True history accounts don't necessarily make for good art, especially for the heavy themed ones, as they tend to be too seeded in reality and consistently emphasize contrived emotions that are basically inescapable. the whole premise of the thing is the hint of authenticity and narrative authority. it now seems disingenuous to me to sell a film with such a tagline that says 'based on a true story'.

like most art forms, the value of a film lies in two things: the subject and the style. the subject is the recorded experience, taken independently by itself; it's the motif that drives the narrative. the style is the means by which a subject is presented and explored by the filmmakers. i don't suppose the subject is to be original in any sort, since pretty much everything is a rehash of past human experience. as such, i'm much more interested in the style and form. the thing with 12 Years a Slave is that its form doesn't quite prevail against the problems related to this type of films.

i probably shouldn't care that a moving, oppressive drama is most likely going to sway and affect its audience a great deal. that is not to say that the film is bad. far from it; i thought the film did good in preparing complex characters, and giving them to some of the best actors of today, producing great performances. Steve McQueen's gritty and realistic direction makes sure to keep the intensity going. another thing i admired is that McQueen never tries to make a hero out of Solomon, despite the temptations that can conquer a lesser filmmaker. in the end, i was moved but not totally satisfied; i prefer Hunger and Shame.