# Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)

The article for Solomon Northrup states that after touring as an abolitionist, Solomon Northrup dissapeared a second time.  His fate remained forever unknown.  The movie ignores this point.  The article for this movie should mention that this fact is ignored in the movie.   Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It's mentioned at the end.--96.250.5.229 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The credits include text saying the end of his life is not known. -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
And that itself was drawn from Wikipedia as I note here. -- Robert Brockway (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the historical accuracy section needs some citations and perhaps some pruning. Some of the items in the list do not seem to be differences or errors: not specifically mentioning something in the book, but having a detail in the film does not make it wrong. Regardless, instead of listing differences from the book, I think they should probably just be cited from the source article, so anyone interested can go there instead of having a list here. It may be good to distinguish differences from the book as well as historical inaccuracies for things not neccessarily detailed in the book but put on the screen.AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see a writeup of the differences between the book and the movie.  I added these differences to the main article, but someone deleted them. There are several fictional scenes in the movie that are not in Solomon Northrup’s account.  Obviously these scenes were added to make the film sexually exciting and more melodramatic, at the expense of faithfulness to Solomon’s story.
1.	 The movie shows a white man in the hold on the slave ship stabbing a slave to death, when in fact no such event is mentioned in the book.
2.	The movie depicts nudity at a slave auction, whereas there is no mention of this in the book.
3.	The movie depicts Solomon having sexual relations with another slave, but Solomon’s book makes no mention of such relations.
4.	The movie depicts Solomon as having a rope around his neck and tied to a tree limb, when in actuality Solomon says he had “the rope still dangling from my neck”.  The rope was not tied to the tree limb.
5.	The movie shows Solomon coming upon a lynching of two slaves in the woods, whereas there is no such event in the book.
6.	The movie shows the slave Patsy asking Solomon to end her life, but there is no such event in the book.
7.	The movie depicts Solomon as destroying his violin near the end of the movie, when in fact he makes no mention of such an act in the book.
In contrast to this, significant events in Solomon’s account are not shown at all in the film.  For example, when Solomon arrived in bondage at New Orleans, a white sailor agreed to mail a letter for Solomon.  This letter was sent to and received by Henry Northrup, who shared the letter with Solomon’s wife.  In this manner she knew that her husband had been enslaved.  But the film has the viewer believe his wife had no knowledge of his condition for 12 years.
Another significant event not shown in the movie was Solomon’s several day successful escape into the swamps to flee the wrath of the carpenter Tibeats.
Also not shown in the film is the cooperation of various white officials to secure Solomon’s release from slavery.   These officials included Governor Hunt of New York State; Congressional Senator Soule of Louisiana; the Secretary of War; Judge Nelson of the U.S. Supreme Court;  local lawyer John Waddill of Marksville, Louisiana, along with the local judge and local sheriff.
Also not shown was the arrest and trial of the slave dealer James H. Burch of Washington D.C. who originally enslaved Solomon.
I consider these differences to be significant.  Perhaps the movie credits should acknowledge that the movie is a fictionalized account.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickvale (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 
Another interesting difference is that the film does not mention, as Solomon recounts, that slaves were paid if they were required to work on Sundays or holidays, and that in his own case he also retained the money he received when working as a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who is responsible for linking this article to white savior narrative in film? This is a massive insult to both Solomon Northup and Steve McQueen to reduce one the few films about slavery that doesn't end up being all about some white guy as a white savior film. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This editor has been trying to remove 12 Years a Slave (film) from white savior narrative in film despite sources identifying a white savior in the film. Discussion at Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave has not gone favorably for the editor, so they are engaging in WP:FORUMSHOP to find the result they want, which is based strictly on their POV. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shut up! Can you point me to the sources on this article that states that this fall under the white savior narrative? Seriously, tell me. Other than those two links where one of them reads likes an advertisement for a different film, and the other one is from a white guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Careful. Do stay civil. Dschslava (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I just don't like how a very necessary article is being controlled by this one guy. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
See main discussion here. Dschslava (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there anywhere we can call a vote, calling 12 years a slave a white saviour narrative is quite frankly ridiculous, and perhaps even borderline offensive. He saves himself, he could have given up in the film at any point, but he never did. It is based off a true story, is history a white saviour narrative now? isn't that an absolutely abhorrent view to uphold?
Soloman is kidnapped and forced into slavery by white people, and in the end his character and personality leads him to befriend a man who can help him win back his freedom, the man who helps him is white but that is no consolation to Soloman he still got enslaved in the first place. Freeing someone from slavery in no way makes up for the fact they were enslaved in the first place, because they should never have been enslaved. This isn't really a white saviour narrative, by any sane definition.
(Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Fdsdh1, reliable sources write about the white-savior element in the film. Wikipedia follows these sources. We cannot bring our POV into it. Based on what I've read, though, white savior films include "good" whites saving nonwhites from "bad" whites (Mississippi Burning being one such example). Historical films qualify too because of the creative choices made, such as in The Blind Side, the black character is portrayed as having to be taught football by the white character even though the real-life figure already knew how to play. For this particular film, there are many sources about this element that the link definitely warrants inclusion as a tangentially related topic per WP:SEEALSO. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a big ass difference between The Blind Side and 12 Years a Slave and you know it!. Don't you dare compare one of the few films to show the horrors of slavery that spends most of its time focusing on the kidnapped black guy with a film that's all about how great Sandra Bullock is for helping out this black guy. I seriously doubt that you have seen this film, Erik! And stop trying to link your poorly written articles to every fucking film! 2600:8800:5100:38E:3D55:2B40:175D:FCA8 (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The proponents of keeping the category have supplied a number of sources supporting doing so here, where I'm providing a link because the discussion is now archived. The term "white savior" does sound somewhat smug or condescending, but it's true that Northup couldn't have relied on just his own wits and fortitude to get out of his predicament. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The film focuses on Solomon Northrup! It's one thing to say that the film has a white savior; it's another thing to claim that the film focuses on the white savior. 2600:8800:5100:38E:B10C:BA23:AD32:CB92 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
2600, please read our policy on edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright, people. Do you guys actually want a conversation or not? Because I am getting sick of people reverting my edits on account of "please see the talk page" when every conversation goes nowhere. It is so frustrating that just removing a link in the "see also" suction is causing so much trouble. You guys are acting like I'm removing a section from this article. Actually, if you want to be so hard ass against the removal of a fucking link, you can at least add a small section about the small group of people who claims that 12 Years a Slave is a white savior film when the term "white savior" doesn't even appear in this fucking article! 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it here as well. Start an WP:RFC. You'll get a broader range of opinions that way because of the Feedback request service. Then we can get a solid read on what the consensus is. clpo13(talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's sound a lot of work just to remove one fucking link, man. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're getting nowhere with a regular discussion. Clearly the people currently invested in this page oppose removing it. So you'll either have to bring in new opinions or accept that the link isn't going to go away. clpo13(talk) 16:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I've just declined a request to semi-protect this article - the next admin might just think protecting would be the easiest thing to do. Starting a RFC seems to be your best course of action. --NeilN talk to me 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I JUST WANT ONE FUCKING LINK REMOVED FROM THE "See also" SECTION. WHY DO I NEED TO START AN WP:RFC JUST FOR THAT? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Because other editors do not want what you want. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
But why is everyone acting like I'm removing a large chunk of the article? 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not about how much content is removed - it's about how important other editors consider the content to be. In this case removing even that one line probably gives the appearance of bias (regardless of whether or not there is any), and that's why it's controversial, and requires extra discussion. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not large but it's important because "white savior" is a term used by a number of reviewers to characterize the film and because it's not mentioned elsewhere. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
"It's not mentioned elsewhere." That's the problem: NOT ONCE DOES THE TERM "WHITE SAVIOR" EVER POPS UP IN THIS ARTICLE. If you're going add a link that requires me to get a RFC, you can at least add something to justify it, instead of being butthurt whenever someone tries to remove it. 2600:8800:5100:38E:44D9:1CDF:82A1:80D6 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)