Slaves (1969) Reviews

• Slavery as seen through the eyes of slave owners makes a compelling perspective.

  egoldman45-938-2593172014-03-03

  "Slaves" deals with an aspect of American history that, I daresay, even the bigoted among us would rather forget. To a modern viewer the presentation of ownership of another human being boggles the mind. It takes on an aura of a fantasy symbolic of the lust for power. There is the paternal type owner, who sees himself as having a great responsibility to prepare and educate his blacks for eventual freedom. Then there is the economically oriented type, who sees only the monetary possibilities and advantages of slave labor. There are the convoluted "moralists", who view the blacks as inferior beings, and therefore conclude that it is morally acceptable to own slaves, just as it is acceptable to own cattle and horses. These types are finding arguments to rationalize their power. But there is another, named McKay (Stephen Boyd) who does not deceive himself or those around him. He is the consummate slave owner, for he understands that he is dealing with a morally indefensible institution. It is raw, corrupt power that entices him, and he is an artist in the practice of such power. He derives his strength from this view, as does the criminal who has no compunction. He does not entertain the notion that blacks are inferior beings. On the contrary, he. loves his black mistress passionately; he surrounds himself with African art and sculpture, and is versed in tribal African history. At a gathering of local slave owners, he quotes a "Wise old African chief, who told him that in the heart of a free man, a little slavery weighs just as much as a lot." McKay's point was that treating slaves decently would not alleviate the humiliation of being a slave, but could only serve to undermine their power. To a critic from the North, McKay shatters the "holier than thou" stance, exposing the hypocrisy of their demanding abstract freedom, without the willingness to include the blacks concretely in their world. McKay is a polarized character, personifying a Machiavelian view of subjugation of groups of people. This is at once his strength and also the source of his destruction, for the spirit in man refuses to forever remain enslaved. The opposite pole is Luke (Ossie Davis), a dignified and religious slave, as highly principled as Thomas More (A Man For All Seasons). Like Thomas More, he gives his life in defense of a belief, and triumphs in martyrdom. Although parts are uneven, "Slaves" has a disquieting power that transcends the institution that was only formally abolished in 1863.

• Slaves: A film remembered

  Phillykee12006-06-07

  I was 8 years old when I saw this film in the movie theater. 37 years later it hasn't been forgotten and I want to see it again. Slaves, a film that would be difficult for many people to watch: Truths are seen. In terms of reality content, I would compare Slaves to Human Trafficking starring Mr. Sutherland and others. A child's eyes, born in the 60's, viewing the pain revealed in it's many dimensions and forms by Dionne Warwick's character is something to remember: Along with the church burnings and race riots in the United States; while the Brady Bunch had fun. Seeing reality taught me many safety tips. Ms. Warwick's performance embodied the realities of Black little girls and boys, and Black Women, not so long ago, being raped, and forced to mate with anyone. And Ossie Davis, the whole cast I must say, I praise for their performance, strength, and the courage it had to take, to present such an ugly reality that needed to be revealed: Documented in movie format. And, of course, to the writers and directer, Mr. H.J. Bibeman and John O. Killen,(et al): Slaves is a bold piece of work. A work, that in my opinion, is one of the most valued. Slaves should be one of those film's that makes it to the big screen for another go-around. Not a remake. The original. This film is not for those who merely wish or desire to be entertained: It would be too much for them and they would not like it very much. This film back on the big screen would elicit a lot of controversy. And, I believe, be quite a lucrative endeavor in spite of those opinions that would be to the contrary.

• Slaves

  michellemeighan2006-06-25

  I saw this movie in my Senior of High School. What impressed me about it was it is the first time I saw a successful a slave revolt. Typically what happened was the leader(s) would be executed as examples and life would continue on, as usual. Well, not in this story. The revolt took place in the absence of the leader, just as it was planned. Dione Warwick's character is tragic and lonely. When she sees Ossie's character, she is immediately drawn to him because she hasn't seen a slave with his bearing, attitude and intelligence. Stephen Boyd's character is in love with Dione and jealous of her interest in Ossie. It is a very different movie about slavery.

• Listen to the music Forget the film.

  jwpeel-12004-04-04

  Nothing can be said about this being a great film. It isn't. The acting is amateurish and the story is pure melodrama that reeks of the staleness of another time in casting when broad caricature was passed off as great emoting. But the music is pure Bobby Scott, a jazz stylist with great command of a music form. Bobby was proud of his accomplishments as a songwriter and composer, and this one was no exception. He loved the fact that he got this one away from Burt Bacharach despite that it was done for that songwriter's golden goose, Dionne Warwick. So forget the hoky acting and plot. Listen to the sounds of the great Bobby Scott. (I should also mention that both the director/screenwriter Biberman and actress Gale Sondergard, were blacklisted talents so that at least makes this film noteworthy.) Okay so maybe it is historic in that it marks the acting debut of singer Dionne Warwick, but so what? She was no better than Gladys Knight as a thespian, and believe me, that is no compliment. Like I said. Watch the cinematography and listen to the music on the soundtrack and if you do anything else, don't say I didn't warn you.

• "Life only got one meaning for me now...freedom!"

  moonspinner552015-04-25

  Ossie Davis is a tower of strength as a Kentucky slave in 1850, promised his freedom by his well-meaning white master but, instead, sold off to an auctioneer. He is eventually 'purchased' by an extremely moody Mississippi cotton plantation owner who has relocated from the north--and who keeps a black "wench" in his bed. Director and co-screenwriter Herbert J. Biberman apparently had sincere intentions here, but his film--cheaply produced and cheaply presented--comes off as sensationalistic (the title "Slaves" may as well be followed with an exclamation point). Pop singer Dionne Warwick (in her acting debut) has dramatic eyes and a curious smudge of a mouth, but her role as Stephen Boyd's mistress doesn't make much sense, and her introductory scenes--drunk and painting up her face--are confusing and off-putting. One sequence, a grueling day for the slaves picking cotton in the sun, and later weighing their results in the rain, is atmospheric and hard-hitting; but only when Davis is on-screen does Biberman get anything heartfelt going. The rest of "Slaves" is crude, and processed for shock value. *1/2 from ****