Had dinner with some friends the other night.  One of them had gone to see TYAS without knowing much about it.  His comment to me was "Hey, your boyfriend keeps popping up in the strangest places."

​

Saw it several weeks ago. It's a gorgeous movie. Everyone in it is absolutely brilliant and perfect in their role. I really can't say enough about how good it is, from the music to the cinematography, eveything. Benedict's character is very likeable in the context of the story. 

While it is graphic and very upsetting, it does not go overboard on the violence. It's just real, it gives you a sense of being there. It's hard to watch, but everyone should watch it. 

I will probably wait for 12 Years to come out on DVD, so I can control where to FF over certain stuff. I don't think I could sit through the violence of the movie in an actual theater and still get my popcorn down, if you know what I mean. I read commentary by a movie reviewer I trust (a woman about my age) who said that the violence in 12 Years "borders on the pornographic", and I tend to believe her. I (intellectually) know what happened to the slaves in my own country's history, and I don't need to see it in living color on a movie screen to convinced me that it was horrendously evil and tragic. And much as I like to see Ben act, I don't think I could sit through this one. I realize I'm probably a lone voice in the wilderness here saying this kind of opinion, but thought I'd throw it out there, for what it's worth. My two cents, marked down from five.

SusiGo wrote:

Finally there is more footage from the film including Benedict in this interesting featurette:

http://movies.yahoo.com/video/12-years-slave-portrait-solomon-163246243.html

Thanks for posting that link, Susi. Watching this video gave me a good idea about the story, some background, etc. It helped me understand better about what happened to the main character and why.

Sherli Bakerst wrote:

Re the violence in the movie: Many, many movies have far more violence in them than this one; all the recent action movies, for instance, and TV shows, too, for that matter.  What makes the violence in 12 Years different is, in my opinion, the fact that the audience sees more than just a flash-bang quick shot of something violent happening but also, importantly, the results of that violence on the people upon whom it was inflicted.  And sometimes the violence is all the more impactful because of the way a scene leads up to it or because the music so eloquently supports what is happening in a scene.  What's different about the violence in this movie is that it is focused on how it affects people, rather than on the special effects used to create it.  It...humanizes the violence, and that's what makes it more shocking to watch.  I wouldn't call it pornographic--I'd call it realistic.  And that's very different from how violence has been used in most contemporary movies made for the US film audience.

Yes, what you describe is exactly what I would expect, if I decided to see the movie. I've heard the movie called "important" and a "must-see", but I feel that I'm as educated and aware about the US's slavery years as I need or want to be. As far as the pornographic word goes, I realize it's an unusual use of the word to apply it to violence, but I think it's apt-- as you said, the violence is protracted, viseral, leaves absolutely no doubt about what's happening on-screen, and is expressly shown in a way to arouse people's passions-- in this case, about abolitionism and human rights. Thanks for your explanation; I totally understood what you were saying.

 

I was just on the NPR (National Public Radio) website looking for something and came across this article about the music in the movie.  It's very interesting but contains lots of spoilers, so you are now forewarned. 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/11/12/244851884/12-years-a-slave-is-this-years-best-film-about-music

Nor does that definition make any sense to me. The use of the word 'pornographic' suggests that the inclusion of violence is principally to give some form of pleasure to the viewer. For any one who knows Steve McQueen's previous work ('Hunger' and 'Shame') then full on, realistic violence or sexual activity, should come as no surprise. However, a main tenet of his work is, and always has been, the effect of such actions upon individuals. The violence in this film will be accurate and completely necessary to convey the effect upon both the slaves and also those who perpetrate it. The same unflinching direction can be seen in 'Hunger' which is 'about' the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, but which is also about the other individuals in the story. Likewise in 'Shame' which is about sex-addiction but also the damaged characters of Brandon and Sissy. Yes, these are  both graphic films but please don't think that they are in any way 'pornographic'. (I half expect this will be the 'cop out' for Oscars for this film).

As a black director, this story has particular importance for Steve. His work is always challenging, at every level.

Harriet wrote:

But that definition doesn't make much sense to me - otherwise you would have to apply it to our fanfic as well.

Btw, pornography is usually not to arouse passion about human rights or even passion in a love way, but mere lust of the observer.

I can't take "credit" for the pornographic word applied to movie violence-- I just got that from one review I read about 12 Years, and I thought it was an intriguing use of the word. I've never before seen the pornography word used for anything but sexual pornography.

The sexual content in fan fic and whether or not it qualifies as porn would be a good subject for another thread. Would love to discuss it there, if you know of a thread where it would be appropriate, Harriet. 

 

tonnaree wrote:

Hunger is an amazing film, but I don't know if ever want to watch it again, if you understand.  Need to see Shame.   

Right. Which is the only point I was trying to make. I wasn't debating whether or not the violence in 12 Years was necessary to get the story across-- all of that was a decision of the producers and director of the movie, and it was their creative decision to make. I would never second guess that decision. Like any artist of any kind, they get to make whatever creative decisions make sense to them.

My point was that I can't take it. I know myself, and I just plain would not be able to take it. Like a person who doesn't "do" heights-- I will defend to the death the designers' and builders' right to construct a 200 story skyscraper with a catwalk at the top for visitors who'd like a view. But I would never willingly even make the elevator trip to the top, much less step out and look at anything. Just sitting here and typing this, I get a funny feeling in my legs and feet, lol--- eeeeek, nightmares!  I know myself, I know what I can willingly put myself through and what I shouldn't.  And that's the only point I was trying to make. I intellectually understand how people would think the violence in 12 Years completes the story for them.  But for me? No, thanks. I can imagine it, and that's enough.

Mrs. Watson wrote:

I had heard/read the word "pornographic" used regarding violence before in Spanish so I went and look it down in the Merrian-Webster dictionary. I thought its meaning could be different in English but it wasn't. One of the definitions is:  "3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>"
Although "pornography" is commonly used with a sexual meaning, I have seen "pornographic" associated to violence many times. It referes to violence so graphic and explicit that causes not pleasure or arousal but a strong shock or discomfort in the viewer/reader.

Thanks for the explanation, and from such an official source. My native tongue continues to surprise me, even after all these years of speaking, writing, hearing it. I think it's a way-interesting use of the pornographic word, just one I'd never heard before I read what the 12 Years reviewer wrote.

A lot of violence depicted in movies and on TV is what I call sledgehammer violence. There's no subtlety about it-- I think in a lot of cases it's aimed at the teenaged market, especially the males, a bunch of people who've always gotten their violence kicks from video gaming. Most of we old folks don't have that (video gaming) in our backgrounds, so sledgehammer violence (even, as in this case, in a piece of historical fiction) seems very off-putting to us.