Lincoln

[cinemabon]

“Lincoln” by Steven Spielberg

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” Abraham Lincoln

*******SPOILERS**********

In the opening shot, the bloody conflict between north and south is never more apparent than during hand to hand combat – survival on the battlefield reduced to one man killing another. But this is no ordinary battle. These are black men, former slaves, up against southern slave owners enacting revenge justice. This segues into some soldiers having a chat with Lincoln before disembarking, imparting their feelings to the president, who sits alone. At once, Spielberg makes his main character accessible, common, a person among the people, as he is throughout the film – seen coming and going, walking through the streets, taking open carriage rides. This is a personal portrait of a man who has become weary of war and conflict. Lincoln has just been re-elected as president and feels the time is right to push through legislation that will make a difference in the outcome of the war – the thirteenth amendment.

The film is more a drama behind the bill with a glimpse of life in the White House during this period. Daniel Day Lewis brings the historic character to life with tempered delivery. His disheveled Lincoln, with his messed hair, warts and deep worn facial lines, is the focus of the frame no matter where he stands. Your eye is drawn to him as Lewis embodies Lincoln with subtle power. Spielberg’s framing gives us an intimate portrait of a man struggling to keep his family together at a time when most people have lost theirs to the war. Lincoln feels compelled to end the war by passing the Thirteenth Amendment and force a legal solution on the south in the form of capitulation. Not only are the Confederates unwilling to accept this act of law, but most of the Democratic Party oppose it as well (a complete reversal of today). It is the Republicans who fight for equality by abolishing slavery (too bad the entire south voted Republican this election... against our first and only black president). Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, “The political genius of Abraham Lincoln” is the basis for the screenplay written by Tony Kushner. Lincoln lays out his justification for pursuing the amendment as a legal move – “The emancipation will not stand up to a Supreme Court challenge” he tells members of his cabinet.

Surprisingly, the democrats oppose the legislation on purely racial objections. They feel that black men are not equal and fear their ability to integrate into society after the war is over. At one point, an exasperated Lincoln chastises his cabinet, telling them, “I am a man clothed in immense power and I will not let this stand!” Fighting at his side, he has few allies. Among them are his wife, Mary, played well by Sally Field and David Strathaim who plays Secretary Seward. They work behind the scenes to help Lincoln achieve his goal of passing the amendment. However, the best supporting role is played by Tommy Lee Jones as Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. Stevens was a powerful force for abolition in the 1850’s, leading up to the war. He never married and carried on a twenty-five year affair with his African American housekeeper, whom his neighbors knew but did not openly object. While Stevens would have preferred an open fight with the democrats, Lincoln pleads moderation. As much as Lewis is great as Lincoln, so too is Jones as Stevens, giving a subtle measured performance with the same intensity Lewis brings to his role. The film’s climactic moment comes not from a great cheer, but as we see Lincoln through the sheers of an open window, chimes ringing in the distance. Michael Kahn and John Williams who have partnered with Spielberg since the beginning of his career have brought their talents onboard, giving the cutting and music the same kind of subtlety that Steven gave in directing his actors.

Spielberg has made a great work of art in giving us this moment of history in a dramatic story. But more, he has focused our attention on a moral argument that plagues our nation to this day – the status of African Americans. I live the south. Prejudice did not end with the settlement at Appomattox, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendments; nor did it end with the famous Civil Rights Legislation of 1964. Many people believe prejudice ended with the election of Barack Obama. But even now, the south is full of white people who feel that blacks in America don’t deserve “special treatment” when it comes to anything. Despite the fact they were dragged from their homes, thrown into bondage, and then denied the right to vote after slavery ended or have a voice in their own communities until just a few decades ago. Whites are quick to say that things are changed and they should not be given any special treatment. Yet who among the white population in America would change the color of their skin to black. You saw how they voted. Every single southern state voted against the president and most of the western ones, too... the same states that wanted to continue slavery. How sad that humanity is mired in the muck of bigotry and lost when it comes to embracing the moral imperative of equality – an idea they espouse to in Christianity but like true hypocrites deny to their fellow human beings. If the idea that equality among all people should ever become a religion, then count me as a member; for that is the only faith to which I would ever subscribe. “Lincoln” is high recommended and will surely be one of the year’s best films.

[Chris Knipp]

We differ, cinemabon, sharply (as I'd suspected we would). It was best for you to make your sttement first. I don't want to rain on your parade. As usual, I attempt balance but my rating is probably 7.5. For me Shindler's List and Munich would be 9's, A.I. and Catch Me As You Can 10's. My review below doesn't go into today's political issues or the world's need for more humanity but just evaluates the film as a film. I nonetheless agree with most of what you say on all those issues. Please don't conclude as you initially did of my Skyfall review that I "did not like" Lincoln or that I am panning it. And you don't need to quote or link to rave reviews of this admirable movie. Readers can go to Metacritic here (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lincoln/critic-reviews)and get links to all the 100's, and I noted in my review that the film's aggragate Metacritic rating is 86. I quoted from the Variety review only because it is a bit more critical than mine and wanted to show the difference. Between a historical pageant or 40's studio film and a Natural History Museum diorama there are really important differences. I never felt that the scenes were "chillingly lifeless to behold," as Debruge says (but his review is rated by Metacritic as a 70/100). In fact many of them are very much alive. I think Debruge is right though that "the great exception being [Tommy Lee] Jones' alternately blistering and sage turn as Stevens" -- which I think dwarfs all the other roles except maybe for Field's at one or two points.

[Chris Knipp]

Steven Spielberg: LINCOLN (2012)

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/3572/20316988e.jpg

History lesson

Spielberg's Lincoln, a historical film about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and the last days of the 16th President, is a collaboration between the director, the playwright Tony Kushner who also co-wrote Munich, and a lot of actors. All the elements are first rate, but they are also pedestrian. Despite the intelligence of the writing and the brilliance of the acting, notably by Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, Sally Field as his wife Mary Todd Lincoln, and Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, a leading Republican advocate of emancipation, everything is old fashioned. Missing completely are the bold flights of imagination and shifts of scene of Kuchner's epic gay masterpiece, Angels in America. Lincoln, starting with its somewhat inaccurate title, is a relatively conventional piece of work, however uplifting and well made. It reminded me in its manner of a historical pageant like one I witnessed as a boy in Williamsburg, Virginia that told the story of the English settlement and colony. Peter Debruge in Variety, a dissenter among general raves (Metacritic's rating is 86) said (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117948666?refcatid=31)the film "looks as much like a Natural History Museum diorama as it sounds: a respectful but waxy re-creation that feels somehow awe-inspiring yet chillingly lifeless to behold" (except for one great performance). More positively, perhaps, one can see this as like the work of a great Forties Hollywood studio pro. The costumes, the bewhiskered curmudgeons, the well-lit period interiors, recall the old Hollywood, amplified by John Williams' dated-sounding music. Spielberg's War Horse last year was similarly old-fashioned -- the more surprising since War Horse was adapted from a play full of bold theatrical invention.

Lincoln makes reference to vast events: the American Civil War has gone on for four years, 600,000 have died, and Lincoln faces the terrible toll it has taken while engaged in a titanic struggle to restore the union, eradicate the scourge of slavery from America once and for all, and secure his own legacy. He also specifically believes he must delay a truce till the freeing of the slaves is made more official, by Congress' passing the Thirteenth Amendment, than his Emancipation Proclamation, which, it's explained, in one of many expository scenes, was done under his war powers, and therefore might be declared to be of dubious legality once peacetime is restored.

Kushner has written and Spielberg has efficiently staged a variety of scenes. There are ones where Lincoln is a garrulous storyteller or teller of jokes, sometimes off-color ones. He may be a bore at times, and in that regard human. He is enormously popular, and of course capable of the noblest oratory this country has ever known. There is no more moving scene than the early one when two white and one black soldier recite his Gettysburg Address from memory. Mostly he is shrewd and cool-headed. We rarely see him deeply troubled, never (as depicted in one recent biographical study) depressed. There are memorably intense separate clashes between Lincoln and his wife and son, both arising from his son's decision to leave college and join the Union army. There are some other brief personal moments. There are a few key black characters. The Lincolns' younger son Tad (Gulliver McGrath) adds a light note, the way he's used also adding an old Hollywood feel.

But mostly there is a succession of political confabs between carefully distinguished, but sometimes, inevitably, unless you're taking notes or have memorized the history, rather similar politicos. That's primarily what the movie is about: its climax is the passing of the amendment, its tragic denouement (not shown), Lincoln's assassination. We learn the President arranged to buy or give out political bribes for Democratic votes in the House. We enjoy arias of abuse from the crotchety Thaddeus Stevens, who never hesitates to make verbal hash of his rivals or inferiors. (The political infighting process shown here owes much to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.)

Spielberg is an immense figure in American cinema and has made stunning movies, including two before about American slavery. This is one of his most straight-laced historical efforts, lacking the emotional power of films like Amistad or Shindler's List or the intensity of Munich , the magic of E.T. and A.I, -- or sheer fun of Catch Me If You Can. Daniel Day-Lewis not surprisingly does a great job, and the lightness of his Lincoln may be a blessing and helps speed the complicated action along. There are interesting speeches here and noble words, but none of the wit of Aaron Sorkin's "West Wing." You just have to take it as it is, a serious look at a legislative process of great historical importance, with a strong glance at America's most admired President. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are too many actors to comment on them all but a few stand out. As William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State, David Strathairn is at his most distinguished and impressive, but still has that PBS quality that makes this seem like a drama for schools. Jones provides the most direct humanity. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who's everywhere nowadays in American movies, is fine as Robert Lincoln, the son who insists on going off to fight. Sally Field is soulful and sad as Mary Todd Lincoln. Jackie Earle Haley, his late-blooming career as a villain continuing, is memorable as the cocky Confederate Vice President who wants to quash the Thirteenth Amendment as a condition of making peace but can't get away with it. All in all, though, and this is the film's strength as well as its limitation, it's ultimately more about politics and American democracy than about people.

Lincoln debuted at the New York Film Festival (sneak preview) Oct. 8, 2012, wide release US Nov. 16, UK Jan. 25, 2013, France Jan. 30.

[cinemabon]

MSNBC has an afternoon show comprised of a youthful panel whose political roundtable is generally lively and robust - two women and two men, one is African American. As the show ended for the weekend, the young black commentator blurted out: "Don't go see "Lincoln!" which I believe surprised the other panelists. He continued, "I sat through this film and was bored to tears. I found nothing interesting about it and it put me to sleep!"

Being a long time Spielberg fan, I was shocked by this reaction. But here's another...

On the way out of the theater (I went to the first show), I asked a very upper middle class black couple how they liked the film. "It's very Doris Kearns Goodwin," he said. She refrained. "I mean, if you've ever read any of her stuff, you'll find it just as dry." So did you like it or not, I asked. "I haven't made up my mind... but I think I'd like to see it again," he said.

This puzzles me. I know a well-crafted film when I see one. If African Americans are responding this way (I realize my survey is based on two opinions) perhaps I spoke too soon in heaping too much praise. Liked your review, Chris.

[Chris Knipp]

This doesn't seem like a movie to appeal to African-Americans. I went to the first show too, and it was mostly attended by older white people. The blacks are very well behaved servants, one a mistress, or the respectful peanut gallery let into the House to applaud and weep and praise the Lord when the moment to do so on cue.. It's white people patting themselves on the back for saving Negroes from the scourge they'd imposed on them, of slavery. Read Armond White's interesting review here. (http://cityarts.info/?s=Armond+White) White is a distinguished and wholly independent black film critic, who resides in New York, originally from Detroit, who is a longtime admirer of Spielberg. He has been hard on Spielberg in recent years only for so often being the producer of what he, White, sees as inferior Spielberg knockoffs, like Transformers. In this present review, he constantly holds up Amistad for praise in contrast to Lincoln, which like Debruge in Variety he compares to a "diorama." To me there is no doubt at all that Spielberg is one of the greatest American directors of the last fifty years, but this is not one of his best films. He was probably doomed by the material, which is at once to sanctified and too dry.

I think it's Walter Chaw who points out Tony Kushner has too much a tendency (in general as a writer) to lecture us. That's true. Have you ever taken a look at his play Homebody Kabul? It literally has someone in a chair read to the audience from a textbook about Afghanistan for the first half of the play.

Others (not I-- I overlooked this aspect) have pointed out, sometimes with admiration, sometimes in derision, that Lincoln is always shot as if in a painting, alsways deified. You point to that, saying you can never look away from him in any shot (well, that's normal; he's more or less the protagonist, and he's Lincoln). It's hagiography. And how can you get away from that? Only a very bold and independent filmmaker could do a movie about Lincoln that didn't deify him. Day-Lewis adds the human touch -- the high-pitched voice -- but even that inevitably appears an artificial device, a schtick.

My favorite Day-Lewis role: the gay cockney petty criminal in My Beautiful Laundrette.

Contrast this performance in Lincoln by Day-Lewis with Joaquin Phoenix in The Master -- so much stronger and more individual.

[cinemabon]

I believe you've hit a chord of recognition here, Chris, that speaks to the heart of this film. Liberals (and we're probably the only ones) do feel guilt about how African Americans were treated and still are treated. Even the ending, where S. Epatha Merkerson (of Law and Order fame) plays Linda/Lydia Smith, Thaddeus Steven's mistress - the role is diminished by putting her in her place (I wanted you there, but...). The idea is that blacks in America are better left out of important decisions and relegated to being the benefit of that which is good for them. In other words, treating them like children. While this representation is in historical context, still, as a viewing going audience - to sit and watch and be referred to as "colored" and "negro" and even worse is to drag up all of the images that African Americans have tried to put behind them and move on. I've yet to see a current director of color tackle this subject or even want to. The life of Martin Luther King comes to mind - fodder for a made-for-TV movie but not on this scale.

The image that most blacks in America (speaking as a white liberal) I would think would be their measure of success and integration into society - we do have a black president, many black Americans are both successful and well educated. And while "black crime" does dominate the news in my area, I would think that this representation, however sincere in its offer of entertainment versus historical accuracy versus art form versus message, is both an affront to their cultural status and almost as a put down.

One patron in my "hair salon" recently sat there - an elderly southern man, overweight, with his white haired wife - openly expressed his bigoted opinion, even with our black haircutters present, and did so in a manner that was vulgar: "They shoulda never freed black people... they was better off when they received the free things we gave them." I looked over at the girl who had just cut my hair and I knew her. My mouth was open, ready to put that old southern bigot in his place. She looked back at me and shook her head, afraid to upset anyone. Do I live in a red state? Unfortunately...

[Chris Knipp]

You live in NC I believe.

All that is absolutely true. Anyway, it's a nice instructional film, except that it only teaches the white liberal feel-good stuff.

Read Armon d White's review. If you go to the City Arts site he also reviews a DW Griffith film about that treats of Lincoln.

http://cityarts.info/2012/11/14/the-pageantry-of-rhetoric/

[tabuno]

The movie trailers were misleading which unfortunately set up an expectation that was not fulfilled, even though by the end of the movie such deceptive advertising became secondary as the primary plot outline was quite well covered of a in itself momentous import. Nevertheless, I found myself recalling a number of three-hour Shakespeare plays and kept wondering if the producers just bulked and limited this movie and its length so that the comprehensive and more satisfying version of Lincoln never made it to the screen. If Gettysberg (1983) clocking in at 253 minutes was made, I am amazed either the limited source material or the scriptwriter didn't provide a fully backstory to balance out this movie with better character development and back stories. I also felt that both the beginning scenes and the ending scenes were a distraction and seemed overly politically correct and unnecessary. What if the ending of the movie had been the sillouette of Lincoln climbing down the stairs and out the doors? A much more somber, quiet, unassuming ending instead of the overly used and popularized ending except for singular shot of Lincoln's son? Nevertheless great performance by Daniel Day Lewis, he and the momentous and little known legislative history are what keep this movie intact and remarkable. Not the technical aspects of the movie itself.

[Chris Knipp]

It still feels long, because it's so detailed about the political maneuvering. Others thought it should have ended there too. I think Anthony Lane in The New Yorker review said that. If it was longer it ought to be a miniseries. And in fact it seems to me something for PBS or an instructional film.

Anyway, the ending isn't right. I agree with you on that.

[tabuno]

The movie was choppy with scenes being edited here and there without any lingering personal mental resonance of important characters from one scene to the next. There was so much that seemed left out so that it was difficult to really feel any sustain intensity or compelling understanding or interest to keep watching. Even Lincoln's initial motivation was left out so that the audience had to wait until the middle of the movie to begin to be able to identify with him. Even Tommy Lee Jone's great moment was only that, a directorial pause, in lieu a more expansive display of Steven's agonizing deliberations. Even the children's aftermath seemed left...the Appomattax meeting was drawn out in lieu of even the more intriguing Grant's overtures that are left outspoken. Personally, Union Col. Richard Chamberlain's nod towards the Confederate soldiers was even perhaps of more note in the moment of events at the end of the movie that could have contributed to the mood and tone of the movie. I would have hoped for two movies instead of one or at least a daring attempt at movie with an intermission so that this movie during this year of remembering the Civil War would have become an tent pool event movie instead.

[Chris Knipp]

I think you're overstating your objections now. "Choppy"? How you can say that about a film of this high quality is beyond me. It's very well done of what it is. The trouble is that it's more like part of a mini-series than a feature film. Your criticisms are beginning to seem nit-picky.

Lincoln's "initial motivation" unexplained? Well, his deeper thoughts are, it seems, still a mystery to historians. But we certainly know what he's trying to do, no mystery about that.

Your criticism of the trailers as being "misleading" is simply that, a criticism of the trailers. Not a criticism of any film to say it's not what the trailers foretell.

[cinemabon]

I read your reply and it struck a note of familiarity with me. I also thought the film was ending with Lincoln walking down the stairs. He had accomplished all there was to do with the amendment and to draw out the ending with his death seemed superflous at least and overt.

As to the editing, Michael Kahn's work is outstanding. I could hardly fault the technical side of the film. Kaminski blended the perfect light coming from lamps and outside sources in a way that would make Kubrick proud. Rick Carter's set design and the art direction team made the 1860's quite believable on the screen. The acting was superb and Spielberg's direction very good. The script is another matter and we discussed some of the problems earlier.

If you believe the Civil War solved this nation's problem or had a resolution, then I would say you are living in a fool's paradise. You only have to drive through the south to constantly be reminded of the hard feelings and emotional battles still being fought by the presence of rebel flags, extreme poverty in the "black" part of town (not like the projects, we're talking p-o-v-e-r-t-y), white governors, white officials, and white representatives in congress (especially states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia). This view that Lincoln solved the problem by freeing the slaves only gave rise to another form of bondage that is seldom discussed but often whispered behind closed doors.

[oscar jubis]

I don't think Lincoln is a masterpiece or a great film but there are many elements such as narrative pace, art design and performance that are admirable. I don't have strong feelings about Lincoln, either positive or negative. Two things that bothered me somewhat was that the black characters seemed to belong to the 20th century and that the emphasis on score-keeping was excessive. I have no problem with ending with Lincoln's assassination (demurely off-screen).

[Chris Knipp]

From Esquire on Twitter:


Esquire Culture ‏@ESQCulture
.@StephenMarche: Screw Lincoln. Silver Linings Playbook has the performances of the year. http://esqm.ag/6014pkAM

[cinemabon]

Unfortunately, Chris, your link is to an ad for whiskey. Esquire will not allow non-subscribers to view the article.

By score-keeping, Oscar, I'm assuming you are referring to "prominent" roles Blacks portray in the film such as soldiers at the moment the southern negotiators are shown to the wagon, the "educated" black soldier in the opening sequence whose eloquence of language overshadows the "hillbilly" white soldiers, etc. Those moments?

I also thought Tommy Lee Jones too old for the part of Senator Stevens. Although, Stevens and Jones are not far apart chronologically, Jones' makeup made him appear positively ancient. Stevens died in office at the age of 71 (just three years after Lincoln died). Jones is 66. Daniel Day Lewis's makeup was spot on, giving Lincoln that weary worn haggard appearance he has in the last daguerreotype taken just before his death.

A touch of Spielberg humor I found poignant occured during the argument to deny freedom to slaves, when the opposition stretched his debate point to include voting rights for women which brought a rousing chorus of "No!" from both sides of the aisle. The women in the opening day audience chuckled in response, but more out of politeness.

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon,

I am not a subscriber to Esquire. Over to the right of the Esquire logo there is a biggish red banner with an arrow saying "skip this ad," and if you click on it you will go to the article about SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. Try again, please: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/silver-linings-playbook-review-14775689?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1456_5593364.

To make it easeir here is the first half of the piece, which contains the main point I was citing, about acting:


On paper, I am supposed to hate Silver Linings Playbook with every fiber of my being. It's a quirky romantic comedy, starring actors who became famous in blockbusters (Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence) trying to prove their acting chops by playing wounded, slightly daffy characters. There's a bunch of sappy side plots, too — a once-distant father who just wants to be close to his son, an Indian psychiatrist who's a rabid Philadelphia Eagles fan, a meth-head with a heart of gold. I should hate all of them. The plot hinges on a dancing competition, for chrissake. Even writing it down now, after having seen the film, I'm stunned that I didn't flee the theater. I'm still kind of amazed. How is it possible that I loved this movie?

Part of the answer has to be the acting. Screw Lincoln. This movie is easily the best ensemble performance of the year. Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence both fully acquit themselves in roles that could easily have become unbearably grating. Robert De Niro plays an Italian-American father without the New York bluster, and it is one of my favorite of his performances, period. He's ground down and confused and tender and not tough at all. At the Toronto Film Festival, where this movie won the people's choice award, often handed out to Oscar sleepers like Slumdog Millionaire, the general consensus was that De Niro deserved Best Supporting Actor for his performance. It's a reasonable possibility. This movie also sees the return of Chris Tucker, in a sadly miniscule part, as the aforementioned meth-head with a heart of gold. The moment he appears onscreen, all you want to do is see more of him. Quentin Tarantino has recently claimed that he's only going to make three more movies. We can only hope that one of the three is set aside for Tucker. Robert De Niro doesn't get upstaged that often onscreen. Chris Tucker does it to him twice in this movie.


Read more: Silver Linings Playbook Review - Silver Linings Playbook Isn't the Quirky Comedy It Looks Like - Esquire http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/silver-linings-playbook-review-14775689#ixzz2DIzXOULu

I'm also going to put this after the SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, where it belongs.

I like this because I too find it strange that I like this movie so much. There is no logical or obvious reason. I just like it, think it's great, a success.

[cinemabon]

I even tried to google the main page directly and all I get is the whiskey ad which will not allow me to "skip" it.

I would like to see the new DeNiro film. I loved the other film he made with Brad Cooper called "Limitless" which I thought at the time was a great vehicle for Cooper's talent. I seldom buy DVD's any longer as its easier to stream most video from the cloud than to put a DVD into a drive and store it on a shelf. But I did buy "Limitless" because I enjoyed it that much.

[Chris Knipp]

Web surfing tip for getting past this Esquire website ad: click on Control + minus sign, to reduce your browser's focus on the page you're viewing. That will bring more of the page into view, and the red banner saying "SKIP THIS AD" will come into view. I had the same problem you describe initially but knew something was wrong, and that was the solution.

LIMITLESS got some poor reviews. I had m doubts about it and chose not to review it. Intriguing premise though. DiNiro has done a good deal of junk lately and Cooper hasn't done much that is serious hitherto. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is way better (I think) than it will look to some people. A friend of mine just said "forget SILVER LININGS" after sending me a long list of new movies she wants to see, I assume after watching the SILVER LININGS trailer, which is very jokey, cute, and mainstream.

[oscar jubis]

By score-keeping, Oscar, I'm assuming you are referring to "prominent" roles Blacks portray in the film such as soldiers at the moment the southern negotiators are shown to the wagon, the "educated" black soldier in the opening sequence whose eloquence of language overshadows the "hillbilly" white soldiers, etc. Those moments?

The score-keeping I mentioned involves the tallying of votes towards passage of the amendment. It gave the film the feel of a sports pic.

The moments you mention, involving black characters, strike me as overly conscious, overly eager efforts to avoid any portrayal of blacks that would be construed as demeaning. Their speech and delivery in particular sounded contemporary to me.

[Chris Knipp]

You're tight, Oscar, their speech did sound contemporary. It also sounded un-Black.

[cinemabon]

Been drinking again, Oscar... being tight? Or did you mean to type "right" and were in a hurry, Chris. No matter. I got a good laugh anyway.

I hadn't thought about the tally but you are tight, Oscar. I should have been drinking before I saw "Lincoln."

[Chris Knipp]

LINCOLN's better if you've been drinkin.

[Chris Knipp]

The score-keeping I mentioned involves the tallying of votes towards passage of the amendment. It gave the film the feel of a sports pic.

I'd think it gave it the feel of a political "pic." I don't think it pulls down Congressional deliberations to know they involve seeking votes and keeping score of the results.

Here's a corrective to LINCOLN from an expert (in a Letter to today's [27 Nov. 2012] NY Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/opinion/lincolns-use-of-politics-for-noble-ends.html)unbiased by Hollywood or Great Man biases. Despite Tony Kushner's pedestrian screenplay's Scholastic Magazine instructional tone, he fails to provide a full and accurate picture of the events LINCOLN is ostensibly focused on.


November 26, 2012
Lincoln’s Use of Politics for Noble Ends
To the Editor:

Re “Why We Love Politics” (Op-Ed, Nov. 23):

David Brooks praises the new movie “Lincoln” for illuminating “the nobility of politics” and, he hopes, inspiring Americans to reconsider their low regard for politicians. The film depicts Abraham Lincoln’s arm-twisting and political maneuvering in January 1865 to secure approval of the 13th Amendment, which, when ratified by three-quarters of the states, abolished slavery throughout the nation.

This was indeed an important moment in political history. But Mr. Brooks, and the film, offer a severely truncated view. Emancipation — like all far-reaching political change — resulted from events at all levels of society, including the efforts of social movements to change public sentiment and of slaves themselves to acquire freedom.

The 13th Amendment originated not with Lincoln but with a petition campaign early in 1864 organized by the Women’s National Loyal League, an organization of abolitionist feminists headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Moreover, from the beginning of the Civil War, by escaping to Union lines, blacks forced the fate of slavery onto the national political agenda.

The film grossly exaggerates the possibility that by January 1865 the war might have ended with slavery still intact. The Emancipation Proclamation had already declared more than three million of the four million slaves free, and Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia, exempted in whole or part from the proclamation, had decreed abolition on their own.

Even as the House debated, Sherman’s army was marching into South Carolina, and slaves were sacking plantation homes and seizing land. Slavery died on the ground, not just in the White House and the House of Representatives. That would be a dramatic story for Hollywood.

ERIC FONER
New York, Nov. 23, 2012

The writer, a history professor at Columbia University, won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for history for “The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.”

[cinemabon]

Bravo and kudos for post this, Chris. I was completely unaware.

Embracing women's contribution to the continued evolution of this nation seems to be lacking in the party that initially at least welcomed the liberality of their cause. Looking at its current roster of leaders, the Republican Party couldn't have picked a more isolated group of individuals if they tried (all white wealthy middle aged Christian men) and have completely ignored the ramifications that resulted from this year's national election results - that to embrace women, minorites of every shape size and description, is the growing trend. Ignoring them at one's peril as a warning has fallen on deaf obstinate Republican ears.

Finally, disappointed "Hitchcock" is NOT opening in Raleigh... anywhere. While a great admirer of the auteur, I won't see the film until its nationwide release in January. Meanwhile, since we're only speaking of performances (the plot is well known) - I look forward to your review.

As ever...

[Chris Knipp]

Thank you. It does pay off sometimes to read the Times. We should know better than to rely for our history on Tony Kushner and Steven Spielberg, or the Times for that matter. Apropos of the immense weaknesses of the present-day Republican Party, and the lack of popular representation of both parties, yesterday's Democracy Now! TV/radio program (Nov. 28, 2012) had a relevant interview with former major Republican Party strategist Kevin Phillips, which you can hear or read here: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/28/former_gop_strategist_kevin_phillips_on.

As for HITCHCOCK I have doubts about the content after Manohla Dargis' review Friday in the Times, but it is showing in Berkeley and I'll be reviewing it. Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren must be very good.

[tabuno]

I've given the 150 minutes of this movie some thought and I am dismayed how shortened this movie is but as well how unfortunately it reflect the reality of the shortened attention span of the audience nowadays and the commercial box office return, shorter movies mean more showings per theater which means more profits.

Some great and some not so great, though decent enough movies, offered sufficient length to their movie to fully develop and tell their story that they richly deserved. So as whether or not this movie really deserves a Golden Globe best picture nomination may have more to do with a sympathy given to President Lincoln rather than the merits of the movie itself. How can you say no to the Civil War and President Lincoln, and anti-slavery...it's the politically correct thing to do.

Lincoln (2012) 150 minutes

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) ran 154 minutes
There Will Be Blood (200) also ran 158 minutes
Amadeus (1984) ran 160 minutes
The Great Race (1965) ran 160 Minutes
The Last Emperor (1987) 163 minutes
How The West Was Won (1962) 164 minutes
Saving Private Ryan (1998) that ran 169 minutes
The Aviator (2004) ran 170 minutes,
The Great Escape (1963) 172 minutes
The Da Vinci Code (2006) ran as extended 174 minutes
Alexander (2004) 175 minutes
Dances with Wolves (1990) 181 minutes
Dune (1984) extended USA version at 190 minutes
Gandhi (1982) running at 191 minutes
Schindler's List (1993) running at 195 minutes.
The Godfather: Part II (1974) ran 200 minutes
Dr. Zhivago (1965) 197 minutes
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) 216 minutes
Gettysburg (1993) running at 254 minutes