thecumbercollective:

oneofthoselunatics:

teaandsolitude:

professorfangirl:

morgan-leigh:

oneofthoselunatics:

I love this shot, so romantic and regency style. Imagine him on horseback O_o

Okay, I normally try to avoid stirring up internet conflict at all costs, but I saw this a couple of days ago when I was looking at the Twelve Years a Slave tag, and it’s still bothering me, so I figured I really ought to say something about why this is really unacceptable.

Twelve Years a Slave is, as you would expect from the title, a movie about slavery. It is based on a book of the same name, which you can Google if you want more information about it. In short: it is a true story about a free black man from the North who was imprisoned and sold into slavery in the South for twelve years. I have not read the book (though it’s on my list!) but I have read the screenplay of the film, and I can assure you that it is an unflinchingly honest and brutal depiction of slavery - in fact, in many ways the main character is not Simon Northrup himself (Chiwetel Ejiofor), but the institution of slavery. It is going to be a very difficult film to watch, and an incredibly moving and effective one, if Steve McQueen et al have executed the script well (which I can’t imagine they have not).

Benedict Cumberbatch plays a slaveowner in this movie. In the original still of the above edit, he is giving Solomon - i.e. HIS SLAVE - that violin. Even without the context of the screenplay or the book (he is not a nice man), this simple fact should be enough to convey that there is nothing romantic about this photo. It is not “recency style"; the Recency period is a British era and term. It is “slaveholder style,“ and THERE IS NOTHING ROMANTIC ABOUT THAT. If this man rides a horse, he rides it because he’s made his fortune off of the backs of people he owns, beats, and works to death.

I like Benedict Cumberbatch as much as the next girl, but I’m pretty sure he would agree with me that this character is not some kind of romantic ideal. He owns people. I am going to say that just one more time: he. Owns. People. You cannot cut out the black person he owns from this picture and romanticize him. CONTEXT. ALWAYS. MATTERS.

It really really really really does.

I knew this would happen when the first stills showed up. There are tons of edits and ridiculous comments on gifs from Atonement. I don’t think the fandom is going to treat this film with half the respect they give everything else. Sensitivity to context in these edits should be used but probably won’t be…because fandom wank.

I just discovered this comment, and really, I don’t like to go into this type of discussion, but I feel like I’m been treated like a stupid silly fangirl that doesn’t respect the seriousness of the problem of slavery or doesn’t know anything about history. I’m not going to apologise for my comment, it was spontaneous and only showing my aesthetic admiration of this actor. I wasn’t, in any way or form, trivialising the movie or discussing it value. Please, allow me the liberty of making personal comments about my favourite actor, not a movie, not a concept or a moral message, without fear of being considered stupid or ridiculous just because I’m not contemplating in that moment the political significance of slavery or how his character is portrayed in the script. Slavery is very serious problem of our society, then and now, and I don’t discuss that type of questions in my fandom blog. 

Please, try to distinguish between this two comprehension levels: the admiration for a show or an actor, freely expressed, and the theoretical analysis of the moral, political o social aspects of a show or a movie. I understand that “sensitivity to context” is very valuable when you’re discussing a movie, but my comment was about aesthetical appreciation only, and yes, it reminded my of the regency style, and yes, I know that’s not the same country, thank you.

My comment was make without intent to offend anyone or to treat superficially this very serious social problem. Please, take into account the context of our comments before insulting a blogger or a fandom. 

And, if you don’t like my comment,  you can just delete it, or even better, don’t reblog my edit, if it offends you so much.

^

Yes.

There is a huge difference between appreciation for an actor and what a person thinks of a character. Before any insults an blogger, a fandom or goes about saying something like ‘fandom wank’ perhaps separate an actor and their character.

Anyone who is a fan of Benedict can take into account his craft and how fantastic he is an actor - they may also take into account his appearance because, and you can’t deny this, he is a fine looking man. The picture, removed from it’s context, is rather nice to look at - the framing, the look, the colour. They are not saying ‘oh this character here is wonderful blah blah blah’ - they are merely commenting on the shot, the still, don’t read into something like this without maybe thinking that they just like this image.

Atonement is another film that fans of Benedict get a lot of flack for. We know he is a horrible man in that, but again, you can appreciation his craft and talk about how wonderful an ACTOR he is.

I really, really, really don’t like it when people can’t separate actor and character. 

Slavery is a huge issue, no one is denying that, don’t chastise a person based on one post because they want to see Benedict ride on horse back dressed like that.

Take notice how I said Benedict.

The actor.

Not his character.