by Bruce E. Parry
I really appreciated 12 Years A Slave because it exposed me to the horrors of slavery and captivity in a way that I could identify with. Its strength and weakness are the same: the movie is about Mr. Solomon Northrup, a freeman who is kidnapped into slavery in the period before the Civil War. The movie is based on his book, published in 1853. The ability to identify is there because I could relate to having my freedom stolen from me. At the same time, that was the weakness of the film, because it could not fully depict the horror of there being no chance of release from slavery. That, of course, was the condition of 4 million Americans prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1864.
The movie was graphic in its depiction of the horrors of slavery. From the regular whippings and beatings wrought on the slaves, including Plat (they stole Solomon Northrup’s name and renamed him Plat), to the murders and hangings, to the theft of children and destruction of families, to the personal degradations at the whim of any white person. It’s all there. The graphic portrayal of the wounds suffered in the beatings, the pain and the tenderness shown by others is there. There is the enforced indifference of slaves to another slave being hung before them: if they show concern, it will be visited upon them as well. The film transported me to that time and the impossibility of escape from the entire institution of slavery. Hope was dashed time after time, betrayal after betrayal.
It occurs to me that by its very nature, a film—including this one—cannot really portray the horror of what we are seeing on the screen. I am reminded of a review of Philadelphia (1993). The film was instrumental in changing the American public’s perception and concern about the AIDS epidemic. The review, however, chastised the film for failing to be as brutally honest as it could be.
However, film making is the art of story telling and story telling requires a nuanced understanding of the audience as well as the story. What is the audience ready to hear or see? What can they comprehend. Philadelphia changed millions of minds. A more brutal rendition would not have reached the audiences Philadelphia did and therefore wouldn’t have had the impact the film did. Hence, I defended Philadelphia as appropriate for that moment.
12 Years A Slave is—for me—in the same category. What it portrays is an understanding of the brutality of slavery as an institution that can be accepted by a broad audience and—I believe—will have an important impact. I think the film is a brilliant example of story telling of a story that needs to be told and retold to each generation. It is beyond what has been done before and I am sure it will not go as far as its future successors. But it is right for the moment.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
https://bruceeparry.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/12-years-a-slave-2013/
I really appreciated 12 Years A Slave because it exposed me to the horrors of slavery and captivity in a way that I could identify with. Its strength and weakness are the same: the movie is about Mr. Solomon Northrup, a freeman who is kidnapped into slavery in the period before the Civil War. The movie is based on his book, published in 1853. The ability to identify is there because I could relate to having my freedom stolen from me. At the same time, that was the weakness of the film, because it could not fully depict the horror of there being no chance of release from slavery. That, of course, was the condition of 4 million Americans prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1864.
The movie was graphic in its depiction of the horrors of slavery. From the regular whippings and beatings wrought on the slaves, including Plat (they stole Solomon Northrup’s name and renamed him Plat), to the murders and hangings, to the theft of children and destruction of families, to the personal degradations at the whim of any white person. It’s all there. The graphic portrayal of the wounds suffered in the beatings, the pain and the tenderness shown by others is there. There is the enforced indifference of slaves to another slave being hung before them: if they show concern, it will be visited upon them as well. The film transported me to that time and the impossibility of escape from the entire institution of slavery. Hope was dashed time after time, betrayal after betrayal.
It occurs to me that by its very nature, a film—including this one—cannot really portray the horror of what we are seeing on the screen. I am reminded of a review of Philadelphia (1993). The film was instrumental in changing the American public’s perception and concern about the AIDS epidemic. The review, however, chastised the film for failing to be as brutally honest as it could be.
However, film making is the art of story telling and story telling requires a nuanced understanding of the audience as well as the story. What is the audience ready to hear or see? What can they comprehend. Philadelphia changed millions of minds. A more brutal rendition would not have reached the audiences Philadelphia did and therefore wouldn’t have had the impact the film did. Hence, I defended Philadelphia as appropriate for that moment.
12 Years A Slave is—for me—in the same category. What it portrays is an understanding of the brutality of slavery as an institution that can be accepted by a broad audience and—I believe—will have an important impact. I think the film is a brilliant example of story telling of a story that needs to be told and retold to each generation. It is beyond what has been done before and I am sure it will not go as far as its future successors. But it is right for the moment.
Copyright Bruce E. Parry
https://bruceeparry.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/12-years-a-slave-2013/
RSS Feed