This is no "sentimental Gone With The Wind kitsch" as David Denby of the New Yorker Magazine observed, but a stark and powerful story of slavery in the pre-Civil War South and how it brutalized not only the slaves but the people who owned them.
The story is based on the book written by Solomon Northup, a free man from Saratoga Springs, New York, who was kidnapped and sold into bondage and endured the dehumanizing effects of slavery for 12 years.
I had recently read Frederick Douglass's memoirs and recognized much of what he suffered as a slave in Northup's story. Although Douglass was born into slavery and escaped to freedom, unlike Northup, who was born a free man and was forced into slavery, both men's stories of unimaginable suffering and humiliation remind us of this country's horrific original sin and how the South was unwilling to give up its barbaric addiction to a culture that forced its people to dehumanize their slaves so they could justify keeping them in unspeakably cruel and brutish conditions.
David Denby called 12 Years A Slave a"...easily the greatest feature film ever made about American slavery."
After having seen Django Unchained and The Butler, I have to agree. This is a radical film that challenges the viewer to confront the stark reality of "America's primal wound," and refuses to sentimentalize the savagery that was practiced in the pre-Civil War South. And it is presented with elegance and historic clarity I rarely see in Hollywood films of this kind.
Do yourself a favor and go see this. And take your children. This is real American history and all its bloody truth in the lash and the chain, brought to the screen by British director, Steve McQueen.
British Shakespearean actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Northup, is outstanding.
New York Times Review:
23 comments:
Capt. Fogg over at The Swash Zone commented on this post, which was published there as well:
"Capt. Fogg 10:44 AM, October 30, 2013
Thanks for calling attention to this film. I haven't had the chance to see it yet, but isn't it about time we had a movie of substance to make up for the typical "historical" drama like Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. This is a country where people will tell you The Flintstones is history.
I wouldn't downplay the power such things have. Uncle Tom's Cabin as hokey as it sounds today had a huge influence on American opinion and I hope this does too, not only in terms of racism, but the whole theater of power and hopelessness, privilege and oppression being staged today.
Slavery is, I think, the major reason we're not one nation and never have been. It has much to do with the perversion we see in American morals and the corruption of our religious tradition - our antipathy to humanism. Any creed that justifies slavery can easily justify any kind of oppression and justify tolerance of being oppressed - and isn't that typical of the kind of godbothering that we see and hear? Right wing politics is all about justifying the rights of the powerful and right wing religion is its servant."
Shaw, the "intellectuals" who comment @conservative blogs are quite angry that the subject of your post is slavery. We should all just forget about it because it's so far in the past that it has nothing to do with us anymore. Just take a look at this genius's comment:
Sharon Feingold said...
Now these idiots on the Left are bringing Up "Slavery" AGAIN!
Can you believe it? Is there no end to their Idiotsy ?
It was inevitable, because their insanity never ends, it’s just idiot logic.. Bringing up slavery today after ALL these years is simply an anti-white attack on blameless whites who had nothing at all to do with this.... .... Those people on Progressive blogs have a lot in common with Oprah, She’s another hard core bigot and black racist. My ancestors freed the slaves, and were slaves themselves in Europe.
GET OVER YOURSELVES.
Sharon's Idiotsy said...
Now these chariots on the Left are bringing Up "Slathering" AGAIN!
Can you behive it? Is there no entropy to their Idiotsy ?
It was an envelope, because their ingenuity never pretends, it’s just ideosyncranticly lethargic..
Burping up sloppily a toad after ALL these yearnings is simply an anti-whittling attraction on bloomless kites that had nosegays all over this.... ....
Those pumpkins on Promontory bongs have a lust common in Opera. It’s another hard-on ballad and blah radiator. My ankles freeze the salves, and wore the salves themselves in Europe.
GET OVER YOUR SHELVES!
So now we need another movie about the holocaust because we can never put anything behind us and go on.
We do need to be reminded that there are racists in this country, just in case we forget.
Racism will never go away because it is in the best interest of the progressive movement to keep it going.
hmmmm I was thinking about a movie too... "Eight years under the Bush Moronasty".
wish I could go to the flicks...eyes are too bad. Will listen to it when it comes out on DVD
I enjoyed "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter". I am planning on seeing this movie too. I watched "White House Down" last night (in which the bad guys are Right-wing extremists) starring Jamie Fox (as the president) who, (when he hosted SNL) said he got to kill all the White people (in "Django Unchained") and asked "how Black is that?".
That angered the Righties (I got several comments about that when I posted about the George Zimmerman trial). I imagine this is a movie they'll come out against too. We are, however, still living with the legacy of slavery (racism). I would say that the denials by Conservative of this fact are racist.
I signed up for emails from WND awhile ago... and have received a number of links to stories about "Black mobs" since the GZ case was decided.
I look forward to seeing this movie. I liked Ejiofor in Children of Men and 2012. Underrated actor. And young Magneto playing a cruel cracka!? Gotta check it out.
But I have to quibble with some wording here. The post says "This country's horrific original sin."
Maybe I'm inferring incorrectly here and it's not implying what I'm reading, but "original sin" sounds very harsh. It's saying that not only does America have to perpetually atone for slavery--which means that it CAN'T atone for it--it also seems to imply that white people should be born into the nation with guilt and loathing for no other reason than being white.
That's the connotation "original sin" carries.
That's guilt gone wild. That's a literal religious level of guilt expected to be shouldered by people whose consciousness had yet to exist, for the purposes of people who also did not exist then.
Rough.
Go Sox. Wacha's probably cocky enough to pitch to Papi. Then....oops.
"Anonymous said...
So now we need another movie about the holocaust because we can never put anything behind us and go on."
Right. Let's forget about how this country enslaved millions and millions of Americans and continued to lynch them even into the 1960s. That's just, uh, too ugly to think about.
"We do need to be reminded that there are racists in this country, just in case we forget."
We don't need to be reminded when almost every day the Tea Party demonstrates that fact to us.
"Racism will never go away because it is in the best interest of the progressive movement to keep it going."
No, dumbass. Racism will never go away as long as melonheads like you pretend it doesn't exist.
okjimm, sorry to hear your eyesight prevents you from seeing this fine film. It was beautifully done.
Josh wrote: "But I have to quibble with some wording here. The post says "This country's horrific original sin.
Maybe I'm inferring incorrectly here and it's not implying what I'm reading, but "original sin" sounds very harsh. It's saying that not only does America have to perpetually atone for slavery--which means that it CAN'T atone for it--it also seems to imply that white people should be born into the nation with guilt and loathing for no other reason than being white."
No. You may be interpreting that because of Christian teachings on Original Sin.
Actually, our founding fathers acceded to the South's demands that slavery would not be dealt with in the Constitution, otherwise, the southern colonies would not sign onto the Constitution.
"That's the connotation 'original sin' carries."
Well, if holding human being in bondage, breaking up their families, raping their women, and beating and murdering them on a whim is not a SIN then that word has no meaning. It was an abomination for any race to to this to another group of people. So yes, it was our country's Original Sin. In the Christian faith, Adam and Eve's sin of eating from the tree of knowledge is passed from generation to generation. What was done to African-Americans, IMO and other's, was far worse than biting an apple against a god's command.
"That's guilt gone wild. That's a literal religious level of guilt expected to be shouldered by people whose consciousness had yet to exist, for the purposes of people who also did not exist then."
See above. The Christian faith absolutely believes in shouldering guilt by people whose consciousness had yet to exist.
As recently as the 1970s slavery existed in this country. Google and read "Slavery By Another Name" to understand what I mean. And as recently as the late 1960s, lynching was practiced in the southern states. IOW, we Americans allowed wholesale murder of American citizens because of the color of their skin in our life time.
No one likes to be reminded of these terrible truths. But they are truths that cannot be denied.
I'm not religious. I don't believe in the transference of guilt through birth or the lingering stains of monstrosity on land or flag as if we're dealing with the paranormal.
It's all a construct, primarily to pin blame and forgive failure.
I do not feel the least bit guilty that slaves were kept, Natives were robbed of their land, that Jim Crow was an issue, etc. I also feel no guilt because of Roman slavery or Stalin's or Hitler's evil doings or Alexander's conquests, etc. I don't feel guilt because Ted Bundy, a fellow white guy, was a monster, nor do I think society at large bears the blame.
Truth or not, I was born in 1980. I had nothing to do with it. The overwhelming majority of Americans, whom together make the nation, not the dirty and grass, had nothing to do with it. I don't subscribe to being born into this original sin, the same way I don't subscribe when a Christian tells me that, as a human, my soul bears the burden of sin and I must repent and accept Jesus to be cleansed.
I see no difference, save the savior, in attributing the concept of original sin to America.
Totally f'd up how some people were treated. And, yes, I agree that those things would be considered "sin" in any context of any belief or lack thereof. Though the "original" connotation, of which you're reinforcing even after saying "no," is too far out there for me.
We face bigger problems in this nation than continually whiffing on atonement every time a teary-eyed reminder of years past is brought to attention.
Had more to type, but Beltran just got a RBI base knock and I'm getting nervous.
To answer you question:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --Santayana
And chill. We got this.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, there's a bit of a difference in remembering something while respecting people's suffering and in inflicting upon one's self the scars of shame for atrocities of which one played no part.
On brighter notes:
Me encanta cuando me llamaste Big Papi!!
7 Bud Lights in. Sore throat. STFU Harold Reynolds. SOXXXXXXX!
Shaw,
I never owned a slave and don't plan to. None of my family owned slaves and we are southerners for generations.
How about the first illegal's treatment of the native Americans. Very few original movies about their treatment. The holocaust movies are understandable because of the Jewish dominance of Hollywood. The black movies are to make us repent for our non-sins and keep racism alive, a progressive ideal.
"Shaw,
I never owned a slave and don't plan to. None of my family owned slaves and we are southerners for generations."
If that's true, your relatives lived through the Jim Crow era where lynch laws prevailed in the south up until 1968. You DO know what those laws were, don't you? Those laws allowed southern folk to kidnap, torture, and murder Americans with impunity. Did your relative rise up and protest that abomination? Those laws were repealed only in our recent history
"How about the first illegal's treatment of the native Americans. Very few original movies about their treatment."
When Hollywood, or any other country produces a film on that, we can discuss it.
"The holocaust movies are understandable because of the Jewish dominance of Hollywood."
So, if it wasn't for "the Jewish dominance of Hollywood," no one would be interested in making a film about the Holocaust? Because it was just a blip in world history? Your comment tells me a lot about your character.
"The black movies are to make us repent for our non-sins and keep racism alive, a progressive ideal."
No. That is what an idiot would say about "black movies," whatever that means.
It's a curious statement, since Christians absolutely believe in inherited sin from a mythological couple who listened to a snake and then ate a piece of fruit. I doubt you were around back then, but if you are Christian, then you're reminded every day of your life of how you inherited that Original Sin.
Funny how that seems to elude folks when we speak about slavery,
I didn't inherit original sin because I believe that is a good story to explain existence but not based on truth.
Did my I or my ancestors protest against the democrat originated Jim Crow law. You must have a different version of the law because I don't remember the law stating killing blacks was legal. I do remember that the law stated separate but equal treatment.
The treatment of blacks was not restricted to the south. Northern segregation was generally de facto, with patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.
BTW, did you or your ancestors protest the treatment of Native American because that started in the original colonies.
Anon Anon: Shaw, the "intellectuals" who comment @conservative blogs are quite angry that the subject of your post is slavery. We should all just forget about it because it's so far in the past that it has nothing to do with us anymore."
I don' give a damn about what the rabble thinks or says.
Tomorrow, I will inter the ashes of my mother who passed away earlier this year, and remember her forbearers. All families do that, and so do people of all ethnicities and groups. We honor our dead and remember their lives. And if oppression and suffering is part of the family narrative, we remember that too! That is our moral obligation.
If the angry rabble prefers watching reruns of old John Wayne movies, let them; but don't tell me what do, goddammit! For hypocrites who think their precious freedoms are at risk, they think nothing of treading on mine, or holding me or others in judgment.
There is nothing partisan or even remotely political in this: Just bad character. The angry rabble is neither respectful nor respectable.
"Did my I or my ancestors protest against the democrat originated Jim Crow law."
Right there is the kernel of dishonesty. Anyone who knows their US history knows that the Democrats in the South at that time were CONSERVATIVE Democrats who left the Democratic Party and established the Dixiecrats:
The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States in 1948. It originated as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party in 1948, determined to protect what they portrayed as the southern way of life beset by an oppressive federal government, and supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention.
The northern AND southern LIBERAL Democrats did not support the Jim Crow laws.
"Democrat" or "Republican" have no meaning in your attempt to cast all Democrats as racist Jim Crow supporters, because if you know history, you know that it was the CONSERVATIVE wing of the Democratic Party that fought to keep Jim Crow in place, and ultimately, the solidly CONSERVATIVE south left the Democratic Party and has voted solidy Republican since the Civil Rights era.
This applies to the CONSERVATIVE Democrats in the north as well, who fought school busing right here in Boston.
It was the LIBERAL Democrats AND Republicans who fought along side Dr. King for racial equality. LIBERAL, like the Republican abolitionists of Lincoln's day.
"Efforts by politicians to end lynchings were weak at best. Efforts to move anti-lynching legislation through Congress in the early 1900s and again in the 1930s proved futile, in part because Southern representatives and senators carried significant political weight. The first politician to take a visible stand against lynching was President Harry S. Truman, in 1946. Shocked by a lynching in Monroe, Georgia, in which four people—one a World War II veteran—were pulled off of a bus and shot dozens of times by a mob, Truman launched a campaign to guarantee Civil Rights for blacks, including a push for federal anti-lynching laws.
Truman was able to realize part of what he wanted, but the powerful Southern lobby managed to maintain much of the status quo. Although large-scale lynchings were no longer staged, blacks in the South still faced vigilante retribution. The murder of Emmett Till, in 1955, put enormous pressure on the South to condemn such barbarism. Till, a 14-year-old from Chicago, was visiting relatives in rural Mississippi, where he made suggestive remarks to a white woman. The woman's husband and brother-in-law tracked Till down, shot him, and threw his body in a river. Although (perhaps because) they were acquitted of the murder, the case added momentum to the growing Civil Rights Movement. People across the nation were genuinely shocked at the trial's outcome, and new civil rights legislation was introduced in Congress. By the time the civil rights act of 1965 was signed into law, there were still racial tensions—and elements of racial discord continue into the twenty-first century—but the era of the free-for-all lynch party in which entire communities participated had effectively come to a close."
No matter how hard you try, Anon, you cannot compare what happened to African-Americans in the south to what happened to them in the north. The South had strict laws that segregated A.A.s and made them second class citizens. The North had its own brand of racism, but there were no LAWS on the books to back it up. The South had the law on its side to dehumanize and to deprive African Americans their guaranteed rights.
Trying to divert attention away from the topic of slavery by introducing what was done to Native Americans is dishonest and a tool often used by folks who can't win an argument.
(O)CT(O)PUS, my condolences to you and your family. Find comfort in each other's love and shared memories of a woman who will always be with you in spirit.
So now democrats are not democrats unless they are democrats. The law didn't state lynching was legal but it was OK'd by the democrats who were not democrats. Discrimination didn't exist in the north because unions wouldn't allow blacks to join therefore it wasn't discrimination.
Do you write the diversion speeches for the administration because you should, you are quite good at it.
Did you come up with it is the fault of the evil insurances companies for cancellations not obamacare, great tactic.
What happened to these Dixiecrats who were former Democrats. History records: Today they constitute the extreme right wing of the GOP. Helms and Thurman, formerly Democrats, left the party and became stalwart Republicans.
When you make a pack with the devil and sell your soul, you get former segregationists, racists, the Tea Party Confederacy, and devils!
Anonymous, your true motives for coming here are too obvious.
You don't want a discussion of the merits of the film "12 Years A Slave," you want to peddle your grievances and make yourself into a victim.
I'll repeat this: The Southern Democrats who supported Jim Crow segregation laws were CONSERVATIVE Democrats. The Northern LIBERAL Democrats marched against those laws. After the Civil Rights legislation was passed, those CONSERVATIVE Democrats went over to the Republican Party. The LIBERAL Democrats stayed with the Democratic Party. In today's south, if you're a Democrat, you're considered LIBERAL.
To understand this simple concept, just look to the current Tea Party, which is an extremist conservative wing of the Republican Party, and which believes in primarying any Republican politician who isn't a far right conservative.
Pretending, as you do, not to understand the difference is tiring.
A SLOB, A SLOB? I NEVER OWNED A SLOB!
I DON'T PLAN TO OWN A SLOB.
NOT IN MY HOME! NOT IN MY CAR!
NOT IN A BAR! I WOULD NOT, COULD NOT OWN A SLOB!
I WOULD NOT, COULD NOT, IN THE BRONX.
I WOULD NOT, COULD NOT, WITH A FOX.
I WILL NOT EAT A SLOB.
I WILL NOT EAT THEM HERE OR THERE.
I WILL NOT EAT THEM ANYWHERE.
NONE OF MY FAMILY OWNED A SLOB.
I DO NOT LIKE SLOBS.
I NEVER OWNED A SLOB AND DON'T PLAN TO OWN A SLOB!
Post a Comment