criterionforum.org

Which is, in my opinion, one of Spielberg's best movies- and maybe his best self-consciously serious one.

Cold Bishop wrote:Well, they do have a history.

Yes, they did do that (with Eric Roth). The reviews reflect what I would expect from the Lincoln project:

"Another dip in the Spielberg pool and I come away drenched in emotion."

"I won't take this one as a definitive history lesson on the subject. Instead I'll take it as a captivating tale of a struggle of life and death played on a complex stage of geopolitics."

"The reason Spielberg takes his silly "we're all the same" stance is because he can't bare to paint either side in even the faintest of bad lights. He thinks he's chosen the moral high road, when in fact, by ignoring all truth he's chosen no road at all. The high road is cold objective truth, but Spielberg has always been more interested in sanitizing history by avoiding painful traumas."

"Like the great hitchcock or kubrick spielberg has remained at the top of his game for quite some time. the man simply knows how to tell a great story."

"A superficial, safe and self-important fantasy movie, churned out without much intelligent thought."

To my mind, these comments could be applied to any number of Spielberg films, especially the self-consciously serious ones.

The complaint about how Spielberg paints the situation as 'we're all the same' is absurd, the movie is incredibly messy for a Spielberg film- there's a great deal of violence with no resolution as to how right or moral that violence is, the traumatizing event in the beginning of the movie remains unrectified throughout, and the overall emotional arc is much closer to Fincher's Zodiac than it is to anything I would call 'superficial' or 'safe'. A lot of those are critiques (or mindless praise) that often apply to Spielberg's work, but which are also often applied thoughtlessly to works of his where they don't fit.

edit: Also, I'd bet money that the 'cold objective truth' guy is a neocon who can't take the idea of moral equivalency between Israel's actions and terrorism, regardless of how well founded it is

Nevertheless, you read/hear the same critiques for most (if not all) of his films. I don't expect Lincoln to yield very different results.

I think Spielberg's primary objective in all his films is "entertainment". Tony Kushner, on the other hand, is so unapologetically politcal, that like Munich, Spielberg would - more than likely - desire another writer to temper Kushner's tendency to polemicize.

One of the aspects of Kushner's Angels In America that I feel will date it rather quickly are its contemporary references (Reagan administration gripes, Thatcher digs, etc.). Will audiences (gay or straight) be as eager to watch the play/film in fifty years as they were back in 1990? Kushner could probably care less about such speculative considerations but Spielberg undoubtedly does. He goes, it seems to me, in quite the opposite direction, avoiding anything that might be deemed controversial - certainly not revisionist (though this will be quite the challenge given the stature of someone as historically fecund as Lincoln) - so it will be interesting to see how he handles Kushner's script (if he chooses to handle it at all).

Haha, you should try actually watching Munich before deciding what effect the writers on Munich had, man

Spielberg brought in Kushner to rewrite Roth's first draft, not the other way around. Spielberg wouldn't even commit to the film unless he could get Kushner into the fold.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Haha, you should try actually watching Munich before decided what effect the writers on Munich had, man

OK. And if I'm wrong I'll eat my cigar. But I know Kushner's and Spielberg's work. I shouldn't be surprised.

"...And such small portion."

Hmm. According to hollywoodeporter.com, "Speilberg recently said that the project will not be released until after the 2012 presidential election, to keep it out of the political discourse. It will be released by Disney's Touchstone label."

Did I mention that Spielberg goes out of his way to avoid controversy? Did I mention Disney?

At any rate, I hadn't known until 10 minutes ago that Kushner is adapting material for Lincoln. The source material is Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team Of Rivals (an intriguing historical interpretation of Lincoln and his cabinet). So, in effect, it's another re-writing job. This makes far more sense to me in terms of Spielberg's rationale. He's got a proven bestseller adapted by one of the most prominent writers in the U.S.. I certainly could never see him adapting Kushner's The Intelligent Homosexual's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism With a Key to the Scriptures or even Kushner's treatment of the Yiddish classic, Dybbuk, despite their shared heritage.

Well yeah, but that's because those aren't in his interest. You really wouldn't blame Rossellini for not wanting to adapt a fairy tale for example. Spielberg is concerned mostly with issues of community and it should come as no shock that the film won't be particularly political. A trailer isn't even available yet so there really is only a limited amount of information available for you to know where things are going. Wait at least until than.

Wait for what?

What could come from a not particularly political film about a politician? Firstly, I don't think there's ever been any such thing - and I challenge anyone to name such a film - and this film won't be, either, especially with Kushner involved. Further, issues of community are politics, no?

Someone mumbled something about the apoltical stance of Spielberg in his collaboartion with Kushner in Munich. Well, I had to see this. If Jewish hostages pleading in English to apparently uncompromising, non-English speaking "Arabs" while they are shot to death is apolitical somebody changed the definition.

I'm not dismissing Spielberg or implying that he's right or wrong about anything; it just baffles me why he insists on taking an adolescent approach to historical events. Who does he think he's fooling?

ando wrote:I'm not dismissing Spielberg or implying that he's right or wrong about anything; it just baffles me why he insists on taking an adolescent approach to historical events. Who does he think he's fooling?

Where is this bafflement coming from? Spielberg has been making films for over thirty years that are the textbook definition of middlebrow. He doesn't do it because he's a sell out, but because his personal taste is genuinely middlebrow. He's a populist. He tries to appeal to the largest demographic possible. He is never going to engage in a Howard Zinn-inspired reading of history, and he isn't trying to fool anyone about it. When you buy a ticket to a Spielberg film, you do so knowing full well that you're about to watch a polished work of mainstream entertainment.

ando wrote:Someone mumbled something about the apoltical stance of Spielberg in his collaboartion with Kushner in Munich. Well, I had to see this. If Jewish hostages pleading in English to apparently uncompromising, non-English speaking "Arabs" while they are shot to death is apolitical somebody changed the definition.

Part of the movie's strategy is to have the viewer totally identify with the Israelis and their mission in the beginning of the film, so as to bring you along with them as their sense of morality and purpose falls apart. It's absolutely a political and politicized movie, all the more so for having the audience identify with people on what is essentially an extralegal, terrorist action. I mean, Pontecorvo made Colonel Matthieu the figure one initially identified with in The Battle of Algiers.

As for the idea that it's silly to have a movie about a politician that isn't political- well of course it is, but every movie ever made is political. That doesn't mean it needs consciously and clumsily to try to relate historical events directly to current ones- that's how we get Robert Redfort's hamhanded The Conspirator.

Spielberg never implied that the film was apolitical. His rationale is, in fact, just the opposite:

Steven Spielberg at [i]Entertainment Weekly[/i] via [i][url=http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/steven-spielberg-says-lincoln-was-set-for-december-2012-to-avoid-being-grist-for-the-2012-political-election]The Playlist[/url][/i] wrote:"It has a lot of relevance to our time, especially with our divided House. It is about a divided House in 1865. But I'm not willing to allow the film to be part of the gristmill of the 2012 election cycle," he explained to EW in the latest issue. "So I'm going to make the movie, which of course would be ready for release before the election, but it won't come out until December of '12."

And while he doesn't point to any specifics, he does say that both the Republicans and Democrats could put their teeth in the movie, and he's not willing to have it chewed up by politicians. "I don't mind starting a conversation, but a film like Lincoln could be used by both sides, and the only casualty will be the film."

Highway 61 wrote:When you buy a ticket to a Spielberg film, you do so knowing full well that you're about to watch a polished work of mainstream entertainment.

"Polished" is debatable but I agree with your overall point.. And it's too bad for Mr. Kushner. It certainly speaks to what Andrei Tarkovsky meant by being horrified at the prospect of having made a Spielberg film.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Part of the movie's strategy is to have the viewer totally identify with the Israelis and their mission in the beginning of the film, so as to bring you along with them as their sense of morality and purpose falls apart.

Understood. Within that strategy are assumptions that are not necessarily shared with the non-English speaking world. Those assumptions, which come out of the culture, inform and influence politics. Despite his claims of impartiality Spielberg is as biased as the next man when it comes to his assumptions. His films, as someone pointed out, aren't at the level where such assumptions are irrelevant; they're essential in order to derive pleasure from watching a film like Munich.

matrixschmatrix wrote:As for the idea that it's silly to have a movie about a politician that isn't political- well of course it is, but every movie ever made is political. That doesn't mean it needs consciously and clumsily to try to relate historical events directly to current ones

Though this argument was never introduced I totally agree, which is why Spielberg's "post-election 2012" Lincoln release commentary seems so petulantly juvenile.

ando wrote: It certainly speaks to what Andrei Tarkovsky meant by being horrified at the prospect of having made a Spielberg film.

Can you expound upon this or offer a link for further reading? I never knew that Tarkovsky ever commented on Spielberg's work.

Thanks in advance.

Check out Sculpting In Time.

Though I think I'm going to regret bringing Tarkovsky into this. (I'll find and post a portion of the chapter from which his sentiment comes in a bit.)

I mean the funny thing is, I'm broadly on your side, Ando- I find Spielberg's stubborn refusal to let things be messy in nearly all of his films deeply annoying, and it's easy enough to see how someone like Tarkovsky would go right up the wall at the idea of making something Spielbergian. But he (Spielberg) had a run of movies that weren't quite as clean as his normal work- A.I., Catch Me if You Can, and particularly and especially Munich- and it bothers me a bit to see the normal claims laid against him repeated in the movies where he actually managed to avoid his usual, irritating traps. Munich is a deeply political movie, as I seriously hope Lincoln is, and anyone who claims they can make political works without bias is a liar- in fact, I would say the major difference between a movie like Munich and something like Jurassic Park is that Munich wears both its politics and its biases on its sleeve, and is vastly improved for doing so. Jurassic Park, on the other hand, has all sorts of problematic assumptions which it mostly just rushes past as quickly as possible.

I think Spielberg's motivations in wanting to keep Lincoln out of the debate for the 2012 election are totally understandable- I think he's right, that such connections tend to push superficial readings on to a film, and make it something read more as a ticksheet of 'does this movie agree with my politics' than as something set in a different political struggle, which is best related to the present metaphorically and not literally.

With respect, neither you nor Steven Spielberg can tell me how to read a film. It's as simple as that.

Like anyone else, my reading my change due to personal life circumstances or changes in the national or world scenes. But to think that you could influence someone's reading of film based on a release date that would circumvent political implication seems to me so utterly peevish (and calculated) that it can only be called Spiebergian. I can understand the fiscal imperative - that's Hollywood.

Actually, given the outcome (whatever it is) of the 2012 Presidential election I would think that a film about Lincoln, the new president and his cabinet, would garner more interest than if it were released beforehand. This is, more than likely, the real strategy here.

I think I'll read Team of Rivals next fall and then make my decision on who to vote for in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Check Mate, Spielberg

ando wrote:But to think that you could influence someone's reading of film based on a release date that would circumvent political implication seems to me so utterly peevish (and, frankly, cowardly) that it can only be called Spelbergian.

What? First you criticize Kushner for his "dated" cultural references, and now you want Spielberg to throw his film to the imbecilic media wolves before the election just for the sake of a 24-hour news cycle or two.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

Jeff wrote:Daniel Day Lewis is already living as Lincoln. Rumor has it that he has spoken in his Lincoln accent since March. Here he is having dinner.

Oh boy, I'm officially interested.

edit: and I'm really hoping this was a joke?

triodelover wrote:Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

double edit: He wasn't joking.

Brian C wrote:

ando wrote:But to think that you could influence someone's reading of film based on a release date that would circumvent political implication seems to me so utterly peevish (and, frankly, cowardly) that it can only be called Spelbergian.

What? First you criticize Kushner for his "dated" cultural references, and now you want Spielberg to throw his film to the imbecilic media wolves before the election just for the sake of a 24-hour news cycle or two.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

Ditto.

To begin with, your paraphrasing is inaccurate. My point was that Kushner, who is pointedly and deliberately political, has created work (like any work veering toward polemic) that may not be as appreciated in the future as it is now. The contemporary political allusion is a strong factor in his writing, which is why he seems such a curious choice for someone like Spielberg, who avoids making pointedly political statements, though his assumptions are as clear as day. It seems like a contradiction or inherent conflict in approach, but perhaps in this lies a kind of creative tension that fuels his work.

It also seems peevish, not to mention presumptuous, of Spielberg to expect a certain response (or outcome) from audiences because of a release date. Can any filmmaker ever successfully second-guess the reception of his or her film before its release?

ando wrote:Media wolves as well as everyone else will read his film no differently simply because the release date is scheduled around national events. Why would we?

You're doing an awful lot of careless and uncharitable reading in order to bolster what you'd already decided was true beforehand. Spielberg seems to be saying that he doesn't want his film cheaply co-opted by political partisans to help sell whatever policies they're pushing, which is perfectly reasonable considering how often that has already happened with Lincoln. So he pushes the release date back so that no one can mangle the film to help them win an election and so that it isn't overshadowed by electoral rhetoric. Not only is this motive understandable, it functions perfectly well without your assumption that Spielberg is a political filmmaker who pretends to be a-political. That last bit is an unnecessary explanation.

aox wrote:

ando wrote: It certainly speaks to what Andrei Tarkovsky meant by being horrified at the prospect of having made a Spielberg film.

Can you expound upon this or offer a link for further reading? I never knew that Tarkovsky ever commented on Spielberg's work.

Did you know that Tarkovsky commented on James Glickenhaus' The Exterminator?

He was visiting London in 1981 for a NFT lecture, and insisted on seeing it, as it was the big British censorship cause célèbre at the time - so you can see why a much-censored Russian filmmaker would have a passing interest in the subject.

He wasn't impressed.

Mr Sausage wrote:Spielberg seems to be saying that he doesn't want his film cheaply co-opted by political partisans to help sell whatever policies they're pushing, which is perfectly reasonable considering how often that has already happened with Lincoln. So he pushes the release date back so that no one can mangle the film to help them win an election and so that it isn't overshadowed by electoral rhetoric. Not only is this motive understandable, it functions perfectly well without your assumption that Spielberg is a political filmmaker who pretends to be a-political.

I agree with this - but also, releasing it in December won't exactly hurt its Oscar chances either. Which I imagine has also entered into the calculations.