Introduction
Slavery played an essential role in the history of America and the formation of its society. Therefore, movies about enslaved Black people portray the horrors of American slavery and provide insight into the historical roots of racial discrimination in modern American society. Films about slavery are often highly rated by critics for actors’ outstanding performances and dramatic depictions of oppression and its cruelty. However, acquiring additional knowledge about the historical context of slavery in films can significantly influence the viewer’s perception of the film. Therefore, this paper will compare and contrast films about slavery, such as Harriet and 12 Years a Slave, to identify how characters’ stories are integrated into the historical context and define their impression on viewers.
Comparison of Historical Accuracy in the Films
Firstly, to understand how historical context is integrated into the film character’s history, it is crucial to summarize the essential information about both films from recent articles and reviews. Thus, the 12 Years a Slave film is based on the real story of Solomon Northup, a man who was born as a free African American from New York who was sold into slavery in Louisiana. The film accurately represents Northup’s experience in the early 19th century and uses Northup’s memoir of the same name as the leading resource for context (Lieblich, n.d.). However, while, for the most part, the movie is true to the material, some disturbing scenes present the results of the creative team’s decision to showcase more horrors of slavery.
Similarly, the 2019 film Harriet is also based on the true story of Harriet Tubman, an African American woman who escaped slavery and freed many other enslaved people in Pennsylvania in the same time period. However, the film about Harriet Tubman also has several moments that stray from historical facts. It appears that the creative decision to change some details from Harriet’s life was sourced from the differences in images of Harriet’s historical figure and discrepancies in her autobiographies (Ito, 2019). Thus, the film attempts to recreate a modern view of Tubman’s historical figure.
Next, defining the historical context for both films requires outlining the basic principles of the abolitionist movement. The movement also stood for ending racial discrimination and segregation and survived until the end of the Civil War (Hine, 2012). Harriet Tubman was a prominent figure in the abolitionist movement for her activity in freeing enslaved people through the Underground Railroad. However, Tubman also provided hope for change for enslaved people and has a reputation as one of the prime examples of a historical figure who protected civil rights and fought against oppression.
While Northup’s journey, as demonstrated in the film, ends with his arrival home, it was only the beginning of his activity in the abolitionist movement (McQueen, 2013). Northup contributed significantly to the movement’s development with his memoirs, which gained tremendous popularity, and secretly worked on the Underground Railroad. Therefore, understanding the historical context of the films requires acknowledging that the abolitionist movement was already functioning at that time.
Furthermore, the story of 12 Years a Slave focuses on demonstrating the consequences of the Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed people to seize enslaved people to return them to their owners. In Northup’s case, he was lured by two musicians who pretended to invite him to play with them in a circus show. The musicians turned out to be slave catchers enabled by the Fugitive Slave Act who kidnapped and delivered Northup to be transported to a slave state for a monetary reward.
Furthermore, another important Act of Congress prohibiting the foreign importation of enslaved people supported the domestic slave trade, resulting in the transportation of nearly one million African Americans to the Deep South, including Solomon Northup (Lieblich, n.d.). Northup could not prove his freedom rights without his free papers and was sold into slavery under the name Platt. A sense of the abolitionist movement’s influence can also be found in Samuel Bass’s decision to help Platt send letters to Northup’s friends. Therefore, even though the film does not directly mention laws and statutes, it successfully integrates the historical context in reflecting the growing support of white abolitionists.
In the film Harriet, the story of the main character’s journey is also influenced by critical historical laws and events. Thus, at the film’s beginning, the viewer is informed that Harriet was supposed to be free due to manumission. Manumission was a legal term used for a slaveholder’s will to manumit their slaves. Therefore, Harriet’s mother was supposed to be freed by 45, which meant that her family and Harriet’s future family should have been freed (Lemmons, 2019).
Furthermore, after her escape, Harriet meets the chairman of the Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia, marking the beginning of her cooperation with the abolitionist movement. The Fugitive Slave Act, which takes center stage in Solomon Northup’s story, is also present in Harriet. The act was passed shortly after Harriet’s escape; however, the film portrays that the act was passed when she became involved as a conductor in the Underground Railroad (Ito, 2019). Therefore, comparing the accuracy of integrating historical contexts, 12 Years a Slave conveys events more truthfully. However, both films accurately reflect society’s gradual acceptance of injustice in slavery.
Lastly, considering the aspect of viewers’ perception, comparing the two films identified essential differences in their purpose. On the one hand, 12 Years a Slave focuses on demonstrating the injustice and inhumanity of slavery from the perspective of a free individual. Therefore, the story in the film highly resonates with modern viewers’ perspectives of slavery.
In addition, the truthfulness of Northup’s story and its seamless integration of historical contexts in illustrating the consequences of laws and acts capture viewers’ attention. The film effectively conveys the idea of injustice in the existence of the right to own a person and demonstrates how such rights corrupt people’s minds. Thus, I sympathized more with Northup’s character and his value of freedom between the two films.
On the other hand, the film Harriet aims to impress the audience and demonstrate the importance of Harriet Tubman’s historical figure. Thus, the film draws attention to Tubman’s ambitions, dedication, and love for her family. In comparing the two films, I find Harriet more inspiring than 12 Years a Slave, yet less authentic to the initial material. Moreover, Harriet heavily relies on spiritual awareness of slavery’s injustice, which is troubling for me. Therefore, in this aspect, a more logical understanding of the absurdity in the existence of the right to own another person as property in 12 Years a Slave fits more with my personal position.
Conclusion
Understanding the historical context of slavery in films can significantly shape how viewers interpret and perceive the movie. Thus, comparing and contrasting the two films determined that the film’s initial idea can influence the efficiency of historical context integration in the film. 12 Years a Slave utilizes an authentic historical account from the perspective of Solomon Northup, which supports the viewer’s sympathy for his character. In Harriet, the director freely interprets the historical context to create a new image of the important historical figure.
References
Hine, D. C. (2012). African Americans: A concise history. Pearson.
Ito, R. (2019). Harriet Tubman facts and myths: How the movie tried to get it right. The New York Times. Web.
Lemmons, K. (2019). Harriet [Film]. Focus Features.
Lieblich, M. (n.d.). The cultural significance of Solomon Northup’s Twelve Years a Slave. U.S. History Scene. Web.
McQueen, S. (2013). 12 Years a slave [Film]. Fox Searchlight Pictures.