criterionforum.org

Polybius wrote:Looking at the IMDB entry now. I'm not familiar with the character Spader plays but I agree that it's always cool to see him in something worthy of his talents.

The Wikipedia article acts like Spader's character was a real person, but there are absolutely no online references to him outside the context of the film. Maybe he's some really interesting guy Kushner dug up in obscure records, but my guess is it's an invented/composite character.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:The Wikipedia article acts like Spader's character was a real person, but there are absolutely no online references to him outside the context of the film. Maybe he's some really interesting guy Kushner dug up in obscure records, but my guess is it's an invented/composite character.

He was real, actually:

Lincoln scholar Frank J. Williams wrote: "Secretary of State William Henry Seward enlisted the aid of four Democratic operatives – W.N. Bilbo, Emanuel B. Hart, Robert W. Latham, and George O. Jones – to work on New York congressmen for their support. Bilbo found Congressman Homer A. Nelson to be most helpful, and Nelson subsequently voted for the [13th] amendment resolution...."

John Hawkes is playing Latham. This article's citation for the quoted passage is Goodwin's book, so despite Bilbo's apparent obscurity, it looks like Kushner didn't have to dig very far. The character may still be a composite, of course, or at least an embellishment of the information we have about the real man.

EDIT: If you search this book for Bilbo's name you'll find a great deal more information about him. He actually sounds like a very interesting character, though I'll be surprised if he's in the film for more than a few scenes.

Well, that was part of the problem -- Wikipedia has him as "William N. Bilboe." And that article's citation is mistaken -- the quote comes from Frank J. Williams' Judging Lincoln (oddly, only the footnote is wrong, and Williams is given due credit in the body of the text). There's no mention of Bilbo (or Bilboe) in Team of Rivals; I have an ebook version and that was the first place I checked.

Ah, I was wondering about that apparent Williams/Goodwin discrepancy. Thanks for clearing that up.

First impression:

The Playlist wrote:Lincoln reads, at least right now, like a prosaic, semi-compelling history lesson; the type teachers showed to you in school when they saw your eyes glazing over prerequisite text...

Ehhh, that's the worst possible thing

But that write up is from The Playlist, so who gives a shit.

ArchCarrier wrote:First impression:

The Playlist wrote:Lincoln reads, at least right now, like a prosaic, semi-compelling history lesson; the type teachers showed to you in school when they saw your eyes glazing over prerequisite text...

So it's like Rudy. Does Honest Abe get a chance to play in the big game?

oldsheperd wrote: So it's like Rudy. Does Honest Abe get a chance to play in the big game?

Spoiler

The climactic scene involves Abe killing a vampire as he rounds 3rd base.
The 3rd base coach -- the one who taught Abe to hit a curve -- ate a hotdog made from infected brains during the 7th inning stretch and dangerously zombifies in the bottom of the 9th ...

Slavery! The groin! It works on so many levels!

Q&A w/ Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis on Lincoln - well worth viewing for those interested in the film, especially for Lewis's discussion. His first response to playing Lincoln? "I Fled." Some fascinating insight from DDL on his process and the mountainous challenge of playing one of the largest figures in American history.

Interesting article in the L.A. Times, which mentions DDL's process for creating Lincoln's voice: 'Lincoln' was a tall order for Spielberg, Day-Lewis

There are no recordings of Lincoln's speaking voice, so to find his character's intonation, Day-Lewis relied on written reports from the era that Lincoln spoke in a high pitch. He read Lincoln's writing aloud, and hoped for inspiration to strike. It did — resulting in a treble Kentucky twang.

"All that we know of him are the static images," Day-Lewis said. "Everything else is up for grabs. What usually happens for me if I'm lucky — if I'm lucky — is that I begin to hear a voice at some point in my inner ear and if it pleases me I then set about the work of trying to reproduce it. And that's it. I talk to myself a lot."

I'm surprised how many mainstream critics are labeling this a masterpiece. I liked it, what works works very well, but it's far from a great movie. If anything, it suffers (to varying degrees) the same problems as Spielberg's other historical films. I wish the African-American characters were better realized as characters - they're given lines to detail their personal history, but they still feel hollow, like parts of a 20th/21st century thesis statement rather than full-blooded human beings living in that era.

(FWIW, not a criticism, but there were instances where it felt like the movie was using his other films as a template - for example, the flash forward cutting in one scene was also used to similar effect in Schindler's List, during the creation of "the list.")

It's not bad, it's still engaging most of the time. Coming right after the election, it's especially enjoyable, though the beneficial feeling of that timeliness will eventually fade as this movie gets older.

J. Hoberman thought it was admirable, if not wholly successful. Rosenbaum didn't think it came together very well, if at all.

Still sounds like a step up from War Horse. How much of the film would you say lives or dies by DDL's performance.

It needs a good performance from him, which he delivers (more on that in a second), but it doesn't depend on it. This film works best as a political procedural, and it's the details and ideas that stick the most. Didn't someone at the NYFF compare it to one of Fincher's later films? In retrospect, it's funny, because it kind of highlights one of the mild disappointments about this film. I thought the ensemble's performance was good, it has to be, and I think Spielberg's instinct to restrain himself (most of the time, at least) was a good one. But I wasn't crazy about some of the choices they did make. Kaminski's cinematography is usually one of the best things about Spielberg's films, but this time out, it felt uninspired. At some point in the film, I thought about The Social Network and how Fincher's restrained interpretation of that script succeeded so well - bringing cinema to what was potentially a not-so-cinematic script. Since most of Lincoln really revolves around legislative maneuvers (in the House and between sessions), this felt like another dense script that was packed with ideas but also tough to interpret into a great film. On that level, the results were uneven.

Going back to Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, it's good, but I wasn't floored by it. It's a tough role though because he's bound by the public perception of his character. Yes, he uses a voice that (while possibly authentic) goes against most impressions of Lincoln, but he still has to compete with the myth, a detailed one every American knows. I'm not sure he conquered it so much as had a way around it. I enjoyed Tommy Lee Jones' rowdy performance quite a bit though.

I'm with hearthesilence here--I was entertained, but not blown away. DDL's performance is solid (no surprise there), but it's rather an understated performance, not the kind of towering work that he does in something like There Will Be Blood. (He does have one great intense scene late in the film when he basically loses his shit with his hemming-and-hawing cabinet members.) I was more impressed with Sally Field, who shows a wider range of emotions throughout and seemed to have more depth as a character.

I'm encouraged by what I'm hearing- political procedural is exactly what I was hoping for, and a pretty good movie which does that sounds a lot better than a giant, overblown biopic where Lincoln has a 20th century attitude towards racism and knows exactly where history is going, which is the vibe I got from the trailers.

The film has moments of self-reflection that are marked with a 20th century sensibility (i.e. a person of the time will try to assess their place in history, knowing full well that they cannot know what will happen in the future, but the line of thought or questioning feels like it's been shaped by a writer/director/performer who cannot help but hint at their present-day perspective of how history will play out). But the meat of the film is definitely procedural.

Also, much credit needs to go to Tony Kushner for writing such a good screenplay (and for helping temper some of Spielberg's sentimentality). It's a smart script and it doesn't dumb anything down. As far as political procedurals go I thought this was very well-done, it's just not my preferred genre.

One of the best films of the year for me. In spite of almost uniformly positive reviews in the press, this one still strikes me as underrated. It's the first American feature film by an important director that I feel like recommending to everybody I know -- young and old, from whatever walk of life -- since The Straight Story. Agree with those above who describe this as a wonky procedural about the sometimes ugly manufacturing of a piece of political sausage we all know today as the

Spoiler

13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

With so many complex and competing interests, so much exposition and a myriad of speaking parts, the authenticity of the political maneuvering and the fact that the audience could follow it all without any of it seeming to be dumbed down is a credit to the wisdom and skill of both the writer and the director. The cast itself is quite something to behold, with many spot-on casting choices and excellent performances not just in the major roles but in nearly every supporting turn, even the ones with almost no dialogue. If this were in competition at Cannes, I can see it getting a special award for best ensemble (too bad there's no such Oscar). Easily Spielberg's best film since the last time he worked with Kushner on Munich. (Too bad they can't be compelled to work together on every film!) Would make a great double feature with Young Mr. Lincoln.

Professor at Northwestern University wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes, elaborating on the problems already mentioned about the use of African-American characters.

FWIW, saw Mike Nichols speak last night and he called this Spielberg's best film. I liked it, but again, I also found it problematic.

The article points to a lot of things that could have been in the film, but a lot of those suggestions would have created tangents to the main drive of the film, which is the convincing of the white male lame duck democrats to vote for the amendment. Lydia Smith's appearance at that point of the film rather than before is to emphasize how remarkable it was for Stevens to hold his tongue when badgered on the House floor, so while it's not perfect in the sense of providing her quality screen time, it is well served for the narrative thread that involves Stevens sacrificing his personal integrity in a public sphere for the greater good. The suggestions for expanding the roles of Keckley and Slade at least within the White House may have worked the best out of all the article's points.

As for the film we did get, Kushner delivers an Oscar-worthy screenplay that allows for a central performance as nuanced and reasoned as only a masterful actor could shoulder. Day-Lewis does a truly outstanding job embodying the lead role, and all the supporting performances compliment it with delicate balance. And table-slapping scene aside, it's mostly a reserved, reflective portrayal by Day-Lewis that doesn't necessarily grab the viewer with immediacy, but instead delivers perhaps a more powerful energy via smaller, more delicate means. The film has two brief scenes at the end that are unneeded, but hard to complain about anything else.

10/10 for me.

This could easily be counted among Spielberg's best. It shows him trying to reconcile or retool his mythic sensibilities with the tedium (or accuracy) of historical records. I think this shows best with his physical portrayal of Lincoln as a weird body moving through spaces (it was physically humanizing in the way Sokurov portrayed Hirohito or Hitler, though the comparison is not totally applicable). Somehow the film remains mythic, but doesn't so much fail at tempering this myth as it does in succeeding to make it slightly more complicated (though not very much). I tend to agree with Rosenbaum's assessment in that his observations are usually an accurate account of the film's functions and what it is doing culturally, but I'm not as dismissive of Spielberg as he is. Granted, the history in Lincoln is disingenuous at best, shoddy at least, but he is a master story teller for the most part, and its a damn solid film (likewise, I love Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List, despite there history being half bs). I have to agree with the New York Times Op-Ed by Kate Masur, and even if the film didn't have room for the lives and participation of black characters, the treatment of the 13th amendment as "a gift" quite literally handed to them from white people is condescending, by that I mean its very treatment in the film is condescending. Also the ending is rather useless, but my feelings on that may change with repeat viewings.

The film also has many strange sequences that felt like Spielberg was playing around:

Spoiler

Like Lincoln's dream, the shot of the burning city scape, and the classic cross-fade that literally makes Lincoln a historical ghost burning in a candle flame.