12 Years a Slave (2013) Review

Or, everyone should be equal, though it seems some are much more equal than others.

You can find the trailer here.

Now I just want to state from the very beginning (I still can't say that phrase without going into The Sound of Music in my head) that I very much enjoyed this film. Considering the length, it was fantastically well paced. Even in a theatre with a heater relentlessly trying to cook my legs, and a horrendous cough I was desperately trying to conceal (mostly with wine) it went by very quickly.

However, it must first be noted that I watched 12 Years a Slave (2013) after it had won the Best Picture Oscar so it had a lot to live up to.

For those who have been living under a rock, here is the IMDB synopsis;

Based on an incredible true story of one man's fight for survival and freedom. In the pre-Civil War United States, Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man from upstate New York, is abducted and sold into slavery. Facing cruelty (personified by a malevolent slave owner, portrayed by Michael Fassbender), as well as unexpected kindnesses, Solomon struggles not only to stay alive, but to retain his dignity. In the twelfth year of his unforgettable odyssey, Solomon's chance meeting with a Canadian abolitionist (Brad Pitt) will forever alter his life.

This was one of those films where I watched it thinking it was amazing, but as soon as the lights went up it didn't take too long before questions and doubts started crawling into my mind.

Here is a little insight into why I find 12 Years a Slave just a little too unnerving.



The Slaves are beneath everyone, including Solomon
In some senses 12 Years a Slave almost feels like a reverse of the American dream story. Solomon Northup makes a life for himself in 'the land of the free' only to have it brutally stolen from him, and for him to have to find his 'American dream' all over again. I felt that from the onset of his capture we are led to believe that the greatest crime here is not that Solomon has been sold into slavery, but that he has been sold into slavery despite being a 'free man'. 

Now, the film never really states if Solomon was born a free man, or if he had won his freedom. However it pretty strongly points to the fact that he was born free. (Solomon was in fact born a free man who had never knownslavery prior to his capture. He was the son of a manumitted father and a freeborn mother, and educated to a high level.)

Yet, the way he clings to the title of 'free man' is in itself worrying. There is no scorn at all placed upon this term. In accepting freedom to be something to be earned by the slaves, it is once again perpetuating the notion that there is nothing wrong with them being tied to the life of servitude in the first place. Freedom is a right to be earned, not to be given, and this sets the tone for a main character that is not against the notion of human rights being taken away, but of the life he had earned being stolen from him. During one of Solomon's earliest 'I want' moments he claims 'I don't want to survive, I want to live.' However, he doesn't seem to comprehend that the slaves also share this right.

At no point does even Solomon himself seem to condemn slavery. He seems far more put out because he is deemed to be above it. Much of the identity that Solomon has is stripped from him with his name, and he is told to refer to himself henceforth as Platt. He takes several whippings from the slave traders when he refuses to adopt this new name. However this seems ironic, considering his family name Northup, was not really his family name by any stretch of the imagination. (Northup was in fact the name of Solomon's Father's slave owner, which he adopted once he had been freed. This was common practice for manumitted slaves at the time. Tellingly, the Master only granted him such freedom upon the event of his death when he had no more need of him.)

Now, I of course get what a name means, but I can't help but feel Solomon should have a tad more resentment for his, especially after living through what his father would have endured. After 12 years of seeing the slaves be almost grateful for any ‘kindness’ from their Master's, (seeing Alfre Woodard's Mistress Shaw gratefully and happily act as her Master's whore just to escape the beatings, and to encourage Patsey to do the same, was a particularly chilling moment), you'd think Solomon would get a sense of hatred for the Slaver's name he had adopted. Yet, he doesn't seem connect the injustices of slavery to his own history at any given moment.

From the very beginning of our tale there is a very clear line drawn up between the slaves and the 'free men'. Once Solomon and the rest of the kidnapped are bundled onto a slave boat, the 'free men' share the following conversation;

Robert: I say we fight.
Solomon Northup: The crew is fairly small. If it were well planned, I believe they could be strong armed.
Clemens: Three can't stand against a whole crew. The rest here are niggers, born and bred slaves. Niggers ain't got the stomach for a fight, not a damn one.
Edwin Epps: Ha!
Bass: Suppose!
Edwin Epps: That ain't a supposable case.
Bass: Because the law states that your liberties are undeniable? Because society deems it so? Laws change. Social systems crumble. Universal truths are constant. It is a fact, it is a plain fact that what is true and right is true and right for all. White and black alike.
Solomon Northup: Master Ford, you must know; I am not a slave.
Ford: I cannot hear that.
Solomon Northup: Before I came to you I was a free man.
Ford: I am trying to save your life! And... I have a debt to be mindful of. That, now, is to Edwin Epps. He is a hard man. Prides himself on being a "nigger breaker." But truthfully I could find no others who would have you. You've made a reputation of yourself. Whatever your circumstances, you are an exceptional nigger, Platt. I fear no good will come of it.

Now, this could be forgiven if it were meant to illustrate how ignorance towards the institution of slavery spread even as far as the African-American members of society who had regained their freedom. However, these sorts of distinctions are also made by the Director, Steve McQueen. Whenever there is injustice it is a 'free man' who stands up. Robert is killed attempting to protect Eliza from rape, Northup protects Patsey, Eliza attempts to protect her children from separation. The slaves however, seem only to stand still as statues in the face of any danger and hope it passes them by.

Of course we are to understand that the slaves had suffered through many more years of having the fight beaten from them. Thus we can understand their inaction. Yet, even in the confines of the slave quarters we find that the slaves have no voice. Even at Ford's, the 'kindly' slave owner, we only see Eliza and Solomon speak. Then again at the more sinister Epps' cotton fields, we only really hear Solomon. The free men and women seem to struggle to stop talking. Yet, even Patsey, the lead female and the main slave whose hardships we observe, hardly speaks. When she finally does it is only to desperately ask to be put down like a dog. 

This trend of Solomon being 'better than a slave' continues long into him suffering the same injustices. Even years into his servitude he still constantly states ‘I am not a slave’. Years and years trapped in slavery would suggest otherwise, but Solomon seems to consider slavery not to be a hideous, unjust forced circumstance, but rather some kind of birthright, as if one is born to be a slave. Thus, even after years of living with them and being treated as one of them, he still sees them as beneath him and second class citizens.

Additionally, continued references to him being a ‘talented engineer’ and a ‘virtuoso musician’ separate him from the others. Sometimes for abuse, sometime for praise, but always to stand him above the others. Once again, it seems in part that we aren't supposed to feel for Solomon because he's a slave, but because he is more than a slave. He is more godly, he is more clever, he is more talented by the white American ideals used as a backdrop to this tale. He is treated better in this film because he has had a 'civilised' upbringing and education in white, Christian America. We are not supposed to feel for him because of the brutal history of his family's and race's coming to the USA, but because he embodies the white American dream only with dark skin.

Religion and Slavery: How do they Co-Exist at this Time?
The fact that Solomon and his family have assimilated into the white, Christian American lifestyle is what seems to be his sustaining quality throughout this film and is probably what brings me the most discomfort. Though, once again I appreciate that his family would have to assimilate in order to survive, as Solomon himself says; 'I don't want to survive, I want to live.' And this seems to be the heart-warming one liner we are supposed to take from this film.

Religion casts a very long shadow over 12 Years a Slave, and once again it stands in a way which makes me very uncomfortable. Religion takes a strong position in both Master Ford’s and Master Epps’ home. In the home of Master Ford (the 'kindly' slave owner) the slaves are 'treated' to a Sunday church service by Mr. Ford each week. On the more sinister Epps farm, the slaves are all greeted with this passage;

Edwin Epps: "And that servant which knew his Lord's will... which knew his Lord's will and prepared not himself... prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes..." D'ye hear that? "Stripes." That nigger that don't take care, that don't obey his lord - that's his master - d'ye see? - that 'ere nigger shall be beaten with many stripes. Now, "many" signifies a great many. Forty, a hundred, a hundred and fifty lashes... That's Scripter!

The bible is used both as a means of salvation for the slaves, and as a means to defend their fate. I'm not sure which makes me more uneasy; those who twist scripture to defend hate and torture, or those who believe they are saving others by forcing them to their way of thinking.

I have talked enough about the implications of his surname, and I of course cannot ignore the context of his forename either. Solomon is a biblical name and I'm pretty sure we can assume it didn't come from the African part of his lineage. His name in itself represents the horrors of Christianity during the slave era, and how religion was forced upon an entire people. Once the majority of slaves were taken from Africa and similar countries, the slave traders and masters would strip them of their names in place of 'Christian' names. The fact Solomon is in fact called Solomon, a biblical name, is no coincidence. Ironically, stripping Solomon of his name is probably the truest thing they could have done to his identity. This is why Mohammed Ali shunned the title of Cassius Clay Jr., and why many others had followed suit. 

Further, the first and main time we hear Patsey speak is when she comes to Solomon and begs him to end her life. The one mercy the slaves can beg is to be set free from the torture, and yet Solomon can’t offer her this escape as he doesn't want to be 'damned'. I’m not saying that Solomon should have killed her, but I don’t think fearing for his immortal soul should be the main reason he chooses not to. Further, though I may have misread it due to the previous context, I got the impression that Patsey could not kill herself as that too would be a sin, and then she would never be free from hell. Not only did Christianity defend their slavery, steal their culture, take their names, but it also stole from them their only chance to end it.

Easily though, the thing which offends me most in this context is the portrayal of Bass by Brad Pitt. As if by holy intervention Brad turns up, with flowing blonde hair, a beard, a loose cotton shirt and silhouetted by the sun as if he is the messiah himself. Oh, and did I mention that he is a carpenter?

Bass: The law says you have the right to hold a nigger, but begging the law's pardon... it lies. Is everything right because the law allows it? Suppose they'd pass a law taking away your liberty and making you a slave?

Ultimately, Solomon must pray at the altar of Pitt in order to find his freedom. Pitt sweeps in, all godly and omnipotent and Solomon is almost magically saved. The bare bones of it is, Bass sends Northup's letter which ultimately gets him freed, because he is a decent (on the most basic level) human being. He understands that no one has the right to own any man, and that freeing Northup is the only thing that must be done. Yet, due to the way Pitt is portrayed it seems almost as if God is answering his prayers. The American, white man's god of course.

Once again, Pitt complains about the way Epps treats the slaves, but does nothing to protect them or help them, even temporarily. The same danger comes when portraying Solomon's freedom as an act from God. As if just because he believed hard enough, and stayed true to himself he was saved. What of all the other slaves? Did they just not believe enough, or want it enough? It seems like yet another another situation where Solomon deserves better because he succumbed to the white, Christian American ideal.

The Villains
I also think that the portrayal of the villains in our tale is a dangerous one. All of them border on the pantomime which leads historical tales such as 12 Years a Slave to be in danger of saying that only the evil do bad things. The main danger in such horrific parts of the history of humanity, such as slavery and the holocaust, is that it was accepted by the majority because at that time, in their eyes, they believed it was the right way to behave. I believe that any portrayal which shies away from this is shirking responsibility for what we all can do and thus opening it up to happen again. If we cannot fathom what we can be capable of, then we cannot see it happening, and thus we will not stop it.

As I have touched upon, we have two main slave masters in this story, Ford played by Benedict Cumberbatch (the 'kindly' one) and Epps played by a terrifying Michael Fassbender (the 'evil' one.)

Fassbender’s Epps is a hideous, mean, rapist, alcoholic hiding behind his religion, who doesn't even have the decency to be civil to his wife. How are we supposed to assess his treatment of the slaves, when it seems he hasn't the ability to treat anyone as a human being? Simple. He's just plain evil. We don’t see ourselves as potentially evil, and therefore we are never going to reflect upon his actions as we would our own. Thus we can wipe our hands of any injustices suffered at the hands of Epps.

Mistress Epps in turn (played fantastically by Sarah Paulson), is a bitter and twisted woman who is straight up Mrs Danvers from Rebecca (1940). She tortures Patsey just because she is a jealous woman driven mad by her husband’s lack of affection. We don't have to worry about her either. She's just one of those crazy women.

For a moment I thought we might see some alarming reflection in Cumberbach's Ford. However, as the narrative proceeds it is clear that Ford is just a snivelling coward. He treats Solomon well, but it's only because he too realises that Solomon is 'better than a slave'. He protects Solomon from a hanging, but inevitably he won't help him, instead selling him off to a much worse slave trader who 'prides himself on being a "nigger breaker".' It's not even because he believes Solomon is his property, but because he fears for his debt. Again, there is no indication of it being a result of a terrible national mindset that needed to be changed. Ford was just another bad human being.

Ford: I believe Tibeats is skulkin' about the premises somewhere. He wants you dead, and he will attempt to have you so. It's no longer safe for you here. And I don't believe you will remain passive if Tibeats attacks. I have transferred my debt to Edwin Epps. He will take charge of you.

The only 'villain' I thought was well executed was Mistress Ford. When Solomon and Eliza come upon the Ford estate, Eliza is in fits of hysterics due to being separated from her children, which continue throughout her time there. When Miss Ford enquires as to the source of her hurt she shows great sadness and sympathy and 'thoughtfully' consoles her with;

Mistress Ford: [to Eliza] Something to eat and some rest; your children will soon enough be forgotten.

Mistress Ford, even when she believes she is being kind, is perhaps being the worst of them all. Blindly, she treats Eliza as if she is nothing but a bitch who has been weaned from her pups. The woman feels she is doing a kindness but intrinsically believes that the slaves are no more than animals. I found this really powerful but it was just a small snippet.

Conclusion
As I said when I began, I genuinely really enjoyed this film at the time. However, the more time passes the more uncomfortable it makes me, and it isn't in that good way either. You know, the way that makes you consider the potential for evil in the human race and ensures that we do not become complacent.

Overall, I found it hard to work out exactly what 12 Years a Slave was saying to me. If it was a story of Northup's journey, it seemed strange that little time was spent on suggesting the period of time which had passed during his incarceration. As my colleague pointed out to me, if it hadn't have been called 12 Years a Slave I probably would have had no idea how much time had passed.

If this was a story of love, and the trials he would endure to retain his spirit and be reunited with his wife, then there was a very peculiar mutual masturbation scene which made this very jarring, and I felt that not enough time was spent establishing the relationship with his family. It could have been an arranged and loveless marriage for all I knew.

If this was a film about the horrors of slavery, then that is when 12 Years a Slave could be truly damaging. If this was just meant to show the continued perils of African-Americans during this time, and how they could never truly be free or safe then yes, it was interesting. I had never really considered ‘free men’ being kidnapped and sold back into slavery. I didn’t think their freedom came easy of course, but this was one particular abuse I had not explored.

However, a film about slavery can never just be a film about slavery. I know a considerable amount of my analysis does not allow for the fact that this is a true story, based on Solomon Northup’s memoirs. Of course there was only so much McQueen could have done with the plot. However, though you cannot change a story you can pay particular mind to the way you tell it. There is always room for artistic licence in a tale, and I believe the religious overtones took enough liberties.

12 Years a Slave is a fantastic film, well directed, and with a wonderful cast who put on some of their best performances. I genuinely couldn’t fault anyone, I don’t even think I blame Pitt. However there is just too much at play here and too much has been overlooked for me to truly get behind it.