The Best film of 2013: 12 Years a Slave

--a movie review by Michael L. Johnson

I squeezed in to see 12 Years a Slave at the Majestic Theater in Silver Spring at a 9:00 p.m. show last night. Literally, every seat was taken. I love that feeling, and the one that came before it, of waiting in a long line with the expectation of seeing a great film. I wasn't disappointed. (Incidentally, if you are planning to see this movie, which I highly recommend, I strongly suggest you either order your tickets online, or get to the movie house early to cop them. This film is a hit, and the chances of it being "sold out," if you wait to get tickets close to show-time, is great.)

Synopsis: Solomon Northup, was a free black man who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841 and sold into slavery. He worked on plantations in the state of Louisiana for 12 years before his release. The film 12 Years a Slave s a fictionalized adaptation of his 1853 autobiography (by the same name), and it is, quite frankly, remarkable.

The Good: The movie was written by John Ridley, directed by Steve McQueen, and produced in part by Brad Pitt, who has a small but important role in the story. (Big respect to Pitt, who always seems to use his celebrity to aid the interest of doing good.) It stars Chiwetel Ejiofor (as Northup), Michael Fassbender (as Edwin Epps, a cruel plantation owner), Lupita Nyong'o (as Patsey, a slave on the Epps plantation) and many others, in a stellar cast. All of their performances are Oscar worthy. Nyong'o, a Kenyan actress and filmmaker, who makes her film debut in this picture, steals the show.

Arguably, Hollywood has only produced two cinematic works that come close to depicting the horrors of slavery. The first episode of Alex Haley's "Roots" was one, and now 12 Years a Slave is another. Nothing else comes close. This movie is so honest, and so believable on the subject of slavery, that it really hits home. As a black man, that was especially true for me. What both Ridley and McQueen have done is to bring a very real glimpse of the holocaust of slavery to the big screen.

I could not help but be haunted by my ancestors' suffering as I watched 12 Years... As a student of history, the feeling I got in the witness of this film was similar to the hurt that strikes me when I think of what Jewish people endured at the hands of the Nazis. The historic parallels between the two atrocities are significant, specifically when it comes to the casual practice of murder.

Facilitators of chattel slavery represent America's Nazi party, and the killing fields of plantations were my ancestors' gas chambers. That any human being could inflict an evil as evil as slavery upon another human being is a fact that astounds me. Another fact that staggers me is that it has taken almost 40 years (since Roots) for Hollywood to make a film that (halfway) accurately offers a window into the holocaust of slavery. (Then again, I am not surprised. I know where I live. They gave Quentin Tarantino an Oscar for his Amos and Andy/ Django Unchained script.)

Make no mistake about it. 12 Years a Slave is the best picture of 2013, and it should win an Oscar as such. It's acting performances are thunderously good, and should sweep on that front (particularly Lupita Nyong'o's work). However, whether that happens or not, it already has my vote. As an aside, I must show respect once again to Lee Daniels for The Butler. It is also a great film. However, 12 Years a Slave is better.

The most important question: Is it a good film? Yes. 12 Years a Slave is better than good. It is a historic achievement in movie-making, a film that honestly depicts the horrors of chattel slavery, written and directed by black people. That is a rare occurrence in Hollywood. The film carries the weight and power of a Schindler's List.  If you get a chance to see it, tears will likely fall, as mind did.

The Bad: This movie should be playing in wider release. At this writing, it is only playing at three theaters in the DMV. Shameful.

The Rating: On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is the most high, 5 is my rating, all day long.

--MLJ

Director: Steve McQueen

Caught by Gravity: A Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

I rolled the pony to Georgetown this week to weigh the gravity of Gravity, Alfonso Cuarón’s latest offering. AMC Loews Georgetown 14 is a high end theater, to be sure. My only disappointment with the joint is that it’s hard to sneak food in. I've got to keep it real. These are furloughed times. While I like the neighborhood, and getting out of my own neighborhood to see the sights, their prices for “movie food” are high as hell. Anyway, I digress. The film, featuring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, has considerable visual weight. Cuarón is best known for his films A Little Princess (1995), Y Tu Mamá También (2001), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) and Children of Men (2006). Gravity represents an impressive addition to his directorial catalog.

What the Warner Bros. Pictures will tell you is this: “Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney). But on a seemingly routine spacewalk, disaster strikes. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone - tethered to nothing but each other and spiraling out into the blackness. The deafening silence tells them they have lost any link to Earth...and any chance for rescue. As fear turns to panic, every gulp of air eats away at what little oxygen is left. But the only way home may be to go further out into the terrifying expanse of space.”

The Good: Admittedly, their movie synopsis is corny. However, the visual demonstration of Gravity’s plot is not. The one thing I can say about this movie is it will have you on the edge of your seat. It's that thrilling. To say that the cinematography and special effects in this film are breathtaking would be an understatement. I don't want to say too much about the actual movie narrative, but I will say that it's a monster movie without a monster. Disaster is the antagonist in Gravity, and arguably space itself becomes villainous.

Bullock, as the main character, bears the bulk of the acting weight in this movie (and that's a lot of weight with only two people in the movie). Her work is superb. George Clooney is also quite engaging, although the character he plays in this film, "Mr. Heroic Charm," is a character we have seen him play many times before. His performance is good, but not exactly a stretch.

As an aside, let me also add that it costs a little more but see this in 3D you're be glad you did. BTW, if you decide to go that route, you will find yourself jumping and reaching your hands out to block space debris that only exists in the realm of your glasses. I saw a couple of people do that, and then laugh about it. Not me, of course. I stayed cool the whole time. (Well, actually, some of those people did look a lot like this humble film critic, but that’s another story.)

The Bad: It’s formulaic. We know from the very beginning of the film that all will be well in the end. There isn't much of a script. The director relies on showing rather than telling. While I respect that big screen thinking, it doesn't hide that fact that there isn't a whole hell of a lot going on in the story. The movie should have been named, How in the hell do I get home? That ordinary title just about sums up the blandness of the script.

The Most Important Question: Is It a Good Film? Yes, and Alfonso Cuarón is a great director. This movie will likely grow into a Sci-fi classic. It should. However, its Special Effects and Soundtrack gave the best performances. Sadly, it wasn't the screenplay or the actors this time.

The Rating: On a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 is a rocket ship,

Gravity gets a 3.

--MLJ