Lincoln (2012)

[Lee]

I saw it last night with my History Club (we watch period movies and historical documentaries and then discuss them) and I didn't think the USCT cavalry soldier spoke disrespectfully to the President at all. He spoke to Lincoln about the disparity in pay between Black soldiers and White soldiers; acknowledged that issue had been resolved; but then wanted to know when Blacks would be allowed to become Army officers. I didn't see where he was "disrespectful" in his conversation or tone in any way. As a soldier putting his life on the line, I believe the man had a right to ask that question. And as commander-in-chief, I believe the President had a responsibilty to address it. Besides, I've seen plenty of movies with Lincoln in them for years where the main character(s) or common people approach Lincoln and ask "When is (this or that) going to happen?" So though I question if that scene was something that actually happened I don't see it as any different than any other time in other films.

I also disagree with you that Lincoln's efforts to see the 13th Amendment passed were inaccurately shown as more important than getting reelected and winning the war. The film is set in early 1865, so the 1864 election is no longer an issue. And the whole point of the movie is to show that ending slavery and Union victory are equally important and the drama presents a scenario where both may not be possible together.

I thought the movie was excellent. Do you what feel is best for you but if the scene where he spoke to both Black and White soldiers and they quoted the Gettysburg Address was not accurate (and I'm thinking a lot of artistic license was at work there), I see it as a small price to pay for a very good and dramatic movie.

Thank you. I didn't realize the movie was set in early 1865. I was under the impression it was about the last year of Lincoln's life. I also appreciate you expanding on the scene between the black federal soldier and Lincoln but I really don't think anything like that ever happened or at least I never read about it. Lincoln speaking to soldiers quoting the Gettysburg Address seems odd also. I am sure I will see the movie one day and I am happy to hear many contributers enjoyed it. Thank you once again for your personal review of the film.

 

[Samuel.Sohm]

The guys at the beginning? What did they say that you felt was disrespectful?


I thought it made a nice coda as far as Lincoln's legacy. Binding up the nation's wounds, widows and orphans and whatnot. However, another review mentioned that it would've been cool to have added the part where Lincoln visits Richmond, goes to the White House of the Confederacy, drinks a glass of water, and leaves. I'd have liked it if any one of the Mary Todd scenes had been replaced with this. Particularly Mary Todd vs. Stevens at the party; it seemed like that went on a little long.

I understand where he is going with the disrespectful thing, as I would NEVER speak to the president the way that man did, but I also hadn't had my entire race be enslaved and only recently freed as a war measure. He was being zealous, possible too much so.

I agree with you on the inaugural speech though. I quoted and spoke along with it in the theater as I thought it that those words were meant to convey what Lincoln would have wanted even though he had died.

 

[K Hale]

Sorry but I believe you missed my point KHale. I am certain I will see it one day but when the poster said in his opinion the movie's title should have been "the 13th amendment" and since the movie limited itself primarily to the 13th amendment it weakened the film spoke volumes to me. I find Lincoln to be a facinating man and I fear this film is a tad to thick on drama deliberately written to portray Lincoln's primary passionate goal the last year of his life was to end slavery which I am certain did occupy a significant % of the man's thought processess but having said that I believe getting reelected and ending/winning the war occupied a much greater percentage of his thoughts and concerns in the last year of his life. I fear the movie is a tad too PC and scenes like the one describing a black federal soldier speaking disrespectfully to President Lincoln further confirms my worst fears about this film. The short scenes I have seen on TV show Lincoln losing his temper and speaking more like John Brown about slavery than the man I feel aged 20 years in four suffering pain for every American life lost in the war. I believe Lincoln felt he would rather die than see the Republic split in two. Hollywood can not resist taking license and a perfect example was in the excellent film "Glory" where near the end the 54th Mass. actually breached Battery Wagner's defenses and were moving to the center of the fort bayoneting and shooting defenders all along the way to finally confront artillery aimed at the firing position of the Confederates on the wall as if the defenders knew and feared being over run or their line being broken. We know nothing like that happened as surely as we know a black federal soldier never spoke disrespectfully to President Lincoln. Seeing scenes like that are like watching movies about the civil war where soldiers fire winchester repeating rifles and colt peacemaker revolvers. In other words we know it just didn't happen that way.

Without getting into your digression on "Glory," which has nothing to do with this film, all I can say is that it's a shame that you have made up your mind about the scope of the film based on one person's opinion of one bit of dialogue in one brief scene plus the dramatic eye catching clips typically chosen for a movie trailer. You are missing out on what really happens in the entire film.

Your comment "Focusing on the 13th amendment weakens the film" speaks volumes.

 

[K Hale]

I saw it last night with my History Club (we watch period movies and historical documentaries and then discuss them) and I didn't think the USCT cavalry soldier spoke disrespectfully to the President at all. He spoke to Lincoln about the disparity in pay between Black soldiers and White soldiers; acknowledged that issue had been resolved; but then wanted to know when Blacks would be allowed to become Army officers. I didn't see where he was "disrespectful" in his conversation or tone in any way. As a soldier putting his life on the line, I believe the man had a right to ask that question. And as commander-in-chief, I believe the President had a responsibilty to address it.

And did you notice that he actually did NOT address it? He smiled politely, made no comment or promises, and told a funny joke about his barber.

People who haven't seen this movie but assume they know what it's like are way off base.

 

[Nathanb1]

Another reason to hurry up and get back to my normal self....at least in regard to being able to sit a couple of hours. Wonder if it'll be at the Alamo drafthouse? Beer and Lincoln. Yeah.

Traveller says he was showing his feminine side.

 

[K Hale]

Another reason to hurry up and get back to my normal self....at least in regard to being able to sit a couple of hours. Wonder if it'll be at the Alamo drafthouse? Beer and Lincoln. Yeah.

Traveller says he was showing his feminine side.

Yeah. He really, REALLY showed the feminine side. You know, that high Arab tailset and all.

 

[Freddy]

I saw it today and enjoyed it. Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln was terrific, Tommy Lee Jones was great as Thaddeus Stevens and David Strathairn was fabulous as Secretary of State William Seward. Sally Field was good as Mary Todd Lincoln. However, if you want a better account of the Hampton Roads Conference you might want to start at the link below.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0021.104?rgn=main;view=fulltext

 

[K Hale]

Is it me, or was the Alexander Stephens guy frikkin' creepy?

 

[diane]

Is it me, or was the Alexander Stephens guy frikkin' creepy?

Alexander Stephens was frikkin' creepy! He might have been a political genius and all that, and probably a nice enough fellow in his personal life, but his appearance was...frikkin' creepy....

 

[Lee]

Without getting into your digression on "Glory," which has nothing to do with this film, all I can say is that it's a shame that you have made up your mind about the scope of the film based on one person's opinion of one bit of dialogue in one brief scene plus the dramatic eye catching clips typically chosen for a movie trailer. You are missing out on what really happens in the entire film.

Your comment "Focusing on the 13th amendment weakens the film" speaks volumes.

Excuse me but my "digression" as you described it on Glory was an example that apparently escaped you. I used the Glory example to show how Hollywood takes license with the truth and I fear the same was done in this recent Lincoln film. I have read more than one person's opinion on the film and I have said more than once that I will eventually see it in my own time but not in a theater. I was influenced by dramatic eye catching clips chosen for the movie trailer.................... cest la vie' sorry.

BTW I repeated the line "Focusing on the 13th amendment weakens the film" from another contributer's post who did view the film recently. Those words came from post # 9 if you care to scroll back and read them.

 

[Bryan_C]

Excuse me but my "digression" as you described it on Glory was an example that apparently escaped you. I used the Glory example to show how Hollywood takes license with the truth and I fear the same was done in this recent Lincoln film.

BTW I repeated the line "Focusing on the 13th amendment weakens the film" from another contributer's post who did view the film recently. Those words came from post # 9 if you care to scroll back and read them.

Lee,
Thanks for your appreciation of my thoughts in post #20. As a historian, I want very much to see the truth presented correctly. But I know I can't depend on Hollywood period movies to present the truth. And I am also very aware that many people believe as fact the things they see in these movies.

Even in the best of circumstances, I can't think of any of these Civil War movies (as well as other period films) that don't stretch the truth. Characters are shown speaking modern dialect and embrace modern racial and gender attitudes. This teaches nothing about the way people really were.

I really appreciated the film because it's not about battles (and I'm fine with war movies). I enjoyed it because it addresses the issue that divided the country and brought on the war.

 

[Lee]

Lee,
Thanks for your appreciation of my thoughts in post #20. As a historian, I want very much to see the truth presented correctly. But I know I can't depend on Hollywood period movies to present the truth. And I am also very aware that many people believe as fact the things they see in these movies.

Even in the best of circumstances, I can't think of any of these Civil War movies (as well as other period films) that don't stretch the truth. Characters are shown speaking modern dialect and embrace modern racial and gender attitudes. This teaches nothing about the way people really were.

I really appreciated the film because it's not about battles (and I'm fine with war movies). I enjoyed it because it addresses the issue that divided the country and brought on the war.

Thank you Bryan_C. I am happy to hear you enjoyed the film and especially your admission and examples showing that most Hollywood movies do indeed stretch the truth. I will see the film one day and I hope to keep all the reviews I have read here in mind when I do.

 

[rickvox79]

I thought the movie was very good and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Daniel Day Lewis performance was extraordinary-what an amazing actor. He really brought Lincoln to life. Tommy Lee was also great, as usual.
There were a few annoying Spielberg-ian anachronisms such as a colored soldier, reminiscent of "Glory", speaking disrespectfully to the President and Mary Todd complaining about how unfairly history will view her. The political operatives hired to collect Democratic votes made wonderful comic relief.
Not being a horse person, I completely missed the pregnant Traveller. I was very glad not to see any fat, gray re-enactors as soldiers. However, way too much soldier long hair-don't the costume people ever look at period images?
I thought the final scene of the Second Inaugural Address after Lincoln's death was entirely anti-climactic and should have been edited out, however well acted.

I have read some reviews in IMDB where people said that the movie should have ended when Lincoln walks out of the White House to head to Ford's Theater. I can see that because it was a very dramatic scene. That being said I don't agree with them editing out the Second Inaugural Address entirely, in fact I wish they would have showed more of it. But if anything Spielberg probably could have put it in a different place during the movie perhaps. I'd love it if they had a special feature, when the blu-ray comes out, that has him doing more of the speech.

 

[Miles Krisman]

I thought the movie was excellent. Do you what feel is best for you but if the scene where he spoke to both Black and White soldiers and they quoted the Gettysburg Address was not accurate (and I'm thinking a lot of artistic license was at work there), I see it as a small price to pay for a very good and dramatic movie.

I agree. I believe the Gettysburg Address wasn't very noteworthy to most of the newspapers of the day and it was many years later (post-reconstruction) that the significance of Lincoln's words took prominence in the psyche of the nation. That was a poor start for an otherwise well done movie.

However, the most powerful scene to me had nothing to do with the 13th Amendment, but rather the great anguish demonstrated by Abraham and Mary Lincoln when arguing about the enlistment of Robert. The undercurrents of grief they felt due to Willie's death became overwhelming to the Lincoln's and I found the scene very poignant and real.

 

[K Hale]

Alexander Stephens was frikkin' creepy! He might have been a political genius and all that, and probably a nice enough fellow in his personal life, but his appearance was...frikkin' creepy....

Point taken.

 

[K Hale]

Excuse me but my "digression" as you described it on Glory was an example that apparently escaped you. I used the Glory example to show how Hollywood takes license with the truth and I fear the same was done in this recent Lincoln film. I have read more than one person's opinion on the film and I have said more than once that I will eventually see it in my own time but not in a theater. I was influenced by dramatic eye catching clips chosen for the movie trailer.................... cest la vie' sorry.

Your criticism of Glory, a film you apparently have seen, doesn't tell us anything about your criticism of Lincoln, a film you haven't seen. You say, "I fear the same was done," but you don't know that. I don't find that to be a valid criticism as it's based 100% on speculation. I won't eat asparagus because it looks disgusting, but admittedly, I've never tried it.

BTW I repeated the line "Focusing on the 13th amendment weakens the film" from another contributer's post who did view the film recently. Those words came from post # 9 if you care to scroll back and read them.

Would the film be more appealing if it didn't focus on the slavery issue?

 

[Lee]

Your criticism of Glory, a film you apparently have seen, doesn't tell us anything about your criticism of Lincoln, a film you haven't seen. You say, "I fear the same was done," but you don't know that. I don't find that to be a valid criticism as it's based 100% on speculation. I won't eat asparagus because it looks disgusting, but admittedly, I've never tried it.


Well I suppose one could say part of my reluctance or at the very least diminished expectations regarding the film is partially due to speculation I will give you that but I hardly agree that comes close to 100%. I have read the comments of contributers here who have seen the film that isn't speculation that is reading the impressions of others who have seen the film taking in their comments both good and bad. BTW I don't eat asparagus either so we both have that going for us.


Would the film be more appealing if it didn't focus on the slavery issue?

Oh please spare me the loaded and leading questions. Somehow I was under the impression the movie was about the last year of Lincoln's life which would have to move along quickly because so many things happened in the the last year. I would expect to see some brief battlefield footage but more importantly a reasonable amount of time devoted to Lincoln's political campaign for reelection which would include McClellan making an appearance or a nippet or two of his speeches.

I would anticipate a scene of Lincoln doing some intense hand wringing while suffering some stressfull moments dealing with the very heavy casualties from the continuous fighting from the Overland campaign. Several examples of Lincoln's humorous folksy story telling and a few minutes or scenes of Lincoln receiving uplifting news like the fall of Atlanta and some time devoted to the Fedruary of 65 meeting with Stephens and the other Confederate representatives along with some of the issues within the Lincoln family which would give Mary Todd and the Lincoln children some face time.

And of course some footage and time spent on the 13th Amendment and especially a scene of the speech Lincoln gave shortly after the surrender of the ANV with the camera zooming in on JWB's face who was in the crowd that assembled to hear Lincoln speak that day and of course the tragic end at Ford's theatre. Instead I have read that the film starts in early 65 and a couple of reviews by contributers here say the film is focused mainly on the 13th amendment. One contributer even said he felt the title of the film should have been "The 13th Amendment."

When I do finally see the film I promise I will find this thread and post my own review.

 

[K Hale]

Your criticism is based on the film not being about what your imagination told you it would be about?

I look forward to hearing what you think of the film. Haven't heard that yet.

 

[Bryan_C]

And did you notice that he actually did NOT address it? He smiled politely, made no comment or promises, and told a funny joke about his barber.

People who haven't seen this movie but assume they know what it's like are way off base.

Since I saw the film, I know I'm not in your category of being "way off base." Other than that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here with addressing this scene.

Anyway, I doubt that scene, a face-to-face encounter with a Black soldier, really took place. What DID happen was that on September 28, 1863, Corporal James Henry Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry sent a letter to President Lincoln regarding the inequality of pay between Black and White soldiers. But there is no evidence that Lincoln ever saw that letter.

Other than this, I don't know of any real encounters between Lincoln and Black troops. I still don't consider it "disrespectful" that an African-American soldier would during the war confront Lincoln about the issues that concerned the USCT the most: equal pay; promotion to officers' rank; and fair treatment as prisoners of war. If anything was disrespectful, the inequality of those things most certainly was.

 

[reading48]

Thought the movie was fabulous, Five stars...