Lincoln (Steven Spielberg, 2012)

[knives]

I really doubt you can call the Ford "some dark, moody, brooding affair". He's just asking (and I would love this too) for a look at the man beyond the myth. If Spielberg is going to work in these gigantic terms that's okay but in this case seems less interesting. I'll agree with Matt though and hope that the end result is more tempered than what we've been given indicates.

[matrixschmatrix]

Isn't this the first movie Spielberg and Kushner make together after Munich? If this one has that one's tone, moral complexity, and willingness to be messy, I think it has the potential to be pretty amazing- particularly as Day Lewis is a much stronger lead than Bana, particularly for a figure who needs to be charismatic and outsider-y at the same time as Lincoln does.

[stroszeck]

Isn't this the first movie Spielberg and Kushner make together after Munich? If this one has that one's tone, moral complexity, and willingness to be messy, I think it has the potential to be pretty amazing- particularly as Day Lewis is a much stronger lead than Bana, particularly for a figure who needs to be charismatic and outsider-y at the same time as Lincoln does.

I doubt this would be the case as Munich fared poorly at the box office and wasn't very well received by general audiences. I would love for that to be the case as I'm in a minority of people who believe Munich to be a masterpiece.

[warren oates]

I'm with you on Munich stroszeck. Which is why I'm looking forward to this one to the point where I won't be watching any trailers beforehand. I will say that it just doesn't seem to me that Tony Kushner and Daniel Day Lewis would want to be involved in something as one dimensional as some posters feel the trailer makes Lincoln out to be.

[Jeff]

trailer

[mfunk9786]

Take out the sugary score and that looks like it could be a very lovely film.

[knives]

What sort of accent is that supposed to be? I think I like his uncharacteristic choice of voice, but it is going to take some getting used to. Also Tommy Lee Jones and that Heath Ledger looking guy (JGL?) stick out like a sore thumb.

[mfunk9786]

Apparently it's the result of a ton of research into how Lincoln actually spoke.

[knives]

That reminds me of when Malcolm McDowell chose to research how HG Welles spoke and was horrified as to the result and decided to throw it out.

[mfunk9786]

It's certainly a psychologically bizarre feeling to hear such a looming historical legend who cut such a distinct figure speak like that.

[stroszeck]

Take out the sugary score and that looks like it could be a very lovely film.

Really would it kill Spielberg to ease up on the music?? I mean it started to descend into a sort of self parody long ago and now its embarrassing. I had to watch the trailer twice because whole chunks of dialogue were drowned out....bloody hell.

[knives]

I doubt he directed the trailer. He's to blame for a lot of things, but I doubt this is one of them.

[hearthesilence]

I can't stand the corny music anymore, they just lay it on way too thick in most of Spielberg's movies.

[PfR73]

Apparently it's the result of a ton of research into how Lincoln actually spoke.

Maybe so, but our culture already has the definitive Lincoln voice burned into our brains. Audiences are going to be very confused when Lincoln never says



"Party on, dudes!"

[knives]

What? That's not a Mars god.

[dustybooks]

I like Spielberg a lot but this is feeling awfully hackneyed to me, apart from Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, which looks like pretty much the reason to see the film. My first impulse is "too much speechifying" but then again, did I seriously expect Hollywood would ever a make a movie about Abraham Lincoln without "speechifying"?? So perhaps I'm being unreasonable.

And of course, it's just a trailer, etc. But I agree the music is too much -- it generally is the thing I have the hardest time with in Spielberg's films.

[matrixschmatrix]

My hope, from the trailer, is that it will really get into the internecine politics of Lincoln's cabinet, which are endlessly fascinating- that approach would have a fair amount of yelly speeches and grandstanding, such as appears to be the case from the trailer, but might also actually get into what people thought about what they were doing instead of how we choose to read the effects their actions have since had.

[HistoryProf]

My hope, from the trailer, is that it will really get into the internecine politics of Lincoln's cabinet, which are endlessly fascinating- that approach would have a fair amount of yelly speeches and grandstanding, such as appears to be the case from the trailer, but might also actually get into what people thought about what they were doing instead of how we choose to read the effects their actions have since had.

I was heartened to see exactly this in the trailer, so I'm hopeful that this will be something more than saccharine hagiography. As for his voice, I was dreading a deep baritone as everyone spoke of Abe's voice as higher pitched, soft, and in general completely unbecoming of his impressive physical stature. Lewis presents a strikingly realistic Lincoln for sure...I can only hope they do justice to the endlessly fascinating politics of the war and his struggles over emancipation as an act of war aimed at weakening the Confederacy, rather than one of moral outrage that we have firmly mythologized.

Sally Field as Mary Todd is also interesting...she looks the part, but the woman was a mess and hardly the smiling chipper lady Sally is.

[domino harvey]

I can only hope they do justice to the endlessly fascinating politics of the war and his struggles over emancipation as an act of war aimed at weakening the Confederacy, rather than one of moral outrage that we have firmly mythologized.

Isn't it clear from the multitude of shots of black people in the trailer that the film is going to further the fiction that the Civil War was fought over slavery and ignore the more complex issues at hand? This looks hilariously banal and safe

[connor]

I can only hope they do justice to the endlessly fascinating politics of the war and his struggles over emancipation as an act of war aimed at weakening the Confederacy, rather than one of moral outrage that we have firmly mythologized.

Isn't it clear from the multitude of shots of black people in the trailer that the film is going to further the fiction that the Civil War was fought over slavery and ignore the more complex issues at hand? This looks hilariously banal and safe

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Of course the war was about slavery. That doesn't make me a flag waving sentimentalist. That makes me sane and literate.

I'm actually reading a review copy right now of a book all about the step-by-step process of emancipation (FREEDOM NATIONAL by James Oakes) and anti-slavery policy from 1861 to 1865, spread out over 500 pages. To be brief, you are wildly, wildly incorrect and repeating a pretty heinous revisionism with roots in some real ugly stuff.

And to the earlier point, emancipation--which began as early as the summer of 1861, just a few weeks into the war, with the first Confiscation Act (debated and discussed explicitly as an emancipation bill)--was the result of both military strategy and, yes, moral outrage. Which shouldn't be too surprising considering that the Republican party was founded as an explicitly anti-slavery party for which "moral outrage" was a not insignificant part.

The Republicans came to power ready and willing to attack slavery both via the "freedom national" strategy (sealing off slave states with a "cordon of fire," banning slavery in DC, federal military outposts, territories and any new states) and, yes, even a hypothetical "military emancipation" which was first brought into the mainstream of anti-slavery discourse in the USA by no less than John Quincy Adams way back in the late 1830s/early 1840s who cited the Brits emancipating American slaves twice (in the Revolution and in the War of 1812), the Second Seminole War, and the Latin American wars of independence.

When the South seceded, Republicans immediately saw their chance at military emancipation, predicted that the war would end with slavery being abolished and openly discussed all of it through the secession winter.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think it's fairly clear that the South seceded primarily to preserve slavery, but I don't think it's true that the North fought the war primarily to abolish slavery, and characterizing Lincoln's war aims as such would be at the very least an over-simplification. The movie could pretty easily be the sort of historical mischaracterization that leads people to view the signing of the Magna Carta as a self consciously great moment in the movement towards Democracy- as opposed to a both more accurate and more interesting one, wherein Lincoln was torn in the conflict between his strongly pro-Abolition personal feelings and various other systematic and political pressures he felt to allow other subjects to retain higher priority.

So, I mean, the war was about slavery, but having Lincoln talk up a storm about his personal crusade to bring freedom to the black people would be both historically misleading and appallingly dull.

[connor]

I think it's fairly clear that the South seceded primarily to preserve slavery, but I don't think it's true that the North fought the war primarily to abolish slavery, and characterizing Lincoln's war aims as such would be at the very least an over-simplification.

That's not what I'm saying.

The Republicans came to power ready to attack slavery via the aforementioned 'freedom national' strategy, which they all--Radicals and Moderates--agreed was the only constitutional way to do it: seal off and isolate the states, let slavery rot within until the states were left with no choice but to abolish the institution themselves. They believed that this would take generations, but that they could set the process in motion once they took power.

When the south seceded, they said, knew, and believed (and tried to ensure that) that emancipation and abolition would be the result of the war. That is not the same as saying abolition was the cause of the war.

With the south out of the Union, the hypothetical "military emancipation" from a "domestic insurrection" that had been kicked around for years by the likes of John Quincy Adams, Charles Sumner and William Seward was suddenly a very real possibility. And they seized that chance a mere few weeks into the war, summer of 1861.

having Lincoln talk up a storm about his personal crusade to bring freedom to the black people would be both historically misleading and appallingly dull.

Well, I don't know what to say: he was an opponent of slavery. He despised it for all sorts of reasons: moral, economic, legal, etc. And when he saw the opportunity to wipe it out from the very get-go, he took it.

[matrixschmatrix]

I don't think I actually disagree with your analysis of the causes of the war, but honestly- do you think Lincoln took up a lot of time in cabinet meetings to talk about how shitty the institution of slavery was, or how good they could feel about themselves if they got rid of it? Movies about Great Men In History always suffer when they do that kind of thing, as characters obsessed with their own place in history are almost always hopelessly dull (and never feel real.)

[MichaelB]

Movies about Great Men In History always suffer when they do that kind of thing, as characters obsessed with their own place in history are almost always hopelessly dull (and never feel real.)

That's why I'm half-keenly-anticipating, half-dreading Andrzej Wajda's imminent Wałęsa - which is here complicated by the fact that Wałęsa is still very much alive (though pointedly not involved with the film in any capacity) and that Wajda is a long-term friend and former political colleague, which would have given him the major advantage of first-hand access over a very long period, but with obvious attendant drawbacks thrown in. I was encouraged by its star Robert Więckiewicz telling me recently that it's "definitely warts and all", but precisely which warts are revealed, and whether Wajda can maintain the necessary critical distance, remains to be seen.

(Wajda and Spielberg are old friends and mutual admirers, so it's interesting that they're both making biopics of two of their countries' leading Great Men at the same time.)

[Roger Ryan]

That reminds me of when Malcolm McDowell chose to research how HG Welles spoke and was horrified as to the result and decided to throw it out.

Recordings exist of Wells' voice and I can understand why McDowell would not try to emulate it for something like TIME AFTER TIME (Wells spoke in fairly weak and bland tones). Day-Lewis using a less orthodox voice for his performance of Lincoln is definitely a plus in my book.

I have grown so weary of the fade in / fade out convention of film trailers that I can't fairly judge what Spielberg is going after here. As to the score, I suspect nothing but death will end his marriage to John Williams and I find that both seem to favor ratcheting up the sentiment for the historical films they do together. I wish Spielberg would encourage Williams to return to the approach he took with AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE which had a charmingly understated score.