Finally saw it tonight. I can see what was meant that sentimentality was deliberately stripped from the film in order to not take away from the factual horror of slavery.
1 aspect I thought felt very forced and contrived was when Northrup was in the field listening to the crickets and he stares into the camera. It seemed an overly forced point of 'hey America. Look your shameful history in the eye. Face up to it'.
I'm not sure whether the matter-of-fact way in which the lynching and whipping were portrayed added or detracted from the impact of them.
I also think the passage of time didn't seem well done. You could be forgiven for thinking he spent only a few days with Benedict Cumberbatch's character and 1 or 2 days on the sugar plantation.
The performances are on the whole astounding.
Maybe the cultural impact is lost on me, not being American.
To be honest, I came away disappointed that I wasn't as emotionally impacted as I thought I would.
I was hoping for a 10. Something that hit like a ton of bricks like Schindler's List.
I got a 7.
That stare scene you refer to works perfectly when I watch it. As someone else already pointed out, there is so much subtle acting that goes into Ejiofor's performance. This scene in particular just painted a picture of there being no hope. His facial expression sold it all. The scene were he starts singing with the group of slaves just displayed the start of his inevitable assimilation.
It was a 10 for me. I'd put it right up there with Schindler's List.
Honestly, what's the point in making movies based on "the ugly & brutal side of history"?
I mean you walk away feeling an emotional wreck, feeling saddened by the plight of the characters in the story...but does it really change your outlook of life?
Do you feel the need to help/embrace African/Americans, Jews, refugees, the homeless, the drug addicts more?
I'm just curious that out of all the emotions we possess, why market a negative emotion & then make a movie that's guaranteed to leave you an emotional wreck afterwards?
Originally posted by jaden101
Finally saw it tonight. I can see what was meant that sentimentality was deliberately stripped from the film in order to not take away from the factual horror of slavery.1 aspect I thought felt very forced and contrived was when Northrup was in the field listening to the crickets and he stares into the camera. It seemed an overly forced point of 'hey America. Look your shameful history in the eye. Face up to it'.
I'm not sure whether the matter-of-fact way in which the lynching and whipping were portrayed added or detracted from the impact of them.
I also think the passage of time didn't seem well done. You could be forgiven for thinking he spent only a few days with Benedict Cumberbatch's character and 1 or 2 days on the sugar plantation.
The performances are on the whole astounding.
Maybe the cultural impact is lost on me, not being American.
To be honest, I came away disappointed that I wasn't as emotionally impacted as I thought I would.
I was hoping for a 10. Something that hit like a ton of bricks like Schindler's List.
I got a 7.
I personally thought the scene where Northup looks into the camera was the most impressive scene in the whole movie. It's actually extremely brave, from a filmmaking perspective, for a director to do that in a dramatic film. As it's considered a big no-no in dramatic films to have the character look into the camera as it can break the fourth wall and destroy immersion if not done properly. And I thought it was done flawlessly in this film.
I also think the matter of fact way the whipping was done was certainly beneficial. There are plenty of movies cinematizing whipping scenes and exaggerating them for dramatic effect, was refreshing to see it done in such an honest and straight forward way, for a change. Also the way that scene was filmed was a stroke of genius, I felt. As if watching from the eyes of a bystander, as opposed to disembodied cameras that can teleport around, as would happen in most films.
The passage of time thing is a common complaint. That was an intentional decision by the director to do it that way, for whatever reason. In the script there are actually time stamps on various scenes which give the date, and show how long he's been there and so on, but the director decided to not use those in the film. I'm guessing the reason for that is because in real life Northup didn't really know exactly how long he had been abducted till after he was released, he mentions this at the end when he says "I've had a difficult time these last several years" showing that he doesn't really know exactly how long he's been away. And so we can't either. Also it could have been done that way so that when he arrives home to his family it's actually quite jarring to see just how much his children have aged. I remember quite a few gasps in the theater at that point.
I've got it rated a 10/10. Think it's on par if not better than Schindler's List. Definitely had a greater emotional impact than Schindler's List, for me.
I didn't look at it like that at first, but going back on the movie and slavery in general. Once you get into that routine and are more about survival than anything, you stop counting the days and weeks, and they can seem to blend together. So it would make sense for him to just realize time is passing and not know the exacts of it.
The problem with the time not being shown isn't the issue with it. It's that it didn't feel like 12 years to audience when it would have felt more than 12 years to Northrup. It's a disjoin that is hard to reconcile, for me anyway.
I'm not saying Ejiofor wasn't excellent in the looking at the camera scene. His ability to express with out words in that scene was tremendous. You could almost read every thought he was having from the look on his face. It's just that the look directed at the audience had no subtlety in term of its purpose.
Several scenes were nigh on perfect. When Northrup is on his tip toes trying not to choke and the rest of the slaves are going about their business as if he's not there. The way the 1st shot lingers for ages on him.
The other being as he passes the lynching and only gets a fleeting glimpse of it and the look on his face as he walks away without looking back. I also liked the expression of guilt about leaving Patsey behind much like the other guy left him when they got off the boat.
Yeah, I get the time passage complaint, totally. I know that did bother quite a few people and it's a reasonable criticism. For me, didn't really hurt the film at all, though.
I honestly think Patsey is perhaps the film's greatest achievement. The amount of emotional resonance she was able to garner in a relatively short amount of screen time was exceptional.
And yeah, the looking into the camera scene wasn't all that subtle. That's fine by me, though, there were an almost overwhelming amount of other subtle moments in the film, having a few big ones like that, where the intent is obvious, isn't necessarily a bad thing.