MovieChat Forums > 12 Years a Slave (2013) Discussion > Good film, but the direction/editing kep...

Good film, but the direction/editing kept it from being great for me

posted 10 years ago by Goosfrabah
33 replies | jump to latest

I finally saw this film after wanting to for so long, and sad to say, I was disappointed with it. Although I understood (I think) the creative reasons for some of the things I'm about to mention, I simply didn't like them and they distracted from my enjoyment of the film. I've never seen director Steve McQueen's other films before, so maybe it's just his style I have a problem with?

The more minor of my two complaints is how the film shifts between past and present prior to Solomon's kidnapping. I've seen a lot of movies structure their narratives in a similar way; sometimes it's clever and effective, and sometimes it's confusing and off-putting. In this film, I hated it. BUT...maybe that's exactly the point: to have the audience's viewing experience reflect the disorienting nature of the sudden, drastic change in Solomon's life? Still, it could have been executed better.

My major issue is how certain scenes seem "frozen" and go on for many seconds (or minutes) longer than they should. This technique by the director really "took me out" of the viewing experience every time it was used. Again, I realize it's most likely an artistic device used by the director to underscore tension and drama, but it's used to excess here. The opening shot of the movie has the slaves just standing there for what seems like an eternity before the overseer even speaks! For a while, I thought my DVR had malfunctioned. Am I looking at a movie or a painting?! Horrible way to start a film.

While I acknowledge that the most effective use of the frozen scene was Solomon remaining in the noose after the attempted hanging, even that went on about 50% too long. I totally understand how the prolongation is meant to underscore the horror, sadness, and sheer absurdity of a man literally slowly dying while everyone goes about their business as if they don't see or hear him. But the longer it goes on, the less emotional impact it carries (at least for me). It ceases to be about the emotion and drama contained within a film, and becomes about a director who is either careless, or full of himself, or both. A great director knows about pacing, and about how to withhold the audience's gratification just long enough for a scene to be dramatically tense, but not so long as for it to become tedious viewing.

So, I enjoyed the film, but if awkward, dragging scenes are a hallmark of McQueen's, then his films are not for me.

[–] strntz 10 years ago

Unbelievable.. My wife and I both watched this for the first time (and several times since) this past month, and I totally agree with you. In fact, he reason I signed on to IMDB today was to make the same exact point.

I get the flashbacks; used properly they can be most effective. Flash forwards make no sense unless the characters have some sort of foresight, and the flash forwards being used to portend to some future issue. Otherwise, flash forwards in this story have no context, and only serve to confuse the viewer.

And I agree with the frozen scenes as well. I understand the reasons, particularly the hanging scene, but there were other scenes that did the same thing with no value IMO whatsoever.

This is a true story, and the story is compelling enough to not have to resort to questionable decisions by the film makers in order to augment it. The best thing you can say about a director is when they manage to stay out of the way of the story and allow the viewer to be totally immersed in it.

It is bad to drink Jobus rum. Very bad.

[–] Goosfrabah 10 years ago

This is a true story, and the story is compelling enough to not have to resort to questionable decisions by the film makers in order to augment it. The best thing you can say about a director is when they manage to stay out of the way of the story and allow the viewer to be totally immersed in it.

Thank you for your reply, strntz. The part I've bolded above is an excellent point and perfectly stated. McQueen's style does get in the way of the story, which is a real shame.

[–] activista 10 years ago

@Goosfrabah

Yeah, it's just the style you have a problem with. Keep in mind this wasn't a Hollywood film,and that it was made by a European director---indie and foreign films don't always force-feed you info, or spell everything out for you like Hollywood films usually do, so if you're not used to watching them,then,yeah,the style of this film would be unusual to you. I am, so the film wasn't the least bit unusual to me. It was just too slow for you--we're so used to fast-moving,fast-edited films that's it's hard for some of us to appreciate a film that takes its time to observe its characters with a slow pace instead of slamming images and sounds in your face every 2 minutes. That's typical of European films,also. I didn't have a problem with the first scene you mentioned because to me, it served to underline the very real horror of the scene with Solomon almost hanging in such a matter-of-fact-way, which made it even more disturbing for me,frankly. I suggest you watch some European/African/Asian films, some of which, but not all, use stillness and slowness in unique ways like that.

[–] Goosfrabah 10 years ago

Activista, thank you for your reply. I have seen many indie and foreign (especially French) films, and you are right -- they are typically more introspective, symbolic, and character-driven than Hollywood films. Those are qualities I greatly admire and in fact very much prefer to the shallow, ADHD style of many mainstream movies.

However, I felt McQueen used slowness and stillness to such an excess that it felt extremely awkward, and as a viewer, most of those moments pulled me out of the immersion I should have had in the story. It isn't so much that I didn't appreciate the slower moments, it's more that their degree of slowness "detached" me too much from the narrative.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mccoymike 10 years ago

What is your opinion of "Once Upon a Time in the West", particularly the 166 minute European version?

[–] Goosfrabah 10 years ago

I've never seen that film, Mike.

[–] cikichan 9 years ago

Once Upon a Time in the West is one of only about a dozen films I ever rated a 10. As for 12 Years a Slave... I fully agree with the OP; And I give it a lenient 6.

[–] SapphEyeR 10 years ago

There were a couple of scenes where important things were being said and I couldn't tell who was speaking because the actor was turned away from the camera and was not the focal point or there was some kind of aural or visual clutter. It wasn't the controlled kind of clutter like in a Robert Altman film. It seemed awkward and a violation of Directing 101. However, it was interesting to see a film that felt different, that wasn't in lockstep with the usual conventions of Hollywood, that felt unique. I thought the scene with Solomon in the noose was bold and amazing.

_______________________________________________

Read this post before my stalkers get it deleted.

[–] Mr_Recchia 10 years ago

What REALLY kept this film from its destined greatness was its length. I understand the complaint about the long shots and the strangely fractured story-telling (which did help create an uneasy mood in the beginning but was a little annoying at times), but the only time it got grating was that 20 second shot of him starring at god only knows what until the shot ends.

No, the fact that there was so much shock, intensity and drama ended up being its greatest weakness because I was burnt out on it by the 1:30 minute mark and the last 45 minutes were just going through the motions for me. It was a like a great car on a road that was too long. It used up all its fuel and had to be pushed the last quarter of the way. Nothing wrong with the actual pacing, and structure, or even the length by itself, but its inability to make the choice to either to be more conservative with its drama or shorten the length to fit to end the film when it was all up crippled a potentially great film.

Officially Canadian for 25 years. Never heard "aboot."

[–] Goosfrabah 10 years ago

Thanks for your reply, Carlo. I agree that the film would benefit greatly from an edit.

[–] HellaciousWonTon 10 years ago

I finally watched this film last night after wanting to see it for a long time, and you articulated so well my feelings about it. I liked the film but agree that the two issues you mention detracted from the film. If they had not been done to such excess, maybe it would have been alright but I agree that it was tedious and off-putting.

I felt this was a good but not a great film, and it probably won the Academy Award for Best Picture more for its subject matter than for it standing on its own as a truly outstanding film. It's the type of film that the Academy Award members like to vote for, and that helped it win the Oscar.

[–] Goosfrabah 10 years ago

I appreciate your reply, HWT. Thank you!

[–] Nuclear_Exorcist 10 years ago

It's also highly unusual for a film to win a Best Picture when it's only the director's third feature. Steve McQueen is a young upcoming director, not some seasoned veteran, and it does show in his work sometimes. Especially since his first two films were much more "indie" than this one.

[–] dimakorou 10 years ago

I just watched it and despite I too would prefer a more linear editing and perhaps a bit more of the protagonist's life as a free man before the slavery, I don't see how your major problem is the "frozen" scenes. That's not a problem at all and I haven't even mentioned it. Enough with the ADHD movies, let the viewers admire the countryside scenery, there is pain and horror in the film, the nature's shots are the only thing beautiful to watch in there.

[–] PolythenePaul 10 years ago

But the longer it goes on, the less emotional impact it carries (at least for me).

I think you completely missed the point on this part. I personally thought this prolonging of the scene was pure genius. McQueen wanted the emotional impact to be lessened, he wanted you to be taken out of events, because that put you in the same position as the other slaves and plantation workers. You became passive to it. It became ordinary and uninteresting. I felt it was such a clever technique to transcend the cinematic narrative and have the audience respond in such a realistic manner. That sequence didn't have to satisfy you, you didn't have to take any sort of emotional enjoyment or fulfilment from it, that isn't the purpose it served. McQueen created a sequence so real and harrowing, and yet managed to turn it into something completely mundane without changing a thing; time was the only factor. As time progressed, McQueen illustrated that even the most awful, tragic, pitiful acts can become blunted and unengaging. All that was left was an uncomfortable feeling, likely the same feeling that the people on the plantation felt as they continued on with their day. McQueen simulated an emotional state that would have been impossible with standard cinematic techniques, and although he may have simulated this through a rather different way than say, actually being on the plantation as Solomon hung there, the result was the same, and that's the important part. He was almost Brechtian in his application of this technique. And yet it was so simple. I know I'm singing the scene's praises so resolutely, but I really believe it is one of the most pivotal and powerful scenes in the history of popular films.

[–] heuer88 10 years ago

It makes the viewer uncomfortable because they feel the powerlessness of the characters in this world. The film makes the point of how inaction is the reason such awful things happen. Having to be in that moment for so long, you normalize the feeling of outrage and understand how so many people could let this crap go on for.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=heuerj88

[–] magiciangirl2 10 years ago

And if anything, it was probably that scene in particular along with the beating of Patsey that led to McQueen winning an oscar.

Some movies aren't supposed to feel warm and comfortable. Just like people said above, the hanging scene is supposed to be long and drawn out to show how long Solomon had to suffer before anyone with any kind of power decided to care enough to cut him down.

The worst horror of it, too, was watching the slaves come out of their homes to continue on with their day, with children playing in the background. Only one person had the courage to help Solomon, the woman who gave him water.

In the book, Solomon sincerely thought he was going to die at that point.

[–] elduderino09 9 years ago

The flash forwards were a little disorienting at first. But I got used to them, and I felt they were there to give the story a hook at the beginning. I had no problem with the length of the film, or the editing. Such atrocities occurring regularly, yet all characters were not allowed to express their true emotions. I felt like the long cuts put the audience in a state of collusion with the characters. That was the way things were, move on. It enhanced the emotional impact imo.

2 things I would have liked in the film. Are the artists who persuaded him to DC the ones responsible for his kidnapping? And a small point, but they should have taught him to use the bow properly while faking the violin playing. A small point, but noticeable. Though I thought the lead did a great job all being said.

[–] vinicius-oliveirapaiva 10 years ago

I totally agree with you about the "frozen scenes" but it's funny because I only noticed it in the middle of the filme. Specially about the scene where Solomon remains in the noose.

[–] incrediball 10 years ago

Also agree. Didn't have a problem with the hanging scene but there were at least three other scenes that I can think of like the one after Brad Pitt agrees to write a letter when he is almost looking into the camera.

The shifting between the past and present at the start was a bit confusing but it felt unnecessary and somehow inappropriately used.

Also had a problem with the portrayal of the 12 years. It could have been 12 weeks. There was no way to tell. Don't know how long Solomon and the other slaves weren't at the cotton plantation when the cotton worms infested it. Was it a year or was it a week? On the other hand I suppose the intention was to perhaps make it all seem like time stood still and that it was one never ending condition.

I thought the kidnapping and the boat ride was very well done but after that I thought the film became quite unengaging and empty. As a result I gave it a 5/10.

Remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future!