Slavery in America is traced back to 1619 in colonial America when the first group of the African slaves were ferried to Jamestown, Virginia. It later formed part of the pain of the African American people for more than 250 years. Slavery later became a legitimate institution in America hence creating a huge demand to bring in and sell Africans in the American markets. Initially, Africans were brought in as indentured servants but later had their ranks altered into chattel slaves in 1640. The primary duties of the slaves included working in sugar, indigo, rice, and tobacco plantations of the whites. During the period, they were prohibited from learning to read and write, and they were mixed up, so that differences in origin and language stopped them from reorganizing to overthrow their masters (Moroney 255-257). Rebellion and demeanor of any such kind caused brutal punishment until the 1830s when movements led by people like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe sprung up to fight against slavery. Slavery was eventually entirely abolished in 1865 by the 13th Amendment.
12 Years a Slave is a movie written by John Ridley and directed by Steve McQueen and gives an account of Solomon Northup, an African American freeman who was captured in 1841 in the streets of Washington and sold as a slave. It is one of the American movies which unearths the underlying truths of slavery in America away from the many lies often acted in most American films. The story starts with Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) whom at the time is a slave and cutting sugar canes on a white man’s plantation (Doherty 357-360). A flashback appears, and one sees the earlier life of Solomon who once lived in Washington with his wife and children as a trained violinist. He takes a job as a violinist from two white men to play the violin in a circus. A little later, the trio is having a good time in Washington, filling their plates with food and sipping wine. It appears Solomon has forfeited humanity when he gets up the following morning in shackles and realizes that he has been sold. The events that follow see him being rotated from one master to the other in subsequent periods.
It is a despairing route and a story that captures one almost instantaneously with a mechanical force. However, the director, McQueen makes the story flow effectively that makes one baffled over Solomon as he jumps from one auctioneer to another in the plantations, hence making one battle with the powerful emotions and ideas that the movie drags out (Doherty 357-360). In an appealing yet pragmatic approach, McQueen cuts a balance to hold back the audience on the seat while at the same time bringing out the story of Solomon to represent the entire lot which is subjugated alongside the past and present America. In all ways, shapes, and forms, the story ardently following one person. Unlike the many enslaved persons whose stories are told often, the actual Northup was born into freedom as captured in his memoirs “Narrative of Solomon Northup, a Citizen of New-York, Kidnapped in Washington City in 1841, and Rescued in 1853, From a Cotton Plantation Near the Red River, in Louisiana.” That distinguished him a first-person observer because even at the period he served as a slave in a physical, psychological, and emotional manner he remains intellectually and culturally learned which he can articulate his story splendidly. While in the North he had little privileges enjoyed by the whites and despite not voting, he dared to take a walk with his family. Nevertheless, he remained a black man in colonial America.
The movie has some strengths and weaknesses as portrayed both by the actors and the film director McQueen. Firstly, the most standing out strength of the movie is that it does not come with a distinguished agenda but rather faults the usual in many Oscar inducement films like the Lincoln by condemning the accurate picture of slavery as it was. The real image of brutality and oppression are manifested in a manner that is utterly terrifying. The movie is neither sentimental nor does it portray an extremely unattractive picture as believed in the public court. Although there is occasional lynching and severe lashes, they are not orchestrated to provoke the emotions of the audience, they are to bring out the true story of what slaves went through in the past. Secondly, the film was acted by Chiwetel Ejiofor’s superb recitals and presentations. One can say that anything commendable about the movie can be attributed to his depiction of Solomon Northup. Through his actions, one realizes the pain of a crushing soul and much worse is that one recognizes how Ejiofor attempts to accept the feeling of slavery. The humility of Solomon Northup is seemingly one of the most disturbing elements in the movie, but when one sees the challenges he must turn against, then probably one would realize why he was limited of choices. The portrayal of Michael Fassbender develops another strength of the movie as the demon-possessed slave owner Edwin Epps. Edwin Epps depicts a man of pure evil because he has such unbridled rage and emotional disorder that one fears to face him in the eye to avoid being his partner in hell. In such a role, Fassbender demonstrates and stumps why he deserves the accolades as an outstanding actor by portraying such abhorrent character with great charisma and finesse (Doherty 357-360). Fourthly, another strength is manifested by Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey. In her depictions, Lupita is able to bring out the plights of a slave fully. She demonstrates a candid innocence in her attitude, which gives an underlying despondency too challenging to renounce (Gates, Henry & Steve 185-196).
On the other hand, the director, Steve McQueen embraces a representational tone in his direction of the movie. For instance, there is little or no glamour at all to this approach, and somehow even the first brightness of the Hollywood movie appears to have been gotten rid of during the post production of such disturbing material. That aside, there are some outstanding steady cam-shots that the director occasionally uses, evidently to show the plantations where the slaves are deployed (Gates, Henry & Steve 185-196). Accordingly, Sean Bobbitt’s photography is both wealthy and sad. Desolately, it turns out that 12 Years a Slave’s main strength is at the same time its chief weakness.
Moreover, by lack of the primary agenda, it, in a nutshell, lacks the main agenda to bring out. It has nothing new to offer in the ongoing discussions over slavery and racism. And that forms its main hindrance to becoming the “Schindler’s List” of this decade. Unlike the attributes of Schindler List, it lacks the directorial techniques, outstanding narratives, or even stylistic cues that make it unique (Fuller 19). One argues that it is the actors that make the film what it is and while the director makes attempts to give it light, it is disturbing that he made little efforts to employ the amazing cast he was given.
Thirdly, one can say that “Django Unchained” gives more insight into slavery than “12 Years a Slave does”. The movie Django Unchained charismatically handled different kinds of racial dynamics that appeared as a result of slavery, and it was a captivating evaluation of the various archetypes or the stereotypes of blacks. However, 12 Years a Slave did not make such orchestrations but somewhat touched them hurriedly like Solomon realizing the differences between someone who makes a living and the other one who survives (Fuller 19).
Slaves underwent many different kinds of hostilities and harsh conditions propagated by the white masters with poor pay. The treatment was universal in many parts of America especially in the Southern states along the sugar, cotton, and rice plantations. In return, the pay was little or none at all. Such hostilities were advanced by the colonial masters aided by laws typically defined to frustrate their progress (Paine 269).
For instance, the slaves’ children were considered both by the society and the masters as treasured commodities of monetary value for the future. They were future assets with their status. Then it would appear that such products of the immense importance would be highly protected for the future, but in reality that was not the case (Moroney 255-257). Their living standards were poor and they were subjected to the brutality of the masters and their parents being used to their limits. Accounts given by the child slaves who later grew up into parent slaves vary from one another as they were not subjected to the same treatment and environment (Paine 269). Some slaves argued that they served continuously in every stage of life in slavery, while others said that playing formed an integral part of their lives in childhood, before they were later subjected to harsh terms. Some were then sold to other masters while others were retained depending on their usefulness.
Clothing accorded to slave children were very rudimentary and basic and were often smock-like garment used by either gender. Clothing of useless and less productive slaves and their children was never a priority and as a result, seeing them naked in the plantations was usual and never shocking or strange in any way. The masters hardly replaced clothes that were torn or lost in the process (Patterson 454-456). Upon a job entry in the plantations, boys were usually given pants and a shirt while ladies, on the other hand, were given a dress. Shoes were not of priority and slaves who made attempts to have some were usually the homemade type. At some points, children and slaves who worked for top class masters tended to dress sophisticatedly in comparison to their counterparts serving middle-class masters. One can say those slave owners never prioritized the wellness of the slaves under their watch rather than minding their comfort (Patterson 454-456).
At the same time, the sales and threats of slaves of the slave children were much prevalent in the settlers and slave camps. Despite many counties making laws to abolish the sales of slave children below the age of ten away from the comfort of their blood families, the sales of such children alongside their mothers were common. It was common especially when the master passed on and the slaves had to be dispersed among the remaining family members (Moroney 255-257). In many parts of the 15th and 16th Centuries, children to be sold as slaves were placed on auction blocks naked, covered in expensive oil/perfume, and had the prospective masters check their bodies for any abnormalities and defects — no slave whether child or adult had the surety of staying with one master over time and may continuously be sold without prior information.
Some of the laws that propagated slavery and many other harsh conditions were as follows: firstly, in the 1880s and 1890s a deep-seated political movement of laborers and few farmers, the populists arose from the Midwest and the South. It appeared that the blacks, most of whom were tenant farmers, and a few white farmers from the North would fight against a common enemy composed of the vast landowners and previous Confederate soldiers from the South, who were imprisoned or abandoned the land. At its pick, the freedman posed a serious potential threat to the main political parties of the time and had a chance to thwart interests of the dominant political groups as African Americans were beginning to have a political voice (Moroney 255-257). However, the President at the time tore apart the long awaited dream among previous slaves by pardoning confederate troops and even returning their land.
In conclusion, the entire 19th Century and early years of the twentieth century, most of the employers employed racial minorities to thwart strikes during industrial unrests. Such schemes weakened to the abilities of the existing unions to collectively fight against the common enemies (Moroney 255-257). It further led to resentment of the blacks by the majority of whites. African Americans of the early centuries were exposed to harsh terms far beyond the borders of humanity. As other critiques argue, the exactness and effects of slavery were so severe that they could never be documented or acted.