Re "Waiting for 'Years,'" March 4
When a significant segment of the American experience can be artfully portrayed as slavery was in "12 Years a Slave," perhaps we have matured enough to embrace other significant parts of our history.
Some brave filmmaker should step forward and bring his or her art to the American experience of 1862, when President Lincoln was dealing with the Emancipation Proclamation on one hand while on the other agonizing over the execution order for the 300 American Indians involved in Minnesota's Sioux Uprising. This challenge to Lincoln was fraught with decisions that affected a segment of our history so dark, it is often swept under the rug.
Perhaps Daniel Day-Lewis could reprise his role as Lincoln. Spoiler alert: The surviving Sioux were banished to a reservation in South Dakota.
Movies are not just entertainment. When a part of history is served as art, perhaps it is more palatable.
Armida S. Thomson
I find it absolutely amazing that some Americans can watch other people's history without protesting, but when it comes to our own history with slavery, a lot of people simply have a meltdown. Some on the far right, including Rush Limbaugh, are going nuts about this movie's best-picture win.
There wasn't this much blowback (if any) when "Schindler's List" won. Why the meltdown over "12 Years"?
Charles P. Martin
ALSO:Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times