12 Years A Slave

My oh my, what a film.

Anyone seen it yet?

One of the greatest acting performances from Chiwetel Ejiofor that I have seen in a long long time. So many scenes he has to portray difficult emotional scenes/changes with no dialogue, just using his eyes.

Fassbender is superb in the role of a tyrant plantation owner, possessed by the love of his slave, his jealousies and his bitterness.

Given that it is adapted from a historical memoir, as is often very difficult to do, the film ties so many historical memories and recollections of plantation life together into a fantastic screenplay.

Must see if you get the chance  

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/-12-years-a-slave-charlie-rose-10-11-RxhclOVGTG6P_TOcFmNPrg.html

I've read the book recently which is an excellent read, (kindle about £2.50) A film has to be really good to go to the cinema these days but I may make the effort for this one.

Iggy wrote:

I've read the book recently which is an excellent read, (kindle about £2.50) A film has to be really good to go to the cinema these days but I may make the effort for this one.

Totally agree, I don't go to the cinema myself unless it is really worth seeing (as a rule) - although the last time I went before this was to see some shite Superman film (was coerced by a group) that just left me annoyed. Hollywood churns out so many dull and pointless films these days - and for some reason the bigger the budget, the more ridiculous the story and effects, the more paying customers go and watch.

But this film is definitely worth it. The sights and sounds emblazoned on the big screen are worth paying for - as I say, particularly when so much of the quality of the acting is in the eyes and subtle facial expressions.

Watching it on a grainy laptop, or on the back of someone's seat on a flight just wouldn't do it justice.

When and If a go to the cinema I want to be lifted (Chariots of Fire) not depressed and miserable. Has it got a happy ending.

OMG !

Shouldn't be surprised at ol' ejh having one off the wrist over this one I suppose.

About as entertaining as a garg season ticket, as a caveat I should mention that I don't do message films and I don't like racism, Steve mcQueen just hates white people and the English in particular, this is blatant, over produced Hollywood pap designed to dredge in an fistful of Oscars, it may have some merit in that there are probably half a dozen people who weren't already aware of the issues black people faced in the South.

Hollywood doesn't have a remit to inform, it is there to provide entertainment, if I wanted to be miserable I would start watching City at home.

And what has happened to Steve McQueen, he was brilliant in Bullitt and the Great Escape?

ps. I started a thread for people to post about the films they had watched, I guess that was too hard a concept for some.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

OMG !

Shouldn't be surprised at ol' ejh having one off the wrist over this one I suppose.

About as entertaining as a garg season ticket, as a caveat I should mention that I don't do message films and I don't like racism, Steve mcQueen just hates white people and the English in particular, this is blatant, over produced Hollywood pap designed to dredge in an fistful of Oscars, it may have some merit in that there are probably half a dozen people who weren't already aware of the issues black people faced in the South.

Hollywood doesn't have a remit to inform, it is there to provide entertainment, if I wanted to be miserable I would start watching City at home.

And what has happened to Steve McQueen, he was brilliant in Bullitt and the Great Escape?

ps. I started a thread for people to post about the films they had watched, I guess that was too hard a concept for some.

You wrote all that bollox and I still am none the wiser as to whether you have actually seen the film.

After all that shite you wrote about Nelson Mandela being an awful evil bastard of a man, I think you try just a little to hard to be contrarian that it blinds your judgement. To swim against the tide constantly in life, to argue, to keep playing devil's advocate in the hope your audience finds you well rounded, critical and intelligent - take it from me, you don't do the act well. You just try to force an argument than having a genuine considered opinion.

As for it not being Hollywood's role, why shouldn't it be? What form of art can explore huge historical injustices such as slavery and bring it back to life 150-200 years later? Some people read, some listen to Radio 4 and others like watching films. And as far as I know, apart from Tarantino's film of gunshots and whips sending blood splattering slow motion across the room in HD, I don't actually recall seeing a film centred on the lives of slaves during that period.

You have to admit that Steve McQueen absolutely nailed it in this project - in terms of idea, execution and the end product. He has produced something of profound worldwide cultural importance, and it took a cabal of British actors and film professionals to get together do it. On a miniscule cinema budget of £21m, that it will now see a return on many hundreds of times.

As for McQueen being a racist, are you aware of his close friendship with whitey Michael Fassbender and how he casts him as a leading character in all of his productions?

Interesting how almost all of your distorted points in that matted mess of a post are equally as wrong and stupid as each other.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

OMG !

Shouldn't be surprised at ol' ejh having one off the wrist over this one I suppose.

About as entertaining as a garg season ticket, as a caveat I should mention that I don't do message films and I don't like racism, Steve mcQueen just hates white people and the English in particular, this is blatant, over produced Hollywood pap designed to dredge in an fistful of Oscars, it may have some merit in that there are probably half a dozen people who weren't already aware of the issues black people faced in the South.

Hollywood doesn't have a remit to inform, it is there to provide entertainment, if I wanted to be miserable I would start watching City at home.

And what has happened to Steve McQueen, he was brilliant in Bullitt and the Great Escape?

ps. I started a thread for people to post about the films they had watched, I guess that was too hard a concept for some.

  

pepsipete wrote:

When and If a go to the cinema I want to be lifted (Chariots of Fire) not depressed and miserable.  Has it got a happy ending.

I would definitely say despite being a gritty piece of film making and exploring some harrowing aspects of slave life on the plantations (hangings, rape, torture, beatings) the film ends on an upbeat tone.

Good art isn't there to entertain and make us feel better. It's there to stimulate.

Pacific Rim was a massive hit in the cinema; it's possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen. People enjoyed it.

i saw the film didnt really care for it myself.

It's raining. Film 4 .... Edmund of Cornwall is King of England trying to defend against the Saxons. I think I know what happens. Lot's of trumpets.

Take the Severn Valley, take England. Twas ever thus.

They'll never take the D'emport. Well, Derby did, and Luton, and Southampton. And FES.

ejh wrote:

You wrote all that bollox and I still am none the wiser as to whether you have actually seen the film.

I wouldn't expect you to be any the wiser, a modicum of original thought would be necessary for that.

Of course I've seen it, I watch everything that comes out more or less, black violinist gets kidnapped and sold, has a terrible time and witnesses loads of slaves having a worse time, gratuitous sex and violence all down to nasty white people, interminable pauses to accommodate anal script, after all the pain and anguish our hero discovers all he need do to save himself is write a letter home?

Tbf the actors done what they could with an anodyne script but it is typical film critic wanker fodder, which is of course where you came in.

Oh, and I was right about Mandela as well, 4 million in his estate which doesn't scratch the surface of what he ripped off, not a penny for Winnie but her nest was feathered long ago with cash from Gaddafi and Suharto.

Just keep following the crowd son and you will always feel part of something..............Baaaaaaaaaaaa!

Lord Tisdale wrote:

ejh wrote:

You wrote all that bollox and I still am none the wiser as to whether you have actually seen the film.

I wouldn't expect you to be any the wiser, a modicum of original thought would be necessary for that.

Of course I've seen it, I watch everything that comes out more or less, black violinist gets kidnapped and sold, has a terrible time and witnesses loads of slaves having a worse time, gratuitous sex and violence all down to nasty white people, interminable pauses to accommodate anal script, after all the pain and anguish our hero discovers all he need do to save himself is write a letter home?

Tbf the actors done what they could with an anodyne script but it is typical film critic wanker fodder, which is of course where you came in.

Oh, and I was right about Mandela as well, 4 million in his estate which doesn't scratch the surface of what he ripped off, not a penny for Winnie but her nest was feathered long ago with cash from Gaddafi and Suharto.

Just keep following the crowd son and you will always feel part of something..............Baaaaaaaaaaaa!

It says something of your rambling posts when you can go on for paragraphs and not even refer once to a thread subject matter.

So of course I have no original thoughts, and you are so clever you can see right through the film, got it.

Gratuitous sex, gratuitous violence, white man's guilt - it is all just so standard you have seen it all before. Sorry, where have you seen this kind of film on slavery/racial issues before?

As for all he had to do was write a letter. Did you say you had seen the film? He had terrible time a) securing paper b) getting himself some form of ink c) manufacturing himself a pen that worked d) having a trusted white man who would help him send it. I thought that part of Northup's difficulty on that front was well documented by McQueen myself.

The crucial thing you have overlooked in trying out your critical attitude, is that the film is based on a true historical account. That's why the plantation owners and overseers aren't black, and the slaves aren't white. That is why there are no surprise storylines that attack your senses, because it is all true historical account. You can't blame McQueen or Hollywood in that respect for delivering a story that is a little bit too real for you.

ejh wrote:

Gratuitous sex, gratuitous violence, white man's guilt - it is all just so standard you have seen it all before. Sorry, where have you seen this kind of film on slavery/racial issues before?

Loads, it's just that some of us don't need the graphic porn to get the point.

You make the point well, interminable, dull, boring, film where it takes and age to write a letter.

You may well like that kind of cack, or more likely just pretend to, to fit in with the stereotype, me, I look for summat a bit less anal.

Do you mean banal, as opposed to anal?

*Spoiler alert*

[I was under the impression it was the conversation with the carpenter sympathetic to the abolitionists which secured his freedom, not the letter.]

/end*Spoiler alert*

ejh wrote:

Do you mean banal, as opposed to anal?

*Spoiler alert*

[I was under the impression it was the conversation with the carpenter sympathetic to the abolitionists which secured his freedom, not the letter.]

/end*Spoiler alert*

You bastard!!! I can cope with Tis cos he's boring but to spoil a good film .......

knecht wrote:

ejh wrote:

Do you mean banal, as opposed to anal?

*Spoiler alert*

[I was under the impression it was the conversation with the carpenter sympathetic to the abolitionists which secured his freedom, not the letter.]

/end*Spoiler alert*

You bastard!!! I can cope with Tis cos he's boring but to spoil a good film .......

You couldn't spoil that pile of cack.

I watched the film a few nights ago.

I agree with Tis that Hollywood just loves a buck spinning all glitz affair with good old American doing things the American way with GI Joe always coming out on top, but then, I also enjoy their bullshit on occasion.

I don't however believe that this is the case with this film and Americans can occasionally produce something educational and interesting that depicts events of the past as they actually were. But that's a personal thing, none of us were actually there to know if it's factual or not so we have to base our views on recorded events and our own personal recognition of history.

This film in my view depicts an accurate portrayal of life and of the brutality that one human is capable of inflicting on another simply because his skin is a different colour.

GOB wrote:

I watched the film a few nights ago.

I agree with Tis that Hollywood just loves a buck spinning all glitz affair with good old American doing things the American way with GI Joe always coming out on top, but then, I also enjoy their bullshit on occasion.

I don't however believe that this is the case with this film and Americans can occasionally produce something educational and interesting that depicts events of the past as they actually were. But that's a personal thing, none of us were actually there to know if it's factual or not so we have to base our views on recorded events and our own personal recognition of history.

This film in my view depicts an accurate portrayal of life and of the brutality that one human is capable of inflicting on another simply because his skin is a different colour.

No doubt Gobster, my only beef with the filum is that it is just another "Lincoln" with a bit of sado masochistic porn thrown in to give the likes of ejh a woody.

Potententially interesting story, proven good actors, unbelievably dull script, screenplay and direction.

Obviously imho, but I find a lot of people big up dross like this because they feel they should, I'm not one who can't stand a thick book or a thought provoking filum and whose addiction to celluloid is based on Hollywood's veneeer, I just think a lot of the filums floated as being the pinnacle of thoughful and brilliant direction are more the product of the vacuous observer.

There were far too many holes in this one for the accolades it has received, all style and no substance.

I found it very well produced/directed/acted and pretty emotional. As for it's historical accuracy, Does Hollywood do historical accuracy? overall though a good piece of cinema that i would recommend to others.

AstiSpumante wrote:

I found it very well produced/directed/acted and pretty emotional.

All things they give Oscars for, I notice you left out entertaining and engaging, or even mildly interesting.

Maybe you could provide an example of a good, accurate historical cinema movie Tis?