The very brief history of slavery in cinema
Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 10:30PM 
Tim here. Barring the unexpected end of civilization between now and January, 12 Years a Slave is going to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, and has the clearest shot of anything right now to taking the win altogether. Everyone reading this site knows that as sure as we know anything, which makes it a little shocking when you step back a bit and realise that, as of the day I write this, the film still hasn’t technically been released yet. So I guess we can add “general audiences thinking it sucks” to the list of reasons that it might crash and burn, though I think the end of humanity is at least as likely.
This will be the second time in two Oscar cycles that a film about slavery in the United States will be competing for the big prize. 2012 had Quentin Tarantino’s ultra-violent pastiche Django Unchained of course, and two more diametrically opposed films on the same topic can hardly be imagined: a white American making a hugely irreverent piss-take of the whole edifice vs. a black Brit with his excoriating historical drama. [more]
In the last 11 months, we’ve had essentially the whole gamut of slavery on film embodied in just two movies. And that’s not only true because of the wide stylistic and tonal gulf between the two, but because they represent very nearly the entirety of films that have ever directly and primarily addressed the Peculiar Institution. Which is kind of dumbfounding.
Maybe I’m the only one who thinks this is really weird, given how thoroughly every other aspect American history has been strip-minded by prestige filmmakers. But I doubt it. It has, at any rate, gotten me to thinking about two different questions: why have films about slavery been, historically, so rare? And why is there a sudden rush to fill that gap now?
There’s probably not a single answer, but the partial suggestions I have don’t entirely reflect well on my country. The question of now, I’m somewhat reluctant to suggest, might very well be because now, and not any earlier, is that we have President Barack Obama in the White House, the first African-American to lead the country. Perhaps this makes it “safe” to talk about slavery now, though 12 Years a Slave is certainly not “safe” in the way of the premature “racism is dead!” rhetoric that white progressives had a certain tendency to trot out right after the 2008 elections. Perhaps it’s the exact opposite: having a non-white president has, in fact, raised the profile of the country’s dubious racial history, and the time is right to actively and openly confront the sins of the past.
Both of those suggestions point back somewhat to the first question, I think. Frankly put, white people – and the commanding majority of American filmmakers are and have been white – are generally disposed to avoid discussing slavery, out of a squeamishness about saying the wrong thing, or simply out of deep-seated guilt. Grappling with uncomfortable crimes of the past isn’t something that comes naturally to the national psyche, and there’s no crime more obvious and daunting than this one.
But surely that can’t be the only reason? The treatment of Native Americans was every bit as immoral as the slave trade, and there have been, if not “many”, at least a good number of high-profile films openly attempting to confront the violence meted out on those peoples by the same 19th Century whites whose actions back east have remained such an ultimate cinematic taboo.
Whatever the case, it’s certainly a good thing that this apparent shift is finally happening. Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave may or may not be definitive statements on the slave trade, but we don’t want anything definitive right now. Just the fact that suddenly, filmmakers are willing to explore this sorry period of history is rewarding enough, and whatever feelings one might have about the movies in question, they’re doing it with stylistic brio that makes these more than glum-faced history lessons. They’re raising a conversation that badly needs to happen, and the conceptual issues of why not before, however fascinating they are to contemplate, aren’t as important as the fact that it is finally happening now.
Reader Comments (25)
Considering that Django Unchained is not about slavery, and 12 Years a Slave was made mainly by Brits, you have to look back to films like The Legend of Nigger Charley, Mandingo, Amistad, Beloved and The Birth of a Nation to find American films to some degree about the peculiar institution. And most of them are problematic to say the least.
There are more American films about the Holocaust because the US is one of the heroes in that story. If there have been more films about the genocide and disenfranchisement of Native Americans than about slavery, I'd say it's because the descendants of the victims of the former are more invisible, i.e., less in the foreground of the American mainstream, than American Americans, making the guilt and discomfort less acute.
Problematic or not, Amistad is definitely a good example of something. I can't believe I forgot about it.
Amistad is second only to Always in "Most Forgotten Spielberg Films"
The Jewish community established Hollywood and there are no negative images of them anywhere from the golden era cannon. However every other group has negative depictions enough to devote documentaries to.
White people aren't interested in depicting their ancestors as real life villains they so easily paint all of Germany in WWII movies. Honestly I don't care to see more movies about slavery since every white person complains about the lack of human complexity from the characters who are doing all the oppressing. I bet in real life if these people were a victim of a crime they wouldn't care about the motives of the criminal who violated them. The criminals humanity is an irrelevancy in the face of their actions against you. But in movies everyone is suppose to have layers for the unforgivable acts they perpetrate on others.
(Typo: American Americans = African Americans in my comment, in case that wasn't clear.)
Tim, what exactly do you consider "problematic" about Amistad? Not trying to start an argument but genuinely curious. Is it the "white politicians saving the day" aspect of it? Or something else?
Incidentally, I feel like Amistad and Lincoln would make an interesting Spielberg double feature about trying to accomplish moral good through imperfect and morally neutral institutions.
Paul -- i'm confused to hear that Django Unchained is not about slavery. BUT I'm glad that 12 Years a Slave is here and people are suddenly seeing Django more clearly as something less than, say, 'awesome' -- the reception of that movie made me so crazy.
Tim, your discussion reminds me very much of some material I read on the history of Colonial Williamsburg, one of the best living history museums in the world. I may be getting some of the details wrong, but basically in the 1970s, the site made a decision to start depicting slavery in its programming (this is the sort of museum where costumed interpreters play out roles and try and create an 'authentic' experience for visitors). Up until the 1970s, slavery had not been part of the site's interpretive program. So visitors would walk through the site and all of a sudden, would come across a slave auction where screaming children were torn apart from their parents. The impact was so traumatic for the audience that some of the visitors apparently went up to the black actors and apologized for their family's involvement in slavery in the 18th century. It was obviously very effective, but as might be expected, the number of people visiting the site dropped. So the directors of the site had to choose between two unpalatable options:
- drop the slavery portion of the programming, and thus write African Americans out of Virginia's history?
- continue showing the brutality of slavery, remain honest to historical accuracy, and drive the audience away?
I would pose these two choices to students in my class (I am a Canadian who has taught American history in Canada at the college/university level), and ask them to pick. Inevitably, we would end up in a circular discussion that went nowhere. I suspect that filmmakers might face the same issue with regard to slavery. How the hell do you depict slavery accurately in a film without making it two hours of rape and brutality?
I'm sure that some filmmakers have successfully struck that balance, but what a daunting challenge it must be. I'm not surprised that few filmmakers have taken the challenge, and few studios have been wildly enthusiastic about financing such projects. Couple that with the fact that the southern states has managed to create a false narrative that the Civil War really wasn't about slavery at all, and that the Confederacy was a noble venture of benevolent gentlemen standing up for their rights. There are layers upon layers of historical amnesia and false historical memory clouding the process.
Lest I sound too smugly Canadian, I would say that my own country has its own profound blind spot that its people are generally unwilling to discuss: the treatment of its aboriginal population, in particular the issue of residential schools. Nations are built on collective historical experience and social memory, but they are also built on collective amnesia.
Django Unchained is to 12 Years a Slave what Inglorious Basterds is to Schindler's List, so let's not go there. Different films serve different purposes. Taking Tarantino as a commentator on history rather than a lover of classic B movies is to misunderstand his films. (Also, we think these are coming out because Obama is in office? Really?)
I must admit, I mentioned 12 Years a Slave to a friend of mine and had in my head that there were many films on the topic. I was wrong. When she asked for an example, the TV show Roots was the best thing I had. (I need to check out Amistad apparently.) Considering the constant Academy obsession with Holocaust films, it's crazy that slavery hasn't been a central focus for more Academy films. Perhaps it's easier when the villains are far-removed Nazis.
I doubt audiences will think this film sucks, but it's likely that they'll think it's too hard to handle. Box office may be tough on this one. It's not like The Butler or The Help which soften the edges. All the more reason the Academy may stand behind it though, and I'm guessing BP will either be this or American Hustle.
Nat, Django is about Quentin Tarantino, with Antebellum America as the backdrop.
eurocheese: re Obama. I can see why a direct causality between his being elected and a supposed "rise" in the number of films dealing with African-American experiences would seem far-fetched but I just watching the interview McQueen did with Tavis Smiley where he was asked this exact question and he brought up something really interesting. He basically said that seeing Obama in the highest position in the US lends an authority to the these stories - it allows creators to be confident in starting on stories of black (usually masculine) experience because if it's worthy of the highest office in the US political firmament, then maybe it's worth telling in cinematic form. Kara Walker has talked about this before too - how before she starts on an art project - she has to take time in the studio doing nothing but allowing herself to just claim the space, the right to make art. I also have this quote from Junot Diaz about the same sort of thing re. lack of representation:
"We still have to be taught to look and to tell our stories. For many of us that's something that we have to stumble our way through. Despite the utter absence of us, it's still an internal revolution to say "wait a minute, we are not only worthy of great art but the source of great art"."
So I get that it might sound like a a tenuous link but I don't think you can discount how much of a personal impact and impetus it could have to African-American/black diasporic writers and artists and directors, however vague it might be.
Tim, I really like that you state that 12YAS isn't a definitive statement about slavery. I saw someone describe it as definitive on twitter and was frustrated because it's comments like that which preemptively shuts down the discussion that films like this can start. It encourages people to think they "know" about slavery now, rather than examining it further! I mean, I almost want to say we should have more films on slavery from all these differing perspective except I don't want the only kind of black narratives on-screen to be slave narratives. We need to normalise black (and other POC) presences in all narratives first, obviously.
Whatever else is the case - and even I'll admit, the Obama link if more of a "maybe?" gesture than anything more profound - but since 2009, the representation of race issues in America has definitely gone through a shift. The Butler is a boringly obvious example, but when was the last time a movie on such specifically African-American (even, arguably anti-white) themes released to such surprisingly huge box-office? The fact that we're still in this moment of history makes it nearly impossible to make broad statements about what's going on, is my suspicion.
@Michael: I'd call Amistad "problematic" in that unlike most of Spielberg mostly in that it seems so uncertain whose story it wants to be telling (McConaughey's? Hounsou's?), and there's a little of that "white people save the inarticulate Africans" thing going on. Also, compared to a lot of his other Serious Dramas, it's got a lot more of his characteristic sentimentalism and romanticized imagery - neither of which I tend to hold against him - and I'm just not sure it works here.
Tim -- "The Help". And yes it is about Barack Obama... or rather not about him but either catalyzed by his rise or he is a sort of avatar himself <I>of this long delayed movement in film & television (see also Scandal, no matter what you think of the show) to suddenly be more reflective of our nation's actual population. Which is most decidedly multi-racial. Now all we need is more race-blind casting that recognizes that Asians and Hispanics exist and maybe in another 20 years we can think about the dumb "racism is dead" thing.
This is an interesting topic, of whether or not Obama has influenced them but with SCANDAL I'll say definitely NOT influenced in any significant degree by Obama. Shonda Rhimes, for any faults she may have as a creator, has always hinged her dramas on significant amounts of multi-racial casting and in the way that SCANDAL stars a black female lead is not indicative of the Obama era but just Rhimes own artistic focus (like on GREY'S ANATOMY where the main characters are Asian, Latina, Black, White, gay and straight).
I'd have to agree that DJANGO UNCHAINED is, indeed, not really a film about race as much as its considered to be any significant consideration on race, and if Tarantino did mean for it to be I'd be sincerely surprised. There's that one line in DJANGO which always simultaneously bugged me but revealed its point to me when Foxx talks about "that one black man in ten thousand" and that's basically DJANGO a specific man who happens to be part of a tortured history, but it's not really about that history. I don't think.
Andrew -- except the focal point of Grey's Anatomy was a white woman with her white hunky boyfriend(s) and the rest were "supporting". Scandal is the first tv drama in, what , 30 years i believe they've said with a black female lead. I think it's definitely part of the current movement
Whenever I think of slavery on film I think of "Gone with the Wind", how Scarlet O'Hara's response to very muted claims of the horrors of slavery is "Oh we never treated our slaves like that" and Mamie's angry glare at young black men dancing in the street after emancipation. I also think about that when people criticize films like "The Help" or "Driving Miss Daisy" as regressive or irresponsible while giving GwtW a free pass on its "slavery wasn't all that bad" representation. Isn't any representation, even flawed black-suffering-through-white-perspective narratives better than that.
jjsdiner -- agreed. But i do think Gwtw is interesting in this regard because of Mamie -- that glare you mentioned. So many people of ANY minority adopt the normative values of the society they're in and therefore actively root against themselves. It's a strange thing about human nature and conformity and just shows you how powerful "the norm" and consensus is.
Going against everything around you is so tough and the people who do it are rare and brave. Which is why i often have had such a hard time with those feel good epics which telll you about a battle long since won. I liked The Help and think it gets a needlessly bad rap but it's a good example of this problem. Take what Alison Janney did vs. how Emma Stone reacts. People watch films like that and they always flatter themselves into thinking that they'd do what Stone did (and the films encourage them to flatter themselves) but in reality most people are more like Janney's character and don't have the strength to stand alone on principal.
but where were we. oh yes slavery. rich topic for film and underexplored as Tim is saying. This is making me want to finally see BELOVED which I've never seen no matter what the film's rap is. (The book is a masterpiece of course)
You never bothered to watch Beloved. What delayed you from taking the plunge prior to?
3rtful -- it was before i had a website so i saw what i wanted to see and not what i might end up being expected to write about. and the reviews weren't kind.
It's fascinating that Fleischer's notorious potboiler Mandingo, for all its lurid exploitation, is often called one of the most honest illustrations of slavery on the screen, or at least up until recent times.The movie is certainly direct in its language and themes. And no movie I've seen shows the unspeakable horrors of humans treated like property so unflinchingly as this. The acting and directing are flat, bringing awkward camp and unintentional farce to the narrative. But Fleischer really pushes the brutality on the audience, and it's impossible not to be affected emotionally. This ain't Tara.
Come to think of it Beloved and The Help are sort of mirrors of each other. Both are well dressed adaptations of popular novels (novels I enjoyed far less than others) with wonderful, mostly female ensembles and mixed-bag results that have been met with undue derision; but in the matter of tone Beloved tries to be as staid and prestigious as The Helps tries to be heartening and folksy.
Side-note: There's a scene in Beloved with the great Beah Richards preaching in a field that took my breath away. The image of her, arms outstretched surrounded by the glorious green of nature has stuck with me like few have.
Second side-note: Tak Fujimoto has never received the praise he deserves.
Everyone made good points on Obama, but I guess for me it's chicken and egg - society has been moving slowly towards equality, and some of what they show even in The Help or The Butler is shocking now. It seems like a completely different world. Obviously the world and even Hollywood still aren't equal (ask Viola Davis' limited prospects), but the number of African-American winners since 2000 was a higher number than the rest of Oscar history combined, IIRC. Obama being elected is symbolic, but it's because changing attitudes were already making an impact nationwide. (Wasn't it just a decade before him that Colin Powell said he wouldn't run because he knew his life would be in danger? Things are slowly changing.)
Regardless, here's hoping we get more diverse stories. Here's hoping that Oscar starts rewarding diverse stories in categories across the board, too. Maybe then "message movies" - which, to be fair, are rarely frontrunners these days - can just be ignored because stories with 3D characters are so much more interesting.
BELOVED is worth seeing for the actresses alone, not just Oprah but Lisa Gay Hamilton, Beah Richards, and the amazing Kimberly Elise (who should get more work). It's not a perfect film, but it 's stayed with me. It's really a horror movie, but was marketed to Oprah's audience as an inspirational story of a woman overcoming adversity. I think that dissonance explains why so many people hated it. They weren't expecting it to be so brutal. (Given the subject matter, how could it NOT be brutal?)
I saw it with a friend who hated it because he couldn't accept the depiction of slavery-- the rape, the violence. He essentially said slavery was not that bad. We weren't friends much longer after that.
I saw 12 Years a Slave today and the earliest scene of violence involving Lupita Nyong'o's character continues to repeat in my mind as the most upsetting moment. And considering what happens to her character latter in the film that is a shocking feat.
Sal, the civil war was about states rights. The right to be a free state or a slave state was the catalyst, but it was states rights first. Some of the most devastated parts of the US were areas with little or no slavery and in those areas, slavery was almost never the component that caused neighbor to kill neighbor, relative to turn on relative.
I can forgive Scarlett for her rose colored view of slavery. She probably felt she was telling the truth as that was the truth she knew. Also Mammy and her glowering. Mammy would have lived a far more comfortable (outside of not being able to leave her position) than most poor white trash and she would have been very aware of that. This "freedom" threatened her. Mitchell didn't write a story of the civil war. She wrote a story about a woman who happened to live during that time and Scarlett's lack of awareness outside her own selfishness is central.
I'm not apologizing for slavery, it was a heinous system. But we can't decide any one story is definitive when every individual has their own definition of the story and experience. I'm glad to see the subject explored from so many different viewpoints. We can't make an informed decision of the topic without both Scarlett (and the Help) and Mandingo (and 12 Years) and everything in between. And you can't claim every slave owner treated his slaves as those in Mandingo just as you can't claim every northern white treated free blacks with the respect they are shown in Glory. Its a complex story and doubtful we will ever have consensus as a result.