Lincoln (Spielberg, 2012)

[Andy Hall]

This was pretty good -- much better than anything Spielberg has done in awhile. I thought the script was quite thoughtful, and I appreciated the effort Daniel Day-Lewis put into his performance, even if it became a little too "I am a METHOD ACTOR!" at times. I also genuinely enjoyed Sally Field's performance, even though her story arc was kind of a different movie all in itself? LMAO.

Still, at times I wished that Spielberg would have let go of his need to make a MOVIE and let the script and acting, which were quite wonderful, do much of the work. The whole voting scene was ridiculously dumbed down and movie-fied (OMFG ONLY EIGHT MORE VOTES TO GO!! OMFG NOW SIX -- CUT TO SALLY FIELD WRITING IT DOWN SO WE KNOW JUST IN CASE THX), and I really hated that crappy-ass ending to Tommy Lee Jones' storyline. Eugh. I guess Spielberg will always be Spielberg. But like, come on.

As for the rest ... there were more guest stars in this movie than an episode of 'Law and Order,' which made S. Epatha Merkerson's cameo kind of awesome, if silly.

James Spader's part might as well have been played by Renee Zellweger. Ugh.

And, yeah. I don't know. Spielbergisms aside, it was pretty good.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

Eric Foner, a Lincoln scholar, pans the historicity of the film ...

This was indeed an important moment in political history. But Mr. Brooks, and the film, offer a severely truncated view. Emancipation — like all far-reaching political change — resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.

The 13th Amendment originated not with Lincoln but with a petition campaign early in 1864 organized by the Women’s National Loyal League, an organization of abolitionist feminists headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Moreover, from the beginning of the Civil War, by escaping to Union lines, blacks forced the fate of slavery onto the national political agenda.

The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.

Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.

ERIC FONER
New York, Nov. 23, 2012

The writer, a history professor at Columbia University, won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.”

Very reminiscent of Armond White's criticism that this is a BS "great man" account of history. This might not matter to some who argue, like Artimus, that the time for "nuancing" Lincoln is past, and what's more valuable is an exaggerated, legendary account of what makes someone "great." Obviously I am inclined to disagree. I'm fine with historical inaccuracy in the context of something sweeping and epic and obviously fanciful like, say, Titanic. But this is clearly a movie that's pretending to be of historical value.

[CMJ]

Eric Foner, a Lincoln scholar, pans the historicity of the film ...



Very reminiscent of Armond White's criticism that this is a BS "great man" account of history. This might not matter to some who argue, like Artimus, that the time for "nuancing" Lincoln is past, and what's more valuable is an exaggerated, legendary account of what makes someone "great." Obviously I am inclined to disagree. I'm fine with historical inaccuracy in the context of something sweeping and epic and obviously fanciful like, say, Titanic. But this is clearly a movie that's pretending to be of historical value.

But there have been a lot of scholars praising the accuracy of the film? I think Speilberg's speech at Gettysburg a week or so ago explained that while movies might try to be accurate, they'll never really be.

[City Lights]

I think it's fair to argue Lincoln is intentionally myopic, because it refuses to acknowledge all of the other factors associated with the passage of the 13th Amendment. I don't think that alone is enough to make it a bad film.

[Bean]

Eric Foner, a Lincoln scholar, pans the historicity of the film ...



Very reminiscent of Armond White's criticism that this is a BS "great man" account of history. This might not matter to some who argue, like Artimus, that the time for "nuancing" Lincoln is past, and what's more valuable is an exaggerated, legendary account of what makes someone "great." Obviously I am inclined to disagree. I'm fine with historical inaccuracy in the context of something sweeping and epic and obviously fanciful like, say, Titanic. But this is clearly a movie that's pretending to be of historical value.

To me this is faulting the movie for not being what you want it to be, rather than for a flaw in what it is. I'm sure there are many historical inaccuracies in the film, but it's not showing slavery dying on the ground (to use that article's term) because that's not what it's about. To see that on film, and I would love to, I guess we have to wait for someone to adapt E.L. Doctorow's The March or some other such work. What Spielberg's film concerns itself with is the political maneuvering by Lincoln and his erstwhile allies in D.C. to secure emancipation in the Constitution, which I think they showed very successfully. Is that too small a window on too momentous a time...perhaps. But I think I prefer the tightness of this film's viewpoint to a broad biopic that would hit every big moment in Lincoln's life or presidency with no sense of narrative build.

[GR3]

The movie explicitly said why Lincoln wanted the amendment, since the Proclamation was a war powers act, and could be struck down in the courts. I don't get where people see the movie as "lionizing" Lincoln. The entire aspect of getting the votes was by in large corrupt, and cynical. Even the end, with the letter, he used semantics to avoid telling the truth and postponing the vote.

[Moviefreak]

The movie explicitly said why Lincoln wanted the amendment, since the Proclamation was a war powers act, and could be struck down in the courts. I don't get where people see the movie as "lionizing" Lincoln. The entire aspect of getting the votes was by in large corrupt, and cynical. Even the end, with the letter, he used semantics to avoid telling the truth and postponing the vote.

I agree with this. I don't know the history well enough to comment on its accuracy, but the film that I saw does not paint Lincoln as some sort of saint and that was part of the reason why I liked it so much. It didn't shy away from presenting him as a true politician, wheeling and dealing and doing what is necessary to get the amendment passed.

[Semp]

History is a story written by the vainquors. Historians already disagree between us as to what is historical truth, as to what really happened in the past. History is a matter of point of view. It is unfair to ask a movie to do what even a history book cannot do.

[Scarmi]

It's sort of the nature of the biopic/biography genre to do the "great man" theory of history, right? I like Eric Foner a ton and I suspect I'd prefer a movie about the end of slavery based on The Fiery Trial to this one on Team of Rivals, but that wouldn't be anything like the same kind of thing.

[steve4922]

Eric Foner, a Lincoln scholar, pans the historicity of the film ...

This was indeed an important moment in political history. But Mr. Brooks, and the film, offer a severely truncated view. Emancipation — like all far-reaching political change — resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.

The 13th Amendment originated not with Lincoln but with a petition campaign early in 1864 organized by the Women’s National Loyal League, an organization of abolitionist feminists headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Moreover, from the beginning of the Civil War, by escaping to Union lines, blacks forced the fate of slavery onto the national political agenda.

The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.

Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.

ERIC FONER
New York, Nov. 23, 2012The writer, a history professor at Columbia University, won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.”


Very reminiscent of Armond White's criticism that this is a BS "great man" account of history. This might not matter to some who argue, like Artimus, that the time for "nuancing" Lincoln is past, and what's more valuable is an exaggerated, legendary account of what makes someone "great." Obviously I am inclined to disagree. I'm fine with historical inaccuracy in the context of something sweeping and epic and obviously fanciful like, say, Titanic. But this is clearly a movie that's pretending to be of historical value.

If you want historical accuracy, then go read a book (or several books). However, you have to be aware that even professional historians don’t always agree about some issues. (As an example, see the hissy fit among Jefferson scholars about a new book by Henry Wiencek on Jefferson and slavery.)

When people who are experts in a particular discipline (or who have lived the events being depicted) watch a movie about that subject, the inaccuracies frequently ruin the film for them. I’m a lawyer, and most movies about American lawyers are complete crap in terms of what lawyers actually do and how they do it. Some soldiers who served in Iraq could not stand to watch “The Hurt Locker” because the film got the tactics and selection of guns wrong.

I’ve seen “Lincoln” twice, and I don’t recall that the film ever suggests that the 13th Amendment originated with Lincoln. I also don’t think that the movie purports to tell the entire history of the Amendment—in fact, the script expressly refers to the fact that the Amendment had already been passed by the Senate. Rather, the picture tells the story of the Amendment’s adoption by the House of Representatives. (Kushner’s first script for “Lincoln” was more than 500 pages long, which would only have been filmable as a mini-series. Spielberg thought that the best part of the screenplay was the wrangling over the passage of the Amendment in the House, and that is the film Spielberg and Kushner elected to make.)

At least based upon the biographies I’ve read, Lincoln in real life was a far more complicated man than is depicted in the film. His positions on the “negro question” were contradictory and evolved over time—for example, it’s not entirely clear that he ever gave up on the idea of colonizing the former slaves in Africa. But it is a historical fact that he had an essential role in the passage of the 13th Amendment by the House, so at least that much of the movie is completely accurate. And I will say this—warts and all, if Lincoln was not a great man, then there are no great men. Would the North have won the Civil War without his political skills and leadership? I don’t know. Of course, had the War not been won, the 13th Amendment wouldn’t have mattered much.

[haqyunus]

I think this is about as good as an Oscar film can be.

lol, I was confused too. Was it a put-down on Oscars or (back-handed) praise for the movie or vice-versa?

[Moviefreak]

I’ve seen “Lincoln” twice, and I don’t recall that the film ever suggests that the 13th Amendment originated with Lincoln. I also don’t think that the movie purports to tell the entire history of the Amendment—in fact, the script expressly refers to the fact that the Amendment had already been passed by the Senate. Rather, the picture tells the story of the Amendment’s adoption by the House of Representatives. (Kushner’s first script for “Lincoln” was more than 500 pages long, which would only have been filmable as a mini-series. Spielberg thought that the best part of the screenplay was the wrangling over the passage of the Amendment in the House, and that is the film Spielberg and Kushner elected to make.)

Yes. It was very clear that this film didn't try to tell neither the entire story of Lincoln's life nor the entire story of the origins of this Amendment. It was a clear and conscious effort to look at just this one piece of the puzzle. It was very focused and very concise and a large part of the reason why it worked so well. If they chose to make this some grand, sweeping epic trying to capture every nuance of this story it would have ended up as a bloated mess. This film is a success because although it feels so large in its subject matter, it is still very intimate.

[Bean]

lol, I was confused too. Was it a put-down on Oscars or (back-handed) praise for the movie or vice-versa?

To me, Oscar-bait films are of a specific type and for a specific audience. End of year releases with respected actors and directors, stately presentations, and "big" topics and themes. Not all Oscar-winners are Oscar-bait, of course (The Hurt Locker and No Country certainly are not to my mind, but The King's Speech and Slumdog Millionaire certainly are), but those films that are Oscar-bait are more conventional and milquetoast almost by definition. I think Lincoln is definitely Oscar-bait, but it's an extremely successful example of the style even as it cannot quite transcend into something greater.

[Moviefreak]

I see what you're saying, but Slumdog Millionaire was not really Oscarbait. It sort of become an Oscar hit by accident. I don't think anyone involved in the film thought they would end up at the Oscar's while making it.

[Rage Colored Glasses]

All movies are of a specific type and for a specific audience. Summer action blockbusters, Valentine's day rom-coms, December prestige fare, arthouse foreign films, no exceptions. And a movie of any genre or style is capable of transcending into something great.

[Bean]

I see what you're saying, but Slumdog Millionaire was not really Oscarbait. It sort of become an Oscar hit by accident. I don't think anyone involved in the film thought they would end up at the Oscar's while making it.

Eh, even if that is true of the film's production history the end product was still pretty prime Oscar-bait. Slumdog and The Artist might be better examples of fringe cases, fare that wasn't expected to find an audience in the US outside of the arthouse and transcended that to become Oscar successes.

All movies are of a specific type and for a specific audience. Summer action blockbusters, Valentine's day rom-coms, December prestige fare, arthouse foreign films, no exceptions. And a movie of any genre or style is capable of transcending into something great.

This is absolutely true, I didn't mean to convey that no Oscar-bait films can be great.

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

If you want historical accuracy, then go read a book (or several books). However, you have to be aware that even professional historians don’t always agree about some issues. (As an example, see the hissy fit among Jefferson scholars about a new book by Henry Wiencek on Jefferson and slavery.)

When people who are experts in a particular discipline (or who have lived the events being depicted) watch a movie about that subject, the inaccuracies frequently ruin the film for them. I’m a lawyer, and most movies about American lawyers are complete crap in terms of what lawyers actually do and how they do it. Some soldiers who served in Iraq could not stand to watch “The Hurt Locker” because the film got the tactics and selection of guns wrong.

haha, yes, I am aware that historians disagree with each other

Verisimilitude is a tricky thing (and I also could not stand The Hurt Locker, especially after talking to some of my friends who had served in the military overseas, and pointed out how ridiculous the story was). When a movie strives for verisimilitude and fails, that's a great way to instantly disengage your audience. The suspension of disbelief will vary from audience to audience based on their knowledge, how much they care about accuracy, and what kind of story they are interested in hearing. For me, Lincoln didn't work too well because I'm not particularly interested in a saintly portrayal (and I do think it was saintly, because we're always manipulated into agreeing with Lincoln and emotionally approving of his tactics, though obviously others disagree and point to examples of "texture" in the character).

When there are scenes when the "small" people of history are asked the question "Are we fitted to the times?" and answer "I don't know, but you may be," that induces a severe gag reflex in me. Both because it's uninteresting story-telling and because it misrepresents the historical truth of how societal change occurs, which is itself vastly more engaging. Also because Kushner is supposed to be a socialist, wtf?

Hopefully some were interested to hear a factual take on this film's story. Regardless I think it's an interesting question of how to balance history and drama. I don't know how many films do it successfully.

[steve4922]

For me, Lincoln didn't work too well because I'm not particularly interested in a saintly portrayal (and I do think it was saintly, because we're always manipulated into agreeing with Lincoln and emotionally approving of his tactics, though obviously others disagree and point to examples of "texture" in the character).

Yeah, how dare the filmmakers trick us into believing that Lincoln's unsavory tactics were justified in order to pass the 13th Amendment.

[Semp]

Oscar-bait is not a movie genre. It is just a label put on a movie by those making assumptions as to the reasons why it was made. Most of the time, such assumptions are wrong.

Spielberg developed Lincoln for ten years, and at the end of the day focused on politics machinery and process with an austere approach instead of directing the blockbuster biopic about the life of Lincoln and the civil war that most people expected. I doubt that earning a third Oscar was his main reason for doing Lincoln...

Let's not judge a film on a (supposed) mere intent...

[TheOppressionRepressesMe]

Yeah, how dare the filmmakers trick us into believing that Lincoln's unsavory tactics were justified in order to pass the 13th Amendment.

Well, I'm saying that in response to those who said that the movie wasn't "lionizing" him because it depicts the process as corrupt and cynical. When clearly it is, because there is no way to argue other than that he did the right thing. Except for when he raised his voice at Sally Fields.