On the specific formal achievement of Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave (2013) and the ethical question it raises.

12 Years a Slave is the best film ever made about American slavery, which is a high bar given that American cinema has spent most of its history avoiding the subject. McQueen's achievement is formal: he refuses to make the film watchable in the way that films about atrocity typically manage their material.

The scene that everyone discusses — the extended take of Solomon hanging from a tree, his toes barely touching the ground, while life continues around him — is the formal argument. The camera holds for a duration that exceeds what comfort allows. You cannot manage your response with conventional movie-watching strategies because the film won't let you.

McQueen is a visual artist before he is a filmmaker, and his background gives him the discipline to hold a shot until the image has done all the work it can do. He doesn't cut when the scene becomes unbearable. He holds.

The ethical question the film raises is whether this is the correct approach or whether the prolonged focus on suffering is itself a form of exploitation. I think McQueen's answer — that looking away is the historical crime and the film's job is to prevent looking away — is the right one. But it's not a simple answer.