Lincoln (2012)

[unionblue]

From the book, Fighting Words: An Illustrated History Of Newspaper Accounts Of The Civil War, by Andrew S. Coopersmith, Inrtoduction, This Is a War of Opinion, pg. xv:

"...Over 3,700 newspapers were in publication in the Northern and Southern states on the eve of the Civil War. The dailies alone, which constituted only around 10 percent of all the papers, had a combined circulation of 1.4 million issues each day!..."

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

And unlike our kids, rote learning was something you did. All the time. Memorizing. Which I frankly think is a really good thing. None of my kids have that skill.....well, until they get to me.

Nathanb1,

You are correct.

I found this article, American Elementary Schools in the mid-1800s, which in part states:

"...They (sudents) had to memorize verses and important dates in history and then they had to recite them in front of the class or quietly to the teacher. This was called recitation,..."

You can view the entire article here:

http://library.thinkquest.org/J002606/mid1800s.html

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[K Hale]

Still artist license in the extreme... the USCT reenactors I've met over the years don't talk smack like that.

What's this suppose to mean?

Not uppity.

 

[K Hale]

Upon reviewing 101combatvet's errant criticisms of the movie to me that the real problem isn't the authenticity of the movie, but that he dislikes the subject.

As I said, I've got a friend on Facebook who said straight up that his problem with the film, which he refuses to go see, is that "It's about Lincoln." I appreciate that kind of honesty.

 

[Jake Patterson]

Not uppity.

So once again, What's THIS suppose to mean? Today's AA's should not act "uppity?"

 

[Nathanb1]

So once again, What's THIS suppose to mean? Today's AA's should not act "uppity?"

Uh, don't shoot the messenger. Or interpreter.

Ms. Hale has a very lovely sense of humor.

 

[K Hale]

You also are uncomfortable with the idea of:

"Tad's collection of glass negative plates depicting slaves."

Well, here my search did hit a dry hole, as I cannot find any sources or references that state consicely shows Tad Lincoln had a "collection of glass negative plates depicting slaves." But when I watched the movie, I didn't get the impression of a "collection" more than I did a few pictures, one in particular showing a slave.

Not sure why 101 finds this so unbelievable, but since it keeps coming up, Lincoln at one point tells Tad that he needs to "return the plates to Mr. Gardner." Evidently they are supposed to be Alexander Gardner's plates, which Lincoln or someone else in the White House had borrowed. There appear to be several dozen in the box, and we only see two or three.

 

[K Hale]

So once again, What's THIS suppose to mean? Today's AA's should not act "uppity?"

LOL, no sir. That's merely my interpretation of what was meant by "USCT reenactors don't talk smack like that."

 

[Jake Patterson]

As I said, I've got a friend on Facebook who said straight up that his problem with the film, which he refuses to go see, is that "It's about Lincoln." I appreciate that kind of honesty.

Who would have thought that a Movie called "Lincoln" would have been about... well ... Lincoln

 

[K Hale]

Who would have thought that a Movie called "Lincoln" would have been about... well ... Lincoln

He knows it was going to be about Lincoln. He doesn't like Lincoln, and rather than trot out some tired line of BS, he just straight up says he doesn't want to see a movie about Lincoln.

 

[unionblue]

Not sure why 101 finds this so unbelievable, but since it keeps coming up, Lincoln at one point tells Tad that he needs to "return the plates to Mr. Gardner." Evidently they are supposed to be Alexander Gardner's plates, which Lincoln or someone else in the White House had borrowed. There appear to be several dozen in the box, and we only see two or three.

K Hale,

When I searched the web for information about Tad's pictures/glass plates, I did find references to Lincoln and Tad visiting Matthew Brady's Washington studio when Lincoln has his picture taken.

But to be fair, this is the one opinion given by 101combatvet that I could find no direct evidence or sources to refute as I did his other stated opinions.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[101combatvet]

If I believed in inductive arguments I might find 1941 plausible too.

http://m.forward.com/articles/165443/spielbergs-portrait-of-lincoln-is-a-bust/?p=all

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rosenbaum

 

[101combatvet]

Not sure why 101 finds this so unbelievable, but since it keeps coming up, Lincoln at one point tells Tad that he needs to "return the plates to Mr. Gardner." Evidently they are supposed to be Alexander Gardner's plates, which Lincoln or someone else in the White House had borrowed. There appear to be several dozen in the box, and we only see two or three.

Here is a clue. Ask anyone who shoots large format or glass plate negatives and see if they would lend their negatives out to a kid... even if the kid's father is the President. If you have any idea of the risk and process involved in photography during the ACW you should understand why this didn't happen.

 

[matthew mckeon]

As far as speech patterns are concerned, if you read Asa Goodling's letters(a non com in the 54th), he certainly expresses himself like the Victorian writer he is. Literacy rates among the free blacks recruited in Massachusetts were similar to those in white units. People memorizing great chunks of prose and poetry was common as well. I had to memorize the Gettysburg Address in school, in which time I was a "country bumpkin."

Photography was a new thing in the 1850s and 60s. Graphic photographic images of the war had a powerful impact of people's perception of the war and its cost. Abolitionists circulated photographs of abused enslaved people/fugitives as propaganda for the cause. So Tad having access to these images and asking questions about them seems perfectly natural, and the central meaning of that piece of dialog, the fascinating point about "large format glass negatives" nonwithstanding.

Sounds like someone didn't like what the movie was saying, and pretending he didn't like how the movie was saying it.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I think the principal reason those scenes were in the film were as narrative. As was mentioned elsewhere in this or a related thread, the story was primarily about the legislation and politics surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment and, specifically, Lincoln's role in it, but the screenwriters and filmmakers were confronted with the quandary that a movie so deeply concerned with the rights of African-Americans (as we would term them today) had no really logical place for African-Americans in it (Mrs. Keckley et. al. notwithstanding, but the government was very much a whites-only club); so they had to do some hard work to interject conversation and exposition about slaves, freedmen, and free blacks into the narrative.

I actually wondered a bit about the actual chances of Gardner letting fragile glass plates out of his sight, but it did make for an interesting exchange between the characters of Lincoln and Tad. (We must not forget that this is not a documentary, but a dramatization.)

 

[matthew mckeon]

And the two African American characters in the scene, who both answer Tad's questions.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

As far as speech patterns are concerned, if you read Asa Goodling's letters(a non com in the 54th), he certainly expresses himself like the Victorian writer he is. Literacy rates among the free blacks recruited in Massachusetts were similar to those in white units. People memorizing great chunks of prose and poetry was common as well. I had to memorize the Gettysburg Address in school, in which time I was a "country bumpkin." <snipped for brevity>

Sounds like someone didn't like what the movie was saying, and pretending he didn't like how the movie was saying it.

I attended Catholic school and was required in the 8th grade to memorize JFK's Inaugural speech AND Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

 

[Jake Patterson]

He knows it was going to be about Lincoln. He doesn't like Lincoln, and rather than trot out some tired line of BS, he just straight up says he doesn't want to see a movie about Lincoln.

K,
I am beginning to understand your humor....

 

[101combatvet]

I think the principal reason those scenes were in the film were as narrative. As was mentioned elsewhere in this or a related thread, the story was primarily about the legislation and politics surrounding the passage of the 13th Amendment and, specifically, Lincoln's role in it, but the screenwriters and filmmakers were confronted with the quandary that a movie so deeply concerned with the rights of African-Americans (as we would term them today) had no really logical place for African-Americans in it (Mrs. Keckley et. al. notwithstanding, but the government was very much a whites-only club); so they had to do some hard work to interject conversation and exposition about slaves, freedmen, and free blacks into the narrative.

I actually wondered a bit about the actual chances of Gardner letting fragile glass plates out of his sight, but it did make for an interesting exchange between the characters of Lincoln and Tad. (We must not forget that this is not a documentary, but a dramatization.)

I would agree... politically correct endeavor and not a single black person in my theater to view it with. I'm kind of wishing Spike Lee would have taken on this project.

BTW... CDVs' may have been believable.

 

[Nathanb1]

Mine memorize the Preamble and the Gettysburg address every year. Plus whatever poetry I can cram down 'em in UIL.