Lincoln (Spielberg, 2012)

[Moviefreak]

I would also argue that the scene with the Vice President of the Confederacy, where he accuses Lincoln of preserving the Union through war, death and blood, is an indictment of sorts and certainly puts his presidency in perspective.

And of course there's no way to argue that Lincoln didn't do the right thing, when in this case that "thing" is the passing of the 13th Amendment. The point is that in American history Lincoln is often presented as a saintly figure, Honest Abe and all. But, in this film he's shown as willing to do anything (hand out patronage, hold a possible ceasefire deal hostage, etc.) to get the necessary done.

[Bean]

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...

I'm not judging based on intent, though? The end product here, regardless of the intentions behind it, is Oscar-bait that does not transcend that label. Which is fine! I would describes lots of really well-regarded and remembered film as Oscar-bait that does not transcend the label. To be clear, Lincoln is extremely good Oscar-bait, and I really enjoyed it! In fact, I will be happy when my kids watch this movie in a history class someday, because I think it elucidates both the legislative process and that period of American history in a way that very few movies ever have.

[Semp]

I'm not judging based on intent, though? The end product here, regardless of the intentions behind it, is Oscar-bait that does not transcend that label. Which is fine! I would describes lots of really well-regarded and remembered film as Oscar-bait that does not transcend the label. To be clear, Lincoln is extremely good Oscar-bait, and I really enjoyed it! In fact, I will be happy when my kids watch this movie in a history class someday, because I think it elucidates both the legislative process and that period of American history in a way that very few movies ever have.

My apologies for being a little blunt, and for targeting you since a lot of people are unfortunately lazily using the term "Oscar-bait", but I profoundly dislike this term of "oscar-bait". I do not know what it means. And I suspect that in your mind, it covers a lot of movies that are in fact very different from one another. For example, I assume that you also think that Les Misérables is an "oscar-bait" movie. Yet, it is obvious that Lincoln and Les Misérables are very different movies. "Oscar-bait" means nothing to me. It is a totally subjective term and, in my opinion, just a much too easy way to avoid analyzing a movie or speaking of it in a clear and honest manner.

[haqyunus]

Although I agree that not many movies are made with 'oscar-bait'-ness in mind (and it is how they turn out to be later on as this label is sort of retroactive invention) and also that it is not necessary that an oscar-bait movie would be bad but it is a valid critique (judging or critiquing movies in general, in itself, is subjective so I don't think this issue with this label only.) Also, movies which are only defined as oscar-bait are usually not that good.

[Artimus]

And of course there's no way to argue that Lincoln didn't do the right thing, when in this case that "thing" is the passing of the 13th Amendment. The point is that in American history Lincoln is often presented as a saintly figure, Honest Abe and all. But, in this film he's shown as willing to do anything (hand out patronage, hold a possible ceasefire deal hostage, etc.) to get the necessary done.

I think this is right. I'm sure some people WOULD argue Lincoln did the wrong thing but that's clearly not what Kushner and Spielberg think. So why would they make a film arguing something they see as so baseless? Foner doesn't like the film because he doesn't agree with it's approach. But Kushner and Spielberg clearly do (and a lot of viewers!). Expecting them to make a different interpretation is as senseless as expecting Foner to spend his time arguing for something he thinks is wrong.

I also like your second point a lot. In a vacuum this film is perhaps lionizing. And it's definitely an argument for Lincoln's greatness. But the latter of those two things is perfectly legitimate. I'd rather this kind of a film than one that tries to show the flaws of a great man. But at the same time the former is really an indication that when compared to Lincoln myth as a whole this DOES undermine a bit of that.

I don't see why a film can't argue for greatness as long as it's willing to, in such an on-topic way, show how that greatness is not a product of perfection. Isn't that exactly what we want? Foner is making the argument he should have saved for a more fondling film. It is indeed very Armond White. In the sense that White knew what he wanted to say about the film before he saw it. When the film wasn't what he expected he just grabbed onto the few elements that were and pretended as if he was actually reviewing the movie that exists. Which he wasn't.

[steve4922]

The views of another history professor (from the University of Virginia) on "Lincoln", as published in a column in the NY Times:

Having worked before at the intersection of Hollywood and history, helping a tiny bit with a respectable movie about the Cuban missile crisis called “Thirteen Days,” I approached the new movie “Lincoln” with measured expectations. I had seen how a film could immerse viewers in onscreen time travel without messing up the history too much. But that was the most I hoped for.

“Lincoln,” however, accomplishes a far more challenging objective: its speculations actually advance the way historians will consider this subject.

* * * *

Because filmmakers can often devote far more resources to research than scholars can, because the sheer process of a painstaking reconstruction of a past world can itself yield insights about it, it has always been possible that filmmakers might add to our collective historical understanding, rather than either popularizing or debasing it. In Mr. Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” that possibility is happily realized.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-historian/?hp

[Aurelius]

I don't think may films are made as Oscar bait, but I do think many films are picked up as Oscar bait. See: Harvey Weinstein with The Artist last year.

[Semp]

I don't think may films are made as Oscar bait, but I do think many films are picked up as Oscar bait. See: Harvey Weinstein with The Artist last year.

Good point.

[Capt. January]

I don't think may films are made as Oscar bait, but I do think many films are picked up as Oscar bait. See: Harvey Weinstein with The Artist last year.

And yet I still don't see it as Oscar bait. A rather short black and white silent film with virtual nobodies cast in the leads practically defies what Oscar usually goes for. Unless we define Oscar bait as a big budget overlong sweeping self-important drama and/or anything Harvey is pushing this year.

[steve4922]

James McPherson is one of the best known Civil War historians; his reaction to Lincoln:

"There have been other movies about Lincoln," said James McPherson, a Civil War historian, Abraham Lincoln biographer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Battle Cry of Freedom," in a recent interview after seeing the film. "They tended to reflect a romanticized Lincoln, almost a mythologized Lincoln. This comes closer to reality. This shows Lincoln's exhaustion, his gauntness — and his storytelling."

McPherson, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, was one of many Civil War historians who met with Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner early on in the writing process to help provide background for the film. Initially, Spielberg had optioned Doris Kearns Goodwin's three-man biography, "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Ultimately, Kushner used that book as a jumping-off point for the "Lincoln" screenplay, which depicts the last weeks of Lincoln's life in 1865, when the president pushed for passage of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery.

In focusing on a short span of time, the movie delves deeply into Lincoln's personality, his political tactics and his relationship with his Cabinet and family. As a result, McPherson said, he considers "Lincoln," which stars Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role, the most accurate screen portrayal of the great leader that he's ever seen.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...,2936280.story

[haqyunus]

And yet I still don't see it as Oscar bait. A rather short black and white silent film with virtual nobodies cast in the leads practically defies what Oscar usually goes for. Unless we define Oscar bait as a big budget overlong sweeping self-important drama and/or anything Harvey is pushing this year.

Though I am being guilty of derailing the thread further from the main topic (sorry!) but that definition is not the only one for an Oscar-bait. The Artist more fits into the Slumdog MiIllionaire category (a recent one) which if not self-important, are more of a crowd-pleasers novelties.

[Aaron Leggo]

So I finally saw this and... WOW. A part of my Spielberg love died last year and it wasn't like he was on a great run before that, but then this happens. This is probably one of my favourite Spielberg movies yet, a tour de force portrait executed with incredibly gripping detail and approached from an angle that's surprisingly, almost shockingly brave for Spielberg. Even the stuff with the theatre at the end was unique, jarring, and very specific in its subversion of sentimentality. Anyways, what a movie:

LINCOLN

The beloved 16th President of the United States has had a prevalent presence at the multiplexes this year. He first graced the screen in the summer as a Vampire Hunter in Timur Bekmambetov's entertainingly silly bit of historical revisionism that posited Abraham Lincoln as horror hero. And now the man is back in Steven Spielberg's brilliant biopic that simply bears the president's surname as title. These two pictures are wildly different, linked only by a figure and a war, but I mention Bekmambetov's vampire version because I'm fascinated by the oppositional ways in which either movie approaches the grand character. Bekmambetov's movie is about re-mythologizing, while Spielberg's is focused on de-mythologizing. This isn't at all the approach I expected Spielberg to take, but it's this freshness of vision that points Lincoln in the right direction. From there, Spielberg intimately embraces the subject and makes something that I recently assumed was now out of his reach: a masterpiece.

Quite possibly one of Spielberg's best movies ever, Lincoln finds itself under the watch of a filmmaker remembering how to be relevant and interesting and daring again. To accomplish this on the grand Hollywood stage is astonishing, especially considering that just last year, Spielberg made one of his most heinously treacly homages to old-fashioned sentimentalism with War Horse. His other 2011 feature, The Adventures of Tintin, was a chaotic action pic lacking in the wide-eyed wonder that was once the director's trademark touch. With those two duds sharing space at the multiplexes, the Spielberg brand hit its lowest point in ages, a lackluster fizzle coming at the tail end of an underwhelming run during much of the past decade. But now he's come roaring back to creative life with a biopic unlike anything he's ever done before.

Prior to this, when I pictured a hypothetical Spielberg-directed Lincoln biopic, especially in terms of what I considered current Spielberg to be, I pictured loud, epic battle scenes, much speechifying, and more than a few blatant tugs at the heart strings. So with much surprise does Spielberg's actual Lincoln movie reveal itself to be a slow, dialogue-heavy political drama with hardly a battle sequence in sight. Instead of building up the myth of the man, Spielberg breaks it down, bringing the character to a human level and giving Daniel Day-Lewis certain parameters that the actor absorbs in order to complete his onscreen transformation.

Looking every bit the part is one piece of the puzzle, but it is how Day-Lewis then fills every inch of the president's body and creates movements that feel like they belong only to this character that truly impresses. He also alters his voice to achieve additional accuracy, denying the classic boom of certain Lincoln expectations and instead opting for a higher pitched lilt that makes the man a joy to listen to. Day-Lewis receives strong support from Sally Field, who plays his wife Mary, and a host of other performers who join him on the political battlefield, such as Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, and David Strathairn. The whole ensemble is fantastic.

The movie's window of time is positioned during the final four months of Lincoln's life as the Civil War is potentially nearing its end and the president is eager to take care of the nation's most important matter. We are afforded the opportunity to journey inside the cramped quarters of the president and his cabinet as they discuss the complications and ramifications of attempting to push the 13th Amendment through the House of Representatives, thus abolishing slavery.

This weighty, polarizing piece of legislation is dear to Lincoln's heart, but it's going to take more than passionate support of the president to get the slavery-loving Democrats of the House to vote in favour of the amendment. We're told early on that supposing the entire Republican party votes for the amendment, then an additional twenty votes from the Democrats will be required. This sets up some juicy political wrangling as we eavesdrop on multiple conversations and meetings that expertly define the difficulties of gathering the necessary votes. Everyone wants something in return and Lincoln faces a particularly complex challenge when he's practically forced to initiate talks between the North and the South about ending the Civil War. Such a proposition sounds promising, really, but the president fears that ending the war before the scheduled House vote could jeopardize the amendment.

It's these details and the whole act of placing the political procedures under a microscope that gives the movie its quietly graceful power. The lyrical communication of this information flows beautifully through Tony Kushner's absolutely astonishing screenplay, the product of a partial adaptation of Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Kushner took six years to finalize his script and such careful commitment to the project has resulted in something spectacular. The sheer magnitude of the historical implications and the amount of people involved in the story suggest an epic approach, but Kushner tempers this with a meaningful intimacy that pulls us close into the action. His screenplay is rigorously tethered to the amendment-passing process and juggles a huge cast of characters in the midst of this mayhem. Armed with dialogue so meaty and flavourful that I was tempted to chew on the screen, the script finds excitement in the conversations at every turn. And humour, too! Lincoln himself loves to tell many a story, often with a comical twist. In the hands of Day-Lewis, these little anecdotes shine.

Spielberg seems to have drawn great inspiration from Kushner's screenplay and he settles into the narrative rhythms with the energy of a veteran discovering he can still learn some new tricks. Matching the intimacy of Kushner's writing with subdued camera work means such visual staples of Hollywood epics as swooping camera shots and long dollies are mainly exiled in favour of a camera that remains grounded and at eye-level throughout. The camera becomes our eyes and Spielberg's decision to focus his frame on people is exactly what Lincoln needs to succeed in its script-to-screen journey. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, whose collaborative relationship with Spielberg is now nearing twenty years, still loves his white light pouring through windows, but there's an intriguing anti-beauty at work here. The compositions are precise, of course, but the colour palette is an often dreary sea of browns and grays that expertly lends an additional sense of realism to the proceedings.

In addition to being one of Spielberg's best movies, Lincoln is also arguably his most restrained. It's as impressive for what it doesn't do as it for what it actually accomplishes. Most of the movie takes place in small rooms in the White House or in the crowded space reserved for the House of Representatives in the Capitol building. Spielberg resists the urge to expand the visual canvas with wide establishing shots and images of the iconic exteriors, instead letting the actors communicate the immensity of the situation. This approach feeds the epic and the intimate equally, but in a human, relatable way that Kushner and Spielberg pursue entirely until the very end. It's dazzling to see Spielberg conjure such dramatic tension without the aid of expensive set pieces and various visual gimmickries. The way that he is able to make all of these conversations feel so utterly cinematic without bending to the obvious cinematic influences is a towering achievement. Perhaps this is what political catharsis looks like. The brilliant trifecta of actor, writer, and director combines here to make a biopic that strips the legend of Abe Lincoln down to flesh and blood. Such de-mythologizing doesn't help when it comes to hunting vampires, but it works wonders when it comes to understanding, beautifully, brilliantly, the cinematic measure of a man.

[Eternal]

it was worth reading, Aaron.

[RRA]

Thank you Onion.



http://www.theonion.com/articles/get...istress,30338/

[Markku Palo]

I loved almost everything about this. I wish Kushner and Spielberg had done more with the war effort and the peace negotiations. As it is, the last fifteen minutes feel somewhat out of place. The assassination was handled somewhat clunkily, but I felt the flashback to the second inaugural address was perfect.

I don't get the complaints about Field. She was shrill and abrasive, just the way Mary was said to be (Lincoln's inner circle pretty much hated her and she hated them back) but with an interesting tragic quality that made her more understandable.

[GEORGEIII]

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.

Correct.

Finally saw this...It's Spielberg's best film since Schindler's List. The only reason I hesitate to put him ahead of the pack for Best Director is a slight pause as I contemplate whether they will give him a third Best Director award or not. Some people believe it doesn't really matter, but I believe most Academy members are aware of the fact of someone previously winning and do take it into consideration when voting. It's the main reason I think Sally Field won't win. If she hadn't two Oscars already, I think she would be the frontrunner for BSA, Anne Hathaway or not.

The entire cast is uniformly excellent, not just DDL. I think this will easily win the SAG ensemble award.

DDL is an unstoppable force of nature in the role, previous wins or not; I don't see how he's gonna lose Best Actor. Odds are he'll join Nicholson and Brennan as the only male three-time acting Oscar winners soon enough.

Will they finally give an Oscar to Kathleen Kennedy? I think Lincoln is her best shot, ever. A-

[Melllvar]

I also thought this was a marvelous film all around. The ensemble, the script, the cinematography, the attention to detail, all superb. It's a crowd-pleaser for adults, and it works tremendously (far, far better than War Horse). It's definitely up there on my Top Ten list.

If I have one complaint (albeit a minor one), I think the film should have ended at the shot of Lincoln walking down the stairs and out of the frame. What follows isn't bad by any means (the closing speech is great in it's own right), but I'm not certain it was altogether necessary.

[Aurelius]

While for the type of film that it is, it is a pretty good one, it's not something that gets me excited. I wasn't that interested in the subject matter (I rather read stuff like that in a book), and of course Lincoln is not some sort of a mythical figure on this side of the pond, so to me this was a rather long parade of good acting and apt production value (and run-of-the-mill music) towards an inevitable result. Which doesn't mean I hated it, it just didn't win me over in any way. Good, not great, and not terribly interesting.
Daniel Day-Lewis, an actor I normally don't much care for, was really excellent though, and in their scenes together really puts Sally Field to shame. They're both OMGActors (not my favorite breed), but DDL somehow makes his OMGActing look like it's all natural, while Field is more of the OMGActing-with-a-see-through-head school: you constantly see the cogs in her brain working. Elsewhere the acting was good/great, though in the cases of for instance TLJ and Strathairn, they really stayed well inside their comfort zone. I really liked James Spader and Lee Pace (inspired casting).
Spielberg is, well, Spielberg, so he'll go emotional whenever he can, and the direction is rather pedestrian (to the point of TV movie with a big budget), as is the cinematography, though the lighting is excellent in some cases. Most shots aren't though. It's all very good craftsmanship, but it never amazes me. If I may give one example of a typical Spielbergian (i.e. eyeroll-inducing) flourish: Sally Field (and others) writing down "OMG six more votes!" (okay, not literally that ), and then at the end, when all votes are cast, everybody looks at the Speaker in suspense. OMG, what will the result be? You should know, you were keeping score all the time! How would you know you needed six more votes then? That's the sort of cheesy moment, introducing drama for the sake of drama, that I really hate.
I know people really like the script, but I generally don't care for this type of dialogue. That's more a matter of taste though, because if it does one thing right, it is making something that is basically boring (the legislative process to getting this thing passed) somewhat exciting, even if we already know the outcome.

Respectable, safe Oscar bait. I won't be terribly disappointed if for instance DDL wins for this, or if it picks up some tech awards, but I would hope for something better, more daring to win Best Picture (what film that would be, I don't know. ZD30? I'll have to see it first).

[haqyunus]

^Well said. Pretty much agree with every bit what you said.

[lazarus]

Yeah that was very spot-on in terms of criticism, though I think I enjoyed it more than you overall.

TEAM SPADER.