why couldn’t she have said “the slaves left because slavery is bad”? why didn’t she make 12 Years a Slave instead of this different movie?
i like to harshly and rightly critique movies because they’re not about what i want them to be…

I read this review the same way, reminds me of what people said about Gettysburg when it first came out — at the time, many people complained loudly that there were no black characters in the film (apart from an escaped slave who had no lines and served only to elicit a reflection on the evils of slavery from Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain).

Unfortunately the producers took that criticism to heart when they made the prequel Gods and Generals, inserting black characters who were superfluous to the actual military history of the battles, causing the movie to drag on interminably with overly pious declarations about the Evils of Slavery and Racism (worst being the cringe-inducing conversations between Stonewall Jackson and his valet, which had little historical support). So instead of the authentically staged large scale battle scenes that made Gettysburg so popular, they had +3 hours of mostly preachy talk.

That said, I can understand why Coppola seized upon a pretext to eliminate the slave character completely, given that her story would have then been subjected to the PC requirement to make it either Twelve Years A Slave style torture porn, or drag the story on with a bunch of stale and obvious anti-racism preaching.

Like what you read? Give Paul Frantizek a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.