Lincoln (Steven Spielberg, 2012)

[hearthesilence]

While Kusher's screenplay deserves a lot of credit for what I liked about the film, I actually think it falters in the opening. I do appreciate what they're trying to do with that scene, but I don't like how it plays, it felt pretty corny. In retrospect, I wish Spielberg had done away with it and come up with something else.

Anyway, Masur's points carry more weight for me because the more I think about the importance of the amendment and how that shaped history, the more disappointing it is to me that the beneficiaries of it are reduced to contextual elements. I don't want to single out Lincoln because I feel like this is a common problem with a lot of works dealing with history.

It's hard for to articulate this, but it's just something that's bothered me more and more over the years. I could be watching a PBS documentary on something like the Rwandan genocide or the massacre in My Lai, and over and over again, the people who are effected the most in these stories - the ones who had their lives ripped apart, the ones who need to do the most to heal and move on, etc. - they're painted in broad strokes. You're rarely, if ever, given a chance to feel the weight of what's happened/happening to them. The closest we get to that is when we see them through the perspective of others involved in the story, usually white Westerners/Americans, and this just makes them feel more distant, even diminished. Meanwhile, we'll get a finely detailed portrait of the U.N. personnel who were helpless to stop what was going on or the military soldiers who pulled the trigger - it reminds me of some of the harshest criticism thrown at Schindler's List, how some people argued that the Jews were reduced to extras in their own story. I feel like I see this same approach taken with nearly every single film I see, whether it's a documentary or a narrative film, and I feel like it's a problem. Is this how we're supposed to see history?

As captveg mentioned, the narrative is squarely about the legislators and what they did to get the amendment passed, so this is a story that has to be focused on them. But while the title may be Lincoln, this is still a story that encompasses African-Americans - they're impacted the most by the drama at the heart of the film. Given what's at stake, the importance of what's accomplished, the movie still feels like it's lacking something essential when the African-Americans in it feel so thinly sketched.

[Buttercream]

I agree you with on these points, hearthesilence. I was attempting to separate the movie and its aesthetic merits from my issues with its politics. Typically I'm the kind that dismisses these films outright. I could get on board with the argument that this is about what the white male legislature had to do to get the amendment passed, but I feel that reading is undermined by what Masur points out as "the gift from benevolent white people", which is further problematized by the denial of black agency / activism within this historical period. Especially when all of them are portrayed as patiently waiting to be emancipated by the kindly white gentlemen.

[ando]

Good points and is anyone surprised? I'm looking forward to seeing it but am not expecting to find much in the way of a real dialectic between an African American voice of self-agency and 19th century American legislative/chief executive perrogative. Does Frederick Douglass, the most powerful voice for abolition and who actually met with Lincoln, even make an appearance, for example? But I don't look for that kind of historical dialectic in any Hollywood rendering of history. Kushner's screenplay and Sally Field are the real draw foe me.

[captveg]

Was Douglass ever in Washington in January 1865? I found a link that says he was in New York on 1/13/1865, and that his son Charles Douglass was in the gallery on 1/31/1865 when the Amendment vote passed (wishing his father could have attended), but that's it.

[ando]

Indeed, that's just it. After all, there were no blacks serving in congress, unless they were serving white congressmen, so why even include their perspective at all? This perrogative hardly warrants defense but it would nontheless be interesting to see it alongside and in relation - or opposition to - the self-agency of African Americans which was alluded to above. Certainly, its legacy continues to this day as we've just witnessed with the near disenfranchisement of minority voters in the recent general election.

[Buttercream]

I think the criticism is more nuanced than that. As the Masur NYT piece that hearthesilence linked to above argues, Douglas was present for Lincoln's second inauguration, but more importantly the White House staff (Slade and Keckley) that are minor characters in the film were very active in local abolitionist organizations. And there was a sizable black community in Washington that is not present in the film other than black union soldiers. But the argument here is not this should have been a different movie where these characters are given as much screen time as Lincoln. Masur argues that it is not merely that their activism was left off screen, but also that they were portrayed as "faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee" with no such agency even remotely alluded to anywhere. Furthermore, that this depiction is further compounded by rendering Keckley as a maternal emotional barometer and Thaddeus Stephens' lover to be merely the "receiver of the gift of freedom".

As I mentioned above, I like the film quite a bit and find it to be among Spielberg's best. I've always found it fascinating to try and navigate Spielberg's mastery of the medium with his revisionist and simplistic history. Again, I don't think one negates the other.

[dustybooks]

I like to think I'm immune to Spielberg's hyper-sentimentality but

Spoiler

I had assumed after two hours that the film just wasn't going to "go there" in regard to Lydia Smith, so when it did I felt a profound catharsis, even though it's perhaps overly simplistic, as indicated above, to cast her as simply the "receiver of the gift." But I wish the movie had ended with them -- everything afterward seemed to part too much from the movie's thesis.

I thought the film was effective and rousing but less inspired than some of the director's other "history class" films (I like Schindler's and Amistad very much; not a fan of Saving Private Ryan). The procedural elements were excellent. I sort of wish the film had been completely focused upon the complexity and nature of the amendment's passage without being also obliged to play to biopic formulas. Had it been that movie, it could've been even longer and I'd have been fascinated. That said, Day-Lewis was terrific, if often upstaged by Tommy Lee Jones.

The changing times: It's kind of startling that just twenty years ago, Spielberg was able to get a black and white movie about the Holocaust made at Universal and now it takes (by my count) three studios to put out a crowd-pleasing patriotic chronicle of one of the most beloved figures of American history by the most popular director who's probably ever lived. Yikes.

[Niale]

The opening of Lincoln, had me fearing that it would be just like War Horse, a romantic conceit, and indeed much of Lincoln is. There are many scenes that are lit with a light house, there are a few empty, attention getting match cuts, overwrought entrances and montages of the improbable... All VERY enjoyable, all slick, skilled and effective... But not altogether affecting. At least that accounts for much of the movies initial running time. Before long, some of the style begins to become very substantive. Even the bombardment of light becomes more meaningful, during the visit to the wounded veterans hospital, Speilberg allows his compostion to flair out, looking right up at the sun.

Before this moment, The light came from nowhere, and had no purpose where it fell. It was but one ingredient, in a intoxicating potion of expressionism, that drowned the scenes. Everything before was playing out on the level of sub reality, of romanticism. In that moment, this approach was elevated, it became something greater. But all this PALES in comparison, to the astounding final moment of this film. It is bright in ideas, warm with compassion... But also, truly, in the most literal of ways, luminous, even if this moment of divine light ends in the dark. This movie has style that STICKS. There are many of Speilberg's generation, that surpassed him, but unlike them... Speilberg has achieved what they have not, he has made a film that equals the greatness of his best work.

[HistoryProf]

I'm not quite ready to declare this Spielberg's masterpiece, but I think I may get there with repeated viewings. It's easily among his greatest works, the best since Munich for sure. I would be reiterating much that's been said already in a glowing review: The screenplay is phenomenal and damned well better win the oscar; DDL is likewise incredible - I saw a matinee with family in Illinois and promptly drove back to Kansas City that afternoon. In 6 hours of driving I was hard pressed to come up with another portrayal of a historical figure that comes close to the gravitas, grit, and absolute realism Lewis managed to conjure. I don't know how he did it, but as someone who's read dozens of books about the man, he did something I didn't think was possible.

I also found the opening scene trite and, for lack of a better term, WAY too War Horsey. I was on edge instantly, even if I did appreciate the use of Lucas Haas in even that minor a role (one gets a sense that well known actors lined up for miles to try and get a few seconds on screen in this one...as though everyone felt the momentum it had). Bruce McGill is perfect, Straithern, as always, proves again he is one of our greatest (and most underrated) actors, and I especially enjoyed Michael Stuhlbarg's conflicted portrayal of George Yeaman, Jackie Earle Haley's wonderfuly ignoble portrayal of Stephens - maybe the best supporting role in the film - and even Boyd Crowder as a frightened lame duck Democrat torn by his desire for self-sufficiency and staying alive. Of course Tommy Lee Jones chews up the scenery as well as any man can...but even this was perfectly done. Among all the haranguing in the House chamber what I loved most was the partisan invective that flew back and forth - all pitch perfect and could easily have been straight from transcripts. If anything much of it was restrained - no one could insult another with such guile, viciousness, and glee as opposing politicians in the mid 19th century. The film thus again owes much to its fantastic screenplay...every word felt right (outside the opening that is), with perhaps only a few exceptions, all of them trivial (did "emphysema" exist in 1865?).

Which brings me to my ultimate compliment and the most surprising aspect of the film: it is incredibly restrained. A towering figure like Lincoln in the hands of Spielberg and John Williams simply begged for soaring backgrounds and epic speeches with enthralled acolytes at his feet. Instead we get a portrayal of a deeply wounded, conflicted, committed, and exhausted man who found himself at the precipice of history, appreciated this fact, and new this was his shot to end slavery once and for all. And he was dealing with an unwell wife (also admirably portrayed by Sally Field - the one bit of casting I was most leery of). All of the "quaintness" of storytelling and his methodical manner are rooted in truth: everything we know about the man is brought to life with amazing restraint and subtlety. He's so remarkably human I can't fully comprehend how Lewis pulled this off. He didn't imitate him...he became Lincoln. It's truly remarkable. The scene where he sits with the officers and Seward and explains the elliptical nature of the logic behind his war powers that backed the Emancipation Proclamation may be the most brilliant 3 minutes of historical cinema ever put to celluloid. Lincoln struggled mightily with every word in the Constitution and what powers he did and did not have. The fact that they managed to convey this - which I can testify is no easy feat to accomplish - while also providing a riveting political procedural AND make it funny, heartwarming, and downright thrilling at times is just astonishing.

In the end, there may be plenty to nitpick here, but this is Spielberg's best work in ages...perhaps ever...and will go down as among the greatest historical films ever made for one simple reason: it's not an "epic" as so many try to be (The Patriot, Dances With Wolves, War Horse, Last of the Mohicans, Glory, etc etc).

[HistoryProf]

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.

I think this article falls prey to the common problem of wishing a director had made a different film. I don't disagree with much of it, but I also don't think it's entirely fair. The one point I strongly agree with, however, is the regrettable absence of Frederick Douglass, who was a prominent figure to say the least in the midst of all this. If nothing else, he could have provided a voice from alongside Stevens that had berated Lincoln for years for not ending slavery sooner. Lincoln and Douglass had a fascinating relationship, both as adversaries and friends, and he caused quite the scandal by inviting him to the White House.

[ando]

I think the criticism is more nuanced than that. As the Masur NYT piece that hearthesilence linked to above argues, Douglas was present for Lincoln's second inauguration, but more importantly the White House staff (Slade and Keckley) that are minor characters in the film were very active in local abolitionist organizations. And there was a sizable black community in Washington that is not present in the film other than black union soldiers. But the argument here is not this should have been a different movie where these characters are given as much screen time as Lincoln. Masur argues that it is not merely that their activism was left off screen, but also that they were portrayed as "faithful servants, patiently waiting for the day of Jubilee" with no such agency even remotely alluded to anywhere. Furthermore, that this depiction is further compounded by rendering Keckley as a maternal emotional barometer and Thaddeus Stephens' lover to be merely the "receiver of the gift of freedom"

This isn't nuance; it's elaboration.

[hearthesilence]

I think this article falls prey to the common problem of wishing a director had made a different film. I don't disagree with much of it, but I also don't think it's entirely fair...

I'm usually against that sort of criticism too - imposing a film on a filmmaker instead of opening yourself to the one they make - but I think a film like this that's giving a take on history meant for mass consumption opens itself to tougher standards.

[Grand Illusion]

So I just got back from Stevens, and I really liked it. Wait... this was about Thaddeus Stevens, wasn't it?

Anyway, Tommy Lee Jones is so much fun as the heart of this film. DDL didn't chew the scenery thankfully. He was actually subdued, which was a nice change of pace from some of his other acclaimed roles. It was also necessary, as he was playing the political part opposite the fiery passion of Stevens. As for the rest of the cast... some line up, huh?

Not enough good can be said about Tony Kushner on film. I already thought Munich was Spielberg's best film, and I'm a huge fan of the Mike Nichols' adaptation of Angels in America. Kushner makes policy enjoyable. Spielberg needs to keep him on permanent retainer for all screenplays and/or rewrites.

[knives]

This is Spielberg we are talking about. If you expected anything other than a hagiography you were looking the wrong way.

Well obviously this post was entirely wrong if just for how small Day-Lewis makes his Lincoln. He's such a frail old man that he sort of needs these big successes to be a great man. The only times his body doesn't seem to be dead results in some bad stuff and great stress for him. If nothing else this is a fantastically complex Lincoln, even if I still am driven a little crazy from that Walter Brennan voice. In fact I'm almost annoyed that this turned out mostly great since it is way easier to dislike The Beard, but for the most part his worst aspects were entirely invisible and best were at their best. This isn't a terribly deep film, but as an action exercise in how the American system works it is mostly genius. There's a few pretty small flaws that are only significant insofar as they are part of a larger problem of the American psyche when it comes to race. With this of course I am referring to the lack of activity that black characters (and by extension community) show in their own emancipation, but more on that later. The film really shouldn't have been called Lincoln, but I suppose The 13th Amendment isn't as catchy a title. This is indicative of how the film suffers from LotR syndrome though as the story ends while the film goes on for another 20 minutes. The logical endpoint of the story is Stevens' last scene though Lincoln's meeting with the Alexander Stephens works reasonably well within the context of the story. Everything that comes after that is the maudlin manipulative Beard of such shit as Amistad and Schindler's List. It has nothing to do with the story and is just as much an artifact of the film's history as its title. Ideally the film would have cut from the last Stevens' scene to the credits with that final fiery speech that presently closes the film playing over the rolling credits. Likewise Spielberg's daddy issues get the better of him with the Robert story which is easily the weakest point of the story slowing the rapid pacing of the film down to a crawl most of the time. The way that the presidency and politics in general is a killing job seems important to the film and should not be cut, but works so well with Molly at its front and center. Their scenes reveal everything in a way that the Robert ones do not and feel organic to the world of the 13th amendment which is really the central character.

Going back to the activity of black activists of the the time that complaint is perfectly reasonable as it leaves the film suggesting the 13th amendment as a gift with a cure being as easy as adding a scene in which Lincoln speaks with (or more likely monologues to) a black abolitionist. Kushner and Spielberg both show a great ability to make the density of such political talk compelling so there's nothing to worry about on that front. At the same time though I don't think this is as big a deal as it could be since this is only about a period in the 'life' of the 13th amendment and so should only focus on that period (a.k.a. the period in which congress passes the bill and how) so focusing on why it was developed and the like does not seem necessary beyond what the opening scene offers. Also the pacing of the film is for the most part so fine tuned that to add anything seems like a fatal mistake to a fast and exciting film. As to be expected by Kushner the script is amazing, intense, and smartly conceived with a true lived in quality despite the totally unreal nature to the dialogue in most scenes. What really comes as a surprise is how masterly Spielberg controls the mis-en-scene balancing classical elements and and modern storytelling techniques so well that at points for minutes on end the sound of the film (however well crafted) became drowned out. Mary Todd's big scene with Stevens is the high point of all of this though all of Lee Pace's scenes are also great in this regard as the villain of the year.

This also goes into how wonderfully cast the whole film is with not a sour note in terms of performance in the whole very large bunch with even the smallest roles having a level of power that hasn't been seen in years. No speaking role is forgettable. The most impressive thing about the whole film though is how everybody looks so much of the time with not a modern affliction amongst the cast. They look of the 1860s and go a long way to sell the period. Amongst these (not counting the already much talked about performances by Day-Lewis and Jones) I have to say David Strathairn as the long suffering Secretary Seward really is amazing in a way the few performances are. Strictly in terms of memorably developing a human who will be remembered forever this is the best performance in a Beard film since Shaw in Jaws. Hell this might even be his best movie.

[Black Hat]

During the first scene I sat in the theater and said to myself oh no, Spielberg's going to ham up Lincoln but, once it moved past that I was really engaged with the film. Kushner, a guy I have a ton of respect for, wrote a fantastic script and is really the film's star in my opinion. It moved at a nice pace, was clear, concise and gave you a good feel for all the characters, their motivation and so forth except for perhaps Joseph Gordon Levitt's who was rather primitive by comparison. I could have lived without the histrionics during the final vote but, it is what is. My main beef with the film was that it got a little too schmaltzy at times with Lincoln coming off as Grandpa Walton on more than one occasion.

Question for any resident Lincoln experts, how many of the events depicted in the film are factual?

Spoiler

specifically how the votes were procured and Lincoln's letter to the house during the vote? Lincoln & Mary Todd's relationship? Not sure if tumultuous is the right word but, it was intenst. How about Tommy Lee Jones' character in a secret relationship with a black woman, formerly his maid?

[Black Hat]

If nothing else this is a fantastically complex Lincoln...The film really shouldn't have been called Lincoln

See I think your first observation justifies the title. I saw this film as being a character study of Lincoln, how his mind worked, as much as I did the 13th amendment. I think the 13th amendment was used as the vehicle to show that and in a lot of ways is in the background to that end. I don't know the historical ins and outs but, I'd imagine they could have made the same movie using the run up to the the Emancipation Proclamation.

David Strathairn as the long suffering Secretary Seward really is amazing in a way the few performances are.

Phenomenal performance, best in a film full of them.

[knives]

I don't necessarily disagree, just that Lincoln as a title suggests limitations the film does not really place on itself.

Spoiler

specifically how the votes were procured and Lincoln's letter to the house during the vote? Lincoln & Mary Todd's relationship? Not sure if tumultuous is the right word but, it was intenst. How about Tommy Lee Jones' character in a secret relationship with a black woman, formerly his maid?

Spoiler

Stevens indeed did have a relationship to Smith like the one in the film. As to Mary Todd, she was quite literally insane and her son Robert would later leave her at an asylum where she would die at. Lincoln's behavior toward has been described almost as as respectful, kind, and loving as can be expected of any one man. The fights in the film probably didn't come from actual transcripts in most cases, but are true to what has been recorded of their relationship. Your first question is slightly out of my expertise, but I believe the letter itself is historically accurate even if certain things surrounding it might have been emphasized for story purposes.

[matrixschmatrix]

Do you have any documentation on the Stevens thing? I'd gotten the impression that was fabricated, or at least largely speculative.

Also, I thought one of the conscious goals of the film's portrayal of Mary Todd was to highlight the idea that she wasn't necessarily insane, at least in the modern sense- she was a woman incredibly hard pressed who seemed to find little or no support, and there's a sort of implication that she's deemed unacceptable for being emotionally naked in a way that wasn't acceptable at the time.

[knives]

I didn't get that from the film though that definitely doesn't reflect reality where she was known to steal amongst other things. As to Smith they did nothing made up with her. What is known (that is relevant to the film) is that she was half and half born free and was hired as a housekeeper by Stevens when he was young with rumours of their relationship plaguing him throughout their life. Stevens would adopt her nephew later in their relationship. She was often privately called Mrs. Stevens and described herself as his wife. Her relationship with him has been talked about pretty in depth in most books on Stevens.

[Black Hat]

That's very interesting about Mary Todd. Doing a quick wikipedia read through only Robert managed to live to adulthood, with Tad dying at 18. Amazingly Robert's wiki page tells a story of how he was saved from possible death and certain injury on a train platform by of all people John Wilkes Booth's brother just prior to his father's assassination. He was also present or near three presidential assassinations.

In Robert Lincoln's own words

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car. The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body. There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform. Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

[MichaelB]

I was very curious to see what my brother-in-law made of it, as he's not only a professional historian with a longstanding interest in the US Civil War, but he's currently writing a biography of Lincoln.

Obligingly, he posted his reaction on YouTube.

(Not too surprisingly, given his specialism, he has a lot more to say about Lincoln than about Lincoln...)

[karmajuice]

My main beef with the film was that it got a little too schmaltzy at times with Lincoln coming off as Grandpa Walton on more than one occasion.

I actually thought this was one of the most intelligent aspects of the script, because it caters to Spielberg's schmaltz but in reality Lincoln deliberately fosters that persona to win the affections of those around him, and to help navigate the murky waters of politics. That's not to say it isn't genuine in some way too, but I think he was very conscious of his behavior and what I've read about Lincoln suggests to me that his down-home attitude served him as a strategic device.

[HistoryProf]

I was very curious to see what my brother-in-law made of it, as he's not only a professional historian with a longstanding interest in the US Civil War, but he's currently writing a biography of Lincoln.

Obligingly, he posted his reaction on YouTube.

(Not too surprisingly, given his specialism, he has a lot more to say about Lincoln than about Lincoln...)

an excellent review and contextualization of the man...I can tell he's been at it a long time! for what it's worth, my Civil War colleagues have universally lauded Lincoln and consider it the single best historical biopic ever made - even if it isn't a "biopic" per se. Much as been said already about the script, but I really think that it lies at the heart of what makes this a truly great film...it's almost as though it reigned Spielberg in and kept him from straying into his more comfortably schmaltzy waters. I can't wait to see the blu ray, we can only hope they do the film justice and provide some good extras.

[colinr0380]

I agree you with on these points, hearthesilence. I was attempting to separate the movie and its aesthetic merits from my issues with its politics. Typically I'm the kind that dismisses these films outright. I could get on board with the argument that this is about what the white male legislature had to do to get the amendment passed, but I feel that reading is undermined by what Masur points out as "the gift from benevolent white people", which is further problematized by the denial of black agency / activism within this historical period. Especially when all of them are portrayed as patiently waiting to be emancipated by the kindly white gentlemen.

That is a very interesting topic. Didn't Spielberg run into this with Amistad to some extent, as the courtroom drama overwhelmed the individuals? I'd be quite interested to know how Lincoln compares with that William Wilberforce film, Amazing Grace, which was also about the politics of slavery and its intersection with impassioned crusading (Amazing Grace might be problematic as a film production in itself, being produced by Walden Media)

[Kirkinson]

Jonathan Rosenbaum writes that Lincoln teaches "capitalism and its virtues rather than history per se," presenting a

revisionist Lincoln — a benign Machiavellian wheeler-dealer that complements the Good Nazi proposed by Oskar Schindler in Schindler’s List by suggesting that capitalist conniving and deception can be redeemed by compassionate, humanitarian goals.

Meanwhile, the World Socialist Web Site said Lincoln was the best movie of 2012.