12 Years a Slave
2.5/4
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch
Rated R for Violence/Cruelty, Some Nudity and Brief Sexuality
Typically, studio interference is usually bad news for a film ("Mimic" is one of many examples). In the case of "12 Years a Slave," however, I think that the opposite is true. Director Steve McQueen's previous two features, "Hunger" and "Shame" were fantastic looking bouts of extraordinary self-indulgence. Here, McQueen is using an actual script. While the film is too problematic for me to recommend outright, it is compelling and well-acted.
Solomon Northrup (Ejiofor) is a well-to-do black man living in New York. He is married to Anne (Kelsey Scott) and is the father of Margaret (Quvenzhane Wallis) and Alonzo (Cameron Zeigler). While his wife and children are away, Solomon (who is a skilled violin player) is asked by two men to tour with their band for a short time. But he is tricked, and after a night of dinner and drinking, Solomon wakes up to find himself in chains. Because he doesn't have his papers that prove he is in fact a free man, he is transported to the South and sold into slavery.
The acting is exceptional, although apart from Ejiofor, Fassbender and Paulson, no one has more than token screen time. Chiwetel Ejiofor has been touted as the front runner for this year's Best Actor race, and while he does as good of a job as any actor can under the circumstances, he's not given the latitude to really shine. Ejiofor buries himself deep inside Solomon, but the script is half developed. McQueen concentrates more on the actor's facial expressions, but as he proved in "Shame," this is not a substitute for dialogue and action. Michael Fassbender, in his third performance for McQueen, is fantastic. Fassbender switches from a brutal slaveowner to a drunk and to an insane man as the script demands. Fassbender never misses a beat. Also impressive is Sarah Paulson, who plays Epps (Fassbender) wife. She's alternately sympathetic and ruthless.
Steve McQueen prefers to tell his stories through images. That's perfectly fine; it worked for Sylvain Chomet in "The Triplets of Belleville" and Andrew Stanton in "WALL-E." But there is a difference between those two films and McQueen's films. The former films showed images of action and expression. They told a story. McQueen's films show people's bodies and scenery. He concentrates on the minutiae. That's fine for setting the stage for action, but it doesn't make the film.
Fortunately, his third outing rectifies the most egregious error of his first two films: a lack of dialogue and plot. People actually talk in this movie and do things. They do not, however, talk like real people. They speak poetically, like Shakespeare. While it is often hard to understand what they're talking about (partly because the microphones don't always pick up every word), it's entertaining enough just to listen and appreciate the good writing.
Fox Searchlight is clearly hoping that this is going to dominate the Oscars. They're going into overdrive promoting it, and while critics seemed to have adored it, I don't see it having much mainstream appeal. I'm actually surprised that the studio put up the money to show it in the multiplexes. This is definitely not mainstream fare. I think a lot of people will be unable to figure out what to make of it. It will probably get more than a few nominations, but I don't see it taking home many statuettes. Audience reception favors heavily into how the Academy votes, and I think that that is going to be what keeps this film from dominating the Oscars.
In a way, I was reminded of "The Tree of Life." Visually amazing (cinematographer Sean Bobbitt is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination) and compelling, but it feels like you're only getting half the movie.
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Sarah Paulson, Benedict Cumberbatch
Rated R for Violence/Cruelty, Some Nudity and Brief Sexuality
Typically, studio interference is usually bad news for a film ("Mimic" is one of many examples). In the case of "12 Years a Slave," however, I think that the opposite is true. Director Steve McQueen's previous two features, "Hunger" and "Shame" were fantastic looking bouts of extraordinary self-indulgence. Here, McQueen is using an actual script. While the film is too problematic for me to recommend outright, it is compelling and well-acted.
Solomon Northrup (Ejiofor) is a well-to-do black man living in New York. He is married to Anne (Kelsey Scott) and is the father of Margaret (Quvenzhane Wallis) and Alonzo (Cameron Zeigler). While his wife and children are away, Solomon (who is a skilled violin player) is asked by two men to tour with their band for a short time. But he is tricked, and after a night of dinner and drinking, Solomon wakes up to find himself in chains. Because he doesn't have his papers that prove he is in fact a free man, he is transported to the South and sold into slavery.
The acting is exceptional, although apart from Ejiofor, Fassbender and Paulson, no one has more than token screen time. Chiwetel Ejiofor has been touted as the front runner for this year's Best Actor race, and while he does as good of a job as any actor can under the circumstances, he's not given the latitude to really shine. Ejiofor buries himself deep inside Solomon, but the script is half developed. McQueen concentrates more on the actor's facial expressions, but as he proved in "Shame," this is not a substitute for dialogue and action. Michael Fassbender, in his third performance for McQueen, is fantastic. Fassbender switches from a brutal slaveowner to a drunk and to an insane man as the script demands. Fassbender never misses a beat. Also impressive is Sarah Paulson, who plays Epps (Fassbender) wife. She's alternately sympathetic and ruthless.
Steve McQueen prefers to tell his stories through images. That's perfectly fine; it worked for Sylvain Chomet in "The Triplets of Belleville" and Andrew Stanton in "WALL-E." But there is a difference between those two films and McQueen's films. The former films showed images of action and expression. They told a story. McQueen's films show people's bodies and scenery. He concentrates on the minutiae. That's fine for setting the stage for action, but it doesn't make the film.
Fortunately, his third outing rectifies the most egregious error of his first two films: a lack of dialogue and plot. People actually talk in this movie and do things. They do not, however, talk like real people. They speak poetically, like Shakespeare. While it is often hard to understand what they're talking about (partly because the microphones don't always pick up every word), it's entertaining enough just to listen and appreciate the good writing.
Fox Searchlight is clearly hoping that this is going to dominate the Oscars. They're going into overdrive promoting it, and while critics seemed to have adored it, I don't see it having much mainstream appeal. I'm actually surprised that the studio put up the money to show it in the multiplexes. This is definitely not mainstream fare. I think a lot of people will be unable to figure out what to make of it. It will probably get more than a few nominations, but I don't see it taking home many statuettes. Audience reception favors heavily into how the Academy votes, and I think that that is going to be what keeps this film from dominating the Oscars.
In a way, I was reminded of "The Tree of Life." Visually amazing (cinematographer Sean Bobbitt is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination) and compelling, but it feels like you're only getting half the movie.
Comments
Post a Comment