of it, then facing the fact that much of slavery was like this - suffering without redemption and with no heroic victory. There is lots to learn and reflect on here.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
My 16 year old son has been told the film is 'brilliant' and planned to watch it on DVD. I'll advise him not to. He can't possibly learn anything from it.

The film is based on the book Northup wrote after regaining his freedom. So that's why it ends where it ends - where Northup himself ended it.
I think what someone could learn from it is the difficulties of surviving in a morally compromised setting. Things aren't black and white. Ford, according to Northup's book, was one of the best, morally good, people he'd ever met; but he was fatally compromised by owning slaves. Northup himself has to make bad choices because he doesn't have any good ones. (Brad Pitt's character, who is the closest to an uncompromised person there is in the film, on the other hand is a bit dull.)

Certainly if you want inspiration and heroism go and see Gravity. This isn't that film. (But it's not Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days either.)
The scenery is beautiful.

I think it's a brilliant film, thought-provoking, and Ejiofor is a great actor.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

But I suggest you are learning something about your reaction to suffering, a need to see something redemptive coming out of suffering to make sense of it, then facing the fact that much of slavery was like this - suffering without redemption and with no heroic victory. There is lots to learn and reflect on here.

I agree.

I've never seen any other film, however grim or gruelling the subject matter, that included no light relief whatsoever. No humour, no 'love interest' (in the Hollywood sense anyway: Solomon clearly loved his wife and family very dearly), not even any relief from the almost palpable oppressive heat of the Southern weather.

I came away saddened, horrified, feeling helpless. Although there was a sort-of happy ending for Solomon himself, his fellow-slaves continued to be ill-treated with no end in sight.

But isn't that exactly the sort of reaction we have on Good Friday after hearing (and entering into) the story of the Passion? It too is unremittingly bleak, and yet we need to hear it, without trivialising it (or Easter) into a 'happy ending'.

The resolution to the tragedy of slavery is still not fully realised. The worst thing would be if the film had suggested 'that was then: we know better now', when those same forces of evil are at work in many parts of the world. But the seeds of redemption were there in Solomon's refusal to be other than the self he knew.

It was beautifully filmed - Steve McQueen is very much the artist as well as the film director - and brilliantly acted, especially by Ejiofor.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
My 16 year old son has been told the film is 'brilliant' and planned to watch it on DVD. I'll advise him not to. He can't possibly learn anything from it.

I find this comment a bit disturbing. As a 16 year old he almost certainly doesn't know everything there is to know about Transatlantic slavery, not unless you as a family have deliberately urged your children to study it at much as possible. So why would you say that there's nothing he could learn from this story?

Storytelling is important because it brings things to life. And if a film is based on any kind of serious topic, as this is, it might be an inspiration to further reflection and intellectual exploration. For a young person who's only just embarking on a serious engagement with life I don't know why this would be a bad thing.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Go ahead and advise him not to. If he's a sixteen year old worth his salt, that will hardly discourage him.

Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on :

I've just been reading up on King Leopold II of Belgium and his activities in the Congo, featuring routine mutilations and an estimated 10 million dead. And that's almost been forgotten.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
I've just been reading up on King Leopold II of Belgium and his activities in the Congo, featuring routine mutilations and an estimated 10 million dead. And that's almost been forgotten.

Well speaking of Chiwetel Ejiofor, I was lucky enough to see him in the play "A Season in the Congo" last summer in which he played Patrice Lumumba. Fantastic performance. The show touches on the brutality of Belgian imperialism which as you mention is a somewhat undiscussed piece of recent history.

The director of the play is a film director - Joe Wright, who did "Atonement" and the most recent "Pride and Prejudice." So there is the hope that this will become a film project. Given Ejiofor's rising status it will be an easier case to make now.

Posted by Lilac (# 17979) on :

With King Leopold, the phrase "Lest we forget" comes to mind. When one of Hitler's associates queried his anti-Jewish policy, he retorted that it would soon be forgotten, just like the Turkish treatment of Armenians.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

Years ago I went to see pulp fiction at the cinema, I'd never heard of Quentin Tarantino, had no idea of content but had heard it was a brilliant film.
I walked out of that after 20 minutes.

The end of Pulp Fiction is a truly uplifting glimpse of the possibility of redemption and grace.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
But who is it meant to speak to?
Who is going to walk out of a cinema saying, oh my god,I thought slavery was ok sometimes!

I give you Richard Cohen, a supposedly well-educated columnist for the Washington Post.

quote:
I sometimes think I have spent years unlearning what I learned earlier in my life. For instance, it was not George A. Custer who was attacked at the Little Bighorn. It was Custer — in a bad career move — who attacked the Indians. Much more important, slavery was not a benign institution in which mostly benevolent whites owned innocent and grateful blacks. Slavery was a lifetime’s condemnation to an often violent hell in which people were deprived of life, liberty and, too often, their own children. Happiness could not be pursued after that.

Yes, apparently someone can have job for years at one of America's premier newspapers and suddenly be shocked by the revelation that chattel slavery was "not a benign institution".

The internet scorn was swift and well deserved.

quote:
Richard Cohen cannot believe he did not learn any of this in school. What Confederate redoubt in the ass end of Georgia or Alabama did he grow up in? Oh, nice job, Far Rockaway H.S.

So apparently there was at least one person who "walk[ed] out of a cinema saying, 'Oh my god, I thought slavery was ok sometimes!'"

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

At my retirement community (65+)we recently watched the film with about 30 people attending. There were several who left before the end but most stayed. There was no group discussion but we do plan to talk about it in our on-going "conversations on race" forum.

I am always surprised by the "I never knew that" responses to this and other similar historic films and shows. In our mostly upper class environment I guess that the themes of oppression had been safely relegated to repressed memories.

An I am sure that this process of rationalization goes on today with our youth. So be sure they DO see "Twelve Years" and listen to what they saw.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Solomon's actions or indeed lack of them are all with the one aim in mind -namely to return to his family - to explain to them what had happened,why he had simply disappeared.
Many of us on our way through life have to make choices which may not help everyone.Had Solomon helped anyone ,had he revealed anything more about himself,he would probably have been killed and that would not have helped his family.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I am always surprised by the "I never knew that" responses to this and other similar historic films and shows. In our mostly upper class environment I guess that the themes of oppression had been safely relegated to repressed memories.

There's been a concerted effort to "pretty up" the historical realities of the Old South and its Peculiar Institution starting around the end of Reconstruction. This effort to suppress fact an spread fictions continues today. So this kind of ignorance isn't an accident, it's a measure of the success of a deliberate PR campaign over a century old.

[ 31. January 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Thanks for the links. I for one am seriously shocked that people like Richard Cohen exist. Apparently I consistently underestimate the human ability for deception. (Maybe I'm deceiving myself about it!)

To be fair, I this relates directly to a form of deception I have seen myself. I accidentally made some people at my school mad after 9-11. (Small liberal arts college, so relatively educated middle or upper class people) They kept saying things like "They [People in certain Arabic countries] really hate us." They were so shocked. It seriously shook their whole realities. If they'd been sad because people were dead, I would totally have gotten it. But what shook their lives was that people hated Americans. Every single time people said that to me in their super-shocked way I could never find an appropriate response, because my thoughts were always "No shit, Sherlock!" Despite every article about how angry American foreign policy makes people, they were still shocked that people were angry enough about it to kill. I think people often feel they can't handle that much pain (what are we doing to be so hated etc. Do I have to change?) so they instead imagine that the slaves were actually happy, no one is now in real slavery, and yes everyone really likes the U.S. They're just jealous.

Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lilac:
With King Leopold, the phrase "Lest we forget" comes to mind. When one of Hitler's associates queried his anti-Jewish policy, he retorted that it would soon be forgotten, just like the Turkish treatment of Armenians.

Yes, that's my view too. For the british there is still a tendency for us to believe that our empire was somehow built on Cricket, fair play and free trade. It was, of course, quite otherwise. I haven't seen the film yet but will; I want to expose myself to the dramatic horror of something I have learned about and understood as part of history lessons but too dispassionately.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I accidentally made some people at my school mad after 9-11. (Small liberal arts college, so relatively educated middle or upper class people) They kept saying things like "They [People in certain Arabic countries] really hate us." They were so shocked. It seriously shook their whole realities. If they'd been sad because people were dead, I would totally have gotten it. But what shook their lives was that people hated Americans. Every single time people said that to me in their super-shocked way I could never find an appropriate response, because my thoughts were always "No shit, Sherlock!" Despite every article about how angry American foreign policy makes people, they were still shocked that people were angry enough about it to kill. I think people often feel they can't handle that much pain (what are we doing to be so hated etc. Do I have to change?) so they instead imagine that the slaves were actually happy, no one is now in real slavery, and yes everyone really likes the U.S. They're just jealous.

I've heard about Americans like this before - desperate to be loved. By contrast, the British (and specifically the English) seem much more aware of being disliked by various other nations around the world. But they're less likely to care. If they do care they're perhaps less naïve about what it'll take to change perceptions.

Regarding the slave trade, the subject commonly creates either defensiveness or a sense of shock in white commentators. The former response seems to be more likely on the internet, but that's only my impression. Fortunately, there are also people who respond to the issue with understanding and sensitivity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Thanks for the links. I for one am seriously shocked that people like Richard Cohen exist.

I am shocked that people are shocked about people like Cohen. When Disney made Song of the South they knew it would be controversial and why. Its merits and demerits were argued in the press. Yet it, and Gone with the Wind inform many viewer's perception regardless.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

We went to see it. I consider that it's epic. One of the best films I've seen in ages. Perhaps we have different expectations of films - I'm sure we do. It's not "entertainment" in the sanitised Hollywood way of understanding films (note to self - don't get stuck on the way US film-making usually alters history and feels compelled to produce a feel good factor). Perhaps Brits are more used to films being gritty, realist and tough viewing.

What 12 Years a Slave does is undermine the idea that there is anything romantic or salvageable from the US (and UK) slave trade. It tells it like it was. Even William Ford is shown to be a coward, unable to buck the economic system that was held together with slavery. You can't come out of the cinema with any romantic attachment to dear old Dixie. The South and what it embraced was unremittingly awful and the dehumanisation that occurred has huge parallels with the philosophy that undergirded the Holocaust. Black people were treated as economic instruments, not people.

There's a sense in which we needed 12YAS because of Gone with the Wind and all the other Uncle Tom niceties of the silver screen. Steve McQueen is a different sort of director - see his previous film, Hunger which was equally raw about the IRA hunger strikers.

Mark Kermode's show on McQueen is on BBC iPlayer here (probably only UK) and will help understanding of where McQueen is coming from.

I thought it was fantastic and should be used widely in educating people about slavery and its legacy.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Yeah I've heard the argument that slavery wasn't all that bad on many occasions. "At least they were fed and clothed and given shelter. Most of them probably didn't even want to be free." Yadayada. There were lots of people making that argument during the time of slavery and it's really depressing that people still make that argument now but they definitely do.

I've not been to see this one because I knew that if it was inaccurate it'd annoy me and if it was accurate I'd find it harrowing rather than entertaining. But for what it's worth I'm glad that they didn't try and turn it into a story of redemption and hope. Not everything has to be a story of redemption and hope - I think we're far, far too used to the idea that the good guys always win in the end somehow.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Thanks for the links. I for one am seriously shocked that people like Richard Cohen exist.

I am shocked that people are shocked about people like Cohen. When Disney made Song of the South they knew it would be controversial and why. Its merits and demerits were argued in the press. Yet it, and Gone with the Wind inform many viewer's perception regardless.

Remember though that that was the 1940s. I guess I would like to think we are a little further along in consciousness of other people than we were then. I mean maybe we aren't, but I suspect that is why I personally can still be shocked.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Mark Kermode's show on McQueen is on BBC iPlayer here (probably only UK) and will help understanding of where McQueen is coming from.

I second a recommendation for this program. It definitely reveals his aesthetic. He certainly has no problem producing art that makes one feel extremely uncomfortable.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I saw it as well. There was audible sobbing in the theatre. My date and I were in stunned silence for about 20 minutes afterward. My reaction was very similar what I had after seeing Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ".

But ultimately I feel the same was Pete173 does. It was a brilliant film. I've traveled to many places where the slave trade was present (Zanzibar, Gorée Island in Senegal, plantations in Cuba and Jamaica, etc.) and have been haunted by the conditions and treatment these people endured.

This is one film that does what happened justice. I don't see it as a film with progressive or conservative values; it's just one that lays it out there.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It depends on what you go to see films for. I will absolutely not be seeing this one, as my daily life exposes me to enough horrors as it is. What I want and need is escapism, or at least some ray of hope. Others may need their comfort to be disturbed. That's okay too. I'll just stay home and nurse my PTSD. [Eek!]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I've traveled to many places where the slave trade was present (Zanzibar, Gorée Island in Senegal, plantations in Cuba and Jamaica, etc.) and have been haunted by the conditions and treatment these people endured.

Me too. I remember my wife just standing there sobbing when we visited Cape Coast Castle in Ghana.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

Also, I feel that the guy is unfairly taken at his word. If you survived when others didn't, you'd feel shit, hey? I wouldn't be glorifying myself with small details of personal bravery and goodness, when I rode away and left my friends.

I dunno, plenty of Holocaust narratives read like this. You regret what you couldn't do, but why not take comfort in what you could do?

And, I'm sorry, IMO the world hangs on small acts of personal bravery and goodness.

[ 31. January 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Perhaps Brits are more used to films being gritty, realist and tough viewing.

See Mike Leigh. I have to say, some of the bravest, most challenging films I have seen have come from UK directors. Although stepping anywhere outside of Blockbuster Hollywood helps.

(aside-- you should check out The Grey Zone.)

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It wasn't enjoyable but it was important.

this.

I have not seen this film and when I do, I will approach it carefully. I do not take in theater and cinema just to have a good time, to "enjoy". I want to learn, to observe, to witness, to experience. I will likely never experience slavery (thanks be) but it is important that I know.

And those vicarious experiences transform you, if they're done right.

I will chose to see this movie in part because of the lead actor (who's name I will not attempt to remember how to spell). I believe he is one of the most outstanding actors in recent years. perhaps even the best. I expect his interpretation to be gritty; but I would expect no less.

Most of the theater I have done is under the "enjoyable" heading. comedies. silliness. "fun" stories. But the stuff I really love, what I long to do more of, is not "enjoyable".

the best role I've ever been given was in Agnes of God. This is a brilliant play. Beautifully written. and it kicks you right in the gut. I would not consider attending Agnes as a nice relaxing evening out. But those kind of shows are so important. We emerge transformed. We have experienced - vicariously - a real story and a real moment with real people* and just like with our own tragedies and traumas, we become more three dimensional through these experiences.

this kind of art transforms us. It creates depth, and empathy, and most of all, strength.

this is art at it's most intimate. and it is vital.

*"real" in this case applies to fictional characters and situations as well. as anyone who ever cried after reading Bridge to Terabithia can tell you, fiction can at times be more transformative than non-fiction. the "real" applies to the "gut" of a piece. Hell, to me, the Narnia books are very real.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Google has a new doodle honouring Harriet Tubman. One bad-ass woman.
This is a mention because it is related and in no way a comment on Solomon Northup.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Comet, you're completely right in that it doesn't have to be enjoyable, as in fun.
But in Agnes of God, did she have faith? Did she do good things or hold to a principle ?

I suspect something beyond survival was going on.

I need to read the book, and see if I can understand what's going on in his head.
The lead actor was totally brilliant. Benedict cumerbach was a disappointment. Weak and pointless character.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

In the book's introduction, Solomon specifically says he is writing an unexagerated account of his experiences, to counteract recent (contemporary) accounts of how slavery could be ok.

Suddenly the whole damn film makes more sense, and I wouldn't have chosen to see it on that night. I'd downloaded the book, only about 47p on kindle, but decided not to read it till I'd seen the film, as it usually annoys me when they leave so much out or twist things round. I should have read the intro, at least.

I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

Where is God now, in places where slavery and similar cruelty goes unchecked?

Maybe that's why my husband liked it. People surviving without need of God.

[ 01. February 2014, 08:51: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Small acts of personal bravery. There is this odd thing about martyrdom. It coexisted with some degrees of "underground church". We miss that. The bravery of martyrdom, the willingness to die rather than lie, is a source of admiration, wonder and challenge. Folks can get guilty about that.

But in the "church underground" there was another quiet sort of bravery going on. Self preservation was for sure in there. But something else as well. The willingness to bit the tongue, put up with all sorts of shit and low level persecution, hold on, gather together often in fear, and yet somehow keep the flame alive and alight.

The blood of the martyrs was certainly in some sense the seed of the church. But then so was this quiet endurance. Too easy to see self-preserving fear, and miss the courage and endurance it took to get through somehow.

I figured out some of this stuff reading Solzhenitsyn's "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich". A different sort of heroism, easily overlooked.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

This comment struck me from so very different directions that I must sort out if it is my fever or not.
But I will say I am surprised any slaves took on the religion used by their oppressors, indeed used to oppress them.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

It would seem his experiences left him wondering the same thing.

A little background on those "recent accounts"-- Slave narratives were quite popular during the post civil war era, but the problem was, the narratives were told by unlettered people to people who ghostwrote the stories. Often these scribes would take licenses to make the story more palatable, or the protagonists more heroic, or to support the cause of abolition.

That is exactly what makes Solomon Northrup's narrative so extraordinary-- it is his own story, written by himself, and not serving anything but his own memory.

Even Frederick Douglass's narrative can't compare, in a way, because his story was written as an argument against slavery, and is of someone who knew nothing but slavery discovering freedom. Northrup's story is of someone aware of his natural free state, and losing it, as an adult, with full understanding of the implications of everything that was going on.

[ 01. February 2014, 09:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Where was God, when slavery was rife?

It would seem his experiences left him wondering the same thing.

Which provides us today with a pertinent challenge. Where are the people of God when slavery and other forms of injustice are ripe? Working with modern day "abolitionists"? Keeping our heads down? Passing by on the other side? Even defending the status quo?

You will find the people of God doing all these things today. If one man's experience was that "God" was prayed in aid of the status quo, that tells us something important about kingdom values and responsibilities. Imperfectly understood, imperfectly applied. Sometimes denied.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That is exactly what makes Solomon Northrup's narrative so extraordinary-- it is his own story, written by himself, and not serving anything but his own memory.

According to wikipedia, Northup had help writing from someone called David Wilson. However, as you say, it's not serving anything but Northup's memory - or rather, Northup is confident that he doesn't need to make his experience any more black and white than it actually was to show the horror of slavery.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I need to read the book, and see if I can understand what's going on in his head.
The lead actor was totally brilliant. Benedict cumerbach was a disappointment. Weak and pointless character.

I think that's the point. Cumberbatch's character is a good man who owns slaves. But a good man can't make slavery right or turn it into a humane institution - slavery is so rotten than a good man who participates in it is made weak and pointless.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That is exactly what makes Solomon Northrup's narrative so extraordinary-- it is his own story, written by himself, and not serving anything but his own memory.
According to wikipedia, Northup had help writing from someone called David Wilson.

Thanks, I thought I had read it was based on some sort of journals he'd managed to keep. Still would need editing, though.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]There's been a concerted effort to "pretty up" the historical realities of the Old South and its Peculiar Institution starting around the end of Reconstruction. This effort to suppress fact an spread fictions continues today

.. including in some Christian circles. Just google 'Doug Wilson' 'Black and Tan', when this re-erupted a year or so ago, it lead various of his fellow travellers doing linguistic and theological gymnastics in order to avoid having to throw him off the bus.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Overboard would have been better. At the very least, about two years on the naughty step. And saying sorry publicly.

Holocaust denial in a different form. Of course there were acts of mutual kindness and personal respect . Didn't change one bit the basic injustice of the relationship.

[ 01. February 2014, 11:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

Where is God now, in places where slavery and similar cruelty goes unchecked?

Maybe that's why my husband liked it. People surviving without need of God.

I don't know whether Northup refers to faith in his written account. If he does and the people working on the film deliberately left it out, it's probably a matter of not wanting to offend contemporary secular sensibilities.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Benedict cumerbach was a disappointment. Weak and pointless character.

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

Where is God now, in places where slavery and similar cruelty goes unchecked?

I think your problem is with history itself, not this film's accurate portrayal of it. Benedict Cumberbatch is playing a character in the cinematic sense, but that character is based on a first person historical account. I think you're objecting not to Cumberbatch playing Master Ford as a weak and pointless character but to the fact that William Ford was a weak and pointless man.

As for wanting faith that consists of something other than "a stick white men used to beat slaves with" or "a bit of folk religion" (a term that, as near as I can tell, means "non-white people's religion"), you're wishing for another anachronism. Yes there were abolitionist churches in places like Boston or Philadelphia, but you wouldn't find anything like that in antebellum Louisiana.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Yes, I'm halfway thru the book now, and feel justified in hating the film.
It is art for arts sake.
Beautiful scenery and long shots on people doing something other than what you think and so on. Endless scenes of naked people.

Solomon had the enduring and unquestioning faith you might expect from someone of that time.
He didn't leave God out the picture at all, and had faith he would eventually be freed.

He also wrote about other humans as real characters, not one dimensional caricatures. And they plotted to escape, right up to the moment they were too deep south to make it possible.

And so on and so on.

ETA it didn't end there either. I mean, the book includes his fight for justice. That man rocked.

[ 01. February 2014, 14:24: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Benedict cumerbach was a disappointment. Weak and pointless character.

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I wanted him to have faith... the whole film left God out, except as a stick white men used to beat slaves with, and a bit of folk religion from slaves. Where was God, when slavery was rife?

Where is God now, in places where slavery and similar cruelty goes unchecked?
I think your problem is with history itself, not this film's accurate portrayal of it. Benedict Cumberbatch is playing a character in the cinematic sense, but that character is based on a first person historical account. I think you're objecting not to Cumberbatch playing Master Ford as a weak and pointless character but to the fact that William Ford was a weak and pointless man.

As for wanting faith that consists of something other than "a stick white men used to beat slaves with" or "a bit of folk religion" (a term that, as near as I can tell, means "non-white people's religion"), you're wishing for another anachronism. Yes there were abolitionist churches in places like Boston or Philadelphia, but you wouldn't find anything like that in antebellum Louisiana.

I'm feeling quite patronised.

I'll save the Ford argument for when I've finished the book. But really, his accent was disappointment in itself.

Folk religion is actually defined in different ways by different people, apparently. wikipedia says:
Folk Christianity is defined differently by various scholars. Definitions include "the Christianity practiced by a conquered people"

and for another take see: folk religion

but I just meant a bit of singing and no substance. If I'd meant paganism, or voodoo, I'd have said so.

I totally agree that white men's religion was justifying slavery by any means it could find. Interestingly, Ford went on to become a minister.

No, I meant the strong faith by which people survive oppression, since Christianity is very much a religion of the slave and the oppressed, beginning as it did in an occupied land, and from what I've read so far I was right to expect it.

However, God clearly does not delivery individuals from slavery, though history seems to suggest that eventually nations become free.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I totally agree that white men's religion was justifying slavery by any means it could find. Interestingly, Ford went on to become a minister.

I believe you're mistaken about that. I'm pretty sure Ford didn't go on to become a minister, but rather that he already was a Baptist minister at the time he owned Northup.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I'm not sure why that's the bit you want to argue with, but I wasn't implying that it meant anything.

When Solomon first describes Ford, mentioning that he was a kind, noble, candid Christian man, who was blind to the inherent wrong of owning another human being, due to his upbringing and situation, he says,
'He is now a Baptist preacher.'

That suggests that he wasn't a baptist preacher at the time of meeting Solomon.

But from my point of view it doesn't matter whether he was a preacher prior to buying Solomon or not. I just thought it was interesting.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I'm not sure why that's the bit you want to argue with, but I wasn't implying that it meant anything.

If it means nothing, then why include it?

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
When Solomon first describes Ford, mentioning that he was a kind, noble, candid Christian man, who was blind to the inherent wrong of owning another human being, due to his upbringing and situation, he says,
'He is now a Baptist preacher.'

Given that film-Northup describes Ford in almost these exact terms during a discussion with another slave, I'm not certain why you consider this to be an omission from the film.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I didn't.

Edit for clarity.
I thought it was interesting.
That's why I said 'interestingly'.

[ 01. February 2014, 18:22: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Well, you've got some problem with the film's portrayal of the character/person and have been going on about how William Ford is portrayed as a good and decent man in the book. If it's not that, then what's your complaint?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Please don't be rude.
If you believe you are not being rude, please understand that I am perceiving you as rude.
Please re read my previous posts if you want to know what I said, and have a problem with, as I see no point or advantage in repeating it.

If you liked the film, great.
If you want to read the book, or not read the book, or whatever, great.
If you'd like to discuss the book and film in relation to each other, and how you feel about the film and or the book, then that is what I started the thread to do. Probably. So that would be great.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Comet, you're completely right in that it doesn't have to be enjoyable, as in fun.
But in Agnes of God, did she have faith? Did she do good things or hold to a principle ?

it's a different story, and in Agnes, faith plays a large part. (for the record, though, she did neither good things nor held to a principle. She did something horrible. It's for the audience to figure out whether there is any meaning in it, whether it supports faith or crashes it down around our ears. I recommend seeing it, and not the movie version. It's a spectacular story, and one I'd really love to see the Shipmates discuss.)

Why is "survival" a bad thing to base a story on? some of the best stories of our time are based on that. the book "Alive" is based on survival. Jack London's "To Build A Fire" is based on survival, and was personally very important to me in my teenaged development of where I stand on issues of survival and moral behavior. We are so comfortable in our safe little world. Sometimes what we need is to be shocked.

Survival is a good thing to witness. To ask yourself, what would you do? Would you compromise your principles? Would you lose faith? because for the mass majority of us, we'll never be tested that way. It's important to us as thinking human beings to witness those experiences and hypothetically test ourselves.

The story of slavery in the US isn't that long ago. the Holocaust is even closer to us. atrocities are occurring now. "there but for the grace of God".

This could be us. I think it is vital to play out in our minds, as much as we are able to, how we would deal with those situations. On a big and small level. How would be handle surviving a plane crash? how would we handle keeping warm in a blizzard when there is no one to rescue us?

and on another level, as human beings, as members of the herd - we should bear witness to others who have been through trials like these. Why else do we portray Jesus crucified if not to bear witness to the suffering? Why do we teach our children about the horrors of the Holocaust if not to bear witness to the millions of lives lost?

If nothing else, we need to be horrified by Man's Inhumanity To Man, so that when we hear of current atrocities - sex trafficking, slave labor, starvation - we refuse to be part of it. we refuse to tolerate it. we refuse to support it with our money.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

hullo Comet.
I feel a bit of a fraud because to start with it was simple. Like Lamb Chopped said upthread, there is enough genuine sadness and horror in my real life in this country in this time, without seeking it out in the cinema on my evening out.
So I got home from a rather harrowing film, and protested it to shipmates.
I felt crap because it was the 1st anniversary of a friends death the following day, and here was this bloody miserable film illustrating how pointless life is anyway.

have you seen it, by the way?

Since then, the argument got bigger. I suspect that the characters in the film are not the people portrayed in the book. I feel it is exaggerated in the film to make a point, as if mcQueen or maybe the scriptwriter couldn't trust the audience to feel horrified by the facts alone.

I'll carry on with that aspect later, when I've finished the book.

For now, I'd like to say I've got no illusions about my own miserable worth and personal integrity.
Worship other gods at gunpoint? certainly. loud as you like.
Eat dead people when starving? definitely.
give up and die in the face of adversity? Immediately.
I imagine that if I'm unfortunate enough to have charge of children in that circumstance, I would keep going a bit longer, try a bit harder, be a bit more resilient, but like I said in the OP, I just feel more empathy for the ordinary people who failed to speak up for the Jews. It made me feel like shit.
I'm not sure it's actually helpful.

We all fail, every effing day, when we carry on living and working and buying shoes, instead of sitting down and singing we shall overcome, and forcing our sodding governments to collectively clean up the planet.

I mean of hunger and lack of clean water and injustice, rather than environmental damage, but that too, obviously.
It's overwhelming. If we all sat down and refused to carry on, we could change the world. but we don't, because we can't get enough critical mass to make it work.

so. before every revolution, there is that sense of nothing we can do.? and then the critical mass tips.

In the book, that sense was already there - the sailor on the boat who posts the first letter, the kidnappers of another freeman arrested and charged.
Going by the film, all the whites were barking mad, except one who was too weak or stupid to even hire a sane overseer. The one 'good' man was frightened even of the thought of posting a letter, and had to think about it before agreeing. (the Sailor on the boat in the book was British, and didn't think twice about it.)

Most importantly, in the film, all the black characters were totally defeated, nondescript or characterless from the word go. There was one woman with a backstory, but she wouldn't stop wailing. There was one woman with courage, but she never spoke of anything but her personal suffering and lack of hope. There was one woman who led the singing.
One woman who found her own security with a white man does nothing to challenge the system (by treating her own servants well) or even recognise how precarious her safety was.
One woman gave Solomon a drink of water when it was dangerous to do so. (so, brave.)
Of the male characters, the one courageous man in the whole damn film spoke disparagingly of 'n*****s' who had been born into slavery, then got himself casually knifed by standing up for a woman. on screen for about 10 minutes.
The actor playing Solomon had to portray everything in his face, because he wasn't given many lines to share with us. He is brave - of course he's brave - and he endures, and endures.

If it does have a good impact on people who need impacting, hurrah.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Please don't be rude.
If you believe you are not being rude, please understand that I am perceiving you as rude.

That's not the way things work here. Commandment 3 is your protection against any form of personal abuse. Hosts determine that.

Croesos is behaving well within Commandment 3 guidelines. In seeking to exercise some control over what he posts, you are moving into Host territory; the duty to rule on what can be posted in Purgatory in accordance with the guidelines we all signed up to.

You can call him to Hell if you are offended by his style. Or PM a Host if you are bothered by another Shipmate's post to you. Or accept that he is behaving properly under the Commandments, even though you don't like it. Or challenge this ruling in the Styx. But please don't make this sort of appeal here.

Debating of ideas is robust here. Purgatory Guideline 2 says 'expect to be disagreed with.'

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

Also, I feel that the guy is unfairly taken at his word. If you survived when others didn't, you'd feel shit, hey? I wouldn't be glorifying myself with small details of personal bravery and goodness, when I rode away and left my friends.

I dunno, plenty of Holocaust narratives read like this. You regret what you couldn't do, but why not take comfort in what you could do?

And, I'm sorry, IMO the world hangs on small acts of personal bravery and goodness.

meant to respond to this earlier. Yes, this is what I meant. I'm guessing you haven't seen the film? Totally, the small acts of kindness and courage and generosity is what makes us human. I was trying to explain why maybe the film had so little - and decided it was perhaps because the guy, in his own book about the experience, had been hard on himself. But it turns out that the scriptwriter (or whoever) took out the empathy and concern the people had for each other, to avoid softening the impact of the film. Or something.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

Most importantly, in the film, all the black characters were totally defeated, nondescript or characterless from the word go.

Don't you think that is often the way though? I'm sure that for many slavery was an experience which had them defeated and which seemed an actual hell on earth - in the sense of being beyond the reach of grace in this life.

I think this is an important aspect of such historical happenings - otherwise the exceptional stories start to serve as a kind of exculpatory set of lies we tell ourselves to deny the true horror of things ('The behaviour of masters towards slaves was not always characterised by violence' - my paraphrase of some of the apologetics I've heard on this topic).

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

First, thanks B62, I appreciate the clarification on the subject of trying to control the content of posts.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, Chris, but that's probably because never in my life have I heard apologetics for slavery.

So there's like, slavery was ok sometimes because... it wasn't always violent??

Apparently 21 million people are enslaved in the world today, so obviously a fair few people are ok with it. But I can't see them trying to justify themselves in conversation.

About the first point, I'm directly contrasting my perception of the portrayal of people in the film, with my understanding of Solomon's description in his book, that's all. I understand that many people are beaten down by circumstance and despair.

[ 02. February 2014, 00:44: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

This would probably be a good place to re-read Huckleberry Finn.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Can you expand on that please? Huck Finn is the subject of current debate and I haven't read it since childhood, but it's my understanding that it portrays the injustice of slavery pretty well. Can you share your thoughts on it?

(Is that ok B62? Seriously, actually)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, Chris, but that's probably because never in my life have I heard apologetics for slavery.

So there's like, slavery was ok sometimes because... it wasn't always violent??

It's usually not stated as simply - though the sentiments is from the book referenced above - rather it's often at the root of some other argument - usually as a means to claim that some dominant group is being victimised in some way that is in functionally as bad. Just search for some of the news articles referencing '12 years' and read the comments section to see what I mean.

Additionally, what seems to happen IME is that the exceptional cases serve an exculpatory purpose - "look at those people over there, they lived shitty lives and they didn't become bitter and had a Hollywood ending, so therefore it wasn't inevitable that slavery had to have that effect upon everyone" (with the implication that it's somehow the victims fault if they were destroyed by it).

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Can you expand on that please? Huck Finn is the subject of current debate and I haven't read it since childhood, but it's my understanding that it portrays the injustice of slavery pretty well. Can you share your thoughts on it?

The clever thing Twain does is portray a world in which slavery simply is, and where the protagonist despises himself for being a 'nigger-stealer'. Nobody apologises for slavery - what is there to apologise for? But the reader is privy to the decency and humanity of Jim, and therefore have to recognise the monstrous injustice of the system - all within the context of a picaresque adventure story.

As you say, it's a book you're given to read in childhood, as a 'children's story' - whereas in fact it is inhabiting the same world as Northup's narrative.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
The story of slavery in the US isn't that long ago. the Holocaust is even closer to us. atrocities are occurring now.

The story of slavery in the U.S. is actually a lot more recent than most people think.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
...
Second, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, Chris, but that's probably because never in my life have I heard apologetics for slavery.

So there's like, slavery was ok sometimes because... it wasn't always violent??

Apparently 21 million people are enslaved in the world today, so obviously a fair few people are ok with it. But I can't see them trying to justify themselves in conversation.

I've heard various apologetics, usually in the course of defending segregation. Segregation is not in the past in the United States. It's illegal but exists. The city I grew up in, Yonkers, NY was eventually bankrupted by judicial contempt charges for refusing to integrate.

The apologetics come in various forms; they're often about how primitive "less evolved" black people were taken on as the white mans burden and they were better off in slavery being fed and housed rather than having nothing. This assumes that said slaves are incapable of understanding the benefits of the arrangement, hence the need for shackles, fugitive slave laws and runaway slave laws.

The second more subtle complaint compares slavery, where families were "looked after" by white families as opposed to the impersonal institutions of northern segregation. You can see this argument in the role of Mammy in the movie "Gone With The Wind". You can also see it in the complicated family of Thomas Jefferson and the Hemmings family.

It's easy to over-romanticize the abolition of slavery in the Civil War. Emancipation of Negroes was controversial in the North and abolitionists were a minority. A large number of northerners were happy to send the negroes back to Africa to places like Monrovia. The North was willing to allow the defeated Confederacy to set up the segregation and terrorism of Negroes as part of the price for putting the Civil War into the past.
The apologetics haven't been that far from the surface in modern times.

Finally you complain that the movie simplifies the book. That's pretty much true of most movies. A literal translation often leads to a dull movie as the forms are different. There's a saying that Every translation is a betrayal.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
But the reader is privy to the decency and humanity of Jim, and therefore have to recognise the monstrous injustice of the system - all within the context of a picaresque adventure story.

As you say, it's a book you're given to read in childhood, as a 'children's story' - whereas in fact it is inhabiting the same world as Northup's narrative.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the idea that "Huck Finn" is a realistic depiction of the slave experience made me laugh out loud. It's the story of a white preteen runaway who happens to befriend a slave. Jim was treated a lot more humanely than most black characters of the day were, but he was written by a white guy who didn't know the first thing about being a slave.

Again, this is what makes Northrop's testimony so extraordinary-- his experience was was that of someone accustomed to freedom having all of is freedom completely stripped from him. He had a basis for comparison while in the situation. Twain could only top that by being captured himself
Which goes back to the question of , why were some pleasant moments redacted? Well because we white folk use that stuff to self-soothe.

We have no problem trying to empathize with the slave, and want him to show qualities that help us identify with him. But boy, we don't want to empathize with the position most of our ancestors were in-- which was navigating a corrupt system that benefitted us.

Twain wrote this self-soothing character of a poor white trash kid who took up for his black friend. More power to him, it was more than most folk tried to do at the time. But also more power to anyone who is willing to do the dirty work of encouraging us to put ourselves in the shoes we don't want to be in.

[ 02. February 2014, 21:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Yeah, I'm sorry, but the idea that "Huck Finn" is a realistic depiction of the slave experience made me laugh out loud.

No, that is only there obliquely, in Jim's fear of being sold 'down the river' . But ISTM that it takes the apologist case - that it wasn't that bad - no actual slaves are tortured in the production of this book - and still unmistakably conveys just how wrong it is. Or do you think that is just educated modern sensibility?

[ 02. February 2014, 21:39: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think it was Twain trying to write a realistic Southern boy- he'd been raised to believe slavery was not only permissible but justifiable, and to depict him as instantly seeing it as dead wrong would not be plausible. Him getting small glimpses of things not setting quite right about the whole thing would probably match Twain's experience, I bet. Someone who never questioned the rightness of slavery until he actually spoke to a slave.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think i misread you question. I guess i would say that HF is not a realistic depiction of the slave experience because it was not really crafted to examine that- it is primarily the story of someone other than a slave, who looks at someone else's experience. This is nothing to sniff out in itself, but becomes so when comparing it to an actual slave narrative.

[ 02. February 2014, 22:18: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Huck Finn rather falls apart in the last few chapters, when Tom Sawyer reappears. Jim turns into a stereotype condescended to by the author. He does so in such a way that one starts wondering whether the author wasn't condescending to him all along. It's an unpleasant bit of writing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Twain was not perfect, but in the main he was progressive for his time. It is important to note that many abolitionists did not see blacks as fully equal.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

When I said I've never heard apologetics for slavery,I meant it never comes up in conversation with actual people in my experience.

I've heard of/read plenty of institutions who justified apartheid and so on. The half brother of my daughters, whom on the hell thread on relatives I am happy to condemn at least from our perspective as a complete jerk, is an angry white south African, who has moved to England because the blacks are destroying 'his' country.

I was not, am never, absolutely and completely not criticising the film for portraying slavery as a 100 % bad terrible cruel disgusting thing.

I hated the fact that removed the essential humanity from most of the black characters by rendering them silent and terrified and unable to even help each other emotionally most of the time. But actually it gets far too complicated to argue about because the narrow focus, on the film and the book, has been lost. If you want to talk about slavery in general and peoples'attitudes to it thru time, you won't find any arguments in me.

I don't know who I'm quoting, but someone said,'hungry people are not free' and any argument about slavery encompasses anyone whose circumstance of birth means they have no realistic choices. Slavery was routine and accepted by all nations for... thousands of years? The difference in the white on black trade was that people started trying to justify the enslavement of a particular race on the grounds of moral and intellectual superiority, whereas before it was whoever you conquered or who owed a debt.
The bible routinely has people sold into slavery... does Jesus ever tell people to release their slaves? That's another thread...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

But chattel slavery is forbidden in the Old Testament anyway, isn't it? If you had a slave you had to set him/her free after seven years. In Roman culture it was common for people to free (some of) their slaves after they died, in their wills. And as you say, anyone of any race could be a slave.

I haven't seen the film myself (I don't go in for torture porn) but an atheist friend who did and liked it thought that the slave characters should have been more fully developed. It's quite depressing to look at the line-up of stars and see only one major black character, in a film that is all about a black person's experience. It's as if he only becomes Real when interacting with white people...

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I haven't seen 12 years a slave and so can't comment, but I did think that was what made the film Amazing Grace a disappointment - it was all about the white abolitionists and only featured one slave who was portrayed rather flatly. Armistad was similar, in that all the kidnapees' emotions were seen through a single individual rather than within the group, and he was rather simplistically portrayed.

I had assumed from the promotion and reviews that 12 years a slave was different.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

mdijon

Are movies and books required to produce a balanced picture, or focus on a part of of the picture?

Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huck Finn, Lincoln's political dealings over the Constitution (pretty well illustrated in the latest movie), King's content of character dream, Amistad, Roots, The Color Purple, Amazing Grace, 12 years, many other stories and events of course, none of these is complete in itself in the picturing of the emancipation journey, but together they are much more self-supporting than contradictory. Seeing the equity argument and the wrongness of condescension go together, of course, but that can take time, several messages.

We're getting there. No need to discount the imperfections of some of the stepping stones, of course, but no harm acknowledging they were moves in a better direction.

[Should have got Pete Seeger in there somewhere as well.]

[ 03. February 2014, 08:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

True, and Roots and Color Purple are good counter-examples.

But I argue that it is one thing to have a particular focus in making a story (e.g. a typical Southern boy's point of view) and another thing to have an opportunity to portray an important character in a story (e.g. Equiano in amazing grace) and fluff it.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I hated the fact that removed the essential humanity from most of the black characters by rendering them silent and terrified and unable to even help each other emotionally most of the time. But actually it gets far too complicated to argue about because the narrow focus, on the film and the book, has been lost. If you want to talk about slavery in general and peoples'attitudes to it thru time, you won't find any arguments in me.

OK, I'm really trying to read your posts in a more charitable way but it comes across to me as though you're annoyed at people not having the experience of slavery that you want them to have had. Even if you're prepared to accept that slavery is 100% bad, there's something a bit messed up about looking at an account as accurate as this one and bemoaning the lack of unquestioning faith or complaining that the characters were terrified and silent and unable to help each other. I mean the book is actually pretty clear that the slaves were for the most part terrified and silent and unable to help each other. Also while the book does mention Northup's faith from time to time it's generally in the context of eternal justice and hope for the next world because there was no hope in the one he was in.

But yeah, I do think that if what you take away from this kind of realistic account is "they should have made it more uplifting so I could feel better about the world" then your priorities are out.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
True, and Roots and Color Purple are good counter-examples.

But I argue that it is one thing to have a particular focus in making a story (e.g. a typical Southern boy's point of view) and another thing to have an opportunity to portray an important character in a story (e.g. Equiano in amazing grace) and fluff it.

Fair enough. I wondered how much had ended up on the editing floor? All movies are compromises from that POV.

I think for example that the most telling scene from Armistad is the terrible "lightening of the load" scene in which slaves chained together are cast over the side to drown. Haunted me for ages afterwards. And in the movie Les Mis, Ann Hathaway conveyed in an extraordinary way the destructive effects of another kind of slavery. These things and many others hang together for me, create and illustrate a profound truth in ways which reasoned arguments cannot always achieve.

But I suppose you have to be able, not to see it, but to "grok" it. To drink in the understanding. Solzhenitsyn's saying is helpful here. "To taste the sea needs one gulp". Analysing the sea takes somewhat longer.

[ 03. February 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
True, and Roots and Color Purple are good counter-examples.

But I argue that it is one thing to have a particular focus in making a story (e.g. a typical Southern boy's point of view) and another thing to have an opportunity to portray an important character in a story (e.g. Equiano in amazing grace) and fluff it.

I agree, though do not see Roots as an exception. Not because the characters were not well developed, they were. But because its format was standard for Hollywood miniseries, which revolve around the intertwining of character stories more than the plot. And it's length allowed for this.
But yes, your point stands; it is well possible to develop more characters and depict them more realistically. Hollywood seems to operate on the principle that it receives points for merely making movies about black people. Far down the road we have travelled, but so far we have to go.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Exactly.

I have to admit I haven't seen roots the movie, although I've read the book many many times. And treasure a signed copy.

It stands out as an exceptional description by an African-American's trying to piece his story together and I hope that comes out in the film.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Are movies and books required to produce a balanced picture, or focus on a part of of the picture?

Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huck Finn, Lincoln's political dealings over the Constitution (pretty well illustrated in the latest movie), King's content of character dream, Amistad, Roots, The Color Purple, Amazing Grace, 12 years, many other stories and events of course, none of these is complete in itself in the picturing of the emancipation journey, but together they are much more self-supporting than contradictory. Seeing the equity argument and the wrongness of condescension go together, of course, but that can take time, several messages.

Just to be clear, 'The Color Purple' isn't set during the era of slavery. It's set in the 1930s.

The problem with individual films not presenting a 'balanced picture' on this subject is that there have been relatively few films about it when you consider that the slave trade involved millions and millions of people, black and white, across the Americas and in Europe. There are many stories about Transatlantic slavery that deserve cinematic treatment but haven't received it.

For example, few films focus on Transatlantic slavery outside the experience of the USA, even though the USA didn't receive the majority of the slaves. I can think of 'Amazing Grace', and there's also 'Tamango' (1958), which is based on a short story by the 19th c. French author Prosper Mérimée.

Danny Glover has apparently been trying to raise backing for a film about Toussaint L'Ouverture, the leader of the Haitian revolution. He might find it easier to get the bigwigs interested if '12 Years a Slave' becomes a commercial as well as a critical success. 'Big' films have to be commercially viable to be made, and unfortunately any film of this nature would have to be big in order to do the subject matter justice.

[ 03. February 2014, 19:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, few films focus on Transatlantic slavery outside the experience of the USA, even though the USA didn't receive the majority of the slaves.

Not entirely surprising, given that the U.S. has the world's largest* movie industry. Americans most often make movies about America for viewing by other Americans.

--------------------
*Largest when rated by box office returns or money spent on production. When rated by number of films produced or minutes of film produced I believe India rates as the world's largest filmmaker.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
I hated the fact that removed the essential humanity from most of the black characters by rendering them silent and terrified and unable to even help each other emotionally most of the time. But actually it gets far too complicated to argue about because the narrow focus, on the film and the book, has been lost. If you want to talk about slavery in general and peoples'attitudes to it thru time, you won't find any arguments in me.
OK, I'm really trying to read your posts in a more charitable way but it comes across to me as though you're annoyed at people not having the experience of slavery that you want them to have had. Even if you're prepared to accept that slavery is 100% bad, there's something a bit messed up about looking at an account as accurate as this one and bemoaning the lack of unquestioning faith or complaining that the characters were terrified and silent and unable to help each other. I mean the book is actually pretty clear that the slaves were for the most part terrified and silent and unable to help each other. Also while the book does mention Northup's faith from time to time it's generally in the context of eternal justice and hope for the next world because there was no hope in the one he was in.

But yeah, I do think that if what you take away from this kind of realistic account is "they should have made it more uplifting so I could feel better about the world" then your priorities are out.

You're completely right, Lio. I was selfishly having some sort of tantrum. Can't think what came over me. I'm probably quite self absorbed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

For example, few films focus on Transatlantic slavery outside the experience of the USA, even though the USA didn't receive the majority of the slaves. I can think of 'Amazing Grace', and there's also 'Tamango' (1958), which is based on a short story by the 19th c. French author Prosper Mérimée.

The bulk of American slaves were in the Americas, the bulk of European slaves were in the the Americas.
American slavery lasted longer and ended more acrimoniously than European slavery.
Slavery and its lasting effects have a bigger public face in America than Europe.
Hollywood has a larger audience.
Add these together with the tendency of people to be more likely to watch films they can relate to and the effect is natural.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The bulk of American slaves were in the Americas, the bulk of European slaves were in the the Americas.
American slavery lasted longer and ended more acrimoniously than European slavery.
Slavery and its lasting effects have a bigger public face in America than Europe.
Hollywood has a larger audience.
Add these together with the tendency of people to be more likely to watch films they can relate to and the effect is natural.

I think you misunderstood my comment. Yes, Hollywood is primarily interested in stories set in the USA. But the USA isn't the only country in the Americas, and as I said, Transatlantic slavery affected far more nations than just the USA.

My reference to Europe was meant as a reminder that from the European point of view, the Transatlantic slave trade was triangular. Europe was part of the story of slavery, because it bought the sugar and other products that the slaves made; it also manufactured the goods that were sold in Africa to buy the slaves, as well as many of the products needed to maintain the British slave colonies in the Americas. The trade also meant that some Europeans became more mobile, travelling to the slave plantations as or to the African coast, while some African slaves and freemen found their way to Europe, some via the slave colonies.

I've come across some fascinating stories; but they're not represented on film, which is a shame.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Even if you're prepared to accept that slavery is 100% bad, there's something a bit messed up about looking at an account as accurate as this one and bemoaning the lack of unquestioning faith or complaining that the characters were terrified and silent and unable to help each other. I mean the book is actually pretty clear that the slaves were for the most part terrified and silent and unable to help each other. Also while the book does mention Northup's faith from time to time it's generally in the context of eternal justice and hope for the next world because there was no hope in the one he was in.

But yeah, I do think that if what you take away from this kind of realistic account is "they should have made it more uplifting so I could feel better about the world" then your priorities are out.

Thank you for summing up what has been bothering me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

SvitlanaV2,

My point was not simply to highlight why Hollywood would focus on the US. It was also, by implication and contrast, to show why Europe does not produce many films highlighting its own participation.
Most of the UK, IME, would consider slavery and its effects completely in the past, therefore less easy to relate.
As to the rest of the Americas, until anyone watching telly from south of the US would think everyone there was pure European stock. And they might well consider slavery as part of the history of their former landlords, not their own countries.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most of the UK, IME, would consider slavery and its effects completely in the past, therefore less easy to relate.

They'd be wrong, of course.

In truth, awareness in the UK has increased over time, particularly as the Caribbean immigrants and their descendants have demanded that their history be remembered as a part of British history. A lot of work has been done.

The director of '12 Years a Slave', Steve McQueen, is one of those descendants, and I'm sure that's no coincidence. But he's told an American story rather than a British one. I suppose that fiction, theatre and the TV documentary are among the most popular contexts for the British engagement in Transatlantic slavery to be explored, although there are many other sources of information.

Many people will be indifferent, naturally, but that rejection is interesting in itself. This is a history that many nations need to come to terms with.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most of the UK, IME, would consider slavery and its effects completely in the past, therefore less easy to relate.

They'd be wrong, of course.

Oy! Of course they are wrong. I've argued this on this very forum.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

In truth, awareness in the UK has increased over time, particularly as the Caribbean immigrants and their descendants have demanded that their history be remembered as a part of British history. A lot of work has been done.

And a lot yet to go. As I've said, the argument has been done on this very forum.

As to why McQueen made an American story
from Wikipedia

quote:
After meeting screenwriter John Ridley at a Creative Artists Agency screening of Hunger in 2008, director Steve McQueen got in touch with Ridley about his interest in making a film about "the slave era in America" with "a character that was not obvious in terms of their trade in slavery."[3] Developing the idea back and forth, the two did not strike a chord until McQueen's wife found Solomon Northup's 1853 memoir Twelve Years a Slave. He said about Northup's memoir:

"I read this book, and I was totally stunned. At the same time I was pretty upset with myself that I didn't know this book. I live in Amsterdam where Anne Frank is a national hero, and for me this book read like Anne Frank's diary but written 97 years before — a firsthand account of slavery. I basically made it my passion to make this book into a film."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm glad we agree. I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that indifference or ignorance was any kind of excuse!

Regarding Steve McQueen, it's fortunate for him that it was an African American rather than an African Caribbean slave narrative that won his admiration. I think he'd have found it harder to attract backers for the latter, for the reasons we've discussed.

[ 04. February 2014, 01:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know if any of you have come across this, but something I've noticed that drives me batshit is an assumption that films that are deeply deeply depressing and emotionally hard to watch are somehow "good for you" (method unspecified). Somehow simply watching the bloody thing confers a certain moral superiority on the viewers, regardless of whether they actually DO anything about the evil situation or not. I find myself edging toward the door before I say something I'll regret. Has anyone else here had that kind of experience?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think it goes back to the argument, do you think film is an entertainment media or a literary form.

And I think it's a dumb argument myself-- different films serve different purposes. Let me have my film nerd navel gazy gluttony, I say, and you do what suits you.

(I have always been on the other end of things-- I tend to like weird movies, and get eye rolls and smirks from most people when I try to discuss them.)

[ 04. February 2014, 03:49: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

See what I mean? [Big Grin]

(Seriously, in my ex's walking out speech, he cited the fact that I was taking a film analysis class and I was participating in some weird religious satire message board as evidence that we were incompatible.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't know if any of you have come across this, but something I've noticed that drives me batshit is an assumption that films that are deeply deeply depressing and emotionally hard to watch are somehow "good for you" (method unspecified). Somehow simply watching the bloody thing confers a certain moral superiority on the viewers, regardless of whether they actually DO anything about the evil situation or not. I find myself edging toward the door before I say something I'll regret. Has anyone else here had that kind of experience?

Oh yes. Kinda like religious services.*
People often feel acknowledging something and feeling bad it happened/is happening is sufficient. If it doesn't lead to something happening, kinda useless.

*OOh, I so wanted just to post just that, but I could hear a whole chorus of knickers preparing to twist.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
an assumption that films that are deeply deeply depressing and emotionally hard to watch are somehow "good for you" (method unspecified)

I've never really heard that. I've often heard people describe films that are difficult or uncomfortable to watch as important or improving in some way, but that has generally been understood to be because they cause the viewer to confront some issue or appreciate some historical reality in a new way (like 12 years a slave, for instance). That might superficially sound like masochistic film watching as you report, but I don't think it is.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

And that is useful. LC attends church and then walks the walk the rest of the week. Her knickers will not be twisting over that remark, believe me. So anyone who does get cross is possibly only talking the talk, and thusly needs their tail pulled a little.

I was answering liopeurodeans post fairly seriously,I feel confused and tired, and this argument is absorbing attention and energy I can't afford. I started out moaning about a film that wasn't what I 'wanted', and continued arguing because someone said it fairly told the story the book contained.so I read the book, and disagreed with that.
But it turns out I'm wrong, my interpretation of the book is wrong, so I'll stop trying to put whatever it was I wanted to say.

Except that, Kelly,I have so much respect for you, and love your posts, and was so hurt that you share this feeling that I'm just a bit shit and selfish, that I went back and read it all from the beginning to see where I went wrong, and it all boils down to the fact,I think, that I don't need to watch a film to know how shot the world is. I have always known that 'there but for the grace of God go I'

I don't know why. I pray I'm never tested because I fear I'll be found wanting. Child soldiers are very real to me. I know that I may cross the line to be a bully without ever noticing the culture around me changed. It is a battle to have integrity in this world.

God knows me, and still loves me anyway, and that's the essence of my religion.And you can all interpret that however the hell you like.

X posted again.

[ 04. February 2014, 05:02: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
And that is useful. LC attends church and then walks the walk the rest of the week. Her knickers will not be twisting over that remark, believe me. So anyone who does get cross is possibly only talking the talk, and thusly needs their tail pulled a little.

Actually was not referring to LC, but the board in general. Is why is said chorus. I've been accused of being less than genial towards religion here.

As to the rest, I do think you might be feeling antipathy that is not there. People do not agree with what they felt was the direction of your OP. This is Purg and this will happen. Kelly can speak for herself, of course, but I do not interpret her remarks in quite the way you do.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

Except that, Kelly,I have so much respect for you, and love your posts, and was so hurt that you share this feeling that I'm just a bit shit and selfish, that I went back and read it all from the beginning to see where I went wrong, and it all boils down to the fact,I think, that I don't need to watch a film to know how shot the world is. I have always known that 'there but for the grace of God go I'
.

I have had plenty of people I respect and like tell me they thought I was wrong about something.Mostly on the Ship, come to think of it.

I do not accept the idea that me telling you I disagreed with something you said means I said you are a bit shit and selfish. I don't. Don't put words in my mouth, especially words of that nature.

I am just another idiot on the internet with an opinion-- what I just said to Lamb Chopped pretty much sums up how I feel about the matter.I think people who are looking to get entertained/ inspired by a film should avoid navel gazey film nerd films, and people who are into navel gazey film nerd films shouldn't sneer at Sandra Bullock's latest (love her, by the way.)

Some of us are just lucky enough to navigate both with a fair amount of ease. I love film, I love analyzing film, I love talking about film.

[ 04. February 2014, 05:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Taliesin:

quote:
I was answering liopeurodeans post fairly seriously,I feel confused and tired, and this argument is absorbing attention and energy I can't afford. I started out moaning about a film that wasn't what I 'wanted', and continued arguing because someone said it fairly told the story the book contained.so I read the book, and disagreed with that.
But it turns out I'm wrong, my interpretation of the book is wrong, so I'll stop trying to put whatever it was I wanted to say.

So people disagree with you. You still don't have to agree with them and you don't even have to keep arguing with them. You say what you want; they say what they want. And after you've said it, stop if you'd like. It isn't required that someone wins.

I liked your further contributions in comparing the book and the movie. I saw the movie but I hadn't read the book. Now thanks to you I have a bit more insight.

Of course, next time you feel the need to rant, you could try the TICTH thread. Safer for the nerves all around.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And not to get all meta, but-- aren't we goofing around and bantering on another thread? That's what makes the Ship The Ship for me-- that you can disagree to the death about one thing, then put it aside and connect over something else.

I just don't think film is our area of connection. That hardly makes me hate you-- I would have to hate a whole lot of folk, if that were the case. [Big Grin]

(Crosspost with a really brilliant post from Lyda.)

[ 04. February 2014, 05:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Even if you're prepared to accept that slavery is 100% bad, there's something a bit messed up about looking at an account as accurate as this one and bemoaning the lack of unquestioning faith or complaining that the characters were terrified and silent and unable to help each other. I mean the book is actually pretty clear that the slaves were for the most part terrified and silent and unable to help each other. Also while the book does mention Northup's faith from time to time it's generally in the context of eternal justice and hope for the next world because there was no hope in the one he was in.

But yeah, I do think that if what you take away from this kind of realistic account is "they should have made it more uplifting so I could feel better about the world" then your priorities are out.
Thank you for summing up what has been bothering me.

Thank you, people. Who say they are arguing with my perspective on film. I came to purg to argue, is fine, I'm not so sensitive I can't argue my points,I expect to be disagreed with if people have different insights. I wanted to hear other people insights, what did I miss in this scene, or that portrayal? Maybe. Our whatever. But this says my priorities are wrong, and that I bemoaning the lack of unquestioning faith. Which feels personal and unable to be argued with, beyond saying,I don't think I said that, and how did you infer that?
So, it's time to get up and go to work. Literally,I mean. Have a good day.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think it was the "priorities" part I agreed with the most strongly. The director's priority was not to compose a neat story that hit all the satisfying emotional touch points-- it was to place you directly in the experience of another person, who is going through something highly fucked up.

It's not that I thought your priorities were bad-- in general. But I thought you weren't respecting the director's priorities. And from that point I'll just point above to my general comment about not all films being for all people.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

And maybe I should add that I think a director who is really trying to change a person's perspective really does have to challenge the audience's comfort zone. And that will not be fun for the audience. The fact that it makes the viewer cranky or pissed off or unsatisfied might actually be a sign it is working. Films that upset you are not easily forgettable.

I got the above lecture from my film history teacher the day after I saw my first Buñuel film, by the way. I wanted to hang myself, it was so freaking nihilistic. "Why, that's GREAT, Kelly! It shook you up!"

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

The thing is, people's comfort zones are in different places. Some people may need to see the sweat and blood and tears - the slaves being thrown over the side of the ship to drown - to be moved by it. Some people may get off on that kind of thing (they're the really scary ones, if you ask me).

Some of us only need to read a dry academic description of what went on to be moved to tears. I'm one of those - still haunted by things I read about, years ago - which is why I made the comment about not liking torture porn.

So I can understand where Taliesin's coming from. I can also understand her frustration with people who are insisting it's historically accurate. It's not. It may be based on a contemporary account written by someone who had these experiences. The costumes and props and sets may be meticulously researched and as accurate as the production team can get them. But the script is an interpretation of the source material by 21st century people who have their own agenda (and one eye on the bank balance). The actors all have perfect teeth, for crying out loud; there's a whacking great anachronism, although the chances of finding an actor with less than perfect teeth are fairly small.

It's our idea of what the past was like, not the past itself. And if we're recreating it just so we can say 'Thank God we're not like those people were back then' or 'Weren't our ancestors horrible?' and ignore injustices that are happening today, what's the point?

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

I haven't seen the film, so this comment is purely theoretical, but I wonder if the issues JaneR raises about the inevitable distance between reconstruction and historical reality, and the ethical questions about a reconstruction that seeks to move its viewers might be illuminated by thinking about the film's difference from Claude Lanzmann's Shoah? Lanzmann purposely didn't reconstruct, instead juxtaposing soundtrack of witnesses being questioned with footage of the locations of in the present day. Lanzmann's aim was to witness to the events of the Holocaust but he viewed the Holocaust itself as unrepresentable -- it would have been unethical to reconstruct it.

I don't know whether I come down on Lanzmann's side or on McQueen's. Clearly once you reconstruct you depart from witness testimony -- there will always be interpretation. And once you have the aesthetic effects of lighting, colour, shot composition, soundtrack and so on, you inevitably (and designedly) will evoke emotional responses from your audience.

It comes down to some big questions -- can we tell the truth through a story? is testimony the only way we can witness to evil? can there be poetry (to use Adorno's phrase) after slavery?

I don't know. I'm afraid to see 12 Years a Slave (as I was afraid before seeing Shoah). But it sounds, in that tediously overused word, essential.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

So I can understand where Taliesin's coming from. I can also understand her frustration with people who are insisting it's historically accurate.

Yes, but her frustrations don't seem to be driven by the changes that have been made as part of dramatisation - but rather about the overall dark tone of the work itself.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes, but that comes back again to big questions. Why is 'dark tone' celebrated above all else? Comedy can tell important stories, too (well, maybe not this one...). Splattering blood and guts all over the screen does not automatically make a film Significant (Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Halloween 2?).

It's not just film either. Funny books hardly ever win literary awards, even when they deal with important philosophical questions and however beautifully written they may be.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Roots was mentioned earlier. Much of the event and dialogue is by necessity fictionalised, and there are other concerns.
However, Roots conveys the humanity of slaves, takes the suffering from a dry recitation and makes it more real, more accessible.
Regardless of the reality of particular details being "true" the story serves TRUTH.
I do not think it is necessary to have a Lanzmann v. McQueen debate. It is not inherently either or.
What method is needed to reach people? There is not one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, but that comes back again to big questions. Why is 'dark tone' celebrated above all else? Comedy can tell important stories, too (well, maybe not this one...).

Maybe?!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
Regardless of the reality of particular details being "true" the story serves TRUTH.

If you take that to its logical conclusion you end up with gross distortions of historical fact like That Film about U-571. Now, you may not think it matters if large numbers of Americans who don't know any better think that the Enigma code was broken as a result of heroic efforts by the US Navy. But on this side of the Atlantic, people were rather annoyed.

Here's another example: the depiction of atrocities in The Patriot (2000 film starring Mel Gibson) which attributed war crimes committed in the 1940s to British troops in the 1770s, thus pissing off both the British and the French (the real victims of the Oradour massacre). That one even annoyed some Americans.

There is such a thing as poetic truth. Maybe '12 Years a Slave' is telling it; I don't know, I haven't seen the film or read the book. But the attitude that the details of what happened don't matter as long as you tell a good story can lead to abuses such as the above.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
Maybe?!

British understatement. Divided by a common language, and all that. I wouldn't try to make a comedy out of the Shoah either; there are some subjects that I just don't think are funny - though judging by the number of people who thought Jeremy Clarkson's remarks about massacring trade unionists were amusing, my opinions are not shared by everyone.

And as I keep saying, I haven't seen this particular film and so can't speak about how true it is to either its source material or what we know about that historical period. But I think the wider questions raised on this thread are interesting.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you take that to its logical conclusion you end up with gross distortions of historical fact

I don't think that is the logical conclusion. If I find on reading Roots that Alex Haley made a few too many leaps in determining his ancestral chain, and put conversations that he couldn't possibly have evidence of into characters' mouths to bring them to life I don't feel cheated. If on the other hand I find that actually very little kidnapping of slaves went on in Africa I would feel cheated.

There is a difference between fictional individual characters and scenes within the context of characters' lives that don't touch on the historical backdrop, and adding fictional quasi-historical elements.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I agree with that, mdijon. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what lilbuddha was saying but it did seem as if he was suggesting that What Really Happened didn't matter...

And to anyone who knows their history, this kind of attitude is really, really irritating. I gave up watching BBC historical dramas after the one where they had the totally spurious scene of Charles II being present at his father's execution, close enough when the axe fell to be splashed with blood. If he'd been foolhardy enough to stay on that side of the Channel (never mind in the actual courtyard where the actual execution took place) I'm sure the executioner would have been happy to do him as well...

[ 04. February 2014, 11:54: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, but that comes back again to big questions. Why is 'dark tone' celebrated above all else?

Well, at least in this case the dark tone is appropriate - and so while you could argue that he could have made a different film, you can't argue that this should have been a musical, or more upbeat.

So that's kind of a different argument really.

quote:

Funny books hardly ever win literary awards, even when they deal with important philosophical questions and however beautifully written they may be.

To an extent - though it tends to depend on the prize, and similarly there have been plenty of funny upbeat films that have won awards.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I wonder (abandoning the subject of '12 Years' completely for a moment) whether it boils down to the familiar problem of how to make good characters and Happy Events dramatically interesting? Tolkien comments on it in 'The Hobbit' when he dismisses the company's stay in Rivendell in a few lines [badly paraphrased by me]: 'They spent a month there and had a wonderful time. But what you're really interested in is the dragon, so let's skip to the point where they leave to continue their journey...'

So a good filmmaker or author can create a tragic masterpiece. But to create a funny or uplifting masterpiece without descending into sickly sentimentality or bathos... for that, you need a genius.

[ 04. February 2014, 12:10: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And to anyone who knows their history, this kind of attitude is really, really irritating. I gave up watching BBC historical dramas after the one where they had the totally spurious scene of Charles II being present at his father's execution, close enough when the axe fell to be splashed with blood.

And let's not get started on Elizabeth or Elizabeth: The Golden Age.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

One of the reasons that dark movies are respected is that it usually takes a great deal of effort to get one made. The financial and studio pressures for a film that makes the audience happy mean that the creator usually has to believe in the project. Sometimes this struggle is a limitation that causes artistic creativity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Now, you may not think it matters if large numbers of Americans who don't know any better think that the Enigma code was broken as a result of heroic efforts by the US Navy. But on this side of the Atlantic, people were rather annoyed.

Do hope you are including the Poles and the French....

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I agree with that, mdijon. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what lilbuddha was saying

Understatement again?

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

but it did seem as if he was suggesting that What Really Happened didn't matter...

Dave Spikey's having a laugh now.

I reread what I wrote and, ISTM, this statement is key:

quote:
However, Roots conveys the humanity of slaves, takes the suffering from a dry recitation and makes it more real, more accessible.

mdijion clued in rather well, but I will attempt to clarify. Whilst Haley took liberties, these facilitated the message rather than hid it. Individual lives and words were invented, but the whole retains truth. It made the experience relatable in a way dry history does not.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Well, I have ended up buying the 12 years a slave book as a result of this thread - but haven't started it yet.

Mildly related, I am fairly addicted to the Assassin's creed video game franchise. The latest, Black Flag is set in the 18th century based around pirates. In the main game Kenway has an ex-slave as his second in command. Later they released a game extension where you play Adewale, as he fights slavery and templars on Haiti.

Lots of missions focus on freeing slaves and supporting the maroons so they can mount a rebellion. One mission involves trying to free slaves on a sinking ship - you don't get them all out.

I wondered what people think about this - on one level it is making a game out of the history of slavery. On the other hand, it teaches basic info about slavery and has a strong black character as lead - which is still not so common in video games.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In the main game Kenway has an ex-slave as his second in command. Later they released a game extension where you play Adewale, as he fights slavery and templars on Haiti.

Oh yes, the faithful sidekick.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Who usually is mortally wounded towards the middle of the penultimate action scene.

"Go on without me" he cries with his dying gasp.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sorry Doublethink, I am not intending to be rude to you. It is the scenario you see as progressive, I see as several steps farther back than we should be. Did you know many black actors feel the need to leave the UK for America to have a chance at better roles? And the US in not exactly an equal opportunity casting destination. Oh it is better than it has been, but it still is not terrific.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Well, it is not a UK game as such.

Plot wise, in the main game Adewale doesn't die - he eventually leaves Kenway in order to do something more productive with his life. The plot rationale for him not being a captain at the time he is taken on by Kenway, is that a white crew would not have accepted a black captain - I suspect that there is some truth to that.

In the Liberation game extension he is the main character commanding his own ship.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Review.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
mdijion clued in rather well, but I will attempt to clarify. Whilst Haley took liberties, these facilitated the message rather than hid it. Individual lives and words were invented, but the whole retains truth. It made the experience relatable in a way dry history does not.

OK, I see what you're getting at now and that's a fair point. I still think my original point stands; what is reconstructed is a modern person's understanding of history, and therefore reconstructions should be treated with caution.

(Yes, I was including the Poles and the French - last time I checked they were on this side of the Atlantic too).

I've never actually read Roots - this thread has inspired me to go and get a copy... sounds like it's different from the TV series.

[ 05. February 2014, 08:19: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

A handful of thoughts in response to various things on this very interesting thread:

If I were plotting films onto a graph, the axes would be "admirable" and "enjoyable". This would allow for the fact that there are some really admirable films that I could never say I "enjoyed" (e.g. The Machinist), and also that there is plenty of enjoyable tosh out there (I can't resist ConAir. Sorry.) Some films are both admirable and enjoyable. Some, for me are neither - that would be the quadrant that I could happily live without. However if someone else would plot them in a different quadrant, then I don't think I should be able to delete them from the record.

Is there a moral dimension to watching films/plays that are admirable but not enjoyable? I think some of the posts on this thread might be read as implying that. I don't think it's the case, and I'm with Lamb Chopped in feeling that nobody would be better off if I went to see 12YAS.

Where is God in slavery? One of the difficulties I have with the OT (and I'm currently re-reading Exodus) is that God seems to be fine with slavery, provided it isn't someone he likes in the manacles. How are we meant to deal with this?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I still think my original point stands; what is reconstructed is a modern person's understanding of history, and therefore reconstructions should be treated with caution.

I agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

(Yes, I was including the Poles and the French - last time I checked they were on this side of the Atlantic too).

my grasp of geography is at least that good. Fewer people have a decent grasp of history than should. To be honest, I did not truly think you were one of the ignorant. Apologies for the snark.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
Apologies for the snark.

Thank you; apology accepted.

It sounds like we're more or less on the same page, even though we have very different ways of expressing ourselves [Cool]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If you find yourself expressing anything like I do, run for Broadmoor.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

Is there a moral dimension to watching films/plays that are admirable but not enjoyable? I think some of the posts on this thread might be read as implying that.

If you mean, "Is one person morally superior to another for selecting a certain type of movie?" then no, I would argue there is a moral dimension, though in that people who do select "difficult" movies are trying to sort something out. Another person might choose a different way to sort the same thing out but so what? It is no more fair to say that people who watch difficult films are only in it to feel superior or because they have a sadistic streak( I think some of the posts on this thread might be read as implying that) than it is to say people who avoid the same don't care enough to watch them.

I just think there is a difference between saying "This film isn't for me and I will watch another film," And saying "This film isn't for me and I think it should have been made differently." ISTM that McQueen was actively trying to find images of slavery that would attack the "mammy" And "stepin fetchit" gloss that allows octogenarian Southern senators to make dumb public statements about how slavery actually helped, kind of.That was his agenda.

I made the horrible mistake of watching a film called "Man Bites Dog,". I wish I could undo that experience-- all it did was visually traumatize me. I found nothing edifying it at all. But Steve Buscemi-- one of my favorite actors, one of the guys who has publically stated that he was "very proud" to be involved with the movie "Grey Zone" that I described before-- listed it as one of his 50 must see films.

So, because major cineaste hard-hitting indie king Buscemi says I must see "Man Bites Dog," does that mean I need to run out and see it again, to see what I missed? Fuck that. Even if he told me that to my face, I wouldn't do it. Does that mean Buscemi is some depraved, amoral psycho that loves to watch people brutalized? Fuck that, too--Buscemi is an intelligent, compassionate man with a lot of wisdom and insight, and I can only assume that the movie gave him some insight that it didn't give me.
Does that make one of us more moral than the other? Hell no. But if I am ever invited to the Buscemi house for movie night, I might ask what's playing before I respond. [Big Grin]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I still think my original point stands; what is reconstructed is a modern person's understanding of history, and therefore reconstructions should be treated with caution.

Absolutely - though to Kelly's point above - it isn't as if this reconstruction exists wholely in a vacuum. There is already a constructed history in the minds of the potential viewers - especially in the case of something like "12 years a slave"

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I like Kelly's post above. And I usually treat all film recommendations with caution, because I hate seeing things then not be able to un-see them. I had to stop reading Amnesty International literature because they (went thru a phase?) of describing/implying details of rape and torture in such graphic detail I couldn't get it out my head. It didn't make me give more money, it just made me feel that the people writing the literature had become immune to what levels of horror had an impact.

In that light, why the hell did I go and see this film??

But today I am home sick, and have continued my research. I am reading a biography of Harriet Tubman, and have uncovered a made for TV film called
A Woman called Moses watch here in its entirety, three hours of it.

And Harriet is such a hero - if Solomon Northup is like Anne Frank, Harriet Tubman is Jean D'Arc.
And yet, the film, by today's standards, is a bit boring.
12 years a slave doesn't have a boring moment in it. It is artful, with light and darkness and presumably, music, though I can't recall it, oddly. Except for the gospel songs, sung with a weary, bitter, cynical edge.

The book is great - reads like Robin Hood. What a hero! Why don't we hear more of her... she spent her entire life in the service of others, and never lost a person. You couldn't make it up, really. And that's having read several different accounts, and allowing for poetic licence and such.

And, in the TV film, that I will eventually watch all the way through, there is the humour and love and mutual support that is missing from 12YAS.

I'd love to see a modern version. I bet it's not made though, by any non-milky-tea christian film group, because she channels the holy spirit directly all her life and it can't be taken from her story. Unless some completely cynical bastard makes it all about her head injury and brain damage that perhaps destroyed the part of her brain that meant to feel fear...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:

But today I am home sick, and have continued my research. I am reading a biography of Harriet Tubman...

The book is great - reads like Robin Hood. What a hero! Why don't we hear more of her... she spent her entire life in the service of others, and never lost a person. You couldn't make it up, really. And that's having read several different accounts, and allowing for poetic licence and such.

Tubman is well-known and beloved in the US for all those reasons. I imagine both sides of the pond tend to focus on their own cultural heroes at the cost of those from other parts of the globe. Or is it just Americans who are so narcissistic?

[ 06. February 2014, 15:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That is not a simple answer, cliffdweller. IME, I would say Americans are more myopic as a whole. However, not by the margin most would like to believe.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah. And can I add that, unless I were totally joking, I would never make the kind if statements about English people that I see people making about Americans on the Ship. In other words, lilbuddha's statement is a lot more fair than category dismissing Americans as " narcissistic." Hollywood film studio execs, maybe, but dear God, Don't imply we are all like them.

Harriet Tubman as a civil war Joan of Arc? Hell yes! But if someone is going to tell the story of any female slave, it's gonna be a lot more shudder-worthy than that of the average male slave. Also-of course they need to address her head injury. Besides the fear- center thing, she would occasionally pass out mid-exodus. How can you leave that out? It was hugely problematic!

Sojurnour Truth is another slave-era hero that deserves to have her story heard. Many speculate as to whether or not she was a genuine prophet. Yet, while she had a general idea of God from an early age, her conversion to Christianity came about when the love of her life was beaten to death before her eyes. He kept calling out for someone named "Jesus", and she resolved to learn more about this person that was so important to the man she loved so much.(According to her narrative, the popular apology that slaves at least were getting the benefit of a proper religious education was false,at least at her plantation.)
Now, I agree we don't necessarily need a graphic visual of the above, but this incident,by Sojourner Truth's own words, was the turning point in her life. Anyone respecting her own words would give due weight to the horror and impact this incident had. Bypassing it, or giving it some lightweight Disney gloss, would insult the subject.

[ 06. February 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh, and I have seen "A Woman Called Moses"--while Cicely Tyson was marvelous, TV movies of that era tended toward the soap-opery, and were usually much watered down for "family hour." See if you can find the "Profiles in Courage" version of Tubman's story--it's much shorter, but is a high tension depiction of what one of Tubman's average runs must have been like. Including her passing out in the middle if the road.

[ 06. February 2014, 17:55: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

quote:
Now, I agree we don't necessarily need a graphic visual of the above, but this incident,by Sojourner Truth's own words, was the turning point in her life. Anyone respecting her own words would give due weight to the horror and impact this incident had. Bypassing it, or giving it some lightweight Disney gloss, would insult the subject.

I agree, very much.
I was very moved by the 'Aint I a Woman' speech when I first heard it years ago, and thought of her primarily as a feminist, rather than emancipated slave. When I read the quote in her original words, without the rhetoric or invented accent, I was even more moved.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

She was a feminist. She basically said, "we are doing all this emancipating, and the women are still not free." She's one of my heroes.

[/tangent] [Big Grin]

I once dreamed up a little Whovian fanfic in which a Girl Scout troop kidnaps the TARDIS (or she kidnaps them, rather) and the go see Sojourner Truth speak.[/tangent]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0