12 Years a Slave, Fidelity, Pt. 1 (Final Blog Post)

By this point it has almost become trite to refer to director Steve McQueen’s Best Picture-winning 12 Years a Slave as a ‘controversial’ or ‘polarizing’ work; McQueen’s use of unflinching—at times painful—realism is one of the film’s most enduring, eye-opening qualities, while also being the film’s (arguably) greatest lightning rod of contention.

One consequence of being a Best Picture-winning film, it almost goes without saying that 12 Years a Slave has been a massive critical success (Out of Africa or Dances With Wolves warrant those italics, among others). Its formidable aggregate score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes would seem to support that notion. The small minority of critics who wrote against the film commonly criticized McQueen’s work as safe, while criticizing certain aspects of the film’s desired ‘aesthetic purity’ (despite its grisly subject matter).

The majority of critics writing for the film have praised such aspects as the performances of the principle cast, the visceral and unrelenting sense of realism, lush cinematography, and purported fidelity to Solomon Northup’s story. While I may not agree with the premise that fidelity should be utilized as an evaluative criterion, examining the fidelity of 12 Years a Slave—in relation to its source novel—is a telling way to identify where artistic license has been taken by McQueen and company, while allowing audiences and critics to speculate as to the rationale behind such changes.

Lupita Nyong'o won universal acclaim--and numerous accolades--for her debut film role.

          
Familiarity with Solomon Northup’s memoir is certainly not a prerequisite for viewing (or appreciating) 12 Years a Slave, and yet, knowledge of the original story provides a great deal of historical and narrative context. This understanding also succeeds in highlighting instances of dramatic license taken by McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley, which often stand in stark contrast to what is suggested or portrayed in Northup’s memoir.

One of these moments occurs early in the film as we witness a recently enslaved Solomon pleasuring a slave woman he discovers in bed with him. This occurrence is never mentioned or alluded to in Northup’s memoir, and is an entirely fictitious creation of McQueen and Ridley. 

 

Solomon Northup's unexpected sexual encounter.   Another instance of narrative license transpires shortly after Solomon is kidnapped and placed on a Louisiana-bound steamer, when a sailor threatens to rape a slave woman and a male slave intervenes. The sailor immediately kills him without hesitation; a decision questioned by many, as slaves were obviously considered valuable pieces of property, and the sailor is not the owner.

 

Solomon Northup and his co-conspirators en route to New Orleans. One final example of notable artistic license was observed through McQueen and Ridley’s portrayal of Solomon’s first owner, William Ford (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). In his memoir, Northup paints Ford as benevolent man who is simply blinded by both his circumstances and upbringing, saying, “There was never a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford.” This glowing characterization found in Northup’s memoir is drastically altered in the film adaptation, which portrays Ford as something of a hypocrite. This portrayal certainly seems to contradict Northup’s memory of Ford, of whom Northup wrote: “Were all men such as he, slavery would be deprived of more than half its bitterness.”

12 Years a Slave, Fidelity, Pt. 2 (Final Blog Post)

When examining the fidelity of Steve McQueen’s Academy Award-winning 12 Years a Slave, the majority of consideration is ostensibly reserved for (and limited to) specific scenes or instances appearing in the film, and how accurately they are transposed from Solomon Northup’s memoir (and subsequently represented onscreen).

Interestingly enough, one of the most notable departures McQueen’s adaptation makes from its source is not illustrated through a single scene or occurrence, but rather, the portrayal of one of the novels more notable characters, slave owner William Ford.

Portrayed onscreen by Benedict Cumberbatch, William Prince Ford was an antebellum farmer, preacher and slave owner residing in pre-Civil War Louisiana. Ford is best remembered today for his depiction in Twelve Years a Slave as Solomon Northup’s first master, having acquired him in New Orleans following his (Northup’s) kidnapping from Washington DC in 1841.

Benedict Cumberbatch as William Ford.

Despite the obvious disinclination to view William Ford—or any antebellum slave owner—in a positive light through a 21^st century lens, Northup’s memoir paints Ford as an unquestionably benevolent man who is simply blinded by both his cultural circumstances and upbringing. According to Northup, “There was never a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford.”

In fact, Northup’s view of Ford—and the institution of slavery in general—appears surprisingly lenient by today’s standards (and Northup’s circumstances at the time). “It is not the fault of the slaveholder that he is cruel, so much as it is the fault of the system under which he lives. He cannot withstand the influence of habit and associations that surround him. Taught from earliest childhood, by all that he sees and hears, that the rod is for the slave's back, he will not be apt to change his opinions in maturer years,” Northup said.

The resulting portrayal of Ford in McQueen’s adaptation represents one of the most notable divergences in fidelity from the novel. The aforementioned glowing, almost commendatory characterization of Ford found in Northup’s memoir is drastically altered in the film, which not only glosses over the purported benevolent and compassionate aspects of Ford’s personality, but actually depicts him as something of a hypocrite (we see Ford giving Sermon to his slaves in a raised voice over the agonizing screams of his slave Eliza).

William Ford preaches to his slaves (over screams).

Although only McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley will ever know the reasons behind the somewhat drastic alteration of Ford’s character, critics and fans are free to speculate. From a narrative standpoint, it stands to reason that the revisions to Ford’s character were made to strike a greater contrast between Ford and Northup’s second owner, the boorish, ill-tempered Edwin Epps. This decision also casts an uncomfortable light on the institution of Christianity as a whole during this period. By placing two Christian slave-owners on opposite ends of the moral spectrum, McQueen appears to be commenting on the perceived failure of Christianity to recognize—and rectify—the inhumanity of slavery, despite the ‘nobility’ or Christian-nature of the most benevolent slave owners.

Unsurprisingly, this divergence in fidelity has proven to be one of the most controversial and discussed changes of McQueen’s adaptation. In fact, following the release of 12 Years a Slave, descendants of William Ford spoke out in his defense, claiming the film unfairly paints him as a tyrant. Ford’s 77-year-old great-great-grandson (also named William Ford) spoke in his favor, “By all accounts, my great-great-grandfather treated his slaves well and did his best for them. He was born at a particular time in history when slavery was accepted throughout the South. It wasn’t illegal. That doesn’t make it right or moral by today’s standards but back then it wasn’t an ethical issue. Northup saw him as a kindly person. He was a highly moral man.”

Also worth noting is Cumberbatch’s view/interpretation of Ford’s character, which he attempted to objectively appraise during promotional interviews for the film. “It’s horrendous, he knows he’s feeding the Christian to the lion, and it tortures his soul, but he still does it. That’s it, that’s the demarcation; that however good a man Ford is, he’s not truly good. He can’t be.” Cumberbatch went on to address Solomon’s sympathetic memory of Ford, but stated that despite the circumstances of the time or his upbringing, he was personally unable to objectively consider Ford a ‘good’ man.

Being aware of Cumberbatch’s personal interpretation of Ford’s character raises an interesting question: was the decision a conscious choice by McQueen and Ridley to oppose Northup’s fond depiction of Ford in his memoir, or is the Ford we see onscreen Cumberbatch’s honest appraisal of Ford’s character as represented in the text? This question provides a noteworthy alternative perspective to the decision, as it seems Cumberbatch’s personal interpretation of the character closely coincides with the version of Ford we see in the film, as opposed to Northup’s memoir.

12 Years a Slave, Fidelity, Pt. 3 (Final Blog Post)

Another divergence in fidelity frequently discussed among critics occurs following Northup’s initial kidnapping, aboard a steamship bound for Louisiana. A lecherous sailor enters the hold and attempts to rape a slave woman, causing a male slave to intervene. The sailor kills him without a second thought, an inclusion that seems unlikely, as slaves were obviously valuable property, and the sailor had no claim to him. 

This dubious addition—in the novel, Solomon’s co-conspirator on the boat dies of tuberculosis—raised numerous questions regarding the scene’s fidelity, even amongst critics unfamiliar with the novel, simply due to its historical improbability.

It seems plausible that this alteration was made in an attempt to heighten the drama of Northup’s voyage, as death by tuberculosis isn’t necessarily explosive or shocking. But Noah Berlatsky of The Atlantic raised a possibility I hadn’t considered; it is noted that after being stricken with tuberculosis himself, Northup’s face was noticeably scarred for the remainder of his life. Berlatsky speculated that this alteration was made so that Ejiofor’s “beautiful, expressive, haunting features” would not go through the remainder of the film covered in scar make-up. Personally, I think the real answer is a combination of both theories.

One of McQueen’s most discussed—and controversial—departures from fidelity occurs early in the film, via flash-forward, as we witness the recently kidnapped Solomon Northup engage in an unexpected sexual encounter with an unknown slave woman (played by Vivian Fleming-Alvarez). The discomfort is almost tangible during this painful sexual episode, in which the woman uses Northup’s hand to bring herself to climax. The pain and confusion are intelligibly emoted by the expression on Northup’s face, and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performance in this scene—and the film as a whole—brilliantly conveys the fear and incertitude inherent to a slave’s existence (particularly one who was, in reality, a free man).

Despite her marginal role, Vivian Fleming-Alvarez also does a fine job illustrating the collective confusion and despondence of the situation. The audience clearly sees her desperation, and it is significant to note that once the sexual act is complete, she immediately turns away with tears in her eyes. It serves as a painful reminder that slavery was truly a horrifying existence, and what little solace could be found was ephemeral (at best). Coupled with Northup’s pronounced reserve, the hopelessness conveyed by Fleming-Alvarez contributes to a scene meant to demonstrate the fierce dehumanization of slavery.

As is the case with the majority of the film, this scene is depicted with unflinching realism. The camera refuses to move or sway, forcing the audience to absorb the scene as it unfolds. An analogous example can be found in the scene where Northup is nearly hanged, and remains in the noose with his feet barely supporting him. Both scenes make use of an unmoving camera, and long shot lengths that almost beg for a cut (to a new shot).

Regarding the inclusion of this scene, McQueen said: “I just wanted a bit of tenderness—the idea of this woman reaching out for sexual healing in a way, to quote Marvin Gaye. She takes control of her own body. Then after she’s climaxed, she’s back where she was. She’s back in hell, and that’s when she turns and cries.”

I personally found this addition somewhat counterintuitive to the portrayal of Solomon, as it raises potential questions regarding his character (this is not Solomon resigning to his fate as a slave, that comes later when he reluctantly joins the slave song) and seemingly undermines his unrelenting, singular desire to return home to his wife and children.

Despite the powerful sense of psychological realism evoked through the inclusion of this scene, the encounter is entirely fictitious. It should be noted that during the era in which Northup’s memoir was published, the inclusion of any idea remotely suggesting infidelity on his part—true or false—would have torpedoed Northup’s credibility as a narrator, and raised significant questions regarding the accuracy of his entire story. So while it remains possible that Northup was unfaithful to his wife at some point, there is nothing in his memoir—or anywhere else—to suggest this. 

The issue of credibility was especially important given the nature of Northup’s biography. In his book From Behind the Veil, Robert Stepto distinguishes Northup’s memoir from other slave narratives of the era as “integrated” and “sophisticated” by comparison, not building a narrative around prefaces, letters, and other documents, but by following a “unified single text and voice.” This meant the reliability of Northup’s account was of the utmost importance if his narrative was to be given any credence, because his is the only voice we hear. Thomas Doherty identified the primary purpose of the slave narrative: “to rebuke the institution of slavery and the racist ideology that sustained it.” Northup’s credibility had to be resolute to achieve this purpose through an integrated narrative. 

It is interesting to note that while this scene is touched upon in numerous reviews, it seems to have been a more substantial point of friction among critics familiar with Northup’s memoir. While I am a firm believer that fidelity is an overused criterion for evaluation, in this case I understand the contention. I am a staunch supporter of films that attempt to distinguish themselves from their source, but not at the potential cost of the protagonist’s character. 

It is difficult to dispute the impact of this scene in presenting a nuanced look at the desperate conditions inherent to slavery. The scene successfully lends itself to McQueen’s unrelenting sense of realism, but remains controversial in that it demonstrates psychological depth and turmoil by constructing a potentially character-defining event that didn’t actually occur. 

Works Cited 

 

Berlatsky, Noah. “How 12 Years a Slave Gets History Right: By Getting It Wrong.” The Atlantic (2013). Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Doherty, Thomas. “Bringing The Slave Narrative To Screen: Steve McQueen and John Ridley’s Searing Depiction of America’s Peculiar Institution.” Cineaste 39.1 (2013): 4-8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

Raitt, George. “Still Lusting After Fidelity?.” Literature Film Quarterly 38.1 (2010): 47-58. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Stepto, Robert B. From Behind the Veil: A Study of Afro-American Narrative. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979.

Thomson, David.  “What Do We Expect Of A Best Picture?.”  New Republic 244.23 (2014):  64-66. Academic Search Premier.  Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

Weiner, Jonah. “The Liberation of Steve McQueen.” Rolling Stone 1202 (2014): 44-47. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Williams, Chad L. “Solomon Northup’s Odyssey.” Humanities 35.1 (2014): 16-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.

12 Years a Slave--Fidelity in the portrayal of William Ford

When examining the fidelity of Steve McQueen’s Academy Award-winning 12 Years a Slave, the majority of consideration is ostensibly reserved for (and limited to) specific scenes or instances appearing in the film, and how accurately they are transposed from Solomon Northup’s memoir (and subsequently represented onscreen).

Interestingly enough, one of the most notable departures McQueen’s adaptation makes from its source is not illustrated through a single scene or occurrence, but rather, the portrayal of one of the novels more notable characters, slave owner William Ford.

Portrayed onscreen by Benedict Cumberbatch, William Prince Ford was an antebellum farmer, preacher and slave owner residing in pre-Civil War Louisiana. Ford is best remembered today for his depiction in Twelve Years a Slave as Solomon Northup’s first master, having acquired him in New Orleans following his (Northup’s) kidnapping from Washington DC in 1841.

Benedict Cumberbatch as William Ford

Despite the obvious disinclination to view William Ford—or any antebellum slave owner—in a positive light through a 21^st century lens, Northup’s memoir paints Ford as an unquestionably benevolent man who is simply blinded by both his cultural circumstances and upbringing. According to Northup, “There was never a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford.”

The resulting portrayal of Ford in McQueen’s adaptation represents one of the most notable divergences in fidelity from the original source. The aforementioned glowing, almost commendatory characterization of Ford found in Northup’s memoir is drastically altered in the film, which not only glosses over the purported benevolent and compassionate aspects of Ford’s personality, but actually depicts him as something of a hypocrite (we see Ford giving Sermon to his slaves in a raised voice over the agonizing screams of his slave Eliza).

William Ford preaches to his slaves (over screams)

Although only McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley will ever know the real reasons behind the somewhat drastic alteration of Ford’s character, critics and fans are free to speculate. From a narrative standpoint, it stands to reason that the revisions to Ford’s character were made to strike a greater contrast between Ford and Northup’s second owner, the boorish, ill-tempered Edwin Epps. This decision also casts an uncomfortable light on the institution of Christianity as a whole during this period. By placing two Christian slave-owners on opposite ends of the moral spectrum, McQueen appears to be commenting on the perceived failure of Christianity to recognize—and rectify—the inhumanity of slavery, despite the ‘nobility’ or Christian-nature of the most benevolent slave owners.

Unsurprisingly, this notable divergence in fidelity has proven to be one of the most controversial and discussed changes of McQueen’s adaptation. In fact, following the release of 12 Years a Slave, descendants of William Ford spoke out in his defense, claiming the film unfairly paints him as a tyrant. Ford’s 77-year-old great-great-grandson (also named William Ford) spoke in his favor, “By all accounts, my great-great-grandfather treated his slaves well and did his best for them. He was born at a particular time in history when slavery was accepted throughout the South. It wasn’t illegal. That doesn’t make it right or moral by today’s standards but back then it wasn’t an ethical issue. Northup saw him as a kindly person. He was a highly moral man.”

Also worth noting is Cumberbatch’s view/interpretation of Ford’s character, which he attempted to objectively appraise during promotional interviews for the film. “It’s horrendous, he knows he’s feeding the Christian to the lion, and it tortures his soul, but he still does it. That’s it, that’s the demarcation; that however good a man Ford is, he’s not truly good. He can’t be.” Cumberbatch went on to address Solomon’s sympathetic memory of Ford, but stated that despite the circumstances of the time or his upbringing, he was personally unable to objectively consider Ford a ‘good’ man.

Being aware of Cumberbatch’s interpretation and approach to Ford’s character provides an interesting alternative perspective, which raises the question of how much influence Cumberbatch had on the decision to alter Ford’s portrayal in the film. Personally, I feel this uncertainty makes the revision that much more compelling; was the decision a conscious choice by McQueen and Ridley to oppose Northup’s fond depiction of Ford found in his memoir, or is the Ford we see onscreen Cumberbatch’s honest appraisal of Ford’s character as represented in the text?