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.

[–] Sulaimone 10 years ago

I've just read your post(s), along with the posts put up by others and I perceive a common thread in all of them...impatience. Given that British films or films made by British directors have historically been long and drawn out in their story telling and no film has ever been made without flaws, I sensed a greater purpose of the "frozen" scenes. My take is, whether intentional or not, they made us feel uncomfortable to the point, in some instances, of irritation. We weren't allowed to decide what was long enough or too long. For us it was only a matter of seconds or minutes. For someone hanging or being whipped it was an eternity. So those scenes were meant, IMO, to sink in, get under our skin and into our heads. Again, IMO, we were to see it as more than a film. I also don't believe it was ultimately meant to entertain us but was meant to have us consider, if only for a moment, what we would do to live another day under such conditions.
Your post header more or less states "good but not great". It makes me wonder if you (and a good number of the others) were only watching it as a film, which was, of course, your prerogative.
As for the film being too long, I found the first hour and a half were very difficult to sit through until I grasped that this was the story of a man's actual experience and not some bang bang shoot 'em up fantasy that could be easily resolved with a phaser or transporter. :-) We only had to endure his experience for a "detached" couple of hours. I can't imagine enduring anything like it for 12 years or longer.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zombafyed 10 years ago

I thought the long hanging scene was very effective, but that's just this guy's opinion. It made you sit there longer than you wanted and while Solomon had to deal with standing on his tip toes for dear life for hours upon hours, the viewer had to be right there with him (for a couple minutes at least)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

McQueen is a dry and tasteless director, who thinks too highly of himself.

Training the camera on an unmoving object for 10 minutes is something a film school student would do to garner attention for himself. I guess it worked for McQueen enough to slither his way to an Oscar. Garbage move making. It's like the worst of Bertolucci and Antonioni but sanitized for a 21st century audience. Predictable without subtlety.

Compare this to a movie like 'The Pianist'. That film was made with passion, emotion, and understanding of the human condition. By comparison, 12 Years a Slave is dull as dishwater. McQueen is just a businessman who uses art to feed his ego.

~ I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech.

[–] DeadandBuried81 10 years ago

I rarely post to defend movies. I think the OP is way off on this. I thought the film was fine but certain shots made it excellent.

The entire one take whipping scene of the young girl with the soap was done far above normal cinema standards. The brutal long take hanging scene that went of for a few minutes was unlike anything I have ever scene in American Movies and the Somber one shot of Platt's face after he wrote the letter was pure acting power. I hate to say this but if you guys missed those shots and what the actors and director was trying to say, you missed it.

www.thecultofhorror.blogspot.com

[–] dekadance 10 years ago

Totally agree and more- I also feel that the drama is washed away by the way the movie was put together. Screenplay, directing generally- could have been much better. Or maybe is just the directing that failed? Not sure. This is an excellent story with so much potential but somehow, in the end, I feel, the movie fails to touch in the way it should, considering the emotional "load" if I may. I mean this is a horrific history and the movie depicts one of the most horrific episodes in that history. However, when you watch it it doesn't feel that way, it didn't really touch me..
I hope it makes sense.

[–] raimorio 9 years ago

I thought that the pacing and the lenght of the scenes were pitch perfect. The script, acting etc was brilliant but for me the very thing that most people here detest was where I went "steven mcqueen is a god". The lenght of every single scene was just as long as the emotion being depicted in it, at points I became scared of his capability of timing everything so perfectly, I thought "How can somebody do this?". In my view the lenght of the scenes makes the intensity of everything happening so much more intense, it brings power to the emotions. For example in the hanging scene, I think someone already mentioned it, that if you imagine yourself there and the situation just goes forward, it becomes so much more horrible and that is exactly how it would've been in real life.

Everything in this movie is a perfect depiction of real life and the lenght and intensity of each scene supports it. If it had been done in the usual hollywood cutting method everything would have lost meaning. I can't come up with any other reason for people not "getting it" except impatience. I mean seriously, imagine if your child was crying, how long would the situation last? Children might cry for half an hour straight, if you love them, would you become impatient? No, the longer the situation lasted, the stronger the feeling and intensity of the situation, atleast for me (If they were crying out of something meaningful, lets say bullying in school). And that is exactly what happens in this movie, it doesn't let you escape the moment, because that is not life. To have such level of intensity in an emotion, such vastness and depth, it must last. In no other movie have I experienced this at such levels.

Have you ever been in a situation where everything went to *beep* and then you just had to be there anyways, imagine for example a violent situation, the adrenaline is pumpin', but you have to be there because otherwise it would go even worse. Imagine for example a bank robbery situation, you run, you die, you stay put and you might live, but the intensity is insane and it stays insane for hours. HOW could you depict that very emotion realistically without letting the scene last?

I have had a traumatic life and I have been in that situation dozens of times and I'm telling you this is the only movie I have ever seen that gets it right. It requires balls to do something like this, but it also means that the guy who did it has a greater view to life. I can imagine someone else doing it and getting it completely wrong, long scenes in themselves are not a sure way to victory, but with the precision this guy has in timing and pacing, the natural capacity he has in depicting emotion, it becomes a masterpiece in the art of directing.

[–] JacintoCupboard 9 years ago

I agree with the OP regarding the editing. Imo it serves no sensible narrative purpose to flick back and forth and is imbecilic.

I don't think it damages the movie too much tho. The story is sufficiently powerful to overcome this sort of indulgence.

[–] alborz_emrani 9 years ago

it is really true. it was good but not good enough. it could be better with a little bit more effort. the only grat things about the production were acting and screenplay.

[–] TravisLikesSmoothJazz 8 years ago

You seem to realize why those moments were there. I for one thought that those moments enhanced the drama.

I am an *beep* but my friends compensate for that.