12 Years a Slave on DVD

My interest in the Oscar nominees has grown over the past few years. I believe I watched nearly all the Best Picture nominees from last year. This year, however, I wasn't so excited about the options. There were only a couple I was really interested in seeing, and even then, I'm taking my time to get around to them.

I just watched 12 Years a Slave, and I'm not sure I can say that I liked it. It was certainly well-done and deserving of its Best Picture award. My husband did some research and found it was mostly pretty accurate, horrifically enough. I wasn't necessarily surprised by what I saw, being familiar with some of the details of slavery, but it was pretty amazing (and not in a good way, as Brad Pitt's character says) that it all happened to one man. It's based on the true story of Solomon Northup, an educated, free black man who was kidnapped and enslaved in the mid-1800's. He wrote a memoir about his experiences, and the movie is based on that.

I can't say I like the movie because, well...it's brutal stuff, vividly depicted in a visual medium. It's rated R for obvious reasons, among which are violence, nudity (not sexual), and some sex scenes (they are not too graphic, but they are disturbing). Just because something is hard to watch doesn't mean you shouldn't, but each person must take into account what they can handle. In some ways, I'm glad I've seen this movie, but at the same time, I don't think it was necessary. I'm not changed because of it. It disturbed me but didn't impact me. I'm not sure I would really recommend it to anyone. I keep wondering what the purpose of this movie was. Is our culture still so racist that we need this reminder? Will anyone who is racist actually see this movie, and if they do, will it change them? Slavery is awful. What was done shouldn't have been done. But I wonder if we dwell on the past too much when the present has enough injustices of its own. The past is "safe." What's that saying: "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"? It's easy to say "I'm sorry" for something that's over. It's harder to stand up for our beliefs and put them into practice right now.

I'm not saying it's the movie industry's job to speak out on modern-day issues (though I'm sure they could certainly figure out a way to do so to great effect, as can be seen with the way they've pushed gay rights). It's not the movie industry's job to fight injustice, but if that was not the purpose of this movie, what was? Surely not entertainment. Perhaps it was to acknowledge an astounding true tale. I can accept that. But if we as a culture are trying to fight injustice, we need to start in the present with the sex trade or abortion, for example. It seems to me that we applaud recognition of our past failures (if I recognize it, I must be better), but we, myself included, merely gasp in horror at the news feed and then silently move on.

In addition to the movie's murky agenda, I didn't think all the nudity was tactfully depicted. You can get the sense of nudity from a person's back. Even bum shots (we all look the same from the back) are better than full frontal nudity which, to warn you, this movie contains. I didn't see the point of it.

One thing, neither bad nor good, that I thought was interesting in the cinematography is that the scenes are long. They are much longer than in most movies, long to the point of being uncomfortable, which I think was the point (and which makes me think there was some moral agenda behind this movie). The beatings are horrifically long. At one point, the main character hangs from his neck, his feet barely touching the ground, for an extended time, not just in terms of hours the man actually hung there in the story but in terms of seconds on the screen. The creators of this movie took time to tell the story well and to make the viewer pay attention. It is only a little over 2 hours long (134 minutes). In terms of how much suffering you can handle, it might feel long, but it is not too long in the sense that it was dragged out.

The music, by Hans Zimmer, is also very dramatic at times, more in keeping with something from Inception (which he also did) than with a period piece, but similarly to the purpose of the longer scenes, I think the purpose was to arouse a sense of foreboding in the viewer.

The acting is superb. Chiwetel Ejiofor (whom I previously knew as the villain from Serenity) is Solomon. And of course, Lupita Nyong'o won Best Actress for her role as Patsey. Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt, among other known actors, make small appearances. And the despicable (and way insane) slaver villain is played by Michael Fassbender.

I obviously have mixed feelings about this movie. While I agree that it has all the makings of an Oscar winner and deserves what it got, I don't think it's for the masses. Honestly, I'm not sure whom it's for. Obviously, not someone like me. The critics out there might call me racist or too prudish, but I can only give my opinion, regardless of how people may misconstrue it. I may be the last one to see this, but if you were considering it still, hopefully my review can help you make a better-educated decision about whether or not to see it.

The Silence of the Lambs

I just watched The Silence of the Lambs for the first time. I think it could now rightly be called a classic as it celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. An interesting fact I was not aware of is that this movie is based on the novel by Thomas Harris.

I would never watch Hannibal or the Saw movies, and I mistakenly lumped this movie in with those for a long time. Some time ago, a friend detailed for me the basic plot, since I told her I wouldn't be watching it, and since then, I've actually been interested. I was told it was more suspense than horror, and while there are horrific R-rated elements in it, this statement is true.

The Silence of the Lambs is about getting into the head of a serial killer...or him getting into yours. Clarice Starling is an FBI student who has been recruited to interrogate one-time psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter in his cell, where he has resided the past 8 years. There are strict rules about seeing him. Don't go near the glass. Don't accept anything from him. Don't give him anything but soft paper, not stapled together. And don't tell him anything personal. But from the beginning, Lecter controls his conversations with Clarice, and when he offers to help her capture another serial killer, she begins to play a dangerous game with him.

There are still elements you will want to be cautious about seeing in this film. Those include flayed skin, images of the naked backsides of murdered women, the brutal beating and murder of two security guards (perhaps the most gruesome and graphic part of the movie, though the worst is done off-camera), and a man dressed in a naked women's skin (which caught me off-guard but wasn't quite as disturbing as it sounds). There's also bad language, including the F-word, but it's used infrequently.

I do not recommend this movie unless you are interested in psychology and behavioral science or you are a student of film. I give it three stars for being well-crafted. It probably deserves more, but my moral objections stop me there. This movie interested me, and I do not regret watching it, though there are images that may take awhile to fade from memory.

The King's Speech on DVD (2011)

The King's Speech is one R-rated movie that is well worth seeing. It's rated R only for language, and although the F-word is used, it is not upsetting, and if there ever were a time to use it, the way it is used in this movie is one of those times.

Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter star in this true-to-life tale of King George VI, the father of the current Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain. Known as Bertie to his family, Prince Albert later chose the name George to be his royal name and carry on the legacy of his own father. At the beginning of The King's Speech, Bertie is not yet king, and in fact, his older brother is in line to be king before him. The problem is, that brother loves a divorced woman, an American, and he cannot be king and marry her. His brother abdicates for love, but Bertie is not considered a much better choice since he cannot speak publicly. He can barely speak to his own children without a stutter. He's hired physicians, but they have not helped, counseling him even to smoke to relax his lungs. Then his wife (played by Carter) finds a speech therapist (Rush) with unconventional but proven methods, and after some persuasion, Bertie goes to see him.

The rest of the story details the efforts they go through to help him speak in public, leading through his coronation and up to an all important speech to the country as they enter war against the Germans. It's mesmerizing and beautiful, even with all the cursing, which somehow only makes it feel real, rather than dirty. Colin Firth does an amazing job as the king, his frustration so palpable and heart-wrenching, and Helena Bonham Carter is perfect and believable in her counter-stereotype role as his loving, supportive wife. Most of all, the movie presents a moving tale of the friendship of two men, one a king and one not even a proper doctor but a man who believed in a king.

This movie deserves its title for Best Picture of 2010, and I highly recommend it.