BIG SCREEN: 12 Years A Slave Revieux (Rated R)

It’s always chancy to read the book before seeing the movie that’s based on it. Way too often the book is a thousand times better, so the movie suffers in comparison. But I threw caution to the wind and read Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup prior to the screening, with mixed results.

First of all, I really, really, really think the book should become required reading for high school kids. The perspective on slavery – and lesson in humanity -- is truly like no other. It’s written by an African-American man who was born a free man in 19^th century New York state. He enjoyed a pleasant, comfortable life with a wife, family, home, education, and respect from his racially mixed community. While he was certainly aware of the institution of slavery in the South, he was far removed from its terrifying reality – just like those of us who have only read about it in text books. So, when he describes being kidnapped, sold into slavery, and forced to endure all the ensuing horrors and hardships, the reader is able to identify with him, and experience the utter shock and hopelessness right along with him.

The movie -- which stars a perfectly cast Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon and was shot in and around New Orleans -- remains quite faithful to the plot and overall tone of the book, eschewing unnecessary dramatic elements, and sticking with a very realistic and stark portrayal of his journey.  Both the book and the movie are surprisingly even-handed in the portrayal of the very ugliest aspects of slavery, as well as the slightly less brutal side – which is, at best, depraved indifference, as opposed to outright depravity. In the movie, Michael Fassbender turns in a MASTERFUL performance as Edwin Epps, the heartless slave owner who terrorizes Solomon for ten of his twelve years in captivity. On the other end of the spectrum, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Master Ford, a much more sympathetic man, who is obviously conflicted by slavery, though still a very willing participant. (Brad Pitt, one of the producers, *somehow* managed to land the pivotal role of the film's ultimate good guy. Which is fine, I guess. I mean, he was the boss and all, but his presence is sort of random and disruptive, if you ask me.) 

One of the benefits of having read the book is the slight advantage of knowing what’s coming. Not that it’s easier to see the nightmares and heartbreaks play out on screen, but having already experienced them in written form allowed me to sort of steel myself a bit more when I knew tough, tough scenes were coming. But they are, indeed, still very tough to watch.

Anyone who hasn’t read the book will probably be completely unaware of what I consider to be a really important missed opportunity in the movie. What makes the book so powerful is Solomon’s voice. His eloquence, gentle insight, and even his incredibly detailed understanding of the mechanics of running plantations and their mills, creates more depth of character, and it establishes a respectful intimacy with the reader. So, why in the world didn’t the movie use a little voice over narration to replicate a little of that intimacy and point of view? I think it would’ve elevated a very good movie to a GREAT one. But, they didn’t ask me, so there ya go.

Overall, I highly recommend 12 Years a Slave. Phenomenal cast, haunting locations, and some pretty devastating directing. It's truly astounding to know you're basically watching reenactments of real events that happened to, and because of, real people. The movie may be a bit too brutal for younger teens, but the book is a must.

12 Years a Slave is now playing in theaters. For local theaters and showtimes, please go here.

BIG SCREEN: The Tree of Life Revieux (Rated PG-13)

If you’re sick of the same ol’ formulaic movies, then The Tree of Life is for you.

And that’s probably the simplest, most concise statement you’ll read in this whole review. It’s just that kind of movie.

Let me see if I can sum it up in one sentence: It’s writer/director Terrence Malick’s highly conceptual interpretation of the existential crisis people face when they question their faith and ponder the meaning of life. Does that sound like academic babble? If you’ve ever seen his other movies, like The Thin Red Line, you understand how hard it is to describe his work in simple terms. But I’ll give it another shot.

There are two major components to The Tree of Life that are broken down and shuffled together like a deck of cards. One is a storyline that lets the audience hear a 1950s Texas family’s inner thoughts/prayers/dialogues with God as they each try to make sense of loss and other harsh realities of life. Brad Pitt plays the dad who loves his family to bits, but tends to take his frustrations and failures out on them with his nitpicking and explosive outbursts. His wife (Jessica Chastain) is a loving, nurturing mother who’s torn between remaining obedient to her husband and protecting her sons from him. Their oldest boy (Hunter McCracken) is struggling to find a balance between being a good kid and doing the naughty stuff red-blooded mean big brothers do. As an adult, he (Sean Penn) continues to grapple with the big questions, appears to eventually make some sense of it all spiritually, but can’t seem to apply it to the real world.

The story is presented in chunks, mostly out of sequence, and it’s interspersed with the other major component: spectacular images of natural and cosmic events. I guess they’re open to interpretation, but I took them to represent everything from the human soul to heaven and hell to the origins of life on Earth. Y’know, the concepts people tackle when they’re trying to figure out… well, the meaning of life.

Quite an ambitious undertaking, don’t you think?

There's a line towards the beginning of the movie that says, and I'm paraphrasing, that people have to choose between the way of grace and the way of nature. I think Malick's suggesting that we have to marry the two or we wind up with confusion, as he illustrates with the unusual composition of the movie.

If you don’t enjoy puzzles and visual stimuli that don’t always have a clear-cut purpose, you probably won’t dig this movie. I sort of took it as a challenge, and I wavered back and forth between just letting images and concepts wash over me to guessing their meaning like a mental game show. (Lava flow of emotion! Inner demons? No, wait -- purgatory!) I've chosen not to read much that's been written about this movie because my interpretation makes sense to me, so if it's wrong, I have no freakin' idea what I watched for two-and-a-half hours.

I hear the movie was booed by audiences at Cannes, which I think is ridiculous. Sure, it’s frustrating that Malick didn’t fill in all the gaps and some of his symbolism just flew right over my head, but the performances are pretty strong (even Brad Pitt’s, can you believe it?!) and you’ve gotta at least give Malick major points for creativity and originality. At the very least, I doubt you’re going to walk out of this thinking, “Oh, please. He totally ripped off Liar, Liar.” (See Mr. Popper’s Penguins revieux.)

For New Orleans-area movie theaters and showtimes, visit...
http://neworleans.mrmovietimes.com/