What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

12 Years A Slave (1 Viewer)

I disagree with the moral compromise you put forth however because I think there are a perhaps a disturbing amount of people who have no problem asserting a superiority of race. It's not a lie they tell themselves and I reject the premise that plantation era whites in the south had any such moral qualms in any significant numbers. Is this bore out in any journals from the time?
This is just what I've found studying history. Racism becomes so ingrained in a culture that people don't even think to question it. It will never occur to many people to even question their culture but those that do need to find a way to deal with it psychologically.

The thing to realize about this movie is that it's not just about American slavery or even slavery in general but about humans do to other humans. Nearly every society on Earth has had some form of discrimination that was used to elevate one group of people over another and used the lower value of another group to exploit or abuse them.
Again, interesting, thoughtful post. It's just not in this movie. Life is us and them at every turn. An under explored notion. Is the psychological warfare of house slave vs field slave. A character of Solomon's refinement would have been a ideal choice for a house slave and that is teased but doesn't happen. We know why women had value as houses slaves but a man of his intellect and even the fact he can play that violin grants him no favor? And if not why? A motivation and explanation for that gives Solomon the character to show some sort of defiance and control in the minor way possible for him
I will give you that you are expected to read a lot into the movie - it's not simply spelled out for you.
Do you think any characters grew, evolved or changed in this movie?

And an aside that jumps to mind, the movie doesn't address why a literate slave would be a death sentence. They go to lengths to stress their value as property but I'm to believe an owner would throw away 700 dollars In pre 1850 money over that discovery? Fine. But why?

A history lesson should not be requisite for a film, a movie is expected to exist in its own capsule
When I first saw the movie I equated it to a horror movie, except it was historical. There wasn't much change in the characters but that wasn't the goal of the movie. I think though that you see Solomon go from a guy who is likely going to get himself killed by his behavior to someone who wises up to his situation and puts his ego in check so he can wait for a chance to escape.

Literate = dangerous. Slave owners might not kill literate slaves but they wouldn't want them on the farm potentially causing trouble by influencing other slaves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought this film was very real and raw. As an African American male, I feel movies like this are very necessary. I feel like slavery is very romanticized in the history books. You have to understand the institution of slavery and it's psychological affects before you can understand everything else that precedes it (black codes, Jim Crow, etc), IMO.

That being said, I saw this film once and that that was enough. A friend of mine went to the theaters and saw it multiple times, I don't understand how he could sit through this film more than once. Certain scenes made me cringe. I know not every slave owner was as "extra" as Fassy's character, but I wonder all the time how the slaves were able to endure such hardships were hundreds of years.

I'm also very happy for Lupita Nyongo (Patsy) for winning the Oscar last night. I think she's an incredible actress and a strikingly beautiful woman. I hope has a long lasting successful career in Hollywood (if that's her goal).
Interesting, I would have never said anything like that. I'm not sure they hammer the point of how bad it was, but I don't think they romantacize it. I'm a white male though so I'm most assuredly not looking at it in the same context you are.
I wouldn't say romanticize but in books the horrors of slavery are matter-of-fact rather than putting someone into the world of slavery. The reason I liked 12YAS so much compared to Roots is that I felt it made you understand how the system corrupted everyone. Roots was great at showing WHAT happened but not the WHY, which I thought 12YAS did brilliantly.

 
On one of the Grantland podcasts they were saying, for Best Picture only, it's not who gets the most first place votes. So if 12 years got a 2,2,3 while say Gravity got a 1,2 and a 6 then 12 Year's would win.

Not saying that was the case but thought it was an interesting nugget.
I actually expected Gravity to win since I figured most people would give it #2 at worst while I was hearing many people didn't even bother to watch 12YAS.

 
On one of the Grantland podcasts they were saying, for Best Picture only, it's not who gets the most first place votes. So if 12 years got a 2,2,3 while say Gravity got a 1,2 and a 6 then 12 Year's would win.

Not saying that was the case but thought it was an interesting nugget.
I actually expected Gravity to win since I figured most people would give it #2 at worst while I was hearing many people didn't even bother to watch 12YAS.
On the podcast they were leaning towards the new voting to favor a movie like Gravity this year.

 
I really enjoyed watching Gravity, it was a visual feast (in theaters and 3D) but I have no idea why it was nominated for best picture.

 
I thought this was well done all around, but had little Id call great. Something was missing/off, hard to put my finger on what it was exactly, but it didnt feel like something that should win Best Picture. I thought Dallas Buyers Club, Wolf of Wall Street, and American Hustle were all probably better, and had better lead and overall acting performances than 12 Years A Slave did.
We can debate the acting aspect, but AH was awful as a well-constructed film.
Judging from the AH thread, I know you didnt like it. To call it awful makes no sense though, just like if I were to call 12YAS awful.

 
I thought this was well done all around, but had little Id call great. Something was missing/off, hard to put my finger on what it was exactly, but it didnt feel like something that should win Best Picture. I thought Dallas Buyers Club, Wolf of Wall Street, and American Hustle were all probably better, and had better lead and overall acting performances than 12 Years A Slave did.
We can debate the acting aspect, but AH was awful as a well-constructed film.
Judging from the AH thread, I know you didnt like it. To call it awful makes no sense though, just like if I were to call 12YAS awful.
I'm letting it go but I truly fail to understand how anyone could think the story was well done.

 
I thought this was well done all around, but had little Id call great. Something was missing/off, hard to put my finger on what it was exactly, but it didnt feel like something that should win Best Picture. I thought Dallas Buyers Club, Wolf of Wall Street, and American Hustle were all probably better, and had better lead and overall acting performances than 12 Years A Slave did.
We can debate the acting aspect, but AH was awful as a well-constructed film.
Judging from the AH thread, I know you didnt like it. To call it awful makes no sense though, just like if I were to call 12YAS awful.
To me Hustle was lots of great acting performances (costumes & makeup too) wrapped around a poorly told story. People said it was a comedy too but I did not connect with that vibe at all. Some laughs but otherwise not a comedy for me.

I will say that I think AH may be one of those films that requires repeat viewings to truly appreciate so I will definitely give it another chance when it hits cable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought this was well done all around, but had little Id call great. Something was missing/off, hard to put my finger on what it was exactly, but it didnt feel like something that should win Best Picture. I thought Dallas Buyers Club, Wolf of Wall Street, and American Hustle were all probably better, and had better lead and overall acting performances than 12 Years A Slave did.
We can debate the acting aspect, but AH was awful as a well-constructed film.
Judging from the AH thread, I know you didnt like it. To call it awful makes no sense though, just like if I were to call 12YAS awful.
I'm letting it go but I truly fail to understand how anyone could think the story was well done.
What story?

 
LinusMarr said:
I think ill pass on this one...
Wonder why it won last night....
White guilt sells my friend....
It's very hip right now
you do understand the movie is about slavery right? And that slavery actually existed in this country? It's not a made up topic.

here's a link for you to learn more
Yes, I don't deny it happened in the south long before i was born or before anyone alive today was born. You see where I am going here?
I doubt you know this, but slavery WASN'T confined to the south. It's amazing what you can learn if you read.
 
Amistad was better
Amistad and moreso Glory had moments that 12 Year's a Slave didn't. Not to mention Schindler's List which is in a different universe. 12 Years just did not connect for me. The, "I will survive, I will not fall down into despair," is as manufactured as the lines in Amistad and Glory but did not have nearly the same impact. Fassbender felt closer to Leo in Django then a real guy as well.

"Her" was not winning and the rest all have major flaws.

 
This is just what I've found studying history. Racism becomes so ingrained in a culture that people don't even think to question it. It will never occur to many people to even question their culture but those that do need to find a way to deal with it psychologically.

The thing to realize about this movie is that it's not just about American slavery or even slavery in general but about humans do to other humans. Nearly every society on Earth has had some form of discrimination that was used to elevate one group of people over another and used the lower value of another group to exploit or abuse them.
Again, interesting, thoughtful post. It's just not in this movie. Life is us and them at every turn. An under explored notion. Is the psychological warfare of house slave vs field slave. A character of Solomon's refinement would have been a ideal choice for a house slave and that is teased but doesn't happen. We know why women had value as houses slaves but a man of his intellect and even the fact he can play that violin grants him no favor? And if not why? A motivation and explanation for that gives Solomon the character to show some sort of defiance and control in the minor way possible for him
I will give you that you are expected to read a lot into the movie - it's not simply spelled out for you.
Do you think any characters grew, evolved or changed in this movie?

And an aside that jumps to mind, the movie doesn't address why a literate slave would be a death sentence. They go to lengths to stress their value as property but I'm to believe an owner would throw away 700 dollars In pre 1850 money over that discovery? Fine. But why?

A history lesson should not be requisite for a film, a movie is expected to exist in its own capsule
When I first saw the movie I equated it to a horror movie, except it was historical. There wasn't much change in the characters but that wasn't the goal of the movie. I think though that you see Solomon go from a guy who is likely going to get himself killed by his behavior to someone who wises up to his situation and puts his ego in check so he can wait for a chance to escape.

Literate = dangerous. Slave owners might not kill literate slaves but they wouldn't want them on the farm potentially causing trouble by influencing other slaves.
The literate answer I agree with you on. But an interesting element of the film, to me, is the value, the interpersonal value, which is certainly almost oxymoronic, that as property, their lives were not totally indispensable. I guess the realized balance of where "dangerous" versus their actual practical value, where that was meted.

I also wonder, and I don't expect this to be in the confines of the film necessary, but what the thought process of proseltyzing to the slaves if they are seen as less than human. I'm sure its about social order and control, but perhaps in that divide is some of good thoughts I think you've had cstu that just weren't in the movie. But I appreciate that an exploration of that might be its own secondary project and not necessary or even relevant inherently for inclusion in this movie.

I'd imagine literacy was still at that point in time largely a class based construct (and frankly, it still largely is)

 
Pitt was brutal.
Something we can all agree on. Almost ruined the movie for me.
He was my principal complaint with the film. For a movie that felt so authentic (I don't know if it was but it felt that way) Brad Pitt showing up was jarring and took me out of the film. Thankfully he only shows up near the end and has mercifully little screen time.

I actually think Pitt has good acting chops but he just didn't work in this film.

 
Excerpt from South Carolina Act of 1740Whereas, the having slaves taught to write, or suffering them to be employed in writing, may be attended with great inconveniences; Be it enacted, that all and every person and persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any slave or slaves to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a scribe, in any manner of writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such person or persons shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.
 
Excerpt from Virginia Revised Code of 1819


That all meetings or assemblages of slaves, or free negroes or mulattoes mixing and associating with such slaves at any meeting-house or houses, &c., in the night; or at any SCHOOL OR SCHOOLS for teaching them READING OR WRITING, either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext, shall be deemed and considered an UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY; and any justice of a county, &c., wherein such assemblage shall be, either from his own knowledge or the information of others, of such unlawful assemblage, &c., may issue his warrant, directed to any sworn officer or officers, authorizing him or them to enter the house or houses where such unlawful assemblages, &c., may be, for the purpose of apprehending or dispersing such slaves, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offender or offenders, at the discretion of any justice of the peace, not exceeding twenty lashes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At least 2 Academy members admitted to voting for this despite never having seen it.

 
At least 2 Academy members admitted to voting for this despite never having seen it.
there are 6,000 eligible voters for Best Picture
sure, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are an Academy Awards voter, and are going to give your best picture vote to a movie, don't you think you should- you know- see it first??
Apparently just knowing the "theme", who the bad guys and victims are is more then enough :mellow:

 
At least 2 Academy members admitted to voting for this despite never having seen it.
there are 6,000 eligible voters for Best Picture
sure, but that doesn't change the fact that if you are an Academy Awards voter, and are going to give your best picture vote to a movie, don't you think you should- you know- see it first??
Apparently just knowing the "theme", who the bad guys and victims are is more then enough :mellow:
you don't have to worry, the other 8 Best Picture movies were about white people

 
Great movie but yea...awful depressing. Are they really selling this thing on blu Ray? Who wants to sit through this again.

I have to imagine Peens cried at the end for all the wrong reasons.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top