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.