Discussion on which medium – the movie or the book on Twelve Years a Slave can better transform political sensibilities Twelve Years a Slave, a memoir penned by Solomon Northup, is a poignant and extremely touching piece of literature, on the plights of an American slave. It is the autographical journey of the writer himself, and the twelve years he spent in bondage. Born as a free negro in New York, Solomon was tricked into slavery, and beaten black and blue to when he tried to regain freedom. He worked as a cotton picker, a carpenter, a mill-worker, and faced severe cruelty. His final reunion with his family after twelve years of sheer torture and loneliness makes for an emotional read, and an eye opener to the cruelties of slavery. A movie interpretation on the same, directed by Steve McQueen, in the year 2013 received worldwide critical acclaim for its realistic and gripping narrative, and the fantastic performances by its lead actors (Twelve Years a Slave, 2014). The question remains whether the book or the movie is a better medium for propagation of the political ideologies and the sensibilities to shun slavery and raise awareness against the same. Movies definitely have a wider reach than books, and for that reason itself the film in question might reach the mass public more. There are several comparison parameters to ascertain the same. This is what the thesis plans to undecipher.
Movies are a larger medium than books, and that is the truth. From the large scale on which they are made, the promotion and branding, the huge releases worldwide, and the way in which the action comes alive in front of our eyes; films reach a much larger audience than the readers of any book. One of the major reasons for the screen adaptations of books is just the same. Most people are not avid readers, and may not go through each and every book in the market. However, there are gems of books that convey a range of emotions, and also address major issues. The non-readers miss out on these priceless treasures. It is then, the movies, come into picture. Movies, starring good actors, and promoted well have a definite pull for the public, at large. The people, who are not into books, can actually watch the films and pleasure the same delight as the pages of the original book beheld. Movies bring the scenes to life, and people connect with the characters more. They feel a realistic touch when they see the characters experiencing the wide range of emotions in front of their eyes, rather than reading about them. Avid readers would surely disagree, but visual medium is often more enthralling for the mass at large. In the book, Solomon, while being shipped off as a slave, thinks in page 34, that it was indeed shocking that he was being subjected to slavery in America.. “whose theory of governmentrests on the foundation of man’s inalienable right to life, LIBERTY”( Northup,Solomon ,1853). While the audience sees it on screen, the pain strikes more- seeing the people actually being stripped of their dignity and treated like animals. The scene in the film, where Solomon is bundled off in an intoxicated state, and wakes up in a cell , around 23:00 minutes into the film, actually makes us feel the pain of slavery.Another fascinating aspect of the movies, over books, is that often the people watching movies actually go back to the book. The movies have the power to convert non- readers to readers, if the screen adaptations are captivating enough. The movies are a great medium to let people actually look for the source, and the source ends in the books. Books need to be read, and it is lamentable that people are losing interest in reading books, as they don’t have the time or are too tired at the end of hectic days at work. Many Literature gems are absolutely neglected and lie on dust ridden bookshelves. If some people are inclined towards reading these books, after watching their movie versions, it would be incredibly amazing.
Book s are a medium of imagination, of transcending beyond what we perceive, and to have our mind broadened. For instance, after approximately 1:30:20 hours into the movie, the horrific scene prevails where Solomon is forced to thrash Patsey, a fellow slave. Patsey had gone to get soap. Patsey insists that she deserves to be clean, something which their current owner Epps denied them. Epps’s wife bickers her husband so much that he refuses to listen to Patsey’s pleads that she is faithful. In fury,he asks Solomon to whip Patsey. When Solomon tries to be soft to Patsey, Epps actually holds a gun to Solomon;s head, and says that unless Patsey is punished severely, he would kill every other slave. Helpless, Solomon whips Patsey till she bleeds. Epps, dissatisfied still, whips Patsey so much that her flesh shreds off. This horrific scene actually moved and shocked so many people that they actually went back to the novel, to find out how brutal was Solomon’s actual plight, as he penned it. The book can give a poignant insight into the same horrific brutality on screen, and make us wonder how bad it was. In pages 157 and 158, Solomon thinks “The existence of Slavery in its most cruel form among them has a tendency to brutalize the humane and finer feelings of their nature.” There was no dignity in the slaves’ lives, and even death gave them no respect. Solomon thinks “There may be humane masters, as there certainly are inhuman onesnevertheless, the institution that tolerates such wrong and inhumanity as I have witnessed, is a cruel, unjust and barbarous one.”(Northup,Solomon ,1853). These beautiful lines actually sum up Solomon’s views on slavery, and make us realize the plights he went through for twelve years. The movie actually brings us back to the novel, for Solomon’s own words.
Finally, movies have a wider reach due to their grandeur. People are often lured by the lead actors, often by the director, or sometimes by the promos. Besides, movies are considered stress busters on weekends for most people. If on a weekend, people are motivated enough to attempt to change their political sensibilities and be aware of the national level crises, it is a weekend spent worthwhile. The same effect can’t be expected from a book, because a book is an individual journey of that reader, rather than a collective journey as in a theater. A movie is a wholesome journey, rather than a book. For example, in the novel, Solomon says “What difference is there in the color of the soul?” on page 207( Northup,Solomon ,1853).It is a poignant question that makes a reader weep. But the climax scene, at the end of 2:05:00 hours, when Solomon reunites with this family, and sees his grandson; it is an emotional and teary journey, that has been experienced with friends, family, and the wider audience. The collective journey changes several attitudes and sensibilities at once, rather than an individual change only.The final conclusive solution is that, keeping in mind all the relevant points, movies do have a wider range of reaching and being effectual in changing people’s political sensibilities. Books have their loyal audience too, but movies are universal. Universality is more effective in bringing about a change, and thus, in this respect Twelve Years a Slave, the movie, is more far reaching in bringing about political awareness and transformation. The novel is no doubt, the source of the movie, but it is the movie itself that creates more awareness amongst the world at large. The political scenarios and the brutality of slavery, against will, comes alive on screen with the film adaptation of “Twelve Years a Slave”, and that definitely will help in transforming and educating the minds about the political consequences of slavery, and it’s unfortunate victims. Solomon’s triumph comes to the forefront with McQueen’s interpretation on the big screen, and even after a century and a half, American slavery makes an impact on the minds of the people and their sensibilities are questioned.
Works Cited:
- Northup,Solomon. Twelve Years a Slave.New York: Derby &Miller.1853.Print
- “Twelve Years a Slave.” Imdb.com.n.p.,n.d.Web.15 December.2014
