Here is NYT Film Review.
Read NYT columnist David Brooks on Spielberg's Lincoln.
Here is Kate Masur's Revisionist Critique of Spielberg's Lincoln
Famous Columbia University historian Eric Foner's harsh critique of Spielberg's Lincoln
Scholar Harold Holzer, "What's True and False in "Lincoln" Movie.
For period 3, post a few thoughtful sentences about Spielberg's Lincoln. How did the film depict Lincoln? Was the decision to focus on the 13th Amendment a good idea? Was it historically accurate? Why were many revisionist historians--like Eric Foner and Kate Masur--critical of the film? Who was your favorite character? If you were a consultant for Spielberg, how would you change the film? You may also want to respond to the historians' points from the articles.
Katherine Wei- The film depicted Lincoln in his best form (for the most part) yet cut out some details. Lincoln is portrayed as wise and adored by many people, and Daniel Day-Lewis's performance was incredible- even Lincoln's voice was spot on. Some parts of the movie such as Lincoln's not-so-honest parts made the movie more interesting, and his complicated relationship with his son was a gem. However, I question the accuracy of this movie in terms of the character progression of Abraham Lincoln. A good movie is supposed to depict the character growth of the protagonist. Lincoln should have been depicted as wanting to not let African Americans take office at first and then realizing the war was being fought to ensure equality for all. Furthermore, the movie focusing on the 13th amendment was a fresh concept but also made the movie boring- no action, all dialogue. I would have liked it if it had shown more events and how Lincoln reacted to them. However, I thought Spielberg did an amazing job with this film; some parts of this film really made a lasting impression.
ReplyDeleteWendy [pd. 6] - I've never watched the movie before, but why do you think Spielberg chose to focus on the 13th Amendment rather than more action-filled battles? Additionally, what are some of the historically inaccurate contents seen in the movie? Why do you think the director chose to do that?
DeleteI agree with Katherine when she says that Daniel Day Lewis's performance was incredible. He spent so long perfecting his walk and his talk, and it really paid off considerably. If I imagined Lincoln in a movie, it would be exactly as Lewis portrayed him to be.
DeleteIn terms of cinematography and how visually appealing the movie was, I give it an A+. The lighting and different scenes really made the movie more appealing. It was interesting because Spielberg made the scenes seem very dramatic, even when it was just discussing something in his office.
For the story, I feel that focusing on the 13th amendment was an interesting take, but like Katherine, it didn't really provide much area for action. However, I liked that Spielberg depicted the long and arduous (and sometimes shady) process of ratifying an amendment, and how much hard work can go into it. This is especially true because the 13th amendment was so controversial. Did Spielberg sacrifice a much more entertaining movie by only focusing basically the 13th amendment's passing? Foner argues that the movie doesn't show Lincoln's capacity for change at all. He says that the movie is historical fiction, and should show Lincoln's changes in thought and opinion over time in order to show a more historically accurate perspective. While I agree with Foner, we all have to remember that this is a movie, which doesn't provide much time for Spielberg to go through Lincoln's whole life story. Would it have been better if Spielberg decided to make it a series? This would have allowed him more opportunities to cover all aspects of Lincoln. It also maybe would have allowed him to incorporate more African Americans in the film. The way that they were all passively placed in the movie bothered me, and Spielberg should have given them a more active role. While the two African American soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address in the beginning and the housekeeper of Thaddeus Stevens in bed with him were interesting scenes, they are the only scenes I remember with African Americans. Did he sacrifice the history for Hollywood?
In the end, I felt that Spielberg's portrayal of Lincoln's assassination was pretty anticlimactic, as we saw it through the son's eyes. I would have liked to see Booth sneaking up to Lincoln and slowly pulling the gun out. However, the end of the movie made a lasting impression. I liked that Spielberg ended the movie with the Second Inaugural Address. It was quite moving.
Akira Taniguchi - The film "Lincoln" transported me into the past and gave me a stellar view of Abraham Lincoln's time. I really enjoyed the down-to-earth theme of this film. Nothing was over-glorified (although some small parts were controversial) and I can see that the creators tried hard to make the film realistic as possible. Lincoln's portrayal by Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing. I enjoyed watching the Lincoln that everyone doesn't know about. In the movie he wasn't a god-like figure who passed laws with ease. The movie showed some of his flaws, like his difficulties with his family, and his struggles to get what he wants. I also liked how they showed how the process to pass the 13th amendment. I got a good sense of how it was slow, painful and stressful it was to pass it. My favorite scene in the movie was at the end in the theater. I loved how Spielberg built up the tension and fooled every viewer. However, I question whether the son was actually there in real life.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Triantafillou- I also liked how down to earth this film seemed with its more realistic portrayal of Lincoln's attempts to sway the vote in the 13th Amendment's favor. It lent me a novel perspective on Lincoln and greatly inflated my opinion of him. I see him now as a strategic and cunning politician. To answer your question Akira, I was also very curious when I saw that scene and decided to look it up. Actually, It did happen like that. Lincoln's son went to Grover's Theater to see Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp while his parents were at the performance of Our American Cousin at Ford's Theater. When news of the assassination spread to Grover's Theater, the manager did actually make the announcement to the entire audience that we see in that scene. However, instead of clutching the railing and screaming "No! No!" Lincoln's son, Tad began running and screaming, "They killed Papa! They killed Papa!"
DeleteAkira you point out that everything was down to earth and the film makers tried to make this as realistic as possible. Based on Kate Masur's article on the times, it seems that black people lacked the role they deserved in the movie. Would you agree with this statement, or disagree and how would you back it up? The movie looks fascinating to watch, but the scene with the food cart rushing in seemed rather ridiculous, would you agree that Spielberg tried to make it more enjoyable than accurate?
DeleteAs Muhamed had said, the fact that Spielberg chose to exclude much of the blacks from this movie is an interesting choice, given that the war this entire movie is based around on, had its foundations set from slavery. Was the price paid to make the movie entertaining worth the historical inaccuracies?
DeleteAnya Hargil - Spielberg's's film, Lincoln, was an enjoyable and interesting film. It followed Lincoln during the four months from January through April of 1865 while he was trying to get the 13th Amendment passed. Although the film was not completely historically accurate, the portrayal of Lincoln, by Daniel Day-Lewis was spot on, from the voice to the posture and walk.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree with a lot of Katherine's comments, I think that in a film that focuses on the specific time frame from January to April of 1865 it would be very difficult for Spielberg to accurately illustrate the evolution of Lincoln. Spielberg made the decision of creating a movie about Lincoln that focused on passing the 13th Amendment and therefore could not include many details about Lincoln's earlier life and opinions. Also, I disagree with Katherine's opinion that the film is boring. Although the film did include a lot of dialogue and not much in the way of traditional action, I thought it was an extraordinarily engaging and interesting movie.
Spielberg's decision to include several scenes that portrayed Lincoln as a frustrated and tired father and husband was a refreshing break from the god-like image that is usually portrayed in films. Lastly, the scene of Tad at the theater was an interesting twist of the traditional and cliche scene of John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln. Also, Tad's hysterics upon hearing about his father being shot brought a level of emotion not usually found in the dramatic scenes of the assassination.
Do you think the film should have been completely historically accurate, or were the inaccuracies necessary?
DeleteMany revisionist historians were critical of this film because it doesn't portray African Americans in a good light. It doesn't show the heroism and service that they did during the War as the film Glory does. The film(according to the reviews) just shows African American passively waiting for the Union to win. It also doesn't show the scores of African American refugees that were in the streets of Washington. This film took a lot of liberty with the historical record. It didn't mention the African Americans on the White House staff that were political activists. The film though was new in that it focused on the Thirteenth Amendment and not any battles. But I feel as though the action that Katherine Wei says this movie lacks might have been added by adding the Battle of Antietam and Gettysburg.
ReplyDeleteBrian Heo (period 6)
ReplyDeleteAfter having read the the critics praises and degradations of Spielberg's Lincoln, I can't help but side with those who praised the film as a masterpiece and an almost perfect portrayal of the Lincoln Administration. And it was perfectly said when Mr. Scott of NYT reviewed American movies as a paradox:
"a great democratic art form, if ever there was one — have not done a very good job of representing American democracy." and Of course he himself as well as I believe that there are of course a few exceptions. One of the few being this film. As I browsed around youtube for small clips of important scenes in the movie, you can vividly see the love as well as the equal amount of hate that Lincoln had received as a person as well as president. I would love to watch it when I have the time to and you all should also check about another great American Movie: Glory
Eda -- The first thing I noticed about Lincoln in the trailer, was how nicely it was shot. (Spielberg ...!) I agree with Katherine that the lack of Lincoln's struggle from being against slavery but advocating for colonization, to his acceptance of African Americans in the army and even suggesting that those veterans should have the right to vote. If the film didn't include that, it is sorely lacking. In addition, I find the fact that only two African American actors were featured in the movie (according to the NY Times review) very disappointing, especially since it's a movie about how slavery, something that may very likely have affected those African American actors, aren't as prominently shown.
ReplyDeleteIan (period 3)-
ReplyDeleteAlthough a lot of people feel that the movie should have included Lincoln's former ideals (his advocating for colonization of slaves for example), I disagree. The movie was based on the time period in which we already know that Lincoln is against slavery and is pushing for the 13th amendment. When Lincoln was pushing for the 13th amendment. his mindset changed on the issue of slavery so knowing about his past ideals isn't really relevant to the movie. In addition I found that Spielberg liked to create dramatic scenes that weren't always that historically accurate. For example, at the beginning of the film when the white soldiers and black soldiers recite the Gettysburg Address. It is highly unlikely that any soldier at that time would have been able to memorize and recite from memory the speech. Other mistakes might include the mention of the fact that is was hard to bribe undecided politicians because Lincoln's unpopular face was on the 50-cent coins. I researched this and found out that Lincoln only appeared on the 50-cent currency 4 years after his death and on paper, not coins. On the note of historical accuracy, I found out that the fact that Thaddeus Stevens was bald was true and the idea of a relationship with his black housekeeper was a well known rumor around Washington at the time. The movie was slow at times and sometimes had too many overdramatic scenes, but it was overall a good experience to learn about the bribery and dirty politics that went on to secure the 13th amendment.
It sounds as if you find the historical inaccuracies very distasteful. Do you, however, see why Spielberg decided to change the truth? Perhaps, to sell the movie more? Or to make it more touching and more harmonious that everyone knew the Gettysburg Address? Or, perhaps, to emphasize the great importance of the Gettysburg Address and the difficulty Lincoln had in making politicians believe in the necessity of the 13th Amendment?
DeleteAnni Bangiev - I personally highly enjoyed Steven Spielberg's Lincoln and contrary to the opinions of all revisionist historians, Spielberg did the right thing by bringing the "rich old white men" into the spotlight for a while to show that history is not only made by those at the bottom. Over the years, revisionist historians have hijacked history, as our textbook clearly illustrates, to the point where the main focus is on all those who have been oppressed, completely skipping over those in power. While it is true that history is not only the product of the wealthy men with all the power, they do contribute much to it. Revisionist historians have twisted history to focus on only one specific aspect. I don't condone those who entirely ignore the African Americans, women, Native Americans, etc..., but everything must be done in moderation. Lincoln portrayed the political aspects involved in the passing of the 13th amendment, which are rarely thought of nowadays in regards to most things. It was fascinating to see how Lincoln and others persuaded and charmed Congressmen into doing what the former required. The movie shows that at one point in time, the government actually managed to get things done. It is frustrating that critics of Lincoln claim that it wasn't historically accurate enough. Lincoln is a drama movie, not a documentary; it is meant to entertain people. Although the African Americans either seemed too subservient or simply lacked roles, it is not something to get hysterical about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stand on the importance of the passing of the 13th amendment and all the effort that went into it. Yes, sometimes we need to see history from the bottom up, but I do think that it is necessary to also recognize what our leaders did, how much pressure they went through, and conflicts and obstacles they may have had to overcome as well. As for the lack of African roles, I think that it would have probably made the movie better to see the effect the passing of the 13th amendment and/or any other significant events had on them. (it didn't right?)
DeleteRebecca (Period 2) - Even though the trailer seemed a bit long, it seemed very suspenseful to me, especially in various parts when Lincoln was arguing with his cabinet (I think it was the cabinet?) and also when he is trying to convince Congress (again, not 100% sure) to vote for the 13th Amendment. Even though those previews were extremely brief, it conveyed the message that the passing of this amendment was truly a struggle for Lincoln and makes me interested in what struggles he precisely had to go through. The scene where he is arguing with his cabinet also shows his devotion to help free the slaves and pass the 13th amendment. I especially liked the part in the trailer when Mary Todd Lincoln tells her husband "No one has ever been loved so much by the people. Don't waste that power." I'm not really sure why I like it so much, but perhaps it is because it depicts the loving and mentoring relationship Mary had on her husband, similar to how Abigail Adams was depicted helping John Adams in the TV show episodes we watched in class.
ReplyDeleteEven though I did not watch the movie, I agree with Katherine and wonder about the historical inaccuracies of the film. Most historical films are forced to change some facts or make scenes more dramatic than they actually were in history in order to be more appealing to the public, so I wonder how the director had to deal with this and tried to minimize those inaccuracies. In addition, based on her comment, I assume there was not that much character change in Lincoln and overall he was depicted very positively, which is quite inaccurate. I think it would have been better if he changed, such as how Aiken completely changed in The Conspirator since it would leave a much more lasting impression.
Overall, I really think that Lincoln was probably a great film- judging from the comments, it probably was. As Mr. Sandler said in class, it is sort of a prequel to The Conspirator that we watched in Period 2, so I definitely want to watch Lincoln if I have time to get the full picture of before and after Lincoln's death.
[Period 6]
DeleteBased on the trailer it seems that Lincoln does show a change - he goes from being undecided on the issue of the abolition of slavery to taking a solid stance against it.
Katherine brought up the fact that the movie did not really progress because Lincoln started high up - if such were true it would go against what was depicted in the trailer, but that's not to say it is a real possibility nonetheless.
That actually opens up an interesting dilemma - do we use Hollywood magic to magnify the process, the cause, the change we so much desire, do we try to preserve historical accuracy, or do we find a balance between the two and where do we draw the line? They are in my eyes a legitimate concern on the topic of historical films and a successful filmmaker can address these issues.
Yihua Wu - Spielberg's Lincoln was, while good in some aspects, was somewhat disappointing. For one, I did enjoy how Lincoln was portrayed in the film. His voice and mannerism were accurate, and the actor did a incredible job making all of this look natural. However, I did not like the fact that this movie focused on the thirteenth amendment. As Eric Foner mentioned, Lincoln was not always opposed to slavery and was in no way an adamant abolitionist. Yet, by focusing on the passing of the thirteenth amendment, the film suggests that Lincoln really wanted for slavery to be abolished. While this may be true during the Civil War, it may only have been out of necessity to win the war and also because it needed to be addressed. By focusing the film on the thirteenth amendment, it did not really show Lincoln's true character, as he was a man who, for most of his life, did not have a definitive plan to abolish slavery. Thus, this film should not really have been called "Lincoln", but rather "The Thirteenth Amendment".
ReplyDeleteSunny Zhang (pd6)- I watched this movie several months ago and remember that it was very powerful at times (especially the great scene with Lincoln yelling at his cabinet) but also slow and a bit hard to follow at others. I agree with Akira that the movie was more than just about the 13th amendment. His wife is still grieving over the loss of a son and another son, Robert, is furious that his parents refuses to let him join the army. I remember one scene where Lincoln lies down next to his youngest son sleeping on the floor. He seems tired, lonely, even lost. The scene serves as a reminder that Lincoln is more than just legendary, he was also human.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Kim (period 2) -
ReplyDeleteBack when Lincoln first came out, most of my friends told me that the movie was "boring" and was "unnecessarily long". As a result, I never went to watch the movie myself. I've watched the trailer before, and I was unimpressed by Spielberg's usual flashy clips. However, judging from the comments and the NYT reviews, I'm compelled to go see it myself, and find whether or not the movie is actually worth its length. One question I have is if Spielberg was able to keep most of Lincoln, not even all of it, historically accurate, while making it appealing for Hollywood?
Jack Ye- Spielberg's film Lincoln was a very interesting take on Lincoln's actions during the passing of the 13th Amendment, and I learned a lot about society during the time. The film painted a great picture of the time, and I agree with Akira that the film was very "down to earth" and real. I feel like there were many scenes that I would have never thought possible for a formal political gathering, however with the secret meetings between Lincoln and his cabinet, and the riot during the final voting for the amendment, I realized how humane the political environment was, and how humane the passing of the amendment was. Although Foner describes the film as being historically inaccurate, I still appreciate the film in that it portrayed the tense atmosphere during the time, and showed the underhanded things Lincoln had to do to accomplish his goal. My favorite part was when there was the huge riot in the House due to the controversial bill to end slavery, and the question of whether or not Confederates had come to the North to issue for peace. When Lincoln heard of it, he simply wrote a note stating that he was unaware of any such compromises by the South, which gets everyone against the bill fired up, but is enough to quell the riot in the House. I thought the scene was funny, but at the same time, showed the kind of politician Lincoln was. Brooks felt the same way and said how strong politicians are, and I think Lincoln is a definite example since he was not afraid to twist his words in order to reach his goal.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would have liked to see more from the African Americans, and I would have liked the movie to be more coherent, I felt that the biggest problem was the huge number of characters. There were so many in the film, and they never really stated who was who, which made it difficult for me to tell the characters apart (besides for Lincoln and Stevens). Besides this, I felt that the film was very interesting and told a lot about the struggles that had to be faced during the time.
-Victor(period 2) From reading the film reviews and Katherine's comment Lincoln seems to have many scenes of speeches and debates and not much action. I liked the trailer because it showed that Americans at the time did not believe in equality but instead that African American were inferior to the Whites and therefore should not have rights guaranteed to citizens. I wonder how the African Americans were depicted in this film and how they responded to the 13th amendment. The trailer also showed scenes of Lincoln and his son, i wonder how Spielberg fits this into the movie. The film seems great, the NYT review said that Daniel Day Lewis really portrays Lincoln accurately in the film, Daniel spoke with a drawl that Lincoln had. Also i agree with what Katherine noted, a good film should show the character development of the protagonist, Lincoln should have been shown wanted to deport the slaves to Africa and then later changing his view after. I might see this film for myself during the weekend because of the mixed reviews and comments.
ReplyDeleteShahruz Ghaemi (pd 2) -- There's actually this really great scene that shows some of the prejudices of the time where Lincoln talks to this white farmer couple from like Ohio or something about emancipation and they're like "yeah, we don't really like blacks but if it'll end the war I guess so..." Those are the people he has to deal with while still talking about the "fate of human dignity" regarding slaves.
DeleteShahruz Ghaemi (pd 2) -- I saw Lincoln in theatres, and loved it. Although it lacked much in the way of traditional action, it didn't need it. As many reviewers have stated, this is not a movie about the Civil War, it is a movie about the American legislative and political process. I loved seeing the inner workings of that system from the inside in a refreshing and ultimately inspiring point of view. Although Lincoln has to cut deals and make concessions to pass the 13th Amendment, he is doing so for the public good. He is a damn good Machiavellian politician, but that doesn't lower my estimation of him at all! This film showcases a lot of qualities that jaded ideologues could take to heart.
ReplyDeleteReading critiques of the film, I was however moved to agree that the film did a poor job of portraying the black movers and shakers behind the emancipation movement. To be honest, I remember few black characters from the movie. (Daniel Day Lewis is, deservedly, the centerpiece. I loved his portrayal combined with the script's witticisms and speechmaking. I love good, old-fashioned political debate.) There were many scenes that could have been included of the black political scene in Washington that would have held true to the historical truth as well as added yet another layer of depth to the story.
I also challenge the critique that the movie is historically inaccurate to a fault. Eric Foner concluded his scathing critique by saying basically "As a movie, it's great. But afterwards go read a book." Yeah, its a great movie. If you want a first and foremost historically accurate Civil War movie, go watch Ken Burn's "The Civil War" documentary. Personally, I think it's equally exciting as "Lincoln" is. But Lincoln is still a big-budget, big-studio movie. Hopefully, if people are as excited by Lincoln as they are meant to be, they will go pick up a book and learn more. It's the same way that if people are really excited about Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, they'll go pick up the books. To assume people will base their entire knowledge about the Civil War from this one work of art is to overestimate their stupidity.
Terry Zhao
ReplyDeleteThe film Lincoln successfully portrayed President Lincoln as the man he was. Daniel Day-Lewis really tried to be and act like Lincoln in every way and his determination and dedication to his role has shown throughout the movie. However, I for one do not really like seeing the "real" Lincoln. I am more interested in watching the "mythic" representation of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, one who I would deem to be, in terms of physical state and complexion, the hero who freed all the slaves. Watching other movies that portaryed Lincoln as a deep voiced, eloquent, and perfect man, I became influenced and brainwashed by this fake portrayal of Lincoln. Nonetheless, the real interpretation of Lincoln was fascinating and interesting. I thought overall the movie was a bit slow. It did have a couple of humorous scenes and dialogue but I think there could have been more emotional parts to convey pathos or maybe more action. One thing I would have liked to see was Lincoln changing his perspectives on slavery throughout the movie, like the evolution of his thoughts and views. I realize that it might not fit properly in this movie since it mainly focuses on the thirteenth amendment but adding that transformation would be something to look forward to.
Sisi Zimmerman(Period 2) - Though I haven't seen the movie from Kate Masur's review I find it disappointing the way it seems to portray African Americans. Though not nearly as bad as they were portrayed in much older films such as Gone With the Wind, they are still passive. Masur's review makes it seem as though the film portrays them doing nothing, but in reality they had an active role in their own freedom, they didn't just waiting just white men to save them. For a movie made just last year I would think it would have a more revisionist approach highlighting the role of African Americans, or at least some of the really important ones such as Fredrik Douglas who wasn't in the film. But I didn't actually see the movie, so did it come off like this in the movie? Or if the review just rather harsh?
ReplyDeleteI love the small details in this movie that make you think about the realism in the film. Its connection to real history, in fact, makes it unconventional from the regular, ideal movie, and sometimes makes the audience have a conflicting feeling. For instance, one would expect Lincoln, a big, important man, both physically and politically, has such a nasally and silly voice. This showed in the trailer and really reminded me that it's not only just another made up story line, but it is based upon a real person and a real event.
ReplyDeleteEddie (period 2) - Brian, in what way was Lincoln depicted both as a beloved and hater figure in American society? Was this a strength of the movie, or did the humanizing portrait serve only to further the film's plausible aim of painting Lincoln once again in a positive light?
ReplyDeleteAlyson Liang-
ReplyDeleteAfter watching "Lincoln" in class, and after reading the articles, I've come to decide that although "Lincoln" does fail to mention important aspects during the Civil War, it is overall a great portrayal of Lincoln and his aspirations. I do agree that the film does neglect to give African Americans credit for their effort in the war. Nowhere in the film does it mention Frederick Douglass or Dred Scott or the Fugitive Slave Act. Nowhere in the film does it show abolitionists meeting up with each other or slaves escaping from the south. Although the film is focused on the ratification of the 13th Amendment, it lacks to portray those that the amendment fought for.
However, what made this movie such a great one for me is the portrayal of Lincoln. Daniel Day Lewis does such a fantastic job of depicting Lincoln, even down to his walk, his talk, his facial expressions, and his love for story-telling. I particularly liked how Lincoln was shown to have partaken in background politics, which is quite a discrepancy from his "Honest Abe"image. I like it because it showed a more real and practical side to Lincoln. It is said that the film does a bad job of portraying Lincoln because it shows that Lincoln was an angel-like figure who wanted to abolish slavery from the get-go. We all know that Lincoln actually first supported the colonization of African Americans and then later gradually wanted to abolish slavery. While people say that this change in sentiment wasn't shown in the movie, I think that it's alright. This change took place over the course of Lincoln's presidency, as he came to realize that slavery needed to be abolished and that African Americans needed to be treated equally. This film only takes place during the several months in the process to ratify the 13th Amendment, and is not nearly enough time to show this change.
*Spoiler Alert (for those that haven't seen the movie)*
On another note, I actually really liked the ending. Although I was mislead at first, and thought that I was going to see the assassination of Lincoln, I'm actually glad that Spielberg chose not to show that scene. I think that the "Lincoln" assassination scene offered closure to the movie. If they had shown the real scene, it would have created uproar and really would have taken away the focus of the film. The movie is about the process in passing the 13th Amendment, but if the Lincoln assassination was shown, the movie would have ended not with the ratifying of the amendment, but rather the mystery of who killed Lincoln. (Which really, is what the film Conspirators is about.)
There are many conflicting reviews on the depiction of Lincoln in the movie? How would you say Lincoln is depicted, and do you agree with the way he is portrayed? Does he come off as a diehard abolitionist or as Fohner says a politician with changing and adapting views?
ReplyDeleteOther than the almost non existant representation of African Americans, what scenes do you think are amazing and vice versa. From what I see from reviews/trailer, the movie doesn't really focus on the war at all. do you think that the film would had benefitted from focusing on the war even if itwas nearing the end?
ReplyDeleteBettina Zou:
ReplyDeleteI thought Lincoln was great in terms of the cinematography, production, score, and acting. The movie may seem slow and boring to some people because it doesn't have the classic fight scenes that are characteristic of most Hollywood action films. However, I thought it was extremely interesting; for example, I found Lincoln's jokes and the insults thrown around the House to be funny. I laughed when Thaddeus Stevens called a Democrat in the House a “fatuous nincompoop.” Also, each scene was carefully crafted and planned - the scene where the House voted one by one was entwined with a scene where soldiers were gathered around a telegraph, reading each vote out and keeping a score. This scene was powerful as it showed how much the soldiers were interested in the vote, especially the black soldiers. Also, The scene of Lincoln walking out, with his back to the camera, just before his death, was powerful in its simplicity. Any of the scenes in the movie were beautiful enough to make a great portrait or photo, since the scenes speak for themselves.
However, I would agree with Yihua and Katherine that the movie focused too much on the 13th amendment. It would have been nice to have seen Lincoln’s gradual progression from his racist remarks at the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his support of colonization to his adamant push for the 13th amendment. In terms of historical inaccuracies, Spielberg took some liberties to dramatize the film. The beginning scene where black soldiers questioned Lincoln probably never happened. Still, the inaccuracies didn’t diverge from the film too much; instead, they added to make the film more dramatic and appealing.
Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln was amazing. He was in character during every second of the film, and it was easy to forget that he was only an actor and not the real Lincoln. In addition, I found Mary Todd Lincoln’s character to be extremely interesting; she played an important role in the film, which showed Lincoln’s relationship with his family. In the film, they argued a lot and she apparently was almost sent to an asylum. In another scene, she went off on a tangent, chewing out Thaddeus Stevens in public at a party. I was curious to see if this was actually historically correct. It was. Mary Todd Lincoln had a history of mood swings, temper, and public outbursts throughout Lincoln's presidency. Again, she also stays true to her true character and isn’t glorified or portrayed as a quiet, compliant wife in the film.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHan pd 2 - What is roles did women play in Lincoln's fight against slavery? In what ways was Ms. Lincoln similar to Ms. Adams from the John Adams HBO series? Were they supportive of their husbands? Do you think that Lincoln deserves the patriotic view we see him as today, or is he just a normal person influenced by the masses of others?
ReplyDeleteJackie Wang (Period 2) - I was not impressed with the trailer, it seemed to try to over dramatize the issue of the 13th amendment. The movie seems to have a lot of debates and the plots doesn't seem particularly interesting. I find it hard to relate to the movie and don't think it can sustain my interest. However, I won't really know until I have seen the movie. The main critique on the movie seems to be the historical inaccuracy of the African Americans. Honestly, I don’t mind that Hollywood has to distort history to make it more entertaining. I mean in John Adams he seemed to be at the center of every key point in early American history. Lincoln deserves to be portrayed as the Great Emancipator in his own movie.
ReplyDeleteIn Hae Yap, period 6
DeleteI watched this movie several months ago, and it was honestly just amazing. It is very focused on the public debates going on Congress - which were actually really interesting and got super intense - but there were also many comedic back-door-dealing sort of scenes to get senators to vote for the amendment.
I agree, I don't mind if Hollywood distorts history a bit (unless to the point of being completely wrong and biased, like in Gone with the Wind), as long as the facts are mostly straight. It's supposed to be not only a film with its own artistic merit, but it also has to sell. It's only if this were supposed to be a documentary or something that I'd be mad if the facts weren't straight. Plus by this point in his life, Lincoln was completely for emancipation - although it would have been better if the film had made at least an oblique reference to his past racism and pro-colonization stance.
Tina Zhu, Period 2 (She had technical difficulties and asked me to post it)
ReplyDeleteThe ending of the movie might have felt rushed and fast-paced compared to the rest of the film as though to cut the film short before it ran three hours. However, I believe that the trot through the gory battlefield, the unseen assassination of Lincoln, and the reading of the Second Inaugural Address were a brilliant combination to settle the tensions witnessed throughout the movie. After Lincoln carried the country through the struggle against slavery and found hope to rebuild and reunite the North and the South, his sudden death serves almost as his will to the prosperity to take the reigns and fulfill his legacy. By only showing the quiet deathbed of Lincoln without the deafening gunshot and the desolate battle site without ravenous scavengers feasting on the dead, Spielberg focuses the film on Lincoln's achievements, not how his murderer got away with murdering the nation's hero.
In addition to the Spielberg's insight for the ending, I found family played a major role in Lincoln's character development. Some historians may argue that Lincoln lacked change in the film but I found his unrelenting and omnipresent strength in character to be perhaps more appealing. By thoroughly acknowledging Lincoln's struggles with Robert and Molly, the film directly connects the tragedy of war with Lincoln's personal life. By his son's desire to fight for the Union and Molly's hysteric objection, he learns the turmoil of families from both the North and the South as sons are drafted an early death, and mothers weep for their children. In turn, he addresses family in his Second Inaugural Address. Although the film is denounced by few strict historians through unfair scrutiny, the film served its purpose to completely draw the viewers into Lincoln's pace.
Mohammad Chhipa (Period 2) - I really enjoyed watching this trailer and found it engaging. I liked how the trailer seemed to portray Lincoln accurately, rather than like a powerful king-like figure, he was seen as another human. The trailer also did a good job at capturing the chaotic environment present in America after the Civil War. Despite the fact that the war was over and the North had won, the congress still did not have full support for the abolition of slaves. I agree with Rebecca's point that the movie made a good choice in presenting Mary, Lincoln's wife, as an important player because it shows the support behind Lincoln's actions. In that aspect, I think the the film is a parallel to HBO's John Adams, where we see that John Adams wife played an important role in Adam's decision-making.
ReplyDeleteAngela [Period 2] - Does this film portray Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator" or a pragmatist? (I would assume that it does portray him as "The Great Emancipator" based on the trailer, but does it portray him as a pragmatist at all? For such a recent movie, it seems that there should be more revisionist history included. Does it sugarcoat certain aspects of the Civil War and over-glorify Lincoln? Is there any mention of the prejudices black soldiers faced?
ReplyDeleteRazwan Miah
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about Spielberg’s Lincoln, many people might claim that this movie is “too slow”, “boring” or “not exciting”. However, I disagree because this movie to me was very entertaining and I do not mind plot development as long as it leads to something great. Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln was nothing short of remarkable. The way that he was able to portray Lincoln’s character makes his performance very memorable and if I were to observe the real Abraham Lincoln and Lewis acting as Lincoln it would not easy. The idea to focus on the 13th amendment was a good idea because it really shows a different perspective of history. This film focuses more on the politics and legislative processes and this was a good idea because it was very intriguing to see how complex it was to get the 13th amendment passed. Seeing Lincoln participate in these background politics is very interesting and is different from the Honest-Abe idea that many people have. While historian’s like Foner are of course going to not like Spielberg’s Lincoln because it’s not historically accurate. I think Foner fails to appreciate the genius of Spielberg’s work because one has to remember that this is a Hollywood film that needs drama and exciting scenes (which I think made the movie really entertaining). Spielberg said he spent around 10 years on this film and his hard work can be shown in his meticulously chosen scenes. I believe that Spielberg’s methods of portraying Lincoln are justified in the end because after watching this movie one can really understand the atmosphere of the situation and how Lincoln was able to successfully get this amendment passed. I agree with Anni that due to revisionist historians focus on the oppressed a lot and less on the people in power and this movie was a nice change from typical Revisionist history.
Why do you think Spielberg would want to tell this story so badly? If he spent 10 years on it, it seems that he saw more in it than just a good story, but it also does not seem that he was trying to portray history completely accurately, as he did not show all the African American refugees. Why do you think he is so dedicated to telling this particular story through this particular lens?
DeleteChristopher Wennendy - The main complaint Kate Masur has about Lincoln, is that the film does not depict the involvement African Americans
ReplyDeletehad during the civil war. However, it seems as if we are expecting too much from historical films today. It has already been said that events
have been changed to make the movie more enjoyable. That is the point of these movies, to "entertain and inspire". Has the film Lincoln helped
to portray Lincoln has a grand model figure in American History? Was there character development for Lincoln seen throughout the film? These are
some of the criteria that the movie should have been judged on, not how historically accurate, down to every little detail, it was.
Ivy (Pd. 2) - Having watched the trailer, I noticed how Lincoln's voice was (as once mentioned in class) higher than I expected, and considering how great an orator he is, I found that surprising (but also accurate). I agree with the idea that Kate Masur might be expecting too much from historical films, as people don't watch movies to learn (usually), but to have a good time. I'm curious to know whether her point about African-Americans in the movie is valid, since this is a movie about Lincoln's attempt to abolish slavery, after all. I'd like to know how Lincoln is portrayed overall as well; does he support the abolition of slavery from the start, or does he gradually change his opinion (as he did in real life)?
DeleteJessica Ma (period 6) - Based on the various comments and reviews, it seems that Daniel Day-Lewis did a spectacular job performing as Lincoln. I'm curious as to what extent the Lincoln on film resembled the real Lincoln. Did he possess the same charisma that Lincoln possessed? Basically, was Lewis's portrayal a satisfying rendition of the "Great Emancipator"? Also, apparently in the movie, Mary Todd Lincoln becomes mentally shocked by her son's death and suffers from emotional instability. The film implies that she doesn't really do much; in fact, she almost seems helpless. We know in reality though, that Mary Todd Lincoln did contribute to the cause. If so, why would Spielberg portray her as a weak person?
ReplyDeleteTeresa Chen (PD 2): After watching the trailer, reading the reviews, and skimming through the comments on this thread, I am already interested in watching Lincoln whenever I get a chance! What I find extremely appealing about this film is that it is captivating in an unconventional way: instead of using action-packed Hollywood scenes, Spielberg chooses to utilize excellent acting and cinematography to portray Lincoln's storyline, and it seems that this method worked quite well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find myself agreeing with Masur in her critique that there is an obvious lack of black roles in this film. This movie centers around Lincoln passing the 13th Amendment, and much of the movie is told through the high white officials, as indicated already in the trailer. If slavery plays such a huge role in the story of Lincoln, wouldn't it make sense for a more balanced portrayal of whites and blacks in this film?
My first impression of the movie from the trailer was that the movie was going to be "dry". However, the movie exceeded my expectations. I enjoyed the funny moments like when Lincoln joked around or the clumsy actions of the messengers. I also liked how they depicted the scene where the representatives caused a riot. It really bought out the idea that even if the men were politicians representing their individual states, they were almost uncivilized in that scene. However I thought the scene after that was somewhat unnecessary, or unnecessarily lengthy. I feel that Spielberg spent too much time on the voting scene and it was somewhat irritating to simply listen to the actors go "Nay" or "Yay".
ReplyDeleteI thought that the movie was impressive in terms of its lighting and actors. Sometimes the lighting would make the scene look like a beautiful portrait. In addition I really liked how throughout most of the movie, the lighting was dark except for the moments where Lincoln was spending quality time with his son and after the war had ended. The lighting itself gave off a deep sense of mood and portrayed the dark times during the war and the light that came after the Civil War had ended. I really liked how Lincoln was portrayed in the movie contrary to the black and white film we watched in class. Through the movie, you could see how much effort Daniel Day-Lewis put into becoming Lincoln himself. While I really did believe that Day-Lewis really portrayed Lincoln's character, I found myself doubting Mary Todd Lincoln's portrayal by Sally Field. I thought that Lincoln's wife would be a more reticent person but in the movie she had the guts to insult certain people in their face. However, according to what I searched up, Sally Field actually did portray Mary Todd the way she was, an impulsive and strong-headed woman.
While I really liked the way the actors became their characters and the way the lighting helped to bring out the mood, I did not enjoy the ending. While I liked the way that Spielberg used the fact that Tad Lincoln was actually at a separate theater watching Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp, I thought that only showing Tad's reaction was not sufficient enough. I would have preferred if Spielberg had shown a scene of the gun being pointed at Lincoln's head, and then switched the scene over to Tad Lincoln. The sound of the gun shot would not even have to go off. I think simply that scene would make the end of Lincoln much more dramatic. Although I find the fact that Spielberg chose to end the movie with Lincoln saying his Second Inaugural speech to be very effective. I feel that such an end somewhat compensated for the historical inaccuracies and the lack of African American representation in the movie. However I would like to ask Spielberg why he didn't include the fact that he was persuaded by others to become against slavery. I feel like five minutes of that would be sufficient, and the five minutes could be cut out from the court scene. I think if Spielberg did something like that, that it would show Lincoln's development and would portray Lincoln as a better man than he was in this, because he changed. While I think that some parts of the script could be better, I really enjoyed the movie.
Sungwoo [Period 2] After reading few comments, it seems like some people are mentioning the historical inaccuracy of the film. Is this historical inaccuracy intentionally added to the film to make this film more interesting, suspenseful, and dramatic? In other words, if we were to remove all historical inaccuracies in the film, would it still be an interesting film, not merely a boring documentary?
ReplyDeleteNashia Choudhury- Although slow at first, I really enjoyed this film. I think the goal of the film was to capture Lincoln's personality and traits and it did so perfectly. All the choices that Spielberg made allowed for viewers to fully understand Lincoln, from cutting into the scene after all the votes were cast to showing the son's point of view of the assassination. Suddenly cutting into the scene with the votes and focusing on Lincoln allowed people to see Lincoln's perspective and sentiments. I also think that Spielberg made the right choice in deciding to focus on the 13th amendment. If he had focused on the war itself, people would not completely understand Lincoln as a leader and president and would be too focused on the issues during the battles themselves. Lincoln's efforts towards the 13th amendment let us see him in action. The process of passing the amendment was also extremely interesting because people expect such decisions to be made with ease. I really enjoyed the scene in which the votes were cast, because it wasn't as civil as I thought it would have been. The movie not only showed Lincoln as a strong leader, but also showed him as a father and a husband, through his conversations with his wife and two sons and his son's point of view of Lincoln's death. The movie captured Lincoln's legacy, individualism, and nature perfectly through Daniel Day-Lewis' fantastic portrayal of the president, the dialogue and parables Lincoln shares, and the scene choices. However, as Kate Masur mentions in her review, it would have also been interesting to see Lincoln walking down the streets of D.C and interacting with African American passer-bys just to show another viewpoint of Lincoln and add more depth to the movie.
ReplyDeleteChristina Lai, Pd 6
ReplyDeleteLooking at the reviews, I felt as if the portrayal of black characters was a lot less well done. This movie is about Lincoln and emancipation yet it does not show the black characters' role in emancipation. What, if anything, could be done to make this issue with the film better?
Despite the lack of a role for black characters, Lincoln seemed well portrayed. Spielberg said that Lincoln seemed like a friend after he researched him for so long. Does this film reflect what Spielberg feels? If so, what makes the character endearing in this film?
Terrance Liang- In my opinion, Spielberg's Lincoln was truly a great movie. The score and cinematography were amazing, with scenes such as the official announcement of the passing of the amendment and the clever ending theater scene. Most revisionist historians would argue that the movie was historically inaccurate in many areas. Although they may be true, I did not actually mind the inaccuracy. This film is meant to be a historical DRAMA, not a documentary. Spielberg's main goal in directing this film was to show the character of Lincoln and what he had to go through to become this "Great Emancipator." Although Spielberg doesn't accurately depict the situation, he does EFFECTIVELY do it. In dramas, the goal of the director should be to send a message rather than dictate facts. Spielberg did just that as he covered main themes such as the power and nobility of politics (as NY Times' David Brooks mentions) and Lincoln's adamant position in his fight against slavery. Through the film, I was able to witness the backdoor politics that had to be played to get the amendment passed (seeing scenes of outrageous cajolery to personal conversations between the representative and the President himself). The emphasis on the power of democracy was also important, as Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens emphasized the importance to have support from both parties (seen where Stevens told "Coughdrop" to remain in the Democratic Party for the vote rather than become a Republican). The film effectively shows the sacrifices he had to make to ensure the abolition of slavery (having to prolong the war, backdoor politics, arguments with politicians, hiding the truth, claiming to be a President "clothed in immense power"). The film also portrays the personal issues that Lincoln had to go through with his family, from the constant arguments with his wife and son. I also really enjoyed Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln, allowing us to witness Lincoln’s voice, stature, and character.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Lin-
ReplyDeleteI actually really enjoyed the movie Lincoln. The film depicts the process to the ratification of the 13th Amendment. It was really well done, everything from the costumes to the language used seemed to be right out of the time period. Although I do have to agree that there was very little on slavery in the movie. The only African American characters that had speaking roles were the two soldiers in the beginning, Mrs. Lincoln's (Madame President's) companion, and Lincoln's butler. These characters had very little to no speaking with in the entire movie. There are many African Americans that cameo as soldiers, but they do not speak. There is also little mention of Dred Scott or the Fugitive Slave Act,. While I realize that these events are before Lincolns second term, and that is the time period Spielberg is focusing on, I still think that these events are pertinent especially because it is the 13th Amendment that is being depicted.
I liked that the movie depicts Lincoln going enlisting people -- and eventually he also takes part -- to convince people to vote yes to the 13th Amendment. I think Daniel Day- Lewis did such a great job portraying Lincoln to the point that I thought for a moment that it was actually Lincoln on the screen. I think Spielberg did a great job as far as the aesthetics goes in the film. If you look up pictures of the actual people compared to the characters in Lincoln, there is an almost eerie resemblance. Not a single detain was left out, even the necklace and earrings Mary Lincoln wore were almost identical to the real thing.
I did not really mind that there was no mention of Lincoln's ideas of colonization because at this point he is past that. Not to mention there is no really right place for that detail to be inserted comfortably. This movie is about the ratification of the 13th Amendment, the amendment that ABOLISHES SLAVERY, it is not really within the theme to reference the fact that the person pushing the amendment used to support colonization. The only right place would be if the Democrats or the Southern politicians referenced it, but even then it would seem clunky.
***SPOILERS*** (read at your own discretion)
I unlike Alyson didn't really like the end because it seemed kind of anti-climactic. The scene before had given such a sense of finality, like Lincoln was leaving the White House for the last time, that when they were in the theater I thought that it would be the assassination scene. I would have at least liked to have seen a little clip of the assassination, maybe hearing a gunshot and seeing Lincoln slumped over, before there was the scene with Tad.
I also did not like the film's portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln. I think she is portrayed as a spoiled, rich woman used to getting what she wanted. I think that Spielberg played up her reaction to Willie's death. He doesn't mention that her brothers also died as Confederate soldiers and that she was branded a traitor to the South. While these reasons account for her outlandish behavior Spielberg also ignores that she and her companion, Elizabeth Keckley, were not just mere observers to the war. Keckley organized many relief for recently freed slaves and Mrs. Lincoln participated. Mary Lincoln also volunteered in Union hospitals and even sometimes visited the battlegrounds with her husband.
It seems like the difference between the first NYT review and the Foner review is that the NYT review focuses on Lincoln's style- exaltation of the democratic process/America coming to terms with slavery- while the Foner review focuses on the movie's substance- the historical facts, especially the conflict of ending the civil war v. ending slavery. I haven't seen this movie, but it would be great to hear if any of you who have seen it could elaborate on whether or not you think the facts (and their apparent violation) detract from the experience of the movie, or if the artificial creation of a conflict to display a theme was necessary for the emotional power of the film?
ReplyDeleteUdita Tonnee (Period 3) -
ReplyDeleteI really loved how accurate this movie was in portraying, if not the historical events, but how the people looked. Daniel Day-Lewis was absolutely amazing as the non-mythical Lincoln, and Spielberg was able to get everyone to look nearly identical to real person.
But aside from the makeup and costumes, i really liked the cinematography. Spielberg tries to be atypical by not showing what everyone thinks will come but, instead, cut to another scene happening simultaneously. The two parts that i really liked were when they will announce the passing of the 13th amendment and Lincoln's assassination. In the first scene, they cut to Lincoln and his son in the White House hearing all the bells and celebration for the amendment being passed, but we never actually hear the Speaker of the House say 'the amendment is passed' or something along the lines of that. For the second scene, we all see Lincoln getting ready to go to the theater. The class' reaction was along the lines of 'oh no', but then we see the son enjoying the film in another theater and hearing about his father getting killed. I thought that was a different take on Lincoln's assassination which was very intriguing.
But besides that, i would have liked African-Americans to have played a huger role in the film. Revisionist historians now solely focus on the people at the bottom, and i've always thought that was a little excessive; they should focus on both the top and the bottom.This movie, however, focuses more on the 'white men at the top' who also do all the work. I agree with Eric Foner's assessment that this is historically inaccurate. But it is a really good movie, if you're not looking for something absolutely loyal to history.
Jiyoon- Were there any similarities/differences between the way Day-Lewis portrayed Lincoln and the real Lincoln in terms of character and personality? Do you think that the historical inaccuracies added to or took away from the film? For instance, one of the reviews mentioned that the way the blacks were portrayed made it seem like they did not do much to pursue their freedom, when we know that this is definitely not the case. They escaped and joined "contraband" camps to help out the Union forces, a very important detail that was left out of the film, according to the review. But we also have to keep in mind that this is a movie and its main purpose is to entertain and generate profit. The average moviegoers would probably not be familiar with the precise details of the Civil War and its aftermath, so they would not be aware of these historical inaccuracies.
DeleteCourtney Velez - One of my classmates, Annie, stated she didn't like the ending of Lincoln because *spoiler alert* we don't get to see Lincoln's assassination; rather, we are in another theater, and the scene focuses on Licoln's youngest son. However, I disagree. When we see Lincoln leaving his house to head to the theater, I expected exactly what Annie wanted: visualization of Lincoln's assassination. This cliche scene wouldn't have had as big an effect as seeing Lincoln's son react to the news of his father's assassination. Getting this completely unexpected scene thrown at me made me feel the horror of Booth's deed even more because I'm not just seeing Lincoln get shot; I'm seeing how his son who loved Lincoln dearly was so anguished by the news. I praise Spielberg on this scene, because it was a very powerful and well scripted one.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I truly enjoyed this film. The portrayal of Lincoln by Daniel Day-Lewis was phenomenal, and I felt as though Lincoln was playing himself in the movie. However, this film almost portrays Lincoln as the sole driving force of the emancipation of the slaves. I would have liked to see more mention of abolitionists and African Americans working for the freedom of slaves, even if just a small glimpse at them. I also believe more of Lincoln's former beliefs, such as colonization of freed African Americans, should be shown. This would not only be more historically accurate, but allow for a great character development that could show truly how great a President he was. Despite these things, however, I thought Spielberg did an excellent job demonstrating Lincoln's hard work in getting the Thirteenth Amendment passed. I highly recommend it to any who haven not seen it yet.
Sanam Bhatia (Period 2) -
ReplyDeleteThe reviews of Lincoln definitely show that there are mixed opinions regarding the film. However, the trailer made me want to watch the movie because it starts off by showing all the challenges Lincoln dealt with when dealing with slavery and shifts to a more triumphant score to provide a hopeful feeling.
As for the people who did watch the entire film, how did it make you feel about Lincoln and who he was as a man and president? Did it make you like him less or more? Do you think it's historically accurate?
Eva I – I certainly enjoyed watching the film Lincoln because it captured Lincoln’s character very well. In the film, Lincoln is presented both as the president of the United States and as a responsible father. In one scene, he has to talk urgently with his cabinet members to plan out a way to get enough votes to pass the 13th amendment in time. In the next, Lincoln would have to voice his opposition against his older son Robert’s desire to enlist the army. Spielberg’s choice of sequencing the scenes balances Lincoln’s authoritative role with his familial role nicely. This not only makes the movie more interesting and surprising to watch but also shows that Lincoln is not the god-like figure in portrayed in the myth.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with historian Eric Foner because if the film were to include Lincoln’s character progression, it would be at least four hours long and the theme of the film would not be as clear. Thus, I prefer the movie as it is now because the centralized focus on the 13th amendment really shows how much hard work Lincoln put in to abolish slavery, an evil that had burdened the U.S. since its creation. Including Lincoln’s earlier views would only distract the audience from this theme. In my opinion, a good movie should be a movie with a strong clear theme.
I also disagree with Katherine because I found the humorous dialogues and enthusiastic arguments between the politicians very interesting. My favorite part is when the Congressmen voted for the 13th amendment. I liked the suspenseful atmosphere during the voting and the surprising twist that cut off the announcement of the final result.
Grace (pd 6) - You make an interesting point in that a film on Lincoln's character progression would be too long and the general theme would be strained. I understand how this argument is valid, but from what I remember of the movie, I thought Spielberg elevated Lincoln, maybe not to the point of myth, but to the epitome of a good man and leader. I wonder exactly how a film on Lincoln's entire progression would pan out, or if one already exists?
DeleteDavid Bang:
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Lincoln's ghost is pleased with how Steven Spielberg portrayed the process of passing the 13th Amendment and his overall legacy. Spielberg really did Lincoln, justice by choosing Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln's actor. On top of bearing physical resemblance with Lincoln, Day-Lewis was able to perfect Lincoln’s walk, posture, tone of speech, and humanity. Lincoln was not the demigod that everyone believed him to be, and this film cleared a lot of misconceiving that people had on Lincoln. While it can be argued that the movie had a lot of historical inaccuracies that served to over dramatized the plot and provide tension between the respective candidates of each state, in a humorous undertone, it can also be argued that these historical inaccuracies served to emphasize certain parts of Lincoln’s Presidency while keeping the viewers interested. However, one thing I found to be extremely historically accurate was the uncanny resemblance of each actor to their historical figure such as how Tommy Lee Jones looked like the reincarnation of Thaddeus Stevens. It may be possible that Daniel Day-Lewis really was the reincarnation of Lincoln or at least put in that mindset into his act, because Day-Lewis was able to perfectly match even Lincoln’s expressions in the way I envisioned it to have been. Day-Lewis seemed immersed in his role as Lincoln, as he showed Lincoln’s personal life problems in relation to his role as a President. Lincoln too had to face a lot of stress from his son who wanted to go to the war and potentially die, and his wife who went berserk at him for letting his son die in the war and then letting another join the war. On the level of familiarity, I felt that I had gotten closer to the “real” Lincoln and finally separated myself from the Lincoln from “the textbooks.” Even now, I can picture Lincoln telling me one of his corny stories (which I did not know he did), I can see him exploding in frustration to get the last votes to pass the 13th Amendment, I can see him slapping his son for the grief he has caused to his mother, and I can see Lincoln giving his powerful speeches, that often had soldiers reciting them word by word.
Spielberg’s choice to focus on the 13th Amendment, that freed all slaves, was in my opinion, better than giving the common population, a generalized overview of Lincoln’s Presidency. By choosing to clear up the misconceiving about the 13th Amendment, such as that the common population may have believed that it was some kind of God-given amendment that passed with the sweep of Lincoln’s demigod hands, Spielberg was at least able to clear up one hazy period of a Lincoln’s presidency. Well, this movie in a sweeping two and a half hours was able to show Lincoln’s struggle to pass the Amendment in the House of Representatives, by 2 votes. It was not the God-given Amendment that much of the population believed it to be, rather it was an Amendment that had been pushed by Lincoln and other supporters by way of backdoor deals and last minute “traitorous” votes for “Ay” from the many that had previously been in opposition or neutral about the Amendment’s passing. Lincoln’s humanity was shown; I was able to see how taxing the entire process had been on him. It made me think that “Lincoln” really was just another human man, though an extraordinary one. I felt like a lot of justice was done in portraying other supporters of the Amendment, such as Thaddeus Stevens and William Seward. Honestly I did not know much about Stevens until this movie and now I understand that he did play a key role in the passing of the Amendment such as with his powerful way with words that convinced even a frightened Democrat to vote “Ay.” Honestly the entire House of Representative scenes seemed like a sports game to me, with the Representatives as the players of the game. People were using a score card to actually tally votes and many insults
(it told me it was too long, so I seperated it into 2) , burst of anger, and cheering was shown in the House, which was contrary to my image of the House having been an uptight setting. I especially liked how the movie kept surprising me with each scene. For example, I would have thought that towards the end of the movie, when Lincoln was to be shot, we would actually see the killer shoot him, but much to my surprise, the way Spielberg delivered the news was from the son’s perspective, which was original and well done. I can continue to praise the movie for a long time, but I will choose to end it here by mentioning one thing I did not like about it. I did not like how the slaves or blacks that the Amendment was supposed to set free had barely any screen time, and when they were depicted, they were shown to be still subservient to the whites, as maids and mistresses.
DeleteCole Reschke (period 6) - First off, I think Lincoln is an incredible movie that does an excellent job of portraying Lincoln. Not only does it show the events of Lincoln's presidency with with relative accuracy, but it also gives us an idea of just how much stress Lincoln was under during his presidency. And while I understand people's comments on how there is a glaring lack of African American roles in the film, I would like to point out that they would be irrelevant to the story. The focus of the movie was on the politics of the Civil War; it was not on African Americans' roles. Also to answer the comments on the historical inaccuracies of the film, I would say that the film is not a documentary. The movie is meant to be entertaining while educational and it full fulfills that purpose.
ReplyDeleteEyrna (Period 6) - I understand from a screenwriting perspective that it may have been difficult to incorporate a substantial number of African American roles into the film (especially since it's so long already) but I don't think adding these roles would have been irrelevant to the story. I think it's incredible relevant really, and quite unfortunate that the movie overlooks their participation in bringing about change. I don't think it's possible to discuss the politics of the Civil War without also discussing the part African Americans played. I agree with Kate Masur, by leaving out the roles African Americans played in emancipation, Spielberg is unfortunately perpetuating the (outdated) idea that social change is made solely by white men from the top-down. The movie should have at least included Frederick Douglass, who was instrumental in pushing Lincoln beyond his cautious stance in the Emancipation Proclamation towards the 13th amendment.
DeleteYug Brahmbhatt (Period 2) - Many critics claim that American movies fail to portray American democracy. One exception however is the movie Lincoln. The movie does a good job of showing the squalor and vigor, glory and corruption of the Republicans. Another positive aspect is that the movie accurately portrayed Lincoln. Lincoln is shown as eloquent in manner, and his speech is characterized by tall tales and informed by voracious reading. Lincoln's voice is also presented contrary from the norm; his voice is higher pitched than what is typically thought to be the pitch of his voice. However, Lincoln's voice was actually high pitched and I feel that even this little accurate detail helps make the movie more realistic than a box office fan fiction. It shows Lincoln's true personality rather than his legendary honest-Abe personality. I also agree with Razwan that the idea to centralize the movie around the 13th amendment was a good idea, because it showed the tremendous complexity that revolved around getting the 13th amendment passed. Some of the scenes portrayed also showed the mindset of those involved in the civil war. For example, Lincoln had to claim that he was not that interested in freeing the slaves, but that he only did it would help end the war. This is obviously incorrect, but the movie does a good job of showing how Lincoln dealt with people who did not agree with his ideas on equality. Some negatives about the film are that it failed to show the impacts of black movers and shakers in the emancipation movement. Lincoln should also be portrayed as a great Emancipator because at this point, he was mostly devoted to the cause of Emancipation.
ReplyDeleteLauren (Period 2) The reviews present differing opinions about the film, so it's hard to form a definitive opinion without having watched the movie. Having the seen the trailer, the movie looks intriguing and worth watching. A lot of you have commented on the historical inaccuracies of the film. Do you feel they were necessary or did they take away from the message the film was trying to get across?
ReplyDelete-Justin Moy
ReplyDeleteI believe that the movie "Lincoln" wa both gripping and entertaining while still being able to give us a first-hand look at America during the Civil War. The begnning of the movie was admittedly slower than the other parts, but that did not make it boring though. Each scene transported me into the world of the past as I got an in depth look at the back door politics, wheeling and dealing, and dirty plays made during the passing of the civil war. My favorite scenes were definitely the arguments and 'debates' (if you could even call them such) in the House of Reprsentatives. The prominent debaters constantly insulted each other while trying to get their point across. Although critics claim that it is not historically accurate, I believe that it was entertaining and gripped audience members who are not huge history scholars. I went in to watch the film expecting a top-bottom interpretation of the 13th Amendment passing, it's what I recieved but I also came out extremely pleased due to the great cinematography, acting, and music that accompanied the film. Even though the film did not mention all aspects of Lincoln's political career it did exactly what it said it would, and it did it well.
Tony Fung (PD.2)
ReplyDeleteThis film seems like it will give very good insight into the decision points of President Lincoln during his presidency, and perhaps before as well. It seems like the movie will show Lincoln's personal life mixed in with constant bickering with his cabinet, persuading speeches, and awe-inspiring moments. There seems to be scenes with Lincoln walking across the battlefields, noting the losses that have occurred. It would be interesting to see how the film contrasts this extreme of life on the battlefield with just life at home, with his family.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulian Kalogerakis –
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2012/12/what-steven-spielbergs-lincoln-got-wrong-and-what-it-got-right.html
The pure accuracy of Daniel Day-Lewis's demeanor and stature was, in my opinion, the most striking aspect of the film. To be frank, I had very few issues with the film concerning its historical accuracy; its focus was largely the nature of bureaucratic procedure in times of powerful presidency – second only to the focus on Lincoln's character in detail – and the passing of the 13th Amendment. This was entirely appropriate. Most of the reviews and criticism that Lincoln received simply revolved around this Lincoln-centricism, condemning or postulating upon various instances of carelessness on Spielberg's part. Kate Masur and David Brooks produced arguments so incredibly profound that they were naturally conceived in the mind as one watched the film... so profound, that they attempt to draw greater meaning from the film, which indubitably revolved around Lincoln and not the greater issues at hand.
More interesting than speculation over higher relevance of the film was the exact list of historical inaccuracies found in it, which I found at the link above (NYT blog).
It further exposed this "carelessness" that I speak of (Spielberg's). Give it a quick read, and you'll notice some glaring errors in the film. For example, Lincoln often preached the principles of democracy in the movie. Spielberg must have assumed that term would suffice(aligned better with contemporary political jargon) but failed to realize that at Lincoln's time, Democracy mainly referred to the Southern Dem. Party, which became the Confederacy. Republicanism would have been the more astute term to describe the egalitarian dogma Lincoln adhered to.
Derek Tsui - The movie, Lincoln, features the monumental effort to pass the Thirteenth Amendment. But despite the gravity of the subject matter, it was a surprisingly enjoyable movie to watch, because of all the substance in the movie that made it worthwhile. It fully fleshes out the persona of Abraham Lincoln at this time in an abundance of respects: as a caring father to his sons, as a level-headed decider among his cabinet, and as a steadfast and ideological supporter of his amendment. What's also interesting is that it even shows his potentially dishonest side in his dealings to garner the remaining Democratic votes. Although it is arguable that Lincoln had undergone a significant transformation in his attitude towards black rights before he arrived at this phase, the movie does a great service to fully presenting the remarkable historical event that occurred, which was the passage of the amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln's image in this film is further carried by meticulous detail and accuracy in voice, acting, and mannerisms, which provided the image of the "Great Emancipator" that really grounds us as viewers in viewing his perspective.
ReplyDeleteTo that extent, this movie did not have the revisionist aspects of our history that we embrace today by focusing only on the actions of the few at the top of the political hierarchy (and not blacks, or abolitionists). But that appears less relevant when the overarching highlight of the movie is Lincoln and his influence. I feel that the dynamic of the movie worked much better in this way to give us a vivid image of Lincoln as the towering historical figure. The contributions of other parties to our Civil War history may well have their place in another film that can probably be as equally captivating as this one was.
Ryan Kim (pd. 2)
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched Lincoln, but after reading through the reviews, watching the trailer, etc., it would be interesting to see Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal of Lincoln. Based on many of the responses, it seems that Lincoln's portrayal by Lewis was powerful, and that Lewis was able to show the struggles that Lincoln had to face. We often see Lincoln as this god-like figure, but I feel that Lewis probably was able to show that Lincoln was also human and also struggled emotionally, which helps the viewer have sympathy and empathy for him. Though it seems that the film may not be completely accurate historically, and that African Americans were not given credit, that does not mean that the film itself was bad. Maybe that was not Spielberg's intention in this film. He probably wanted his focus to be on Lincoln, and his role and struggle (hence, the title being 'Lincoln"). Which compels me to ask what message the people that watched the movie got from the film.
Taras Klymyuk
ReplyDeleteFrom a strictly critical point of view, the film was really good. Daniel Day Lewis embodied Lincoln in every way. He was exactly the way I imagined Lincoln to be. It portrays the nature of politics very well (shady backroom deals, favors, etc). I really learned a lot about how the 13th Amendment and about Lincoln himself (including his shortcomings). I have no problem with this film not focusing on the more revisionist aspects of history because, in real life, history is not always (rarely really) politically correct.
However, I felt like the director should of decided whether the film should be a hardcore documentary or a Hollywood flick. By mixing both the film lost its luster. I would have rather watched a completely historically accurate documentary or a quentin tarantino adaptation which focuses on the action and not much on lincoln, but not something in between.
Annique pd 2
DeleteDo documentary type films mixed with Hollywood-esque feature have the burden of trying to teach the audience something or should their main goal be to make money?
I don't buy Brooks' NY times review- that Lincoln is a good film because it teaches people about the "nobility of politics." He says "To lead his country through a war, to finagle his ideas through Congress, Lincoln feels compelled to ignore court decisions, dole out patronage, play legalistic games, deceive his supporters..." But Lincoln's actions sometimes were not constitutionally justified. Is leading a country through a war enough justification to essentially destroy the foundation of what America was created off of? Or do the ends justify the means?
Also, was Lincoln portrayed more as a pragmatist or an abolitionist?
Tomin (Period 3) - I disagree with Foner, I believe that the conflict of whether to end the war with an immediate negotiated peace or to prolong the war in the interest of pushing the 13th amendment through the House was a real one that Lincoln had to confront. To put it in the words of one of my favorite scenes in the film: "liberty was first". The character speaking these words, Elizabeth Keckley, one of Lincoln's house servants, said them in reference to the question of what blacks would do following emancipation. She asserts in the film that, for the enslaved, that question is ultimately irrelevant, that liberty itself outweighs the uncertainty that liberty represents. Likewise, for Lincoln liberty was first; he saw the necessity of ending the war, but also the importance of putting an end to slavery first, and thus the true conflict of the film (as I interpreted it) presented itself: how could Lincoln manage to accomplish his "new birth of freedom"? He had to delay and ultimately deny the peace negotiators while using whatever means he could to pass the amendment. Otherwise the "house divided" as he called it would have persisted in its division. Lincoln realized that only by constitutional amendment could the slavery issue be settled with finality. And in the film he is aptly portrayed as pursuing the passing of the amendment all costs. Consequently it seems to me that the film fully captures the nuance of Lincoln's challenge with regards to the political circumstances surrounding the passage of the amendment. I won't however suggest that other criticisms of the film are neglecting certain details of the film (in fact Masur and Foner make excellent points), just that frankly, if you want a history lesson don't see a Spielberg film named Lincoln. If you do, you'll get a zoomed in, partial glorification of one of the most revered presidents in our nation's history.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWendy Huang- When Mr. Sandler asked us to vote on a film, I personally didn’t want to watch this, for my first impression was that it would be too much of a traditional, glorifying film. At the beginning, the lack of action stood out to me, starting it off unappealing and dry.
ReplyDeleteDespite this, my opinions did change as I continued watching it. I realized that this is one of those movies that require the audience to look deeper into each character’s actions for hidden meanings rather than those filled with action that compensates for the lack of emotional context. First of all, as the others have said, Daniel Day-Lewis’ acting was spectacular. The voice, the walk, and the expressions all seemed so natural. His acting really gave me a better idea of how Lincoln must have felt throughout this long and tiring process. As president, even though it may seem that the power was all in Lincoln, Lincoln had to take everyone into consideration and hold himself back from doing the things he may have wanted to do. Near the end, Grant’s saying that Lincoln had grown ten years older in a year really stood out to me because it showed me that during the difficult times, even Lincoln had matured. Lincoln’s relationship with his family also surprised me. I would never have imagined Lincoln, the great Emancipator, slapping his son across the face and getting into such a heated argument with his wife. Despite how traditional the film is, I was impressed that it actually shows that Lincoln is human after all. In addition, when Lincoln slams the table and swears during a meeting on the 13th Amendment, I was quite startled. I expected him to be much calmer, but this scene does a really great job at letting the audience know how tense Lincoln actually was during this process.
Out of all the scenes, I feel that the ending is the best. I never would have thought that Lincoln’s assassination would be portrayed through the perspective of his son. Whether or not his son was actually in the opposite theater no longer matters because this perspective is so fitting. If Lincoln’s assassination is shown first hand, it would ruin the flow of the movie; because the movie is powerful on the basis of its hidden, emotional context, the sudden appearance of an action-filled scene wouldn’t be as powerful. Seeing this through Tad’s point of view actually caused me to fill with emotions, and I was able to somewhat experience how people must have felt back then when they found out about Lincoln’s death.
Despite the good points of the film, I do agree with Kate Masur’s critique in “In Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln,’ Passive Black Characters.” It was already somewhat disturbing to see the lack of African Americans, but the African Americans who are in the movie play roles that make them seem weak. In history, African Americans did play a huge role during the war in fighting for their own freedom, but this film depicts them as people who are just waiting for White men to save them through the 13th Amendment.
Brian Lui (period 6)
ReplyDeleteThis film appears to be an interesting film that although is not entirely historically accurate, it tells a great story that enticed Americans to watch it. With great acting by Daniel Day-Lewis, the film had widespread appeal among Americans, making a lot of money at the box office. Although it did not contain a strong black character even though the topic was on slavery, I feel that the movie would not be too diminished because the movie seem to be more about the act of getting the 13th amendment passed. A strong black character would have been very appropriate if the move was about Lincoln reaching the decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Although some of the critics were pretty harsh on the film, I am still enticed enough by the plot to see the movie when I have time.
Based on the trailer, his movie seems really over-dramatized to the point where I question whether or not there is still enough historical content prevalent in the film to consider it a documentary-type movie (obviously not a true documentary, as this is a Hollywood film) about Lincoln. The trailer also makes it seem as if the movie focuses almost exclusively on the 13th amendment and the popular myth that Lincoln wanted to emancipate the slaves because he believed in their rights. Having not watched this movie, I picture it as Hollywood butchering another historical figure to produce mainstream entertainment.
ReplyDeleteThe trailer was very moving, though "Lincoln" seems to be a movie more composed of political debates rather than wartime action. I also liked how the son was present in the film, making Lincoln seem like a family man as well as a president and politican. However, I was upset to find out that there were "passive black characters" (from Kate Masur's NYT article), knowing how much African Americans sacrafices and how hard they worked and how just badly they wanted liberation!! In "Glory", I recall a conversation between General Shaw and one of the soldiers, Trip, where he asks Shaw what he will get from a Union victory. Because he knows Shaw will go back to his nice big house, but, after the war, Trip will get no reward or place to go. He's so distrustful of whites (being a former slave himself) and perhaps that is what has hardened him against them and made him more reliant on himself. It would make me absolutely indignant to see Trip dubbed as a "passive black" who waited around for Lincoln to free him! No; Trip ran away himself, and joined the army to fight back against the institution and people who so pained him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tiffani that the movie made Lincoln look more than just a politician and portrayed him as a human. I actually had the same question, to what extent did African Americans affect the emancipation portrayed in the movie? Were they in the movie at all? Why is it inaccurate to only show "passive black characters" as Tiffani has mentioned?
DeleteComing along the same line, Glory made me think about African American perspective rather than white perspective that we all know.
Sharon Kang (Period 2)
ReplyDeleteBased on the other comments, it seems like Lincoln was portrayed to be nobler than he actually was in real life. However, from the trailer, it looked like Daniel Day Lewis did a good job playing Lincoln. He looked extremely tired and frustrated; Lincoln probably looked a lot like that during his presidency. I probably will watch this movie to see how inaccurate it was (and for Joseph Gordon-Levitt).
Masur says African American characters basically passively wait for the white men to free them from slavery, which seems like the opposite of "Glory" where the men of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment took matters into their own hands and fought.
Ryan Tu (Period 6) - Was the focus of this movie too narrow? By focusing on just four months enough for the movie, it neglects some important milestones Lincoln made towards getting to the Thirteenth Amendment, including the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, was it right to say that Lincoln had to choose between ending the war sooner or abolishing slavery? Considering how he already made steps towards planned emancipation and expanded the reason the war was being fought to include the abolition of slavery, did Lincoln really have a choice?
ReplyDeleteAaron L. (Period 6)
ReplyDeleteBack when the film was still in theaters, there was plenty of buzz ranting and raving about the film's accuracy and entertainment value. On one hand, the acting for the film seems stellar and enjoyable. On the other, some may believe that Spielberg took too many liberties with the story, and with that the history becomes lost. Whether or not this detracts from the quality of the film, however, still remains uncertain. To the people who watched the film - despite the aforementioned liberties taken by Spielberg, do you think the film still manages to provide a useful educational experience, or does it merely reduce it to another entertainment flick with a coincidentally historical backdrop?
Ugh, sorry for being so late with this, it's 3:30 in the morning...
ReplyDeleteLincoln is a film that focuses heavily on, well, Lincoln. However, Spielberg decides to focus all of his efforts on the portrayal of Lincoln when he was trying to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. I felt that this was a very good choice, as not only did this allow Spielberg to focus on Lincoln at this time in more detail, but also the multitude of other characters that may offer a sizable impact in this film. And other characters did play a heavy role. Lincoln had to rely on his allies, including his Secretary of State William Seward, to help collect enough support to pass the amendment, and some amount of time was spent in the film on these members' (sometimes humorous) endeavors. There was also focus on the various sects and parties, with characters like Thaddeus Stevens, Francis Preston Blair, and Fernando Wood representing the Radical Republicans, the Conservative Republicans, and the Democrats respectively, all prominent characters in the film while the amendment was being debated on. This heavy focus on all these congressmen helped show the chaos and confusion involved in passing this amendment as well as how, as we're reminded time and time again, ugly politics can get.
Less noticeable but perhaps just as important is the portrayal of black people in this film, as Lincoln is trying to pass an amendment that abolishes slavery. Although I've noticed some posts say that blacks did not have an active role in this film, I am reminded of Elizabeth Keckley, a former slave and confidante to Lincoln's wife, who in one scene told Lincoln about what she thought of the Thirteenth Amendment. She reminded him that her kind had shed blood to see the light of day that Lincoln was finally presenting blacks, that she herself was the mother of one of those soldiers who fought and died on the battlefield for a cause they believed in. Perhaps black people did not play as active a role in this film as the white politicians did, but Spielberg shows that he did not ignore them entirely.
Sabrina Bari
ReplyDeleteAlthough I missed most of the movie because I was absent for two days, I was able to understand that this movie was an inspiring tale of Lincoln. The film depicted Lincoln in a majestic way by portraying him as a figure who was persistent and adamant about the 13th amendment. Daniel Day-Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln was amazing, his speech and his posture was impeccable. However, his character was stagnated and didn’t develop during the film. A good movie has the protagonist progress over time. Although it is unique having the 13th amendment as the basis of the film, it lacks the historical context of Lincoln’s opinions on slavery developing over time. Eric Foner believed that only two things were historically accurate in the film, Lincoln’s hatred for slavery and the importance of convincing the House of Representatives to pass the bill.
Although the movie was not action-filled entertainment, it did provide an engaging storyline. Having cuts of Lincoln’s personal life with his wife and son gave the audience a sense of realism. Although he was an important figure in history, he also struggled with personal relationships and happiness just like ordinary people. This allowed the audience to connect more with Lincoln.
However, I would consult Spielberg lack of black characters in the film. Black slaves in the film were depicted to be passive, waiting for the amendment to pass. In reality, many blacks such as Frederick Douglass were much more involved with the process. In addition, I would like to have a better development of Lincoln’s character so it can provide the audience with a better depiction of history. Although many people disliked the ending to the film, I enjoyed the ending because it provided a new perspective of Lincoln’s assassination and employed a natural feeling of shock when the play was interrupted by the messenger.
Judging from the trailer, the movie reviews, comments from this blog post, and the fact that Steven Spielberg is amazing. Lincoln seems to be an amazing movie portraying Lincoln's "emancipation" from himself. Lincoln seems very conflicted and exhausted throughout the trailer, showing that although he was an amazing and almost mythical person, he was also human like the rest of us. However, the film seems to lack some historical content, which seems to bother a lot of people. I feel like that should not subtract from the film itself, as the message the film is trying to convey makes up for it. Despite some of the criticism the film has received, I would definitely consider watching it.
ReplyDeleteKonrad Krasucki, Pd 2.
ReplyDeleteThe trailer left me with a sense of disgust, as all I thought was that the movie would not get the history right, nor would it accurately portray Lincoln. After reading a couple of comments and various reviews, I'm on the fence as to whether or not I should watch this movie. The comments on this webpage make it seem that the movie is incredible, but the reviews confirm my initial suspicions, that the history and the movie itself is a lie. To quote Foner: “I don’t mind if Spielberg sends the movie to schools. I just don’t want it shown in history classes,”
Lise Ho (Period 6) Although I have watched Lincoln before, I didn't really find the movie memorable. It seemed to me like an 'all white world' in a way with not much reference to the black soldiers. The trailer's projection of the story of Lincoln emancipating himself and the black soldiers seems really appealing, but is there any way that the film could have included black soldiers who were more prominent in the film and less passive (as many of the above comments have observed)? Also, if I remember correctly, 'Lincoln' omits that facts that Lincoln was initially not a supporter for the idea of abolition of slavery and the rather 'racist' side of him as seen in some of his early debates. Isn't this film rather biased (one-sided) and more focused on patronizing Lincoln rather than documenting the real truth behind Lincoln?
ReplyDelete