Lincoln (Spielberg, 2012)

[lazarus]

Nothing special. Nothing offensive.

Certainly don't think he should get a default Oscar nom for it.

And yeah, I really loved that long walk down the corridor as his butler(?) watches him leave. I think the audience would have felt a bit robbed on a fade to black there, to be honest. Still would have been better than that fake-out we got instead.

Personally, I would have followed the Lincolns into the theatre and to their seats. Maybe a brief moment of tenderness between husband and wife before the curtain rises, fade out.

[haqyunus]

It was as expected a typical Spielberg film. As expected as well, the initial buzz that I heard that how 'it is not' turned out not to be true. Day-Lewis was remarkably restrained and remarkable itself in the role and the movie is worth seeing for him alone. Such a different performance from TWBB in tone, mood, style. But then I am a huge Day-Lewis fan so bias can be expected. Only surprise was the extra-nauseating score and the places it keep coming up.

[CMJ]

I don't know, ending the film with the 2nd inaugural seemed perfect to me.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

Well this was boring

[Artimus]

I agree about that but it could've come right after the WH scene. We gained nothing from what we got.

[RRA]

Well this was boring

You violated Reagan's rule about Republicans: Don't attack each other in public!

[lazarus]

I agree about that but it could've come right after the WH scene. We gained nothing from what we got.

Yeah. Seems weird to flashback to something so recently before what was just shown.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to go back to something much earlier in time?

[CMJ]

Yeah. Seems weird to flashback to something so recently before what was just shown.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to go back to something much earlier in time?

Not when it's the best political speech of all time.

[GR3]

I think the idea is to have the last image of Lincoln be, what is commonly referred to as his best speech, with the most lasting message for the country, rather than laid on a bed with a blood soaked pillow.

[lazarus]

Not when it's the best political speech of all time.

I think the idea is to have the last image of Lincoln be, what is commonly referred to as his best speech, with the most lasting message for the country, rather than laid on a bed with a blood soaked pillow.

Yeah, I understand that. It was just handled in an uninteresting fashion. Plus, if you're not familiar with the text, you really have no idea where/when that speech is being made?

I would have put the beginning of the second inaugural speech in the film chronologically with the title onscreen. Then, at the end, after the deathbed scene, maybe a montage of the funeral train going from city to city, showing the public mourning and celebrating the man, then you fade back into the speech again, come back to the train as the words continue in narration.

[Jeff Beachnau]

I would have put the beginning of the second inaugural speech in the film chronologically with the title onscreen. Then, at the end, after the deathbed scene, maybe a montage of the funeral train going from city to city, showing the public mourning and celebrating the man, then you fade back into the speech again, come back to the train as the words continue in narration.

And then they could all put rocks on his grave.

[Artimus]

Just cut everything between the WH and the speech.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

You violated Reagan's rule about Republicans: Don't attack each other in public!

Hardy har har har

To me, this felt like 25 minutes of a good movie (Euclid, the vote hustling), with about 80% of it being unmemorable or actively bad scenes (the first scene, Mary Todd screaming about the madhouse, every scene with JGL).

Some interesting stuff on the nature of democracy and law (you know exactly which scene I'm thinking of), but all of the discourse on war was cliched and surface level (the absurd scene with Lincoln going through the battlefield) when the context of the Civil War with brother against brother demanded the substantive treatment Kushner is (or was) no doubt capable of writing. The stuff on race, too, I felt a bit hagiographic, but I'd have to go back and see how racist exactly Lincoln was in 1865

DDL and Tommy Lee Jones were good. I did liked the stuff with the youngest son (except LMAO the banister clutching--tho the kid's acting was good in that scene but geez wtf)

[lazarus]

And then they could all put rocks on his grave.

Lot of grey area in-between those two things to work with.

[ldw]

Yeah, I understand that. It was just handled in an uninteresting fashion. Plus, if you're not familiar with the text, you really have no idea where/when that speech is being made?

I would have put the beginning of the second inaugural speech in the film chronologically with the title onscreen. Then, at the end, after the deathbed scene, maybe a montage of the funeral train going from city to city, showing the public mourning and celebrating the man, then you fade back into the speech again, come back to the train as the words continue in narration.

On the commentary of Charade, there is a story told of Cary Grant objecting to a sequence. It is when the James Coburn puts a mirror under the nose of a corpse to verify the person is not just pretending to be dead. Grant told the director he didn't think the sequence would work because people would not understand what Coburn's character was doing. A screening was held and the 5 year old daughter of one of the persons on the film was asked if she understood why Coburn's character had put the mirror under the nose. She replied to see if the person was really dead or was still breathing.

Now of course we are dealing with a physical action there and this is a case of a historical event. But still there is the assumption of a staggering lack of knowledge in both cases. At it's most cynical level, one can assume that a big percentage of an audience would not know about one of the greatest speeches or would not be able to recognize it immediately when "And malice toward none, ...." occurs. However I think sometimes we have to hope that an audience is smarter than that and not assume the worst. There are elements where an audience is not necessarily expected to necessarily know something. The extremely tight relationship between Mary and Elizabeth Keckley, Mary's spending habits being a point of concern, Lincoln's close relationship to John Hay and John Nicolay are things where it can be assumed a great deal of the audience may not be aware of them. And certainly a scene that payoffs, one in which Thaddeus Stevens goes home to his beloved Lydia Hamilton Smith, is told the way it is with the comprehension that majority of the audience will not know that the love of Thaddeus Stevens's life was a biracial woman. Then there are the moments that are titled. And some can be debated since very few in the audience probably need a title to tell us that the bearded soldier chomping on the cigar is Ulysses S. Grant.

I have my problems with some areas of the film (and really think it would have benefited from losing Tad's last scene, Lincoln on his deathbed, the Appamatox scene) but I highly doubt people were thrown by Lincoln's speech. I would like to believe the majority of the audience know what speech that was. I think it is the right note to end the film on and I don't think we should pander to an audience in the, imo, mistaken belief they probably are not aware of that speech.

Some interesting stuff on the nature of democracy and law (you know exactly which scene I'm thinking of), but all of the discourse on war was cliched and surface level (the absurd scene with Lincoln going through the battlefield) when the context of the Civil War with brother against brother demanded the substantive treatment Kushner is (or was) no doubt capable of writing. The stuff on race, too, I felt a bit hagiographic, but I'd have to go back and see how racist exactly Lincoln was in 1865

Why does the "brother against brother" angle demand to be told here? The title of the film is Lincoln. It is not The Civil War or North Vs. South.

As for what you call the "stuff on race", I highly doubt anyone watching this movie is going to come out going it was hagiographic concerning Lincoln and race. It could have. And certainly it could have done so without lying by presenting a sequence such as Lincoln's walk through Richmond. Or it could have gone the other way and presented Lincoln's prior statements on freedmen as some sort of evidence his heart was not in it and he was just going along with Radical Republicans. Instead it showed a politician who is repulsed by slavery but does not necessarily have some deep love or bond with blacks which is pretty much who he seemed to be - a man who knew slavery was wrong but not an abolitionist of the likes of Stevens or Seward. It is certainly Thaddeus Stevens's views on race that most of us relate to now. Now if Lincoln was speaking the words of Thaddeus Stevens throughout I could see you call bs on it. But the movie did not present him in that light.

[Artimus]

So which Lincoln inaugural has the better closing line?

[GR3]

So which Lincoln inaugural has the better closing line?

Technically, this is one sentence:


"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'

[Dent]

His last scene in the White House also has Lincoln complaining that he was taken out of context in an unseen speech and he wasn't saying he wanted to give all blacks the vote, just some of them. While it's not portraying him as an out-and-out racist, it's clear in the film he's not going full-Stevens.

[with_one_voice]

This was incredible. A perfect historical drama; interesting, engaging, suspenseful, well-acted, and perfectly-written. Kushner MUST win for this: the film IS the screenplay, and the screenplay is sublime. Day-Lewis is amazing, obviously. He's wonderfully restrained here, and I can imagine this being an iconic performance. He doesn't resort to histrionics (like Sally Field in what will be an obvious Oscar clip, lol). Also, Tommy Lee Jones is amazing as well; I was not expecting him to be so hilarious, and he must win, too. I've seen all of the strong Best Actor contenders this year at this point (Phoenix, Hawkes, Washington, Cooper, Day-Lewis), and Day-Lewis is the best and deserves to win, though honestly, they're all versions of greatness; this is a really good year for that category. Of the Supp Actor contenders, I've seen Arkin, De Niro, Henry, Hoffman, and Jones, and Jones again is the best. Sally Field was fine, I'd support her nomination, but nothing revelatory. Also, the film is pretty visually attractive, score was fine but sort of expected Williams. The direction was good, sort of by default b/c the film was great, but I don't see it as an overly strong directorial achievement (similar to Argo).

[Artimus]

His last scene in the White House also has Lincoln complaining that he was taken out of context in an unseen speech and he wasn't saying he wanted to give all blacks the vote, just some of them. While it's not portraying him as an out-and-out racist, it's clear in the film he's not going full-Stevens.

I thought this was one of the nice aspects of the film. It presented his pro-racial motivations as somewhat limited and of his time. He wasn't fully sure of what it would lead to. This is not the admirable position compared to Stevens but I think it is the truer politician position. Of course the other reading is he, like Obama or Clinton on gay marriage, wasn't willing to admit his true preference.