Twelve Years a Slave
I recently completed the novel Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup, as well as viewed the 2014 Oscar winning film of the same name. The following review will contain spoilers of both the novel and the film.
There are times when the film adaptation represents its inspiration exceptionally well. Such is the case with The Fault in Our Stars, which will be my next review. However, more often than not when given the choice in experiencing a story, reading the book tends to be more gratifying than watching the film. Twelve Years a Slave the film has many great qualities. The acting is superb. The cinematography is beautiful. Unfortunately, some of the choices made in telling Northup's story are utter garbage. I'm unsure whether the fault lies with the screenwriter or the director here. There are certainly moments very true to the novel, and having a background in film myself, I absolutely understand the need for changes here and there for creative reasons or just to keep the story moving along. That being said, some of the changes and omissions to Northup's story made it nearly impossible for the viewer to get invested in our lead character and to understand fully his struggle.
Within the first few minutes of the film, we get a peek into Northup's life, complete with a scene between he and a female slave where she grabs his hand and then “satiisfies” herself. While this practice may have happened, we never again see this female slave to understand their relationship or even who she is. The moment is completely irrelevant to the story and a waste of time that could have been better spent on some of the facts left out of the story. For example, in the novel, Northup was able to sneak a letter off the slave ship when it docked in New Orleans. That is how he was able to have such hope and speak to his fellow slaves of surviving at all costs. He had hope that his letter made it to his family and they may be able to come to his rescue despite not knowing his final destination. Including this information would have helped the audience understand where some of his hope came from and get them more invested in his story. Will his friends back home come to his rescue? Did his family ever receive this letter? That's how it works. My husband did not read the book, but did watch the film with me and told me about halfway through when we had to pause for a moment that he couldn't be less interested in what was going on. We know slavery is bad. We learned of some of the horrors in school, and have seen some of those images in other movies. But there was nothing intriguing about this particular story at all, at least not the way the film portrayed it.
Also in the opening scenes of the film, we get a caption telling us the current year. Sadly, this does not continue throughout, though it should have. Doing so could have indicated to the audience that it took Northup many years to secure a piece of paper. It was 9 years before he had an opportunity to get a letter out since his arrival in New Orleans. It was another 3 years after that before his next attempt, and following that it took 6 months for him to be rescued. Why is this important? It gives the audience a clue as to how his patience was tested and the agony he must have gone through especially during his 6 month wait for rescue following his letters being sent. The title is Twelve Years a Slave, and the film ran them all together, so you didn't get a clear understanding of the passage of time. This would have also invested the viewer.
Let's get to some of the omissions, shall we? As previously mentioned, we see no evidence of the first letter Northup got off following his time on the slave ship and its docking at New Orleans. Next, in the film, after Northup is rescued from Tibbiets' failed attempt to lynch him, he is immediately transferred from Master Ford to Edwin Epps. While these events do occur, there is quite a bit missing between the first episode with Tibbiets over the whip, and Northup's transfer to Epps. We entirely skip his time with Ford's son-in-law. The only real thing of note here is that the scripture reading that we hear Epps give to his new slaves was actually given by Ford's son-in-law. More importantly, we also skip a second incident between Northup and Tibbiets and Northup's 3 day journey into the swamp following that incident. Tibbiets comes at Northup with an ax, and a struggle ensues. Following this second beating, Tibbiets leaves to get back up just as he did following the whip incident. When he returns, Northup has no choice but to run because neither Ford or his overseer are present to rescue him this time. Northup takes to the swamp and must swim into deep snake and alligator infested waters to avoid the dogs hot on his trail. We don't see any of this action in the film. We also do not see that not only did Epps get his slaves up in the night to dance for him when he was “happy drunk”, we don't see him randomly beating them when he comes home “angry drunk”. We also have no idea who Uncle Abram is when he randomly drops dead in the field (which doesn't happen in the book).
You want drama? It's right there in the pages. You just have to figure out how to incorporate the important bits while keeping the film at a reasonable length. Why isn't any of this included? We include gratuitous nudity/sexual exploits in the opening credits, a rape scene between Epps and Patsey that is never depicted in the novel, conversations with Eliza that are not documented in the book, a conversation with Ford that was even further from happening, and a shot of Northup in the field that is held for much longer than necessary. The rape scene between Epps and Patsey probably did actually happen. It was common for slave owners to rape their female slaves. We know this. It would also justify Mrs. Epps hatred of Patsey. The only problem is, this isn't Patsey's story. Eliza and Northup may have had conversations during their time together on the Ford plantation, but Northup never mentions a scene as shown in the film where she calls him by his proper name risking exposing his true identity and subjecting him to punishment. The conversation between Northup and Ford following the incident with Tibbiets is absurd. Northup makes it clear in the book that he was very cautious not to speak a word of his true identity and freedom to anyone especially to his masters because of the beating he was sure he would receive just like he did when he was first taken. Even if he suspected that Ford may have had an idea of his story, he didn't dare say a word. Throwing that fear out the window and tempting fate makes him look desperate, and he while he may have been, he was too smart to expose himself in that way.
The biggest problem with the film is that it fails to generate interest in the lead character. We want to know his story and his struggle. How is his story different from the other slave stories we know? Well, he gets rescued, but we need to go beyond that. We need to want him to be rescued. His thought process is explained in the novel, naturally, and all it would have taken to explain this in the film is a voice-over. You can cover a lot of ground with a voice-over, while making the story a bit more personal if the voice-over is the lead character's point of view. The film fails to do this either. Northup was much more intelligent than he's given credit for in the film as well. When he attempts to get his first letter out from the plantation, he already had it written and in his pocket when he approached Armsby to mail it for him. The fact that he told him he'd have it ready in 2 days tells us he is obviously testing Armsby. They don't portray the scene that way in the film. They also fail to emphasize the importance of his fiddle playing, and how that not only saved his sanity during his enslavement, but also earned him extra money so that he could buy additional food and the like to make his time on the farm slightly more bearable. It is when we understand how important the violin is that we can comprehend that him destroying it signals his loss of hope. Again, a simple voice-over segment here could explain this.
The take away here is, I highly suggest you read the novel-especially if you saw the film. It is Northup's personal memoir of what happened before, during, and after his enslavement. His accounts were fact checked by his editor, as seen in the editor's foreword to the novel, and the appendices following disclose the letters written to secure Northup's rescue. It is only in knowing and understanding the details of his story can you truly appreciate his struggle, and the heinousness of the crimes committed against him. The fact that the film received so much acclaim doesn't surprise me. All it does is reinforce the fact that politics are alive and well even in the arts. You can't possibly let a movie about slavery lose Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Only a racist would do that. I wonder if anyone that voted actually took the time to read the novel from which it was based, especially when judging the Best Adapted Screenplay catagory. It is a true injustice that Northup's story was told so poorly when he gave all the information needed, and in great detail to give an accurate portrayal, yet we recognized this half-assed attempt to recount his days in captivity as award-worthy. What is most tragic is it is unlikely that many of those who saw the film will ever take the time to read and fully understand the true story of Solomon Northup's Twelve Years a Slave.