White privilege and 12 Years A Slave

[Sol]

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle in the blogosphere recently over a recent review of 12 Years A Slave by Slate critic Dana Stevens. The main thrust of the controversy has been this section of the article:

I guess, simply put, I’m just not sure I’m down with body horror as a directorial approach for a movie on this subject. After a certain point it seems to serve more to shut out (and gross out) the audience than to make them think, feel, and engage...

But when the white overseers and masters—particularly Fassbender’s red-bearded supervillain, but to a lesser degree the figures played by Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, and Benedict Cumberbatch—show up, there’s sometimes the hint of a prurient horror-movie vibe that can feel exploitive. I felt this when Dano’s rather theatrically vile character sang that hideous “Run, n*****, run” song in close-up. Or in the many scenes when Fassbender (who, on a second viewing, I find to be laying it on a little thick) wanders his plantation with a bottle in hand, circling like a predator, looking for someone to humiliate and abuse. Last week’s painful dustup at the New York Film Critics Circle aside, I think there’s a grain of truth in Armond White’s characterization of 12 Years in his original review as relating to the genre of “torture porn” (though I disagree that McQueen’s purpose in using this approach is “to make white people feel good about their own guilt.”)

(Bolded sections revised to avoid slurs.)

This approach has come under fire from blogger Chauncey DeVega, who in this article on Alternet, wrote a long critique of Stevens's article.

I would like to return  to my earlier conversation about film critic Dana Stevens' recent essay at  Slate magazine on the movie 12 Years a Slave. As I wrote  here, white privilege damages the thinking process of otherwise decent white folks because it actually convinces them that they can alter empirical reality to fit their own priors.

In the case of Slate's Dana Stevens, white privilege and the white racial frame permitted her--in a natural and unthinking way--to assume that the autobiography upon with the movie 12 Years a Slave is based, must somehow be an "inaccurate" representation of anti-black violence by whites during the Southern slave regime in the United States.

What do you think about this? Is Stevens's disbelief of 12 Years A Slave rooted in sense of white privilege? In a broader context, are white perceptions of slavery and racism more generally distorted by narratives of white privilege- to skew towards a view which paints white people as good guys, even when massively unwarranted?

Oh, and please try to avoid a flamewar. This is an interesting topic, y'all, and it doesn't need to be ruined by such things.

[PJ]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat, yes. Obviously not unanimously among white people, but at least in this article, Stevens criticism of the movie as being gruesome does have a dose of white supremacy within it. The movie was not meant to gross out viewers; the so-called "gruesome" parts were to show the horrors of slavery. It's almost as if Stevens is saying, "It couldn't have possibly been that bad. White people have decency!" Even if at a subconscious level, she feels a sort of unwarranted "solidarity" towards her race, which seems to exist today more than it should. It pains her to be reminded that White people were once that awful, so she wishes that the media would stop emphasizing the goriness of slavery, or slavery in general. There is literally no way that you can paint slaveowners as good guys during this era without being racist at KKK-levels, so people like her would rather they didn't continue to document it.

But if she was offended by how "gross" the movie was, she completely missed the point of it.

[Deus Naturae]

It doesn't sound that Stevens was denying that that stuff actually happened, just questioning whether emphasizing the sheer gruesomeness/violence/sexual horror of it is the best way to communicate the intended message. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't now if that is at all true.

[PJ]

It doesn't sound that Stevens was denying that that stuff actually happened, just questioning whether emphasizing the sheer gruesomeness/violence/sexual horror of it is the best way to communicate the intended message. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't now if that is at all true.

The point of the gruesomeness is to emphasize the horrors of slavery.

[Deus Naturae]

It doesn't sound that Stevens was denying that that stuff actually happened, just questioning whether emphasizing the sheer gruesomeness/violence/sexual horror of it is the best way to communicate the intended message. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't now if that is at all true.

The point of the gruesomeness is to emphasize the horrors of slavery.

I realize that. I think that the point that Stevenson is trying to make is that those tactics (that is, emphasis on physical violence) might not necessarily be the best way to get the viewer to consider the theme(s) of the film.

[PJ]

It doesn't sound that Stevens was denying that that stuff actually happened, just questioning whether emphasizing the sheer gruesomeness/violence/sexual horror of it is the best way to communicate the intended message. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't now if that is at all true.

The point of the gruesomeness is to emphasize the horrors of slavery.

I realize that. I think that the point that Stevenson is trying to make is that those tactics (that is, emphasis on physical violence) might not necessarily be the best way to get the viewer to consider the theme(s) of the film.

Why not, exactly? To emphasize the horrors of slavery, the movie emphasizes the gruesomeness of it, which is actually realistic in this case. It's not necessarily exaggeration; the goal is to show how awful it really was, no holes barred.

[ElectionsGuy]

Questioning the level of brutality of slavery doesn't equal "white privilege", in my opinion. The claim that they're trying to somehow defend white people as much as they can is uncalled for.  After all, she is a movie critic, right? Not to say that Steven's comments didn't sound awkward.

[Indy Texas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat, yes. Obviously not unanimously among white people, but at least in this article, Stevens criticism of the movie as being gruesome does have a dose of white supremacy within it. The movie was not meant to gross out viewers; the so-called "gruesome" parts were to show the horrors of slavery. It's almost as if Stevens is saying, "It couldn't have possibly been that bad. White people have decency!" Even if at a subconscious level, she feels a sort of unwarranted "solidarity" towards her race, which seems to exist today more than it should. It pains her to be reminded that White people were once that awful, so she wishes that the media would stop emphasizing the goriness of slavery, or slavery in general. There is literally no way that you can paint slaveowners as good guys during this era without being racist at KKK-levels, so people like her would rather they didn't continue to document it.

But if she was offended by how "gross" the movie was, she completely missed the point of it.

That seems like an unfair indictment of "White people" considering the vast majority of white people who were alive at that time never owned a slave in their lives.

[Deus Naturae]

It doesn't sound that Stevens was denying that that stuff actually happened, just questioning whether emphasizing the sheer gruesomeness/violence/sexual horror of it is the best way to communicate the intended message. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't now if that is at all true.

The point of the gruesomeness is to emphasize the horrors of slavery.

I realize that. I think that the point that Stevenson is trying to make is that those tactics (that is, emphasis on physical violence) might not necessarily be the best way to get the viewer to consider the theme(s) of the film.

Why not, exactly? To emphasize the horrors of slavery, the movie emphasizes the gruesomeness of it, which is actually realistic in this case. It's not necessarily exaggeration; the goal is to show how awful it really was, no holes barred.

As I said, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't affirm or deny Stevens's claim. However, I do think it is possible for a film to focus too much on "guts and gore" at the expense of the deeper meaning, even if said gore is realistic.

If the film was intended to be a documentary, then making it as realistic as possible would be the only concern. However, if it was intended to be a deeply meaningful film (as I'm sure it was), then potentially distracting elements (such as an excessive focus on physical violence or quasi-pornographic scenes) might be worth considering removing.

[PJ]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Somewhat, yes. Obviously not unanimously among white people, but at least in this article, Stevens criticism of the movie as being gruesome does have a dose of white supremacy within it. The movie was not meant to gross out viewers; the so-called "gruesome" parts were to show the horrors of slavery. It's almost as if Stevens is saying, "It couldn't have possibly been that bad. White people have decency!" Even if at a subconscious level, she feels a sort of unwarranted "solidarity" towards her race, which seems to exist today more than it should. It pains her to be reminded that White people were once that awful, so she wishes that the media would stop emphasizing the goriness of slavery, or slavery in general. There is literally no way that you can paint slaveowners as good guys during this era without being racist at KKK-levels, so people like her would rather they didn't continue to document it.

But if she was offended by how "gross" the movie was, she completely missed the point of it.

That seems like an unfair indictment of "White people" considering the vast majority of white people who were alive at that time never owned a slave in their lives.

It's not white people as a whole; simply the concept that a single white person would own slaves and be brutal towards them.

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

[Sol]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

Whether the concept are useful as theorectic construction are a lot different than whether it's a good idea calling people out for it.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself whether the thing you believe are a result of social advantage. Do I not care about abortion because I'm a man as example are a good idea to ask yourself.

But when you say other people only believe the things they believe because of a social advantage, it's pure name calling, no different than calling people racist, volvo driving latte drinking liberal, unpatriotic etc. It's the argument of people who are not willing to back up their argument, but try to silence their opposition by belittle them.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If a term offends somebody's delicate sensibilities, it is name.calling and an ad hominem attack you see

[Cassius]

If a term offends somebody's delicate sensibilities, it is name.calling and an ad hominem attack you see

This is rich coming from someone whose sensibilities are as brittle as a polystyrene cup.

[Sol]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

Whether the concept are useful as theorectic construction are a lot different than whether it's a good idea calling people out for it.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself whether the thing you believe are a result of social advantage. Do I not care about abortion because I'm a man as example are a good idea to ask yourself.

But when you say other people only believe the things they believe because of a social advantage, it's pure name calling, no different than calling people racist, volvo driving latte drinking liberal, unpatriotic etc. It's the argument of people who are not willing to back up their argument, but try to silence their opposition by belittle them.

On the Atlas, we talk about how cultural cleavages like social class or gender affect people's perceptions (usually in the context of voting). What makes race any different from that?

[ingemann]

It doesn't matter whether Chauncey DeVega are right or not. The moment she decided to use the term "White Privilege", the discussion are over and the name calling have begun.

White Privilege is a really useful concept, IMO- it represents a phenomenon which definitely exists in our culture. I'm not quite sure how it functions as name-calling- explain?

Whether the concept are useful as theorectic construction are a lot different than whether it's a good idea calling people out for it.

It's always a good idea to ask yourself whether the thing you believe are a result of social advantage. Do I not care about abortion because I'm a man as example are a good idea to ask yourself.

But when you say other people only believe the things they believe because of a social advantage, it's pure name calling, no different than calling people racist, volvo driving latte drinking liberal, unpatriotic etc. It's the argument of people who are not willing to back up their argument, but try to silence their opposition by belittle them.

On the Atlas, we talk about how cultural cleavages like social class or gender affect people's perceptions (usually in the context of voting). What makes race any different from that?

There are no difference, the question is what you want with the debate, if you just want to "win" a discussion on the internet or insult a person in a way which don't get you banned or kicked, it's a quite useful argument. The difference here is that I tend to expect pundits (even bloggers) to have a higher quality in their argument than people who bicker on discussion boards. In the same way I expect an essay in paper to be of higher quality than LTE's.

[Sol]

I don't know- the article was pretty well though out- it wasn't just "lol white people are racists!!1!!

[ingemann]

I don't know- the article was pretty well though out- it wasn't just "lol white people are racists!!1!!

But what was exactly what I said in my first post, it doesn't whether she has a good point, a lot of people simply stop reading a text when the word "White Privilege" are used. It's rather common that people simply stop reading when a term are used. As example if I read a text about immigration I stop reading if the word Eurabia or Aztlan are used, or if I read a text about Muslims, I stop reading if I read "religion of peace" both if it's used sarcastic and if it's not. You just know in 99% of the times you can more or less guess the rest of the text.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If a term offends somebody's delicate sensibilities, it is name.calling and an ad hominem attack you see

[Mr. Morden]

To clarify, the piece linked to in the OP isn't Stevens's review of 12 Years a Slave.  Her review of the movie is here:

link

It's mostly positive, and she gives it 90/100 on Metacritic.  It's just that she also had some reservations about the movie, which she then expanded on in a blog post-style dialog with other critics, which is what's excerpted in the OP.  It's *not* the case that she "disbelieves" the events of the movie.  In her review, she refers to it as an "almost entirely true story".

It's just that, as explained above, she had some reservations about the movie, centered around.....well, I'll let her explain it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure I agree with that take.  But I think it's a reach to jump to the conclusion that she feels this way because she's white and the slavemasters in the movie were white.  From reading her reviews on and off over the years, I could easily imagine her making similar criticisms of movies about any other historical evil.

[Beet]

We're going to avoid anti semitic tropes such as "Jewish Hollywood", etc. Thanks

[Gustaf]

I feel that you'd have to be quite ignorant to not know that this is an ongoing debate about art which can be unrelated to racial issues. Just like you can show sex by having a couple draw curtains and then cut to them making coffee together in the morning you can show violence or suffering with different levels of concretion. Whether one or the other is better or worse can depend, but it's a valid critique to give imo and shouldn't be automatically referred to as white privilege.