Review of "Lincoln" on Dvd

[madmac]

I spun this disc the other day and must say that I loved it. It is, of course, very political but the politics is of course of a different era. Lewis does a spookingly good job as Lincoln. Fabulous job actually!. The film is long so make sure you have the time to watch it and of course, stay awake. I say that not because it's dull, but you have to be able to stick with it.

Not recommended for young children as some of the civil war scenes are quite brutal. 16+ RECOMMENDED

Next up is "The Life of Pi" !!

[aud19]

Looking forward to watching this as I'm a HUGE D.D. Lewis fan.

Interested to see your thoughts on Life of Pi...I thought it was ok but nothing overly exceptional IMO.

[wkhanna]

Last week The Wife & I were able to watch this wonderful film.

I shall not bicker over the historical accuracy or lack thereof.
Rather, I will rejoice in the chance to be immersed in well spoken English language which will most probably be perceived as a foreign dialect to those under the age of 40 or so.
An excellent screenplay supported by even better acting.
Sally Feild was superb, though to me it seemed the character of Mary was given slight reprieve of the mental tortures she suffered, the performance showing her most often at full wit & intellectual prowess.

For me, a surprisingly solid production from a highly unlikely source, Hollywood!
Highly recommended even for younger audiences…..

….it is never too soon to show the young the horrors of war lest they forget their lesson.

[madmac]

Looking forward to watching this as I'm a HUGE D.D. Lewis fan.

Interested to see your thoughts on Life of Pi...I thought it was ok but nothing overly exceptional IMO.

I've heard "Pi" has exceptional cinematography !!??.

[madmac]

Last week The Wife & I were able to watch this wonderful film.

I shall not bicker over the historical accuracy or lack thereof.
Rather, I will rejoice in the chance to be immersed in well spoken English language which will most probably be perceived as a foreign dialect to those under the age of 40 or so.
An excellent screenplay supported by even better acting.
Sally Feild was superb, though to me it seemed the character of Mary was given slight reprieve of the mental tortures she suffered, the performance showing her most often at full wit & intellectual prowess.

For me, a surprisingly solid production from a highly unlikely source, Hollywood!
Highly recommended even for younger audiences…..

….it is never too soon to show the young the horrors of war lest they forget their lesson.

In my opinion, the opening scene where soldiers are getting impaled and heads bashed in is too much for young children. Maybe 14+ then but not less than that. I had a hard time screening movies for my young daughter because the ratings are way too liberal here. The U.S does better than Canada with ratings. There are some movies that are way too violent that are actually aimed at kids and labelled "General admission" here!!

[aud19]

I've heard "Pi" has exceptional cinematography !!??.

It was pretty to look at.

Kind of like a sweet but dumb bikini model. Nice to look at and you can tell she's got a good heart but not much going on in the conversation department...

[wkhanna]

In my opinion, the opening scene where soldiers are getting impaled and heads bashed in is too much for young children. Maybe 14+ then but not less than that. I had a hard time screening movies for my young daughter because the ratings are way too liberal here. The U.S does better than Canada with ratings. There are some movies that are way too violent that are actually aimed at kids and labelled "General admission" here!!

Obviously frivolous violence for no other sake than to generate revenue or intentionally cloaked for the same purpose is beyond moral reproach.

But no more so than hiding the true revulsion & cost of war.
A child shown the reprehensible & tragic, senseless price of war may be less likely to prosecute one in the future. It being no more horrific as the one who never sees the parent return from one.

[Chris D]

Jason - Totally agree about DD Lewis. I think he might be the greatest actor of all time, evidenced by any number of films he's worked.

As for the Life of Pi, Jason's got it right. It was pretty, and I thought it was good, but I wasn't overwhelmed. MAYBE worth a repeat watch for me, but not a re-rent or purchase.

I'll definitely be watching Lincoln when able.

[aud19]

Jason - Totally agree about DD Lewis. I think he might be the greatest actor of all time, evidenced by any number of films he's worked.

He's been in (and excelled in) so many of my favourite movies. Even movies that aren't my favourite that he's been in, he more often than not stands out as being at a higher level than the cast around him. A truly exceptional actor and arguably at the top of this generation of actors. Best of all time starts to get in to some steep competition with the likes of Nicholson, De Niro etc who in their prime were more than formidable. That said, if he doesn't top those guys, he at least belongs in the same conversation IMO.

[Chris D]

Yeah, Jason, I agree. I don't think any DDL films are my favorite films, but he has some of the best character performances I've ever seen. For example, I thought "There Will Be Blood" was an okay film, but DDL's PERFORMANCE in the film was extraordinary, and one that I personally think is one of the best of all-time. I thought "Gangs of NY" was pretty good, but his performance was exceptional. "My Left Foot" was pretty good, but again, his performance was extraordinary. When I think back to "Last of the Mohicans", I can't remember too much, but I definitely remember two things, (1) the score was awesome, and I bought the soundtrack, and (2) DDL scenes.

Going to his IMDB page, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000358/?ref_=sr_3 there's lots of neat information about him, such as a slew of roles that he turned down. This includes Aragorn in LOTR. (now THAT would have been interesting!) This is also fascinating:

The first Non-American actor to win three Academy Awards for Best Actor. He is also the first actor anywhere to win three Oscars in that category. 2013's Oscar for Lincoln wins him his 3rd Academy award.

[aud19]

If I recall, you enjoy musicals Chris, correct? Have you seen his performance in Nine? Fergie of all people has an IMO stand out vocal performance in that as well, you should give it a look :T

If you don't mind the spoiler, here's a Youtube vid of her showstopper:

[Chris D]

Actually, I haven't seen Nine, Jason. But this thread is inspiring me to see the DDL films that I haven't seen yet (there's maybe 4) so Nine will go to to top of my Netflix queue!

[Chris D]

Rented Lincoln tonight. Aaaaarrrrrgh... It left me a bit aggravated, and the more I thought about it, the more frustrated I became.

Decent film, good performances, very interesting background information on things. BUT... This movie should not have been titled "Lincoln". It should have been called something like "the 13th amendment to the US Constitution was very important but really hard to pass and we think people are really bad that didn't want it". This was not really a movie about Lincoln. This only covered the final 4 months of Lincoln's life and a small portion of the man.

Are you telling me that all of Lincoln and his legacy was the 13th amendment and partial references to the end of the civil war? There is so much more about this great man. Where is the rest of his life? His multiple failures, that drove him to success? The Lincoln Douglas debates? Even references to his great speeches which have become EPIC in American history were only hinted at in this movie, with other characters quoting a few lines.

DDL did a fine job, but it was not epic because the story of his character Lincoln was not really shown. A movie titled about a person should be about the person. DDL did not have the leading role, though, because the leading role was the story of the 13th amendment. Lincoln and all other characters were supporting roles.

As always I try to watch a movie for what the filmmakers intended it to be. This is not a biographic docudrama. It's a docudrama about a historical event that many people were a part of. Ok, fine. They did an entertaining job with that. :35: out of :5:

[wkhanna]

It is the 13th amendment that defines Lincoln's legacy.
His motivation & intent for & of it is of great debate.
I think that is what the film is addressing.
Maybe too much a movie-version of 'history' for some?
Nearly a documentary in some aspects?

[Chris D]

It just seems to me this movie would be like telling the story of the NASA moon landing program, and calling it "JF Kennedy". JFK has so much more of his life to tell, and other things that he did or programs he pushed, just like Lincoln, and he's not even on Mount Rushmore.

EDIT: Oh, and we haven't gotten into the accuracy part, but I was disappointed that the film really depicts the civil war being fought over slavery. If there's one thing I think we could educate today's society about on this topic, it's that the Civil War was about a lot more than just slavery, particularly state rights.

[wkhanna]

I was disappointed that the film really depicts the civil war being fought over slavery. If there's one thing I think we could educate today's society about on this topic, it's that the Civil War was about a lot more than just slavery, particularly state rights.

I thought the film addressed that.
Lincoln was in his second term & the war was coming to a close as all of the South's supply/trade routes were effectively blocked at this point.

That was sort of the point I was trying make

It is the 13th amendment that defines Lincoln's legacy.
His motivation & intent for & of it is of great debate.

But I fully appreciate your viewpoint.

[Ovation]

It just seems to me this movie would be like telling the story of the NASA moon landing program, and calling it "JF Kennedy". JFK has so much more of his life to tell, and other things that he did or programs he pushed, just like Lincoln, and he's not even on Mount Rushmore.

EDIT: Oh, and we haven't gotten into the accuracy part, but I was disappointed that the film really depicts the civil war being fought over slavery. If there's one thing I think we could educate today's society about on this topic, it's that the Civil War was about a lot more than just slavery, particularly state rights.

Have you read the book upon which the film is based? The title is perhaps a touch misleading, given your reaction (and I suspect the reaction of some other viewers--though your particular complaint is not one I've come across very much and I have been reading quite a bit about this film, given my professional interests as an historian who uses cinematic history as an important teaching tool). The book, Team of Rivals, is an excellent analysis of Lincoln's ability to pull together disparate interests in his cabinet together and work with a very fractious Congress. The film wisely, in my opinion, chooses to focus on one of the many political battles Lincoln faced during his presidency--the most important one (again, in my opinion--but that one is shared by the bulk of historians).

As to the Civil War being about more than slavery--this is a topic that comes up over and over in my class on US History (which I will be teaching again this summer). It is true that there were many issues that drove a wedge between North and South. However, without slavery, none of them, separately or together, was sufficient to motivate armed insurrection and secession by the South. Moreover, the primary "states' right" listed in the secession declarations was the right to maintain slavery. Additionally, the CSA's constitution was written in such a way as to make it impossible for member states (had it persisted) to end slavery on their own--a violation of the very principle of "states' rights" that was allegedly so important to the seceding states.

What I have found among many (the vast majority, really) people who protest over the notion that the Civil War was about slavery is that they really mean the Civil War was not initiated for (and not primarily motivated by) the purpose of abolishing slavery. And that is correct. The primary motivation of Lincoln's government was to preserve the Union. It only developed, over the course of the war, that the abolition of slavery became seen as the best way to guarantee the Union would not face further secessionist challenges later on (and the immediate impact of emancipation generated a crippling blow to the South's war efforts by sowing further chaos in the CSA). However, far too many CSA apologists (and I am not counting anyone here among them, merely referring to the numerous works I've read by such people) try to push slavery way down the list of reasons for the war. And they are unequivocally wrong to do so, based on the overwhelming documentary evidence alone from the period. The war was not started to free the slaves, but it happened because slavery existed. Slavery was the one element that was unresolvable among all the tensions that divided North and South. Tariffs, territorial expansion to the West, cultural differences and a host of other issues--each one was exacerbated to a severe degree by the existence of slavery. As such, it is impossible to construct a coherent explanation for the US Civil War without slavery as the primary cause of the conflict. All other causes raised as contributing factors were influenced by their connection to slavery.

There is an excellent book by Gary W. Gallagher called Causes Won, Lost and Forgotten that addresses these themes and explores the way cinematic history and public monuments have strongly distorted the way Americans perceive the Civil War vs. the way it actually unfolded. I strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Civil War and the way popular culture has influenced perceptions about it. It is a recent book (though not recent enough to include The Conspirators or Lincoln) and while suitable for academic purposes, it is also written in a style that should be appealing to a general audience as well.

[Chris D]

Very interesting, Ovation. Yes, I totally agree that slavery was the hot, provocative topic of the time, and the civil war would not have exploded the way it did without slavery. Thank God we had Lincoln and other great men then that grabbed history by the throat and did what it took to pass the 13th Amendment (and other measures). Side note to this topic, but something you reference, I don't know if I could say that the civil war would NEVER have happened without the issue of slavery. It sure wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did, though. If you could theoretically remove the aspect of racism from American history, I don't think the issue of federalism and state rights could continue to be ignored. Heck, we STILL have not resolved this issue! The 10th amendment totally is blatantly and widespread ignored without hesitation. Can I say that without racism and slavery, it (and other issues) still would have caused an armed conflict civil war sometime in the last 200+ years? Hard to say. Even though it continues today, we're not getting a civil war today.

My point is that it's myopic to reduce a huge, explosive time in American history and say that it was ONLY about slavery. Any more than a 10 year old could say that WWII was fought over the Holocaust, and be told he's 100% right, with nothing more he ever needed to learn about it as he got older. Is that all we need to teach our kids, that the Civil War was just about slavery, topic covered, let's move on to WWI? Yes, the Civil War was absolutely about slavery. .....aaaand......

Anyway, back on topic, maybe my chief complaint I referenced above in my mini-review is just one of labels. I did REALLY want to love this film. And if it had been called "Team of Rivals", just like the book, I think that would have been much more fitting. No, I haven't read the book, but I'm interested. Ovation, especially with you being a historian, I'd be surprised if you would say that this movie was truly a story about Lincoln. Can any person have their whole story told by looking at just a tiny 4 months of their life, much less the epic-ly great figures of history? Yes, this one event was inarguably his #1 thing in his life, but there was so much more to this great man! Would you make a movie called "Michaelangelo", and only show him painting the Sistine Chapel? Make a movie called "Jesus", and only show his death and resurrection? Make a movie called "Washington", and only show the end of the Revolutionary War and him getting elected the 1st President?

Like Spielberg alludes in the special features (and unfortunately, I couldn't find a director's commentary track), I wish this would have been made mostly the way it was, but only ADDED to with the rest of Lincoln's life and accomplishments, if it was really to be THE story of Lincoln, then released as maybe a 4-hour epic feature, or epic series like Band of Brothers.

I liked the film. Just thought it was packaged and sold incorrectly.

[bigburner]

I watched this film last week. I found the dialogue very interesting and I was hugely impressed with Daniel Day-Lewis's performance as Lincoln. I'm surprised that the studio took such as risk making a film with so much dialogue and so little action and I'm equally surprised that it has done so well in the United States for the same reasons. I can only presume that the stature of Abraham Lincoln in the US is such that the film's success was assured. Whatever the reason, bravo Hollywood!

Nigel.

[Ovation]

You raise a number of good points. I'll tackle a few as best as I can (I could, of course, write a 30 page paper on these points, but this isn't the proper forum for such an exercise).

Very interesting, Ovation. Yes, I totally agree that slavery was the hot, provocative topic of the time, and the civil war would not have exploded the way it did without slavery. Thank God we had Lincoln and other great men then that grabbed history by the throat and did what it took to pass the 13th Amendment (and other measures). Side note to this topic, but something you reference, I don't know if I could say that the civil war would NEVER have happened without the issue of slavery. It sure wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did, though. If you could theoretically remove the aspect of racism from American history, I don't think the issue of federalism and state rights could continue to be ignored. Heck, we STILL have not resolved this issue! The 10th amendment totally is blatantly and widespread ignored without hesitation. Can I say that without racism and slavery, it (and other issues) still would have caused an armed conflict civil war sometime in the last 200+ years? Hard to say. Even though it continues today, we're not getting a civil war today.

The most frequently mentioned "big issues", other than slavery, that the bulk of historians consider potential sources of armed conflict from the period were western territorial expansion and tariffs. The tariffs were enacted to promote American industrialization in the face of stiff competition from the number one industrialized power in the world--the British Empire. The effects of the tariffs on the North were beneficial as they made prices "more equal" on the market and allowed for industrialization to establish itself firmly in the US (incidentally, this is the approach that all of the world's current "mature economies"--the G7--used to establish themselves, except for Britain as they were first. Britain was the first to favour free trade rather than protectionism and free trade today, by and large, is the correct economic approach for the G7 and the G20. It is not, however, in the interest of all developing countries, but that is for another discussion.). The effects of the tariffs on the South was to drive up consumer prices for finished goods as American companies could not compete on price with British companies and the tariffs made imported goods more expensive. This was the source of much resentment in the South because there was no compensatory policy to alleviate their dependence on the slave labour driven cotton economy. Here again, though, slavery is at the heart of the issue. The Upper South (many of whom did not secede, despite being slave states) began to diversify their economy between 1835-1860 and, consequently, began to benefit from the tariffs. The Lower South did not diversify sufficiently, preferring to continue its reliance upon the slave/cotton economy and continued to suffer under the tariffs. However, in 1846, the Walker Tariff considerably lowered rates, and another tariff act in 1857 lowered them again, such that the tariff issue was no longer a legitimate economic irritant (though the South did fear the potential return of tariffs).

As for western expansion, there too the central tension revolved around slavery. Unofficially, since 1820 (known as the Missouri Compromise), any time states were admitted into the Union, a balance was maintained respecting a longitude (Missouri was the only slave state allowed above that longitude) so that there would be an equal number of slave and non-slave states in Congress. This preserved a de facto balance of power in the Senate. However, this compromise was one of political convenience, not a legal one, and the subsequent attempt (the Compromise of 1850) proved flawed and unable to stop the erosion of this balance in the Senate (the policy of one slave and one non-slave state was increasingly ignored). Moreover, the longitudinal line created a situation where more territory was in free areas than slave areas. The writing was on the wall as far as a balanced Senate. Without that balance, there was nothing, constitutionally speaking, that could prevent an eventual abolition from gaining the necessary supermajority in Congress (at some unspecified time in the future). So, faced with a loss of balance in the Senate, the rise to political power of a party with an openly abolitionist wing (not all Republicans were strong abolitionists, as the film showed, but there were quite a few who were) and the potential for future tariffs, the slave states (at least, most of them), decided to secede. But while there were a number of factors at play, slavery was at the heart of the conflict (territorial expansion in the absence of slavery would not have posed an existential threat to the South and tariff policies would not, by themselves, have been sufficient to cause armed revolt, especially since political solutions were found, despite the tensions of the 1850s, to the tariff question).

My point is that it's myopic to reduce a huge, explosive time in American history and say that it was ONLY about slavery. Any more than a 10 year old could say that WWII was fought over the Holocaust, and be told he's 100% right, with nothing more he ever needed to learn about it as he got older. Is that all we need to teach our kids, that the Civil War was just about slavery, topic covered, let's move on to WWI? Yes, the Civil War was absolutely about slavery. .....aaaand......

The cause and motivation for the conflict need to be considered separately to do a proper analysis (that is, in part, what Gallagher means with "Causes Won (abolition of slavery), Lost (CSA) and Forgotten (the Union)"). The principle cause of the conflict was slavery--its existence is what made all of the issues much more divisive than they otherwise were. The motivation, from the Union side, was the preservation of the Union. Settling the issue of abolition arose only during the conflict. The motivation for the CSA, though, was, first and foremost, the preservation of the institution of slavery. It is in the secession documents and in the CSA constitution. This was presented via the prism of "states' rights" as a wider justification for the conflict from the CSA's perspective, but a careful examination of the written records of the day reveals that such an argument became far more pronounced (and the need to preserve slavery radically diminished) in the immediate aftermath of the war, after the CSA surrendered and dissolved. Jefferson Davis and, especially, Alexander Stephens, began to reframe their arguments post-bellum (for a variety of reasons, some easily surmised, others more obscure, but beyond the scope of my already too long post).

You are correct to be concerned about the Civil War being presented simply as "The Civil War was about freeing the slaves" with no other context. That is, unfortunately, the kind of simplification that is rampant in elementary and high school and it is a major distortion of historical reality. I try very hard to correct that impression among my students. The potential for danger, at the educational level, arises when the statement "the Civil War was not just about slavery" is followed by a line of thought that makes slavery seem far less important than it actually was--and I've seen a lot of that in a number of publications that are not often used in schools but are often found on bookstore shelves. In other words, there were several important causes of the US Civil War and it is important to acknowledge this. But not one of them should have "equal consideration" with slavery in terms of importance.

Anyway, back on topic, maybe my chief complaint I referenced above in my mini-review is just one of labels. I did REALLY want to love this film. And if it had been called "Team of Rivals", just like the book, I think that would have been much more fitting. No, I haven't read the book, but I'm interested. Ovation, especially with you being a historian, I'd be surprised if you would say that this movie was truly a story about Lincoln. Can any person have their whole story told by looking at just a tiny 4 months of their life, much less the epic-ly great figures of history? Yes, this one event was inarguably his #1 thing in his life, but there was so much more to this great man! Would you make a movie called "Michaelangelo", and only show him painting the Sistine Chapel? Make a movie called "Jesus", and only show his death and resurrection? Make a movie called "Washington", and only show the end of the Revolutionary War and him getting elected the 1st President?

Actually, I'm not really bothered by the title of the film. It is clearly about Lincoln as president, even if it is not a full portrait in the sense of a traditional biography (though I can see why it might be bothersome to you and others). I guess it comes down to a couple of things. One, I don't think Spielberg made any claims that the film would cover all of Lincoln's life. Two, a film is much more suited to examining one significant event in greater detail than offering a series of (necessarily) short scenes of an entire life--at least when it comes to a figure like Lincoln (I think Gandhi could have been a better movie if it had been more tightly focused on a shorter span of his life than it was--but Attenborough's film was more in tune with mid-20th century epic filmmaking than even with the early 80s in terms of style). A film about a well-known historical figure is often most effective when it focuses on an aspect of his (or her) life that encapsulates the larger whole. In the movie, what we observe about Lincoln and his efforts at getting the 13th amendment approved is, effectively, a particular example of the general way he ran his administration. We see his methods, his political philosophy, the workings of cabinet and Congress, the way politics in the era was both noble and crass (as is the case in most of history)… Think of it as a scale model of the larger whole. The same would apply to your other examples (Michelangelo et al.). Each example you named would be the best focus, in a 2-3 hour film, to examine the essential qualities of the individuals in question.

Like Spielberg alludes in the special features (and unfortunately, I couldn't find a director's commentary track), I wish this would have been made mostly the way it was, but only ADDED to with the rest of Lincoln's life and accomplishments, if it was really to be THE story of Lincoln, then released as maybe a 4-hour epic feature, or epic series like Band of Brothers.

I liked the film. Just thought it was packaged and sold incorrectly.

Spielberg doesn't do director commentaries (I wish he would as I use Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and Munich for assignments and in-class discussions and his comments would be useful background). To see what you describe in your final paragraph, I concur with the idea of a mini-series. The expanded scope of a mini-series would allow an exploration of many more facets of the person (like the John Adams mini-series on HBO--quite good, by the way, if you've not seen it). But I think a film is better served with a tighter focus and is wise to emphasize an event or period that addresses the essential nature of the person being presented.

Sorry for the length, professional hazard (I know I said I'd try to be relatively short--but I could spend an entire semester just on this topic).

[wkhanna]

Thank you, Ovation!


Your post made my day!

[Chris D]

Yeah, I'm planning a trip to Montreal to audit one of your classes.

[Ovation]

Glad you gentlemen enjoyed it. I'm not sure all my students would have read the entire post had I placed it in one of my online courses. I'll find out in a couple of months when I cover this topic again (I may borrow from myself).