12 Years a Slave

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for violence/cruelty, some nudity and brief sexuality
Profanity: Constant use of racial epithets, sexual references
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking and drunkenness
Violence/ Scariness: Intense and disturbing violence including rape, murder, whipping, and abuse, disturbing and graphic images
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: October 18, 2013
Date Released to DVD: March 3, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN: B00G4Q3NDA

12-years-a-slave-2Watching “12 Years a Slave” is a shattering experience. It shatters any remaining illusions of gracious, chivalrous, Southern plantation life in the pre-Civil War era.  They were based on the late 19th century myth-making from the children of slave-owners in a toxic effort to disguise the reality that the South was fighting to preserve a system of virulent racism fueled by the economics of plantation life. It shatters cherished notions of the first principles underlying the founding of this country.  The man who wrote the revolutionary words that “all men are created equal” was a part of this atrocity. It shatters all previous depictions of slavery.  By comparison they seem cartoonish and fraudulent, from “Gone With the Wind” to “Django Unchained,” more about the time they were made than the time they depicted. And, like all great films, it shatters our previous notions of what was possible on screen, with performances so vivid and compelling they seem to break through every boundary, between us and them, between then and now, between actor and audience. In one audacious moment, Solomon Northrup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free man sold into slavery, looks into the distance, eyes filled with ineffable suffering and loss, and then turns to face us, looking into the eyes of those who are looking at him, bringing us further into his world.

This is different because it is a rare story of pre-Civil War South told from a black person’s point of view. It is based on Northrup’s book, written after he returned to his family.  It is the story of slavery from a man who experienced it, and who knew what it was like to live as a black man who was not just free but better educated and more successful than most people of any race in his community. In that sense, it is a story told from inside the system of our country’s greatest shame.  In another sense, it is presented by outsiders, director Steve McQueen (British) and stars Ejiofor (the British son of Nigerian immigrants) and Lupita Nyong’o (born in Mexico, raised in Kenya, educated in the US).  They tell us Northrup’s story — and ours — without being tied to the way we prefer to tell ourselves what our history is and means.

Northrup is a successful musician, happily married with two adored children and respected by both white and black members of his community in New York State.  He accepts a job playing with some circus performers (Scoot McNairy and “SNL’s” Taran Killem) in Washington, D.C., where slavery is legal.  They drug him and sell him to a slave dealer (Paul Giamatti).  Without his papers, he cannot prove he is a free man.  Soon he is renamed Pratt and transported to Louisiana, where he is sold first to a comparatively benevolent man (Benedict Cumberbatch), but then, when he gets into a fight with the overseer (an oily Paul Dano), he is re-sold to a brutal man who prides himself on being an n-word-breaker (Michael Fassbender).  Northrup loses more than his family, his liberty, his name, and his freedom.  He loses his very self; he is told early on that if the white people know he can read and write, it will create more trouble for him.  Indeed, when he tries to be helpful by suggesting a better system for transporting the crop, he earns the gratitude of his master but incurs the jealousy of the white boss.  The only way to survive is to pretend to be the sub-human the owners need them to be to continue to hold onto their bigotry.

This movie makes clear the poisonous, psychotic twisted mind that can accept or even justify the idea that one person can buy and sell another.  Over and over, we see the slaveholders at the same time acknowledging and denying the humanity of the people they think they own.  A female slave sobs because her children have been sold and she will never see them again.  The woman of the plantation, briefly sympathetic, says, “Poor woman.”  But then, immediately after, “Your children will soon be forgotten.”  Slaves are included in family worship services (though not seated with the family).  But their souls are never acknowledged; they are categorized as livestock.

There are terrible beatings.  There is torture and rape.  Slave children run and play, laughing, ignoring the man who is almost choking to death as punishment. There are property identification chains slaves must wear if they go off the property, like something between a hall pass and a dog tag.  There is a slave who has made her peace with what she has done to get better treatment — and with what she now does to other slaves.

Instead of the lush orchestral score usually underlying period films or the melancholy flute and drum usually heard in Civil War films, Hans Zimmer has created spare, edgy music that is bleak without being maudlin.  McQueen’s approach is sure and direct and the script by John Ridley is ably structured and thoughtful.  Nyong’o’s gives performance of exquisite grace and heart-wrenching dignity.  But the center of the story is Northrup.  Ejiofor is sure to get an Oscar nomination for a performance of unparalleled depth and eloquence.

Parents should know that this film includes very graphic and disturbing images of slavery, with rape, murder, and abuse, brutal whipping and atrocities, nudity, sexual references and situations, constant racial epithets, drinking and drunkenness.

Family discussion: What was the significance of the early scene in Mr. Parker’s store?  How does this story differ from other movie depictions of the pre-Civil War South?  Why did Northrup join in the singing of “Roll, Jordan, Roll?”

If you like this, try: book by Solomon Northrup, “Amistad,” American Experience: The Abolitionists, and Roots

Related Tags:

 

Based on a book Based on a true story Drama DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Epic/Historical

The Fifth Estate

Posted on October 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some violence
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: Some violence including murder of two people and footage of military killings
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: October 18, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN: B00BEIYRYM

the-fifth-estateIn late medieval times, when people first began to divide each other into groups defined by status and power, they began to speak of a “first estate” (the clergy), a “second estate” (the nobility, which also at the time meant the government), and a “third estate” (the common people.  Later, the “fourth estate” was added to describe journalists and what today we call news media.  Julian Assange, the Australian teenage hacker turned founder of Wikileaks is singular, unprecedented, gui generis.  He collects masses of “secret” data and publishes it without editing, digesting, analysing, or redacting any of it.  And so, this movie, with Benedict Cumberbatch as the white-haired Assange, is called “The Fifth Estate.”

This movie, from director Bill Condon (“Kinsey,” “Dreamgirls”), and based on a book by Assange’s now-estranged former partner Daniel Berg (played in the film by “Rush’s” Daniel Brühl) at times feels as though it is un-digested and un-analyzed.  As a government official forced to resign due to some of the disclosures says near the end of the film, “I don’t know which of us history’s going to judge more harshly.”  I would advise anyone interested in Wikileaks to begin with the documentary, “We Steal Secrets: The Wikileaks Story,” directed by Alex Gibney.

Assange says that he has two goals for what he calls “a whole new form of social justice.”  He says he wants transparency for institutions and privacy for individuals.  The problem, or, at least, one problem is that institutions are made up of individuals.  And so, when one of Wikileaks’ early scoops is a list of British members of the far right “National Party,” it does not bother him that the members’ contact information is disclosed.  Assange is an absolutist.  He refuses to edit or redact (remove identifying information from) any of the documents he publishes.  “Editing reflects bias,” he says.  He is also something of a monomaniac and a megalomaniac, at least in the view of his one-time colleague.  According to this film, he grew up in an odd Australian cult called “The Family,” with severe beatings, and has been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.  He is very protective of his own privacy as he exposes the secrets of others.  And, as they say, just because you’re paranoid does not mean they’re not really out to get you.  Once Assange starts exposing the secrets of the wealthy and powerful, they start coming after him, and the thing about being wealthy and powerful is that they have the resources to inflict a lot of harm.  Two of his sources are murdered.

Condon does his best to minimize the scenes of people staring intently into monitors while they bang on the keyboards.  He has some nice visualizations to evoke the experiences, some fantastic, some just the rocky topography of Iceland, one of many places Assange hid.  And he takes a balanced approach.  Everyone would agree with some of what Assange has uncovered.  And everyone would object — even be horrified — by something he has done.  Both sides quote Orwell.  Big Brother is watching.  Like “The Social Network,” the movie focuses on the rise and fall of the friendship and partnership more than the impact of the product they were working on.  In this case, that is in part because we don’t know what that impact will be.  But in this case, we do know that the impact is transformational.  This is not some Facebook advertiser using an algorithm on your status posts to figure out what to sell you.  This is a 22-year-old destroying the confidentiality that allows candid conversations between diplomats, including information about the foreign nationals who are giving them information.

Assange explains early in this film that the program he has developed to protect the identity of the providers of leaked documents is to drown them in false and phony data.  He can say that editing reflects bias, but in the case of terabytes of information dumped in undigested and unredacted form, the data dump can be just as distorting.  Like the journalists Assange worked with on the Bradley Manning material, this film tries to put some shape and perspective on a story that is still too big and too new to frame as a definitive narrative.  But it is an absorbing story and as good an assessment as we can get for now.

Parents should know that this film has very strong language, violence including shooting and wartime scenes with some disturbing images.

Family discussion:  What is the answer to the State Department official’s question about whose side history will be on?  Who should decide what gets released?  If Wikileaks makes other organizations accountable, who makes Wikileaks accountable?  Do you agree with the two things Assange says you need to have to succeed?

If you like this, try: the documentary “We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks,” read up on the most recent leaker, Edward Snowden, and take a look at the Wikileaks page

Related Tags:

 

Based on a true story Drama Movies -- format Politics

Captain Phillips

Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sustained intense sequences of menace, some violence with bloody images, and for substance use
Profanity: Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drugs
Violence/ Scariness: Intense, graphic, and disturbing violence including threats, torture, and guns
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: October 11, 2013
Date Released to DVD: January 21, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN: B008JFUNKU

captain phillipsMemorable movie villains tend to fall into two categories: volatile and violent or sociopathic and megalomaniac. Both kinds are caricatures, sketched in exaggerated terms to justify our feeling of triumph when the hero prevails. But in “Captain Phillips,” the true story of a US merchant ship taken over by Somali pirates, the villain is far more real and far more terrifying. Somali native Barkhad Abdi stars as Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, the leader of a group of four teenagers sent to hijack ships for ransom money by elders in their village. Muse is the scariest of villains, someone with no other options and nothing to lose. Abdi’s performance in his first acting role is stunning, terrifying, and heartbreaking.

An awkward opening scene shows Captain Phillips (Tom Hanks) is at home in Vermont, preparing for his trip and driving to the airport with his wife (Catherine Keener), with some clunky, exposition-heavy dialog intended to foreshadow upcoming unrest.  Once he gets to the boat, called the Maersk Alabama, director Paul Greengrass locks into the taut, intimate style he showed in “United 93” and two Bourne movies.  The ship has a crew of 20.  They have been warned about the possibility of pirates and have had some training in how to respond.  Phillips orders a surprise drill to make them practice their defensive tactics.  But this is not a military ship. They are carrying 17 metric tons of cargo.  Their primary tactics are diversion and their primary weapons are their firehoses.

At first, the firehoses work.  But then the Somalis get close enough to the ship to attach their ladder and climb aboard.  “I’m the captain now,” says Muse.  His lack of affect is chilling.

Director Paul Greengrass has an intimate, documentary style that keeps even those who remember the details of the real story on edge.  The pirates search the ship, looking for the crew like a nightmare game of sardines.  Phillips leads them around, genial and cooperative on the surface, but always thinking about how to impede them without making them angry.  When their boat is destroyed, they take one of the lifeboats, more like a capsule than a ship, and they take Phillips as hostage.  For four grueling days, Phillips has to try to keep calm and do what he can to help the US Navy, which is assembling its response.  Hanks goes deeper than he ever has before, ultimately reaching a place of wrenching vulnerability.

After a shaky start, Greengrass and his talented cast make this into more than a story of courage and resilience.  While he clearly has a point of view and never pretends that the pirates are justified, he allows us to understand their desperate circumstances.

Parents should know that this is the true story of a pirate attack on a US ship, featuring intense and disturbing scenes of threats, torture, and violence with some graphic images and dramatic emotional breakdown.

Family discussion:  What was Captain Phillips’ most difficult decision?  What was the most difficult decision for the US military in responding to the pirates? Do you disagree with any of their actions?

If you like this, try: “United 93,” another true story from the same director and Captain Phillips’ book, A Captain’s Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea

Related Tags:

 

Based on a true story Drama DVD/Blu-Ray Pick of the Week Thriller

Romeo & Juliet

Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is the most-filmed play of all time, with dozens of versions and variations from the sublime (the Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann versions, “West Side Story” and “Shakespeare in Love”) to the outlandish (the cute Gnomeo and Juliet, the robot short “Runaway Robots! Romie-O and Julie-8”) and the downright ridiculous (Norma Scherer and Leslie Howard were in twice the age of the characters they were playing).  The story of the “star-cross’d lovers” has immediate appeal — impetuous teenagers, disapproving parents, missed messages, and swordfights.  All it needs to succeed is leads with a lot of chemistry and the ability to adapt to the rhythms of iambic pentameter and the glorious language of the greatest writer in the history of English.  This movie fails on all three.  The leads have no chemistry with each other or with the glorious poetry of the dialog.  And “Downton Abbey’s” Julian Fellowes has mangled the adaptation, changing some of the lines and scenes.  It is not a terrible movie, but it is not an especially good one and with so many better alternatives it is an unnecessary one.

It begins with a useless added scene in which the Prince (Stellan Skarsgård) holds a tournament to settle once and for all the dispute between the feuding Montagues and Capulets.  It doesn’t work.  Soon a fight breaks out between the servants of the two houses that are “alike in dignity” (the play’s first scene) and the Prince is furious.  If they cannot keep the peace, there will be trouble.  Romeo (Douglas Booth), a Montague, is in love with a Capulet cousin named Rosaline.  When he finds out that the Capulets are having a masked party and Rosaline will be there, he and his friends attend the party so Romeo can see her.

Romeo-and-Julliet-romeo-and-juliet-2013-34909054-500-333But Romeo sees the Capulet daughter, Juliet (“True Grit’s” Hailee Steinfeld), and they are instantly struck by love.  In the play, their perfect unity is demonstrated by their first conversation, witty flirtation in the form of an exquisite sonnet.  It is one of the best-loved pieces of writing in history.  Yet this version mangles it by ramping up the intensity of the attraction right from the beginning so there is no sense of build-up.  More important, the utter lack of chemistry between the very pretty but bland Booth and the game but not up to the task Steinfeld makes us long for Bella and Edward or even Bella and Jacob.

There are some strong performances, unfortunately just making the two main characters look worse by comparison.  Lesley Manville (“Topsy Turvy”) give the nurse a warmth that is often lost in the usual caricatured portrayals.  Natascha McElhone is a sympathetic Lady Capulet and Paul Giamatti is superb as Friar Laurence.  The standout, though, is Christian Cooke as Mercurtio, whose energy is much missed once he is out of the picture.

Most appallingly, Fellowes has decided to make the text more “accessible” with some trims and edits to the language.  The slight gains in “accessibility” are overwhelmed by the loss of the music in the words and the poetry of the rhythm.  I bite my thumb at him.

Parents should know that this movie includes Shakespearean sword-fighting with many characters injured and killed, sexual references and non-explicit situations, and suicides.

Family discussion:  Did the novice make the right decision?  Why couldn’t Romeo and Juliet tell their parents the truth?

If you like this, try: the other versions by Baz Luhrmann and Franco Zeffirelli and adaptations like “West Side Story” and “Warm Bodies,” a zombie romance where the characters are named R and Julie)

 

Related Tags:

 

Based on a play Classic Date movie Drama Remake Romance Stories about Teens Tragedy

A.C.O.D.

Posted on October 4, 2013 at 7:30 am

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and brief sexual content
Profanity: Very strong language, some crude
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, drug references
Violence/ Scariness: Tense family confrontations, some shoving, fire
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: October 4, 2013

AdamScottCOPortraits2013SundanceFilmMmjP6NGACVblAre today’s 20-and 30-somethings the least-parented generation in history, as a character explains in this film? To quote Rosie O’Donnell in “Sleepless in Seattle” about another depressing statistic, “It’s not true, but it feels true.” While the generation that came of age in the 1970’s and early 80’s were self-actualizing and consciousness-raising and yuppifying, their children were being raised by adults who were too often acting like, well, children.

Adam Scott (“Parks and Recreation,” “Party Down”) produced and stars in “A.C.O.D.,” which stands for “Adult Children of Divorce.” It’s an apt oxymoron. Scott plays Carter, who is very much the adult in his relationship with his long-divorced but still-warring parents and with his younger brother, Trey (Clark Duke). He is also the adult in his professional life, as the owner of a trendy restaurant. But that has a considerable advantage, he points out. “It may be like a family, but I could fire the ones I don’t like.”

Trey’s engagement creates some immediate problems. He and his fiancée Kieko (Valerie Tian) have only known each other four months.  Trey cannot support himself; he is living in Carter’s garage.  But those are minor concerns compared to the “9 year marriage turned into a 100-years war” — their parents, Hugh (Richard Jenkins) and Melissa (Catherine O’Hara).  Trey wants them to come to his wedding and be civil to one another.  Even though both have re-married (Hugh twice), their toxic mutual hostility is still the most powerful and all-consuming force in their lives.

Carter, himself allergic to marriage due to the childhood trauma of his parents’ divorce (and their self-absorption, bitterness, manipulation, and use of him as a go-between and subject of endless custody disputes), knows that Trey’s plans are unrealistic.  But he can’t help being captivated, even a little wistful and the optimism and certainty of the couple.  And he knows it is in part because he has worked so hard to protect Trey from the worst of his parents’ battles.

The stress of negotiating with his parents is so unsettling, Carter seeks help from a woman he saw after his parents split up (Jane Lynch).  She is glad to see him again, but informs him that she was not his therapist.  She was interviewing him for a book about the impact of divorce on children.  And it became an international best-seller.  This puts him even deeper into a tailspin, as he reads the book for the first time and discovers what his middle-school turmoil looked like to an observer.  “Am I living in a shell of insecurity and approval-seeking?”  It is even more disconcerting that the book is a best-seller (“Fourteen printings and Margot Kidder did the audio book.”)

Meanwhile, his efforts to get his parents to be civil to one another has had some very disturbing repercussions.  And Carter’s sympathetic and supportive girlfriend of four years (the magnificent Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may not put any pressure on him, but she does point out that it would be nice to have a key to his apartment.

The storyline may be weak in spots, but the spectacular cast (Scott’s “Parks and Recreations” co-star Amy Poehler plays Hugh’s third wife) makes the most of the sharp dialogue and depictions of world-class boundary issues.  A credit-sequence coda with the movie’s real-life crew discussing their own A.C.O.D. issues is, like the film itself, sobering but still a reminder that ultimately, no matter how dysfunctional our origins, we get to decide who we want to be.

Parents should know that this film includes explicit sexual references and brief situations, rear nudity, very strong language, drinking, smoking, and drug references.

Family discussion: Why was Carter unhappy about the way he was portrayed in the book? How did he try to be different from his parents?

If you like this, try: “It’s Complicated” and “The Baxter”

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Drama Family Issues Independent Movies -- format Romance
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik