Django Unchained or 12 Years a Slave

[Eraserhead]

I loved both but 12 Years a Slave is literally something that will be put in time capsules.

That seems kind of pointless. They can just watch it in the future in whatever format they use, just as we can watch Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane on DVD/Blu-Ray.

You know the point I'm trying to make...

[Reaganfan]

Saw Django because I'm a Tarantino fan. Gettin' a little burned out on these slavery films though.

[patrick1]

Saw Django because I'm a Tarantino fan. Gettin' a little burned out on these slavery films though.

Wow, 2 movies. I guess you like the America, the good guy movies. You would have preferred the millionth WWII movie, no doubt. 

[Eraserhead]

Saw Django because I'm a Tarantino fan. Gettin' a little burned out on these slavery films though.

lol.

[angus]

Just watched 12 years a slave.  

Despite what I said in your thread pitting Django Unchained against Inglourious Basterds, I had to vote for Django in this thread.  Entertainment value trumps a whole bunch of other stuff.  It seems that I'm in the minority in both threads.  (I ended up voting for Basterds in that thread, once I'd seen both movies.)  I'll stand by my choices.

That said, I think that 12 Years was a decent flick.  I'd watch it again.  Also, unlike either of those other movies, 12 Years did inspire me to learn more.  I looked up Solomon Northrup immediately afterward and learned everything I could about him.  Powerful story.  I still wonder what ultimately became of him.

[Torie]

Partner Dan loved 12 Years a Slave. I didn't. I found the writing pedestrian, the depth of the characters wanting (too one-dimensional - particularly the unremittingly evil white characters, other than the one in a cameo role who appeared at the beginning and end), the interaction between the blacks limited. The sets were great however, and given that it is a true story, in that sense it is amazing, and shocking.

I have not seen the other film.

[angus]

I found the writing pedestrian, the depth of the characters wanting (too one-dimensional - particularly the unremittingly evil white characters, other than the one in a cameo role who appeared at the beginning and end), the interaction between the blacks limited. The sets were great however, and given that it is a true story, in that sense it is amazing, and shocking.

Pretty much my thoughts as well.  In all fairness, the writing was based upon the writing of a New York farmer/carpenter/musician born in 1808 to a former slave who was himself kidnapped and not legally permitted to read or write for more than a decade.  Given those circumstances, any writing at all is remarkable.  However, not all the slavemasters were portrayed as evil.  Ford wasn't portrayed as evil.  He was (apparently true to Northrup's memoirs) portrayed as a decent sort of fellow.  Epps was portrayed as a hard master, a rapist, and a man who exploited carefully chosen bible verses to justify his brutal treatment not only of his slaves, but also of his increasingly frustrated wife and his employees.  Tibout was portrayed as a sadistic, ineffectual weenie who aspired to be a slaveowner.  These characters too seem based on Northrup's original account.  Whether the screenplay was particularly faithful to Northrup's book, or whether Northrup's book was particularly faithful to the reality, I do not know, although I am inspired to read the book.  I'll look for it soon.  I also loved the visual imagery of the sets.  Apparently most of it was filmed in Louisiana, so the fact that it was so realistic shouldn't be surprising.  

But I didn't really feel it sometimes.  The tremendous guilt Northrup must have experienced upon leaving Patsy and the other slaves once he was rescued by Mr. Parker and the Avoyelles Parish sheriff just wasn't there.  In theory, I knew that this is what the directors wanted me to experience, but it just wasn't working for me.  The grief experienced by the mother when she is separated from her children early in the movie when Paul Giamatti's character sells her to Ford but her son and daughter to other buyers was very mechanically portrayed.  I understood it on an intellectual level, but I didn't feel it.  

Nevertheless, it was based on a true story, an interesting story, a poignant story, and one that I'd like to learn more about.  In that sense, we can regard it as a success.  

The other movie in the poll, Django Unchained, is a very different sort of movie.  It has a central conceit which is absurd, and the acting is a bit over the top.  Samuel Jackson's portrayal as an aggressively loyal and sadistic house attendant is deliciously surrealistic.  He has some sort of twitch (Parkinson's disease?) and a habit of dropping the N-bomb with every sentence which is at the same time shocking and hilarious.  As with Inglorious Basterds, you'll have to suspend disbelief to really enjoy it.  Both Django and Basterds (and really all of Tarantino's movies) are predicated on alternate realities.  I have no problem with that.  After all, I'm a fan of Ancient Aliens--although mostly because of Giorgios' hair--so I'm accustomed to suspension of my disbelief.  Django did feature comic relief, suspense, and a good deal of gratuitous violence, and in the end I watch movies to be entertained, so I voted for it in the poll over 12 Years a Slave.
  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Having read 12 Years a Slave, I'd say the movie was extremely faithful to the book.  I'd also highly recommend the former as some university in North Carolina (IIRC) lets you read the whole book for free on ther website.  It is a great and surprisingly quick read (or maybe it just felt quick b/c it was hard not to finish it in a couple sittings).  The writing is really amazing given the situation, God knows what Northrup could've been had he been born today in a reasonably affluent family.

[angus]

Having read 12 Years a Slave, I'd say the movie was extremely faithful to the book.

Finished it yesterday.  I have to respectfully disagree. 

Of course, that's subjective.  About 20 years ago my girlfriend and I went to see The Interview with The Vampire.  She was into those Ann Rice books in a big way, and through her I became moderately interested.  At least interested enough to read some of them.  Anyway, she was so excited when the movie came out.  Afterward, I thought it was a reasonably good effort on the part of the directors and producers, but she thought that the effort failed.  "They're so gay!  They're not like that in the book!"  What?  I thought that they were gay vampires.  It was obvious to me that they were, and so the decidedly effeminate Tom Cruise and prettyboy Brad Pitt were perfectly cast, and played the parts perfectly well.  Well, anyway suffice it to say that in the end she and I had to agree to disagree. 

I think that you and I may just have to agree to disagree on this movie.  To wit:

As has been mentioned by Torie and by me, the characters in the movie were very flat.  Bland.  That was unfortunate, because in his diatribe, Northup described them well and interestingly, so it didn't have to be that way.  There were many omissions.  I understand the need to cut stuff out, otherwise you end up with movies that are far too long, like Titanic and Malcolm X.  Both those could have been excellent films with a little editing, or had at least 30% of the footage been culled.  Still, you can't omit so much that it interferes with character development.

The smallpox episode early on, for example, was critical to understanding Northup.  (In fact, it is also critical to understanding the death of the Cincinnati freeman who died on board.  He was not knived by a horny sailor.  That was entirely false.  He died from smallpox, and it was his death that foiled the planned escape by Northup and two others.  Because escape was constantly on his mind, and because he mentioned in just about every chapter, it is an unforgivable omission.)

Speaking of the slaves on the boat, Clemens Ray was not the one met by his master at New Orleans, as shown in the movie.  Rather it was Williams, and it wasn't his master.

The omission of Eliza's death was also unfortunate, because Solomon was a people person, and he wrote so much about her.  Additionally, her slow decay after her son and daughter were sold away and separated from her was telling.  It's an important part not only of this story but of so many others.

There were two fights with Tibeat, and it was only after the second that he was rented to Turner and others, and eventually sold to Epps.  Also the swamps, the swimming, the snakes, the alligators were all missing (of course that followed the second episode with Tibeats).  I'm astonished that this was left out because it is necessary to understand the captivity.  Northup took great pains to explain all this. 

Also, Epps gave him the violin--his wife insisted; she liked music--not Ford.  They did emphasize the music well enough ("...we are a musical people..." as Northup said of his race) but many of the details were off.

Critically, Solomon talking to Ford and Tibeats on the bayou was not in character.  He could not tell them he worked the champlain canal, hired a team, etc.  That was central to his character development as well.  Moreover, he never told Ford "You must understand that I was a free man..."  Northup made it clear early own that he feared for his life if he divulged his secret to any planter or slave. 

The sex scene?  Really?  Did they have to go there?  Northup made absolutely no mention of pleasuring any female slaves or being otherwise unfaithful to his wife during his twelve years of bondage.  That, too, is an important part of his character that the directors completely missed.

And Patsey wanting him to kill her?!  No way.  Not only wasn't that mentioned in his book, but at that time she was a survivor.  Lithe, nimble, and reasonably intelligent.  Sure, her lot was worse than most, but she never asked Solomon Northup ("Platt") to kill her.  Of course, Mary Epps tried to bribe him to kill Patsey, but that's a different thing entirely.

Epps was also misrepresented.  Oh, he was sadistic and a drunkard, but it was Eldert who used Luke 12:47 to justify his treatment of the slaves, not Epps.  Also, Epps was physically misrepresented as well.  The real Epps looked like a fatter, blonde version Karl Malden.  The actor cast looked nothing like Northup's detailed description of Epps. 

Speaking of physical descriptions, the actor who played Solomon was too heavy.  Maybe Solomon was that heavy in 1841, but by 1853, after 12 years of 1000-calorie-per-day diet and physical exertion from sunup till sundown, he would not have been.  Actors are often told to gain and then lose weight for roles (think:  Tom Hanks in Survivor).  A loss of about 40 pounds before filming of the final parts of the script would have been in order. 

I could go on and on, but basically it does not seem to me that the film was faithful to Northup's narrative.  Whether Northup's narrative was faithful to reality we'll never know, but we do know that in 1864, when that part of Louisiana was occupied by US troops, many soldiers and officers who had read Northup's narrative sought out Epps to ask him questions.  In answer to the question, "Is that stuff he wrote true?" Epps replied, "Yeah, it's mostly true."  In response to requests by soldiers to comment on Solomon Northup, Epps is quoted as saying, "he was an uncommonly smart n."

As an aside, I note that he spells plowed as "ploughed" so not all the modern American English spellings had evolved by the time he penned his intriguing and heartwrenching narrative. 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the fidelity of the direction and script of this film.

[patrick1]

I 100% stand by my earlier assessment. 12 years was much better and I didnt even finish Django.  I do agree with much of the criticism leveled against 12 years.  Steve McQueen is a very talented artist but he seems more concerned with specific visuals and scenery to evoke emotion rather than character development. I think he actually tried very hard to make 12 years more accessible and less artsy.

 To those familiar with the subject matter, I would recommend his first film Hunger, about the 1981 Hunger Strikes. If you can follow along there is a real great scene between Sands, played by Fassbender and a priest played by Game of Thrones Onion Knight Liam Cunningham. But beware there are extended sequences of a jailer mopping floors and other scene setters.

[Paul Kemp]

Still hilarious:

Two completely different movies so there's no point comparing them.

Well they're both about slavery.

[pendragon]

I'm a huge Tarantino fan (Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are both definitely in my top 5 favorite films), so I'm probably a little biased. But I found Django to be vastly more entertaining than 12 Years. There was a reviewer who caught some flack for comparing 12 Years to "torture porn" like Hostel, but I would agree that that's basically what it was to me. Poorly-developed one-dimensional characters being tortured by other poorly-developed one-dimensional characters for two hours. Roots did the same sort of story far more memorably.

[angus]

Still hilarious:

Two completely different movies so there's no point comparing them.

Well they're both about slavery.

Yes, they're obviously very different films.  Different genres.  It's like comparing Diary of Anne Frank with Diary of a Wimpy Kid.  ("Well, they're both about diaries.") 

I'd rather compare Django with Basterds, and we've had that comparison.  But with which film do we compare 12 Years?  Perhaps with Born on the Fourth of July, another autobiography.  Now there's a good read, also inspiring a film which didn't quite do justice to the narrative.  Of course, like 12 years, that film also received lots of award nominations.  It seems that there are directors who cruise the white noise, looking for keywords of current interest, only to make a film "based on a true story" that contains elements important to current moral fashion specifically with the goal of being lauded by the fashion police, no matter how ineffectively those films relate these stories.

[they don't love you like i love you]

An early showing of Naso's true colors?

[Big Abraham]

Tarantino > Not Tarantino

[Meclazine for Israel]

12 Years a Slave was based in reality.

Django Unchained has a different feel. It had that Dusk Til Dawn type feel where things become meaningless in the end.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I loved both but 12 Years a Slave is literally something that will be put in time capsules.

That seems kind of pointless. They can just watch it in the future in whatever format they use, just as we can watch Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane on DVD/Blu-Ray.

1. Mayhaps, but not every film from that era has survived. 12 Years is a very important film and should be preserved just in case.

2. Even if everyone's hologram visual system sets contains a copy of 12 Years remastered in 5D, it would still be cool to put the film in a capsule to kind of communicate with future generations how we, the people of the early 21st century, view slavery.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I rewatched both this year for the first time since they were released, and both are even better than I remember causing me to raise their scores as obvious standouts of the decade.

Django does just about everything well. The gore is over-the-top as usual, and I don't care for the musical choices, but the story and dialogue are phenomenally funny and creative, and the acting is solid - quite humorous with solid casting selections (basically written with these people in mind). This is the type of entertaining fiction we need a lot more of today. While I don't always care for Tarantino's style, I think it's absolutely perfect for this crazy and wonderful plot. Too many unforgettable scenes to count. I think too many people criticize this for being unrealistic/cartoonish but you do need some of that as balance, and it does that well! Eminently rewatchable, citable and to be remembered for decades.

On the other hand, 12 Years a Slave is a good non-fictional adaptation with a merely mediocre script, but it's got Django beat on the acting front by a good stretch. I don't typically care all too much on acting, but Chiwetel Ejiofor and Lupita Nyong'o turned in two of the most memorable performances of the 2010s that give this movie life. Without them, this is a far less renowned work. I don't expect many people will remember this in 20-30 years unlike Django, but it's still a very strong picture about an important historical figure. Unfortunately, only a couple (of the more brutal) scenes really stick with you, and I can't decide how to feel about Brad Pitt's character.

The edge goes to Django Unchained for me.

[AtorBoltox]

An early showing of Naso's true colors?

I can't even see any posts by him in here?