Well the Oscars are over, and by now we’re all trying to soldier our way through a hazy hangover resulting from the usual bouts of disappointment. The phrase “How could __________ not have won?” will be uttered pretty constantly throughout the day, and the hateful residue of your favorite getting snubbed will remain settled in your mind for many weeks, months, possibly the rest of your life (case in point: I’m still upset L.A. Confidential didn’t win Best Picture back in 1997).
The big winner last night was Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave, the film version of Solomon Northup’s 1853 autobiography about how he was kidnapped and sold into slavery for, well, twelve years. 12 Years a Slave has been endlessly praised by critics (it enjoys a shocking high 96% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes), and has now been granted the highest possible honor by the film community. By vote, it was considered the best film of 2013.
Of course, ask any critic or audience member, and they’ll tell you that it wasn’t the best movie of 2013. Most critics would choose something more soulful like Blue is the Warmest Color, and most audience member might skew more populist, selecting a crowd-pleaser like Iron Man Three. Here at Trolling, it is our habit to subvert dominant paradigms and espouse unpopular opinions, so we’ll have to openly declare the following: 12 Years a Slave SUCKS! Just because you’re declared Best Picture doesn’t mean you’re any good. Maybe, in fact, you’re awful. Let’s abuse and disabuse.
As I said, the detail is impeccable, and when it comes to a laundry list of the injustices suffered by slaves during the darkest period of American history, 12 Years a Slave does not look away. But, for the first time, I feel like a film could have perhaps benefited by being even more melodramatic. 12 Years a Slave is a lovely thing to look at, but at the end of the day, it feels more like torture porn than drama. It may be the Best Picture, but it sure ain’t the best picture.
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is the head film critic for Nerdist, and a contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
12 Years a Slave SUCKS!
-
No Humor
12 Years a Slave is a relentless downer of a movie. Not that it's covering a lighthearted subject; American slavery is not exactly a cause for belly laughs. But are you willing to tell me that in twelve years, even under such harsh circumstances, Solomon Northup didn't laugh once? Maybe a moment where he recognized the absurdity of his incarceration, and snicker about it? Any flush of natural levity that comes with being a human? By grinding the entire film so deeply down in the doldrums, it soon became less a true story of a real person and more a mere litany of suffering. A wince-fest containing torture and anger and pain and nothing else. Now we can't relate to Solomon. We can just watch him suffer silently.
-
Too Pretty
The production design and photography of 12 Years a Slave was actually too good for its own good. Everything was so impeccably authentic, the entire movie became more of an aesthetic presentation than a relatable human story. Indeed, it's powerful aesthetic actually kept us at arm's distance from the subject; This is no longer the real world we're watching, but an artistic interpretation. Even the blood and mud and filth seems to be carefully selected and applied with care. Where's the real grit? The actual filth? The real-world heft?
-
No Sense of Time
We know that Solomon was a slave for 12 years because of the title, but it's hard to gauge where he is at any point in his journey. We see him on a plantation with one master, and then he is transferred to another. How many years was he with each? The comment may be that time is hard to gauge when you're a slave, but surely Solomon would have some indicator of how much time has passed. As it stands, the story seems like it could have easily taken place over 18 months just as soon as 12 years.
-
Vague Characterizations
Thanks to Chiwetel Ejiofor's soulful eyes and intensity, we get the sense that Solomon was a noble soul who was constantly in pain. But, oddly, that was his only note. He, and most of the characters, seemed strangely remote. Aloof. Distant from the audience. The characters were either quiet and staid, or one-note caricatures. Michael Fassbender especially played like a broad monster who had no interests beyond beating slaves and having affairs with slaves. There are no small moments of richness for the main characters. The moments of actual humanity, ironically enough, are given to one-scene cameos from Paul Dano and Alfre Woodard.
-
No Emotional Connection
And, because of the aloofness of the characters, the distance of the aesthetic, and the complete lack of levity or textured human behavior, 12 Years a Slave comes across as ultimately unconnected. It doesn't make the plight of slavery palpable to a modern audience, it just wallows in scenes of pain and torture. The forcefully inaccurate Django Unchained at least had a story and characters to relate to, and played out an elaborate revenge fantasy. 12 Years a Slave is a museum piece. A distant and ancient piece of art that we can no longer understand. And that's not a good thing for a brand new feature film.
