12 Years A Slave

Lord Tisdale wrote:

ejh wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

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.

The thing is the film was all those things AND accurate.

I do so love the HUA attitude of the pseudo intellectual, you show your own inadequacy by stating this to be a fact when it it is impossible to know if it is historically accurate, it may well follow the text of someone's diary from back in the day, that doesn't necessarily make it a fair and reasonable account of what actually happened.


It's a filum dopey, it may be rigidly based on one account, that don't make it true.


Therein Gobster lies the major problem with ascribing "historical accuracy" to anything including filum, unless you wuz there you can never be certain, how many times have you read a match report written by someone who may well have been sat next to you at a game yet are unable to recognise the game you have watched from said recantation? My dad was on the Achillies at the Battle of the River Plate yet was unable to confirm the accuracy of the filum of that name, other than to say that from his perspective it was pretty scary.

Perceived realism does not denote accuracy, Saving Private Brian would seem to be a step up in 'realism' from The Longest Day but I used to drink with an old boy who was in the first wave, him and his mates strolled off the LC and into town unopposed, which is the more accurate representation of events?

I like war filums me, I should like to think the general ethos espoused by film makers, ie. Allies good, Germans bad, was pretty much the case, but I doubt that it was, history as always being the preserve of the victors.

I'm shore ejh thinks Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis really were Vikings which would make that particular piece of Hollywood pap "historically accurate", me, I'm not shore it matters, a filum is not a lecture with some jumped up knobber from the educational establishment asking questions about after, it's not art, it's not a method for adapting public opinion, it is in fact entertainment, 12 Hours a Slave is only entertainment for people who take themselves far too seriously and voyeurs of a sado masochistic bent, as always, of course, in my very humbly expressed opinion.

So let me get this straight. You are shitting on '12 Years A Slave', the film, based on '12 years a Slave', the first hand account of slave life in the plantations, based on your own hunch the story could have been exaggerated?

Which parts do you doubt Tis - Do you not think slavery happened in the Confederate south or what? Do you not think it was a brutal existence? Do you not think slaves were treated worse than working animals - whipped, tortured and hanged at their masters' discretion?

Scroll down this link   http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143164530/the-atlantic-remembers-its-civil-war-stories   The former slave that escaped to Union troops was found with those horrific scars on his back, given to him by his overseer. Brutal whippings were no myth.

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this crusade against the film, as all the disturbing events are not only backed up by the book, but were commonplace across plantations from state to state. It is grossly stating the obvious to acknowledge that slaves had an extremely bitter physical and emotional existence on those plantations.

This is a great film confronting America's dark and sinister past - and yes, a lot of the facts have already been publically known for decades (apart from by you it seems). Which begs the question, why has Hollywood ignored the brutal reality of slavery during that whole entire period in between then and now?

Instead of celebrating the group of British actors and filmmakers who made this project happen, to an extremely high standard, you just want to bitterly criticise it for no real reason, and even compare it to 'The Vikings' where Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis portray Nordic warrior characters with American English accents in a silly old screenplay about a love triangle and sibling rivalry.

A terrific, incredibly powerful film. Steve McQueen, despite such a small filmography, is fast becoming one of the greatest Filmmakers of his generation. It's not an enjoyable film, it's a very difficult watch at times and you're subjected to some disturbingly visceral images (critic Armond White likened the film to torture porn), yet that does not mean that it's in anyway bad film. Couldn't recommend this film enough, it's vital viewing.

I can never work out whether Tis is just on a monumental wind up or whether he really does harbour racist views which are easier to justify if you accept the argument that slavery wasn't that bad. I would suggest its the latter due to the continuing theme.

Iggy wrote:

I can never work out whether Tis is just on a monumental wind up or whether he really does harbour racist views which are easier to justify if you accept the argument that slavery wasn't that bad. I would suggest its the latter due to the continuing theme.

How on earth do you guys manage to construct a racism argument based on the fact that I think this filum is nowhere near as good as you frothies do? Jeez, ejh, the ultimate saddo, is up at 3.20 in the morning making some obscure points that as far as I can see have nothing at all to do with the basis of the argument.

Do I believe some slave owners were cruel? Hell yes, do I give a flying fook? Hell no, it was 150 years ago in a country far far away, you find me a ex slave with the scars and I will apologise on behalf of white people everywhere, FFS, next you will want me to run around shouting 40 acres and a mule. Me, I think there are far worse things going on in the world today which I would get agged about if I thought anything could be done, but to invest that much angst in a mediocre filum made by a talentless, Brit hating, racist, you must be crazy.

Maybe it's not a construction but a perception Tis?

I think the avatar red white and blue underpants are the dead giveaway.
I'm no member of the thought police, and people are entitled to hold whatever views they like in their own head, as millions of racists have to do these days. As long as those thoughts stay there imprisoned in their own heads and don't morph into actions or outright hate speech, I'm happy. Inward anger is the best place for it. Kinda poetic.

GOB wrote:

Maybe it's not a construction but a perception Tis?

Nah, the PCers are slowly realising that they have lost the argument so are now going out of their way to "construct" any old ad hominem to try and discredit the messenger.

Why do you think anyone would want to discredit you Tis?

GOB wrote:

Why do you think anyone would want to discredit you Tis?

Jealous of my youthful good looks and enormous knob perhaps?

Agree with the enormous knob.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Iggy wrote:

I can never work out whether Tis is just on a monumental wind up or whether he really does harbour racist views which are easier to justify if you accept the argument that slavery wasn't that bad. I would suggest its the latter due to the continuing theme.

How on earth do you guys manage to construct a racism argument based on the fact that I think this filum is nowhere near as good as you frothies do? Jeez, ejh, the ultimate saddo, is up at 3.20 in the morning making some obscure points that as far as I can see have nothing at all to do with the basis of the argument.

Do I believe some slave owners were cruel? Hell yes, do I give a flying fook? Hell no, it was 150 years ago in a country far far away, you find me a ex slave with the scars and I will apologise on behalf of white people everywhere, FFS, next you will want me to run around shouting 40 acres and a mule. Me, I think there are far worse things going on in the world today which I would get agged about if I thought anything could be done, but to invest that much angst in a mediocre filum made by a talentless, Brit hating, racist, you must be crazy.

I was up in the early hours and trying to stay awake as I had to pick up some family from a night out.

'The ultimate saddo',     you are clutching at straws now.

Just come up with some legitimate criticisms of the film without saying it was shite, and only a film for the ignorant not as intelligent as you. As you are not really displaying any intelligence in this thread.

12 Years a Slave is not a populist Hollywood version of history, it is nothing like The Vikings and has no nauseous screenplay or love stories wrapped up in it. It is a straight brutal portrayal of life on the plantations based on an account from someone who lived it, and you seemingly are tongue-tied in explaining the reasons this film doesn't meet your intellectual standards.