12 Years a Slave represents a late-flowering of Hollywood's attempt to continue the white-guilt trip regarding the American slave trade since Roots was an international hit in the 1970s. The exception, however, is that this film is far more superior in its technical qualities than nearly every other of its kind. It begins with the simple yet allegedly powerful statement "This film is based on a true story." Whether this is intended to get the audience to sit up and pay extra attention or simply to help prop up a rather deflated synopsis remains a unique element to singular films. Nevertheless, in this case, it seems to add nothing to the terror and brutality exhibited in the rest of the film. Herein lies a great discrepancy for the film's level of satisfaction: does a "true story" translate to a more powerful and effective experience, and if so, does this imply that fiction has no relevance left?
All this to say that, despite its misgivings about its audience's ability to absorb information, Steve McQueen's adaptation of Solomon Northupp's memoir of being kidnapped, sold as a slave despite previously being a freeman, and eventually brought back to his rightful position, does strike a powerful and memorable chord. This is helped in large part by the expansive, eclectic and effective cast which includes such diverse names as Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, and Brad Pitt. Yet, what struck me most about this film was the way in which it seemed to be so single-minded in its approach that it failed to see Northupp as a representative of American slavery in the decades prior to the Civil War. This is exhibited most apparently in the finale, which ends rather abruptly without any real sort of coda or satisfying cadence. This may very well be what McQueen intended, but it still diminishes the viewing experience as it limits the audience to experiencing only what Northupp wrote explicitly. In most cases, this would be fine, but the camera's ability to transcend its subjects and expand on its themes almost requires more than what the source material allows. In this sense, the film fails to live up to its billing.
It seems that this was done most likely to keep a safe awareness of its time and place in the box office. This film will most assuredly be a front-runner for the Oscars next year, yet it has the opportunity to go far beyond more conventional or even exploitative tales of slavery such as Mandingo and, to a lesser but more entertaining degree, Django Unchained. McQueen was well on his way to showing the most realistic, truthful and even sympathetic portrayal of the relationship between blacks and whites during the 19th century. It's a shame he seems to pull back and give us a book report just at the moment when more exposition could have benefited greatly.
All this to say that, despite its misgivings about its audience's ability to absorb information, Steve McQueen's adaptation of Solomon Northupp's memoir of being kidnapped, sold as a slave despite previously being a freeman, and eventually brought back to his rightful position, does strike a powerful and memorable chord. This is helped in large part by the expansive, eclectic and effective cast which includes such diverse names as Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, and Brad Pitt. Yet, what struck me most about this film was the way in which it seemed to be so single-minded in its approach that it failed to see Northupp as a representative of American slavery in the decades prior to the Civil War. This is exhibited most apparently in the finale, which ends rather abruptly without any real sort of coda or satisfying cadence. This may very well be what McQueen intended, but it still diminishes the viewing experience as it limits the audience to experiencing only what Northupp wrote explicitly. In most cases, this would be fine, but the camera's ability to transcend its subjects and expand on its themes almost requires more than what the source material allows. In this sense, the film fails to live up to its billing.
It seems that this was done most likely to keep a safe awareness of its time and place in the box office. This film will most assuredly be a front-runner for the Oscars next year, yet it has the opportunity to go far beyond more conventional or even exploitative tales of slavery such as Mandingo and, to a lesser but more entertaining degree, Django Unchained. McQueen was well on his way to showing the most realistic, truthful and even sympathetic portrayal of the relationship between blacks and whites during the 19th century. It's a shame he seems to pull back and give us a book report just at the moment when more exposition could have benefited greatly.