Twelve Years a Slave
discussion
Plot differences between the film and the book
date
newest »
newest »
I saw the movie first and read the book shortly after. The book has a lot of information from Solomon's cunning ways for survival to a very detailed description of agriculture in the Red River area. It would be very hard to include all the details of the book in the film. Some of the characters were omitted and some were interchanged. There were numerous details that differed, but overall book and movie were close. If I get a chance, I'll send you some of my book highlights that differed from the movie, but I would suggest seeing the movie yourself.
Matthew wrote: " If I get a chance, I send you some of my book highlights that differed from the movie..."I would like it if you do have time. Maybe it's just me being too much of a historian. I agree that not all the details of the book could be included but some of those interchanges and differing details I've already heard about just seem so odd and unnecessary. I expect I'll get to see the film eventually.
There are several highlights, but I'll send them to you a few at a time with my comments:"Mistress Epps was not naturally such an evil woman, after all. She was possessed of the devil, jealousy, it is true, but aside from that, there was much in her character to admire"
In the movie she was not shown to have any good qualities. She was mean, nasty, and uncultured. The movie also omitted the part at the end where mistress epps expressed her heartfelt appreciation for all he had done and how she would miss him.
"This estate is now owned by Miss Mary McCoy, a lovely girl, some twenty years of age. She is the beauty and the glory of Bayou Bouef...In the evening the mistress returned, and stood in the door a long time, looking at us. She was magnificently arrayed. Her dark hair and eyes contrasted strongly with her clear and delicate complexion. Her form was slender but commanding, and her movement was a combination of unaffected dignity and grace. As she stood there, clad in her rich apparel, her face animated with pleasure, I thought I had never looked upon a human being half so beautiful. I dwell with delight upon the description of this fair and gentle lady, not only because she inspired me with emotions of gratitude and admiration, but because I would have the reader understand that all slave-owners on Bayou Boeuf are not like Epps, or Tibeats, or Jim Burns. Occasionally can be found, rarely it may be, indeed, a good man like William Ford, or an angel of kindness like young Mistress McCoy."
Mistress McCoy did not appear in the movie. It would have been an interesting contrast to the horrors under Epps.
I'll send more observations as time permits
Some of these direct quotes from him should have been added as a narrative to the film:"From descriptions of such men as Burch and Freeman, and others hereinafter mentioned, they are led to despise and execrate the whole class of slaveholders, indiscriminately. But I was sometime his slave, and had an opportunity of learning well his character and disposition, and it is but simple justice to him when I say, in my opinion, there never was a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford. The influences and associations that had always surrounded him, blinded him to the inherent wrong at the bottom of the system of Slavery. He never doubted the moral right of one man holding another in subjection. Looking through the same medium with his fathers before him, he saw things in the same light. Brought up under other circumstances and other influences, his notions would undoubtedly have been different."
This one shows that he was even-handed in his description of slaveholders, recognizing both good and evil among them.
"It is a fact I have more than once observed, that those who treated their slaves most leniently, were rewarded by the greatest amount of labor. I know it from my own experience. It was a source of pleasure to surprise Master Ford with a greater day’s work than was required, while, under subsequent masters, there was no prompter to extra effort but the overseer’s lash."
This quote brings up a more practical point, Leaving out the immorality of owning a slave, it simply did not make economic sense to abuse them the way many slaveholders did. Beating them to a pulp only made them less capable of doing work. It was not only meanness but stupidity. As one of my friends said "you wouldn't treat your horse that way"
Here's another highlight of a statement omitted from the movie:"The building to which the yard was attached, was two stories high, fronting on one of the public streets of Washington. Its outside presented only the appearance of a quiet private residence. A stranger looking at it, would never have dreamed of its execrable uses. Strange as it may seem, within plain sight of this same house, looking down from its commanding height upon it, was the Capitol. The voices of patriotic representatives boasting of freedom and equality, and the rattling of the poor slave’s chains, almost commingled. A slave pen within the very shadow of the Capitol!"
Pointing out that the evils and horrors of slavery were not limited to the deep south, but to the nation's capital as well. The hypocrisy of the congressmen would have added a nice twist to the movie, but it's much simpler to to lay all the blame on the South.
His trek through the nearby swamp was not included:"Calcasieu river. For thirty or forty miles it is without inhabitants, save wild beasts — the bear, the wild-cat, the tiger, and great slimy reptiles, that are crawling through it everywhere. • Delete this highlight.....I saw also many alligators, great and small, lying in the water, or on pieces of floodwood. The noise I made usually startled them, when they moved off and plunged into the deepest places. Sometimes, however, I would come directly upon a monster before observing it. In such cases, I would start back, run a short way.....
round, and in that manner shun them. Straight forward, they will run a short distance rapidly, but do not possess the power of turning. In a crooked race, there is no difficulty in evading them."
I was very impressed by his survival skills, and his knowledge of natural science.
He was there because he had no choice but to run away from an angry master who was about to kill him.
In the movie his only attempted escape was a very brief attempt on his part to take a detour while performing an errand. Then he sees some runaways getting lynched and he quickly decides to change his mind and not attempt the escape. The movie did not mention anything about passes that slaves were required to carry on themselves when traveling on their own between plantations.
Another blatant omission:"Lew Cheney, with whom I became acquainted — a shrewd, cunning negro, more intelligent than the generality of his race, but unscrupulous and full of treachery — conceived the project of organizing a company sufficiently strong to fight their way against all opposition, to the neighboring territory of Mexico.
....Lew flitted from one plantation to another in the dead of night, preaching a crusade to Mexico, and, like Peter the Hermit, creating a furor of excitement wherever he appeared. At length a large number of runaways were assembled; stolen mules, and corn gathered from the fields, and bacon escaped from smoke-houses, had been conveyed into the woods. The expedition was about ready to proceed when their hiding place was discovered. Lew Cheney, becoming convinced of the ultimate failure of his project, in order to curry favor with his master, and avoid the consequences which he foresaw would follow, deliberately determined to sacrifice all his companions.....
secretly from the encampment, he proclaimed among the planters the number collected in the swamp, and, instead of stating truly the object they had in view, asserted their intention was to emerge from their seclusion the first favorable opportunity, and murder every white person along the bayou.....
Such an announcement, exaggerated as it passed from mouth to mouth, filled the whole country with terror. The fugitives were surrounded and taken prisoners, carried in chains to Alexandria, and hung by the populace. Not only those, but many who were suspected, though entirely innocent, were taken from the field and from the cabin, and without the shadow of process or form of trial, hurried to the scaffold. The planters on Bayou Boeuf finally rebelled against such reckless destruction of property, but it was not until a regiment of soldiers had arrived from some fort on the Texan frontier, demolished the gallows, and opened the doors of the Alexandria prison, that the indiscriminate slaughter was stayed. Lew Cheney escaped, and was even rewarded for his treachery. He is still living, but his name is despised and execrated by all his race throughout the parishes of Rapides and Avoyelles....
During the Mexican war I well remember the extravagant hopes that were excited. The news of victory filled the great house with rejoicing, but produced only sorrow and disappointment in the cabin. In my opinion — and I have had opportunity to know something of the feeling of which I speak — there are not fifty slaves on the shores of Bayou Boeuf, but would hail with unmeasured delight the approach of an invading army."
This is a fascinating story that really should have been included in the movie. One can certainly understand the fears of another Nat Turner style insurrection.
The movie depicted all the slaves as downtrodden and incapable of doing harm. Lew simply didn't fit the mold.
But I think it is important historic information that the slaves looked to the Mexicans as potential liberators.
Thanks Matthew, I really appreciate you doing all this.Just a note from the historian in me about 'nice' slave owners @5. One thing people (like Northup) often overlook is how much the position of individual 'nice' slave owners depended on an entourage of nasty ones. The possibility of a slave being sold on to a much less pleasant home was sometimes implicit but I know of several instances in the documentation where it was explicit as well. Ford pretty much did this to Eliza when she failed to please him. If all slave owners were 'nice' or even 'fair' (whatever that means when you're a slave owner) slavery wouldn't have lasted a minute.
I loved Northup's escape through the swamps as well. It's a shame they left it out because it would have made great cinema. I also liked his cleverness in building the fish trap - an idea which spread throughout the community. I bet they didn't include that.
I've enjoyed reading your comments about this book. I would never question your "humanity" :)I saw the movie first and then read the book, so correct me if I'm mistaken, but from my recollection, the main plot difference in the film adaptation is the complete elimination of lawyer/politician Henry B. Northup, the son of the man who owned and manumitted Solomon's father, the recipient of Solomon's first letter in 1841, and the person who acquires letters of passage or introduction from Louisiana Senator Soulé, as well as the Secretary of War and a sitting Justice of the US Supreme Court, before traveling to the Louisiana town indicated on the postmark of the letter from Samuel Bass, in order to unravel the mystery of where Solomon was being held in bondage.
In the film version, Henry B. Northup is replaced with Saratoga Springs shopkeeper Cephas Parker, pictured here in a feature about the actor who plays him, who creates a fictional monologue by Cephus [sic] and dates it "1853."
http://hollywoodjournal.com/personal-...
The biggest difference I found was that the book's point of view is retrospective and includes events that Solomon could not possibly have known about until after his rescue. The events in the film, on the other hand, are told only as Solomon experienced them while in bondage.
So for example, the viewer is never aware of the escape of Clemens "Clem" Ray, who on his way to freedom in Canada, takes a detour in upstate New York in order to pass word on to one of Solomon's relatives.
In the narrative, Patsey borrows a piece of soap from Harriet, not a "Mistress Shaw."
The 1984 Gordon Parks adaptation also took liberties with the written text, but in a more imaginative, creative way, in my opinion, than the Ridley script. Parks is also faithful to much of the "backstory" in the book, i.e. Henry B.'s contact with Solomon's family, the Louisiana senator, etc.
Here's the last half hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHOb9y...
You can rent the streaming video on Amazon for a few dollars (I haven't yet), by googling Twelve Years a Slave: Solomon Northup's Odyssey.
Thank you Jazz, that's fascinating. I read the article about Cephas Parker and right at the top of the comment thread, I found an example of the kind of thing that bothers me, maybe mistakenly. I don't know if it's really proper to copy over someone's comments like this, but anyway, this lady says:
I was very touched to read the story of the compassion of Mr. Parker. It was quite an expensive, time-consuming, and probably dangerous trip he made to rescue his friend. I suppose the audience would be touched by more in-depth stories into all the characters in the story. Thank you for giving insight into Mr. Parker's humanity.
In other words, she doesn't realize she's just viewed a fiction (twice)!
Rob Steinberg's piece does raise some interesting questions as to what was going through Henry B. Northup's head when he made that expensive, time-consuming and perhaps not so dangerous (for a wealthy white man) trip to rescue Solomon Northup.
Thanks for the reference to the Gordon Parks version. I hadn't heard of that one before.
Thank you, Anne. I question whether it would have been possible for an average citizen like Cephas Parker to get someone released from bondage merely by presenting "free papers" to the local sheriff. Not to mention the danger involved, as you say. I agree that it might not have been as dangerous for someone like Henry B. who had the help of the local lawyer recommended by the Senator.
On a different topic, you might be interested in this NY Times piece about Somon Northup's amanuensis, "The Passion of Solomon Northup." One of the commenters is David Fiske, who I take it has thoroughly researched the facts of the Solomon Northup story and has published at least one book about it. I'd like to read one sometime. He takes issue with one the blog author's points.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/...
You made the same point as the blog author about the novel serving the cause of abolitionism (and I would add, opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law as well) in your first reply to the question of why Solomon considered Ford a "good man."
I don't know if you would agree that the example of Henry B's father freeing Solomon's father, or even Solomon's own friendship with Henry, might have colored his opinion of Ford.
A website called "History vs. Hollywood," asks and answers the following question with a detail from the movie.
Is William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) accurately portrayed in the movie?
No. The movie paints William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) as a hypocrite, contradicting his Christian sermons by overlaying them with his slave Eliza's agonizing screams. In his memoir, Solomon Northup offers the utmost words of kindness for his former master, stating that "there never was a more kind, noble, candid, Christian man than William Ford." . . .
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/ree...
Thanks, Jazz, the History vs Hollywood article is just the sort of thing I'm looking for. It has some interesting points:1. The article says:The movie paints William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) as a hypocrite, contradicting his Christian sermons by overlaying them with his slave Eliza's agonizing screams.
What was she screaming in agony for? Depressed, yes. Sobbing, definitely. But screaming?
2. I was amused to find they'd included a sex scene in the movie because I'd noticed how extraordinarily discreet Northup was about his sex life in the book. You wouldn't expect anything else the 19th century and the p, of course, but I think it's safe to say he had one (a sex life). In his memoir, Northup speaks, with minor disapproval, of the relative sexual freedom of slave women who could abandon their husbands and take new ones as they pleased. One of their few freedoms!
3. The article itself contains an error. It says: Even though he was forgiven by Ford (for running away from Tibbeats), the plantation owner decided to sell Northup in part to prevent any more feuds with Tibeats.
In the memoir, Ford had already sold Northup to Tibbeats because of his financial difficulties. This part of the film misrepresents the system of slavery. We are horrified by slavery, but we forget why: it's unthinkable that anyone would treat another man's property the way Tibbeats was treating Northup. It's unthinkable that Ford would be so helpless to do anything about it. It's because Northup was Tibbeat's property that the situation arose.
4. Did Patsey and Mistress Shaw really talk over tea?
The article says they did not and indeed there's no scene of their conversation in the memoir (how could Northup have been there. But Patsey went to see Mistress Shaw regularly and it was her going over to to borrow soap that prompted Epps' whipping frenzy.
Hi Anne, I don't have a copy of the book, but as I wrote earlier, I didn't find any mention of a "Mistress Shaw" in any of the editions I searched online. In the edition I read Harriet is described as Shaw's "black wife," but I notice that in other editions, she's described merely as his "wife."The character Cassy in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is the concubine or mistress of the cruel Louisiana plantation owner Simon Legree, but she's never called "Mistress Legree," even though there is no white Mistress Legree.
Cassy is replaced as Legree's mistress by Emmeline, the young daughter of a white Louisiana Creole by his slave mistress. Emmeline is nearly white by appearance, highly educated and is his favorite daughter, but he never gets around to freeing her in his will, so when he dies prematurely, his wife puts Emmeline and her mother on the auction block and Legree buys Emmeline. She may be the prototype of the "tragic mulatto" for all I know. (The late Bebe Moore Campbell named another character in UTC, Eliza, as the prototype, but she may have forgotten the character's name).
http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/uncletom...
When Cassie is put out to work in the fields, the "drivers" treat her with some deference, however, she's never addressed as Mistress.
So I'm confused about Harriet's title as "Mistress Shaw" in the movie. I read somewhere that there were two slaveholders in that area named Shaw and that no one knows which is the one in the book.
I love Alfre Woodard and I think she's beautiful, but I looked up her age and she's 61 (although she doesn't look it, obviously). The idea that a slaveholder had an older black "wife" who was the plantation Mistress, seems like a fiction to me, but I don't know. At least Cassy is described as speaking French to Legree. What I mean is that there were Creole plantations where the slaves spoke French, but obviously not in "12 Years a Slave."
Anne, About number two, I wouldn't take all of the narrator's opinions as those of Solomon, especially when describing other African Americans as being typical of "their" people, who also happen to be "his" people.Could you include a quote about the supposed "relative sexual freedom" of enslaved woman so I can search for it online because I don't remember that one. Needless to say it's not true.
Also, it's been so long since I read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," I think I'm confusing Cassy's story with Emmeline's. I'll have to reread it.
Oh, interesting, with regard to 'mistress Shaw' there is some confusion of names in the copy I'm using. One passage early on says:"Shaw was generally surrounded by such worthless characters, being himself noted as a gambler and unprincipled man. He had made a wife of his slave Charlotte, and a brood of young mulattoes were growing up in his house."
Later on, under a heading of 'Harriet, Shaw's Black Wife" it says:
"This man, as has been intimated, was a notorious profligate, and withal not on the most friendly terms with Epps. Harriet, his, wife, knowing Patsey's troubles, was kind to her, in consequence of which the latter was in the habit of going over to see her every opportunity."
Are you saying that she would not have been called 'Mistress' because she wouldn't be seen as a plantation owner's wife. Maybe. It didn't mean anything particular to me because I'm used to 'Mistress' as a standard form of address for women in older English, regardless of social status. But that's a British perspective.
About marriage and women's freedom with regard to their partners there are two passages, one specific and one general:
"Phebe was a slave of Buford, Tassle's neighbor, and having married Wiley, he bought the latter, at her instigation. Buford was a kind master, sheriff of the county, and in those days a man of wealth. Bob and Henry are Phebe's children, by a former husband, their father having been abandoned to give place to Wiley. That seductive youth had insinuated himself into Phebe's affections, and therefore the faithless spouse had gently kicked her first husband out of her cabin door. Edward had been born to them on Bayou Huff Power."
and:
"Marriage is frequently contracted during the holidays, if such an institution may be said to exist among them. The only ceremony required before entering into that "holy estate," is to obtain the consent of the respective owners. It is usually encouraged by the masters of female slaves. Either party can have as many husbands or wives as the owner will permit, and either is at liberty to discard the other at pleasure. The law in relation to divorce, or to bigamy, and so forth, is not applicable to property, of course. If the wife does not belong on the same plantation with the husband, the latter is permitted to visit her on Saturday nights, if the distance is not too far."
The usual system of marriage at that time was one which made wives the chattels of their husbands, so behavior like Phebe's was completely impossible for them. It was a system most people approved of. In the case of slavery it was impossible to implement since both men and women were already chattels to owners. What Northup suggests: that the owners had an interest in encouraging women, especially, to form relationships with men, and generally no particular interest in imposing 19th century standards of virtue, has seemed true in other documentation I've come across.
I see what you mean now. Have you read "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" by Harriet Jacobs? The author enters into a consensual relationship with a white lawyer, partly as a form of protection from her sexually predatory slaveholder, a physician if I remember correctly.In my previous comments on Uncle Tom's Cabin I inadvertently described the circumstance by which Cassy, not Emmeline, came to be enslaved at Simon Legree's plantation. Emmeline and Tom were servants in the New Orleans town house of Augustine St. Clare. When his daughter Little Eva dies, he converts to the abolitionist cause but dies in an accident shortly afterwards. Even though it's off-topic, I don't want to leave something up that I described incorrectly.
I just looked up the ages of Legree's two concubines in UTC. Emmeline is only 15 when Simon Legree buys her to replace Cassy. It doesn't say how old Cassy was when Legree bought her, only that her father had died when she was 14, after which she was sold to three different men (the first of whom she was in love with, until he finds a white wife and sells her) before Legree. She has children by some of those men (and commits infanticide) but none ever free her.
I get the feeling that Mistress Shaw was a role created specifically for Alfre Woodard. In the book Patsey tells Epps she was at Harriet's. In the movie she says she was at Mistress Shaw's. I get the feeling that the real Epps would have flogged her for calling Harriet Mistress Shaw.
In UTC, George and Eliza Harris are slaves on neighboring Kentucky farms. When she learns that her young son Harry has been sold down the river, she escapes the slave catchers by fleeing across the frozen Ohio River. He husband follows, in disguise as a white man.
.
Anne, I don't have enough specific knowledge of slavery to say that the term "Mistress" would not have been applied to Harriet, however, I happened to read a book by an African American writer who attended the University of Mississippi during the early days of desegregation and who later investigated the Jim Crow-era Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, an institution comparable in some ways to the East German Stasi.The nickname of the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," is obviously short for "good ol' University of Mississippi," however, the author W. Ralph Eubanks explains the term's derivation from the era of slavery:
Even the name Ole Miss has its roots in that era of bondage. "Ole Miss" comes from a shortened version of "Ol Missy," the name slaves would have called the wife of the plantation owner. The daughter of the plantation owner was the "young miss," the wife the "ole miss" . . . .
Unrelated to slavery, "Missy" is also a fairly common nickname for "Melissa," particularly in the South, I would say.
I just checked Chapter 33 of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and when Cassy makes her first appearance in the field after being demoted, one of the field hands refers to her, with some resentment, as "Misse."
Tom, who's just arrived at the plantation and does not know Cassy, addresses her this way:
"The Lord forbid, Mississ!" said Tom, using instinctively to his field companion the respectful form proper to the high bred with whom he had lived.
Before arriving at the plantation, Tom had lived in New Orleans, a city with a centuries-old class of gens de couleur libre or free people of color, to which Cassy, despite her education and "breeding," did not belong (although, as I said, she's described as speaking French to Legree).
In the next chapter when she comes to his cabin to salve his wounds, she says:
"Don't call me Missis! I'm a miserable slave, like yourself -- a lower one than you can ever be!" said she, bitterly. . . .
I don't know any more than that, but if Henry Louis Gates Jr., head of black studies at Harvard, signed off on the historical accuracy of the use of the term "Mistress Shaw" in the movie, then I'll accept his judgement.
"Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" by Harriet Jacobs? - I haven't read this one but I've heard of it.In UTC, George and Eliza Harris are slaves on neighboring Kentucky farms. When she learns that her young son Harry has been sold down the river, she escapes the slave catchers by fleeing across the frozen Ohio River. He husband follows, in disguise as a white man.
I haven't read UTC either, but that story reminded me of the story of William and Ellen Craft. She was white to all appearances and escaped disguised as a male plantation owner with her husband as her slave. Particularly scary as she had to cover up the fact she could neither read nor write. Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom (Large Print Edition): or The Escape of William and Ellen Craft from Slavery.
I just reread it and although it's interesting I was a bit disappointed that the book says very little in itself about the couple's marriage. I am sure they had their reasons but I suspect that under slavery, it was an informal arrangement, not sanctioned by the state or church. There's a suggestion (Wikipedia, New Georgia Encyclopedia) that they remarried in a Christian ceremony in Boston later on.
It does say a lot of very interesting things about race, gender and relationships during the period, so many I can't even begin to list them. Even the roles the couple are forced to take: not only during the escape but even in the free north, Ellen often plays an unusually dominant public role for a wife, because she's white. On the other hand the narrative is in William's voice and originally published under his name though many now regard them as equal contributors. He often feels the need to assert his wife's femininity. The act of cross-dressing was subversive at the very least.
PS. I think you're right about the 'Mistress'. At least the crafts say that it was 'boy' or 'girl' and 'uncle' or 'aunty' for older slaves (at best).
I meant to write that Eliza flees with her son when she learns that the Shelbys have agreed to sell him in order to meet their debts. I read Uncle Tom's Cabin in order to participate in an online discussion, moderated by an African American professor from Columbia University. He knew more black history than anyone I've ever spoken to. He had also been a minor league baseball player which was kind of cool. Interesting description of Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom. I just read another in the Oxford Companion to African American Literature. I'd like to read it. Luckily, there's a copy in my local library.
Harriet Jacobs, like Solomon Northup, was capable of writing her own book but she wanted her story told as soon as possible to help the abolitionist cause, so she contacted Harriet Beecher Stowe and asked her to write it for her. Stowe declined but said she would be willing to include it in her Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, but Jacobs didn't want that, so she took some time and wrote it herself under the name Linda Brent.
I have her biography, Harriet Jacobs: A Life written by Jean Fagan Yellin, the scholar who I think discovered Jacobs' authorship of the narrative. I haven't read it though. You know how it is with books, I have hundreds I might never read.
There's a character named Fern Elston in The Known World by Edward P. Jones, who's nearly white by appearance and is the teacher of freed slaves in Virginia. She's one of a number of really unusual characters in that novel. His two short story collections are excellent as well.
One of the most significant omissions from the film in my opinion, was Soloman's strong faith that was especially evident during his most difficult struggles.
For example, according to Wikipedia, this happens in the film:
In the book, Northup carefully explains a couple of times why he never let Ford know he was a free man.
Wikipedia says Ford gave Northup a violin in gratitude for some engineering work he did. Northup's memoir says he received the violin from Epps so that he could entertain the Epps family.
There may be many other differences I'm not aware of. For those of you who've read the book and seen the movie, how many did you find? Do you think they're important?