Saw it last night, and I was a bit underwhelmed. I thought that the strengths of the film came more from the casting and the performances than it did from the script or the directing. I was also driven nearly mad by the fact that it was screamingly obvious in some scenes Spielberg had chosen to go the "Lucas route" and shoot the actors in front of a green screen, rather than on sets. Had the backgrounds been rendered better, I wouldn't have cared, but with them being almost realistic, I couldn't help but stare at them. There was one sequence, before one of the debates on the House floor, where it looked like they'd forgotten to edit out the pause before Spielberg yelled, "Action!" Some of the film felt like set pieces awkwardly stuck together, and I don't know why they insisted upon putting the Gettysburg Address in the film. Nobody in that era gave two shits about the speech until after Lincoln was dead. I think that the film would have been better done had they started out with the 1856 convention where Lincoln gave his "Lost Speech" and assured his place in politics. Then skipped ahead to about the 30 minute mark in the film as it is now. I also would have done a fade out with Lincoln walking out to Ford's Theater, then cut to a scene showing Sherman's account of his learning about Lincoln's surrender and its impact on the Confederate surrender.
Seen it. Very good - and the general jist is that while it takes the power grabbing that the Muad Dib's of this world don't like into consideration, it sees it all as fully justified to ending slavery. Which it was. Day Lewis is magnificent, befitting one of the greatest men who ever lived, even if the movie as a whole isn't quite up to Spielberg's best.
I'm not sure Day-Lewis managed to do that. Tommy Lee's a notorious scenery-chewer, and he pulled out all the stops in this role. But given who he's up against, the Academy's choice for Best Supporting Actor this year is gonna be a tough one. That said, what impressed the critics most was Day-Lewis's mastery of Lincoln's voice, which the Lincoln scholars agree was as close to authentic as possible. The film's also a great teaching tool. High school history texts tend to present the fight for the 14th as some noble cause, not the dirty-dealing D.C. back-room brawl that it actually was. This is a film I'll see more than once.
Tony Kushner's screenplay is unfucking believably good—elevated, 19th-century dialogue with heavy political subtexts that is crytal clear, riveting.
Just saw it. (In English!) Awesome! Of course it doesn't make Lincoln out to be the complete evil that people like Muad think (and which would be totally false historically--sorry, Muad), but it doesn't present him as the noble idealist who can do no wrong that he is often seen as, either. Very realistic. An excellent insight into a very difficult period of American history. Excellent acting as well, as has been mentioned so many times.
"Lincoln"'s really a ST:VOY spinoff story. Captain Braxton took the place of/replaced Edwin Stanton to save/preserve history.
I thought it was utter shit. Spielberg's worst movie by a mile. I have no personal aversion to Lincoln himself. In fact I have quite a few books on him, including a signed copy of the very one this movie is based on. However, the picture not only distorts the book it comes from, but also ignores just about any other academic assessment of the Lincoln era. It's a trumpted up essay about the greatness of Lincoln's fight against slavery more than it is about the man himself and ignores absolutely key aspects of his life during the period it is set, let alone the years before. Hell why is there so little discussion of his favouring of constitutional dictatorship to try and force his opponents into submission? The movie rides entirely and solely on the acting performance of Daniel Day Lewis. A definitive biopic it is not. That has yet to be made. As a cinema goer I watched in disbelief that this schlock came from the same man as Schinder's List. It reminded me of Argo, another festering turd of fictionalised nonsense.
Hadn't heard of that. Got any more info? Interesting opinion given that you've read a lot about him, although it wasn't meant to be a biopic.
It wasn't really singular, like Hitler's enabling act, but he took various dictatorial actions. He introduced martial law, infringed the rights of citizens by denying their right to fair trial, ignored the rulings of American courts and various other actions, all of which today would be considered huge abuses of power. Just a quick quote from wikipedia for you should you disbelieve me... Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Lincoln was some sort of evil tyrant. The abuses of power he carried out were, for the most part, based on his notion of what was required for the moral good. But the abuses were there nonetheless and the idea that he is a wise man whose shit never stank, which is what the movie promotes, is not particularly truthful. The very fact that he took a great big shit on the right to a fair trial is, to me, a relevant counterpoint to the idea that he was a great crusader for equality. Since the poster has a big picture of his head and the movie is titled "Lincoln" it would be something of a misrepresentation to suggest it isn't masquerading as a biopic.
When you said "constitutional dictatorship", I thought you meant getting rid of Congress, or not having elections or something on that order. I mostly know about the abuses of executive power.
I'm not sure what it is about "consitutional dictatorship" that makes you think that he dumped virtually the entire constitutional structure anymore than "consitutional monarchy" means that that Queen's power is absolute. Os, for the rest, I'm sure you did know of them before. That's why you asked the question....
I haven't read the book yet, though I'd imagine if Doris Kearns Goodwin was unhappy with the film, she'd have had her name removed from the credits...
Well, she went from being a biographer of LBJ (who knew LBJ personally) that few people had heard of, to a megahit author with Team of Rivals. She wouldn't be the first person to let fame go to their head.
I don't know where you're getting this. It certainly was not in the version I saw, in any case. On the contrary, even he himself was torn on whether those were good decisions, and he knew very well that, once the war was over and he could no longer claim war powers, he could well be overturned on a bunch of things. One of the things I liked the most about the film, as I mentioned, was that it avoided that starry-eyed "Lincoln could do no wrong" idea.
BTW, just for the fun of it, I continued the evening yesterday with an earlier chapter in the same story by watching "Amazing Grace." A wonderful story (with a few historical inaccuracies, such as the popularity and tune of the "Amazing Grace" song at that time...), about taking a stand against slavery when that was not at all popular. By the time the Americans got around to doing it as a country, it was a very popular opinion in the Western world. But when William Pitt and William Wilburforce and others got into it, they were taking a very courageous stand on a very unpopular issue. "Amazing Grace" and "Lincoln" both show how strong the opposition was, at the time, to the "obvious" idea (by today's values) that slavery is evil. Good, moral people defended it, simply because they were the products of their time and culture. I have to admire those who dare to stand up for an unpopular cause simply because they are persuaded it is the right thing to do. And I realize that the equality we enjoy today was because people like them dared to take that stand, when no one else was doing so.
Worse than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? While I found it a bit slow in places, it was still a good movie and quite far from being Spielberg's worst. I would have preferred a story that focused more on the Civil War and how Lincoln as a man dealt with trying to restore the Union rather than just focusing on the 13th Amendment. But since liberals can only ever remember the slavery issue from that time period (and Spielberg is one of the biggest Hollywood liberals there are), it's no surprise that they conveniently ignore everything else that Lincoln did and just drill down to the one issue of abolishing slavery.
The film was not nearly as critical as I would have liked. Lincoln was a very controversial figure in his day, but this film amounts to one-sided hero worship. It’s boring as a plot and historically disingenuous. Imagine if someone made such a film about, say, George W. Bush. It would never fly. Also, the acting and dramatic play were average at best. Lewis and Field were good, but I felt Jones was the same character he is in every other film I've seen. He hardly stole the show for me.
It should have been given the Hollywood action movie treatment. I can imagine Lincoln flinging himself out a window while still duct taped to a chair, then doing a hottie in the village marketplace, etc.
When push comes to shove, I would have preferred Michael Bay had been the one to take the dive off the Long Beach bridge instead of Tony Scott. The world would have been much better off.
Rob - I don't think it was totally one-sided. In any event, Bush simply doesn't measure up to Lincoln as a historical figure or a man, even if both are "controversial".
