Twelve Years A Slave...

[Warped9]

Last Thursday evening I finally had the opportunity to see this film. I thought it was very good. I also have to say some parts of it made me cringe. I don't mean that in a bad way, but in the sense that some of the scenes made me cringe with discomfort.

I didn't find the film overly graphic, but the way some of the scenes were done as well as the suggestive imagery and the few quick graphic images really nailed home the horror of the situation for those enslaved. And the casualness of the slave owners behaviour was also frightening.

My mother remarked she thought perhaps the film sensationalized or went somewhat over-the-top for more dramatic impact, but I'm not so sure. From what I've read of those times the film struck me as pretty faithful to the truth. She thought no one could survive such a harsh existence and I replied that indeed many people did not survive it. Slaves could often be treated with less regard than cattle. It also fit with the general barbarity humans are well known to be able to visit upon each other.

That said not all slaves were maltreated because they were indeed part of the South's economic framework. But the very nature of ownership of another human being and denying them even the most fundamental rights is disgusting and this film nails it I think.

While uncomfortable in parts (as well it should be) it's refreshing to see a film with a good story about something and that isn't just a popcorn flick blockbuster.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I agree the film is great. And it should be noted the film is based on an autobiographical book written by a real person who went through those events.

I do like the way the film shows, some slavers were more severe and cruel than others, but all of them were slavers. And it should also be noted that the film focuses on the most horrible moments, and it can probably be construed that most of his time as a slave was just spent picking cotton for ridiculous hours.

And as a side note, there are plenty of good films other than summer blockbusters coming out. You just have to look in the right place.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Also films that do well at Cannes tend to bleed through to US art houses around Spring.

 

[Sci]

My mother remarked she thought perhaps the film sensationalized or went somewhat over-the-top for more dramatic impact, but I'm not so sure. From what I've read of those times the film struck me as pretty faithful to the truth.

I'm afraid your mother may not have done much research on the topic, because the historical record makes it clear that slave owners committed all of the abuses suffered by Solomon Northrup, and worse; there was nothing sensationalistic about that film. That's honestly just what life was for a slave.

(And I hate that word; to call someone a "slave" to me implies that on some level, there was any legitimacy whatsoever to a legal system that classifies a person as property. I think a much better term would be "hostage." And a better term than "plantation" would be "forced labor camp.")

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hostage?? Not understanding what you're going for there. That implies they could be released. Which wasn't the case.

 

[Sci]

Hostage?? Not understanding what you're going for there. That implies they could be released. Which wasn't the case.

Of course they could have been released. Under the legal system at the time, any slaveowner could release the persons he held in captive forced labor at any point.

"Hostage," however, carries a connotation of illegitimacy that I like; to call someone a hostage is to assert that the person holding them against their will has no right whatsoever to do this. It places greater emphasis on the morally illegitimate nature of the act.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I can see that, but the word is just too "soft" to describe the situation. IMO.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Though don't you hold someone hostage FOR something? Like money? A release of prisoners? Etc. These people weren't being held in bondage to get something else.

They were slaves. They were being used as labor.

 

[Sci]

Though don't you hold someone hostage FOR something? Like money? A release of prisoners? Etc. These people weren't being held in bondage to get something else.

They were slaves. They were being used as labor.

You think labor doesn't count as something they were being held for? It's not like these people would have worked for free were it not for the threat of overwhelming violence being used against them. They were held as hostages in order to extract unpaid labor from them; in a very real sense, the institution of slavery was an elaborate, legalized plunder of labor.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't think the word 'Slave' carries any air of legitimacy. A slave is a person who is being held against their will and forced to perform labor without pay. It doesn't get any less legitimate than that. There are slaves today but it's mostly teenage girls kidnapped off the streets for sex slavery. Again, calling them 'Slaves' does not sound like it is marking their identity as 'Slaves' so much as their status as victims of slavery.

The word 'Hostage' is inaccurate because it implies the captors have attached specific conditions of release.

But there's no need for another word to make it sound illegitimate, because 'Slave' is about as illegitimate sounding a word as you can get.

 

[J.T.B.]

"Hostage" implies an exchange: hostage exchanged for ransom money, hostage exchanged for political concession, hostage exchanged for a prisoner release and so on. There was no exchange for a slave, it was all one-way, the barbaric consumption of a human being.

I think to the modern ear the terms "slave" and "slavery" carry the moral opprobrium they deserve. There are still some noisy apologists and revisionists but their actual numbers are small. Thanks to movies like this one and many other authors and artists, the post-Reconstruction myth of the Noble Cause, happy slaves and kindly masters is, thankfully, dying out.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Though don't you hold someone hostage FOR something? Like money? A release of prisoners? Etc. These people weren't being held in bondage to get something else.

They were slaves. They were being used as labor.

You think labor doesn't count as something they were being held for? It's not like these people would have worked for free were it not for the threat of overwhelming violence being used against them. They were held as hostages in order to extract unpaid labor from them; in a very real sense, the institution of slavery was an elaborate, legalized plunder of labor.

I was going to reply, but then, the two posts following do an excellent job...