NF Lincoln Movie 2012

Non-Fiction
This is something I blogged about at the time, that cuts to the core of why I appreciate this film. I've never seen an historian who explained the political and legal landscape of emancipation as effectively as Tony Kushner does here:

__________________

Tony Kushner Explains Emancipation

lincolnmovie.png

Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) confers with (l.) U.S. Representative James Ashley (David Costabile) and Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) on strategy for passing the 13th Amendment.

I went to see Lincoln again on Thursday afternoon. It’s been playing here almost a month, but the matinee showing I attended Thursday was about as full as the first time I went, soon after it opened — only a few, scattered empty seats. It seems to be doing well, and it deserves to. The first time around I missed the opening scene, with the soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address, that so many reviewers found clumsy and heavy-handed, and was ready to be turned off by it. In fact, I think it “works,” at least from the perspective of the average, non-history-nerd movie-goer, because it captures the moral core of what the Civil War had become for many in the North by the last few months of the war, and effectively frames the main narrative of Spielberg’s film.

One reason I wanted to go back was because I wanted to revisit some of the dialogue that seemed particularly sharp. One of these scenes appears relatively early in the movie, when Lincoln explains to his cabinet why he’s chosen to fight for the 13th Amendment now, during a lame-duck session of the House of Representatives whose members had previously voted it down, instead of waiting until the fall and beginning of a new Congress, when an expanded Republican majority in the House should be able to pass it easily. The time is now, Lincoln argues, because the war will soon be over, and with it his expanded authority as commander-in-chief. In this discussion, Lincoln acknowledges that Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure — a “military exigent,” his Attorney General calls it, and “slippery” according to Lincoln himself — that would be uncertain to survive review by the civilian courts once the wartime necessity of it had passed. He also acknowledges that as a result of the war — a far more desperate and prolonged conflict than any previous since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 — no one really knew what the limits of executive power were in wartime, and (as with the legality of secession itself) those things were even then being sorted out. That’s why, Lincoln felt, the Thirteenth Amendment had to be passed and sent to the states for ratification immediately, to make permanent the provisions the Emancipation Proclamation had made temporarily, by force of arms.

Tony Kushner’s script brings all this out in that scene with Lincoln and his cabinet, where in a bit of expository dialogue, the 16th President lays out the legal and political terrain of emancipation. The discussion here is between Lincoln and John Palmer Usher, his Secretary of the Interior, and James Speed, his new Attorney General.

JOHN USHER
Then why, if I may ask are we not concentrating the nation’s attention on Wilmington? Why, instead, are we reading in the Herald that the anti-slavery amendment is being precipitated onto the House floor for debate – because your eagerness, in what seems an unwarranted intrusion of the Executive into Legislative prerogatives, is compelling it to it’s... to what’s likely to be its premature demise? You signed the Emancipation Proclamation, you’ve done all that can be expected –

JAMES SPEED
The Emancipation Proclamation’s merely a war measure. After the war the courts’ll make a meal of it.

JOHN USHER
When Edward Bates was Attorney General, he felt confident in it enough to allow you to sign. . .

JAMES SPEED
Different lawyers, different opinions. It frees slaves as a military exigent, not in any other –

LINCOLN
I don’t recall Bates being any too certain about the legality of my Proclamation, just it wasn’t downright criminal. Somewhere’s in between.


Back when I rode the legal circuit in Illinois I defended a woman from Metamora named Melissa Goings, 77 years old, they said she murdered her husband; he was 83. He was choking her; and, uh, she grabbed ahold of a stick of fire-wood and fractured his skull, ‘n he died. In his will he wrote “I expect she has killed me. If I get over it, I will have revenge.”

No one was keen to see her convicted, he was that kind of husband. I asked the prosecuting attorney if I might have a short conference with my client. And she and I went into a room in the courthouse, but I alone emerged. The window in the room was found to be wide open. It was believed the old lady may have climbed out of it. I told the bailiff right before I left her in the room she asked me where she could get a good drink of water, and I told her Tennessee.

Mrs. Goings was seen no more in Metamora. Enough justice had been done; they even forgave the bondsman her bail.

JOHN USHER
I’m afraid I don’t –

LINCOLN
I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don’t exist. I don’t know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebels’ slaves from ‘em as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don’t, never have, I’m glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or war contraband, does the trick... Why I caught at the opportunity.

Now here’s where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations. But the South ain’t a nation, that’s why I can’t negotiate with ’em. So if in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels’ property from ‘em, if I insist they’re rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country?

And slipperier still: I maintain it ain’t our actual Southern states in rebellion, but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it’s states’ laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property - the Federal government doesn’t have a say in that, least not yet, then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate ‘em as such. So I confiscated ‘em.

But if I’m a respecter of states’ laws, how then can I legally free ‘em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I’m cancelling states’ laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I’m hoping still.

Two years ago I proclaimed these people emancipated - “then, thenceforward and forever free.” But let’s say the courts decide I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there’s no amendment abolishing slavery. Say it’s after the war, and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts’ decisions, like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That’s why I’d like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As soon as I’m able. Now. End of this month. And I’d like you to stand behind me. Like my cabinet’s most always done.


As the preacher said, I could write shorter sermons but once I start I get too lazy to stop.

JOHN USHER
It seems to me, sir, you’re describing precisely the sort of dictator the Democrats have been howling about.

JAMES SPEED
Dictators aren’t susceptible to law.

JOHN USHER
Neither is he! He just said as much! Ignoring the courts? Twisting meanings? What reins him in from, from. . . .

LINCOLN
Well, the people do that, I suppose. I signed the Emancipation Proclamation a year and half before my second election. I felt I was within my power to do it; however I also felt that I might be wrong about that; I knew the people would tell me. I gave ‘em a year and half to think about it. And they reelected me.

And come February the first, I intend to sign the Thirteenth Amendment.

I wish Tony Kushner would spend some time writing K-12 lesson plans. Not many young people, it seems to me, have any concept of the complexity of this stuff, and it seems like it mostly doesn't get covered very well. That's all our loss.​
 
I had know doubt, that you, given your biases, would find the movie "wonderful". I dont want to turn this into a personal attack upon you. All I ask is to have a little objectivity. I will try to be as civil as possible...I dont want u 2 think this is personal, but to say that movie was a representation of of who Lincoln was is doing him a grave injustice. Most incideous, if u r not going to get this extraordinary mans life correct, at least give 5 minutes to getting his death so.

Interesting you start off with a personal attack and then disingenuously claim you don't want to make an attack.

I submit you don't know enough about Lincoln to make an accurate claim about the movie.
 
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln was, without a doubt, a wonderful film. The acting of Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones was amazing, and the portrayal of Lincoln by Daniel Day-Lewis will certainly be remembered as perhaps the greatest cinematic portrayal of a historical figure by an actor (perhaps its only rival being George C. Scott's portrayal of Patton). The screenplay of Tony Kushner was great, the music of John Williams as epic as one would expect from him, and the whole production really did outstanding work.

Still, the movie could have been so much better.

I remember how excited I was upon learning that Spielberg was going to make a movie from the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. When I learned it was going to cover only the period of time involving the passage of the 13th Amendment, I became a bit skeptical. After I finally saw the film, as great as it was and as much as I enjoyed it, I felt that my skepticism had been justified.

For me, it would have been far better for Spielberg to have made a film about Lincoln during the late summer of 1862 rather than early 1865. This timeframe would certainly have allowed for much more dramatic intensity. In mid-1862, unlike early 1865, the outcome of the war was still very much in doubt. The Confederacy had beaten back Union efforts to capture Richmond and embarked on grand counter offensives in Maryland, Kentucky, and northern Mississippi. The possibility of Britain and France extending diplomatic recognition to the Confederacy was very real. Most importantly, it was during this time that Lincoln made the momentous decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

By early 1865, the outcome of the war was not in doubt. The fall of Atlanta and the reelection of Lincoln in the 1864 election had driven the final nail into the heart of the Confederacy. The knowledge that the war was virtually over deprived Lincoln from much of the dramatic tension it might otherwise have had. Had it been set in 1862, scenes of Lincoln in the telegraph room receiving news of Union defeats at the hands of the Confederacy would have given Daniel Day-Lewis much more to work with.

Similarly, the Emancipation Proclamation was much more touch-and-go in the summer of 1862 than was the 13th Amendment in early 1865. For all the drama depicted in the movie, it was obvious to all observers after the 1864 elections that the 13th Amendment was going to pass. This was certainly not the case with the Emancipation Proclamation. He knew it would be tremendously unpopular in many areas of the North, would cost him badly needed support in the critical border states, would help the Democrats in the 1862 mid-term elections, and might well solidify Confederate resistance to the Union. There were fears that it would trigger a anarchy and an out-and-out race war in the South. Simply put, the decision on whether or not to issue the Emancipation Proclamation tormented Lincoln, while the decision to push for the 13th Amendment was just a logical next step in the abolition of slavery, which by then had been underway for years.

Put all that together and I think a fair case can be made that Lincoln would have been a far better movie had it been set in the summer and fall of 1862 than in early 1865.

Of course, it's rather silly of me to complain about this. Lincoln is a fabulous film and we should be ever thankful to Steven Spielberg and his team for making it.
 
One other thing. They should not have depicted Lincoln's assassination. The credits should have rolled when Lincoln walked down the steps towards the White House door. He says he's going to Ford's Theater and everyone watching the movie knows that he is going to his death. I'd wager that Spielberg intended to end the movie at that point, since the remaining few minutes seems strangely "off" from the tempo of the rest of the movie. It feels like it was added later. Perhaps producers were worried that Americans wouldn't remember what every single one of us learned in 8th grade.
 
I may have missed something. But in what ways did the movie get his life, and his death, wrong?

It is amazing how well informed you are on the ACW when it suits you and how uninformed you r when u want 2 b. I know u are one of the more knowledgeable people on this website on the CW and I would bet a barrel of wooden nickles that u r more intelligent than most.

Again, revisionism rears its ugly head. the EP was a footnote in Abes life...the movie implies that it defines him. This movie is an attempt to make the horrors of the ACW acceptable in 2012 and beyond. If the movie were about the 13th amendment than call it the 13 th amanedment and Lincoln or something like that. His life was much more interesting than that......Could u even imagine Bush or Obama in Afganistan, on the front line, exposed to fire, because they wanted to see what was actually going on in a war which, the results of which, they were unhappy with?

Or a modern president taking a bullet in his hat and saying, after the fact, that it was probably just an errant hunter, and not ask for increased security? The story of his life is almost "Titantic" like.... if it didnt happen u would not believe it. Sharing a bed with a man for 2 years, born in a half built cabin on the frontier, kicking *** when his friends were assaulted, marrying a woman he wanted no part of out of a sense of obligation,....come on, this mans life was extraordinary. I dont think "Lincoln" conveys that in the least.
 
It is amazing how well informed you are on the ACW when it suits you and how uninformed you r when u want 2 b. I know u are one of the more knowledgeable people on this website on the CW and I would bet a barrel of wooden nickles that u r more intelligent than most.

Again, revisionism rears its ugly head. the EP was a footnote in Abes life...the movie implies that it defines him. This movie is an attempt to make the horrors of the ACW acceptable in 2012 and beyond. If the movie were about the 13th amendment than call it the 13 th amanedment and Lincoln or something like that. His life was much more interesting than that......Could u even imagine Bush or Obama in Afganistan, on the front line, exposed to fire, because they wanted to see what was actually going on in a war which, the results of which, they were unhappy with?

Or a modern president taking a bullet in his hat and saying, after the fact, that it was probably just an errant hunter, and not ask for increased security? The story of his life is almost "Titantic" like.... if it didnt happen u would not believe it. Sharing a bed with a man for 2 years, born in a half built cabin on the frontier, kicking *** when his friends were assaulted, marrying a woman he wanted no part of out of a sense of obligation,....come on, this mans life was extraordinary. I dont think "Lincoln" conveys that in the least.

So in other words you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks.
 
I saw the movie in Gettysburg, in a theatre filled with Lincoln scholars, and it got a standing ovation.

I thought the movie was wonderful. Daniel Day Lewis and Sally Field, as mentioned above, were wonderful, and Jackie Earl Haley was uncanny. I thought the rest of the cast was superb as well.

As to changes to the historical record, that's what Hollywood does. They do that to enhance the story. The number one goal of a Hollywood movie is to entertain people, not to give a history lesson.

Stephen Spielberg and Tony Kushner wanted to portray Lincoln the human being, so they showed us how Lincoln interacted with his cabinet, with his family, and with other people around him. It wasn't the story of the 13th Amendment, it was a portrait of a man. They simply used that time period as the canvas on which to paint that portrait. The result was, in my opinion, an accurate portrait of the man.
THANK YOU, CASH, YOU JUST MADE MY DAY!!!!!!

I second every point you make, 100 percent. And when I read that Lincoln scholars, at Gettysburg, gave it a standing ovation, well sir, that just gives me goosebumps! (quite literally. I'm sitting here shivering!)

Not only do I second what you said, I quite frankly believe that the Lord -- that's right, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, THAT One -- yes, I believe that He, Himself, intervened on this movie. I believe that He guided Spielberg, Kushner and Day-Lewis, at least, and that they were His instruments without even knowing it. I hope that's not blasphemy on my part, but I have felt convinced of that since the first time I saw it. And I have seen it many times since -- just because I love to bask in the presence of Abraham Lincoln. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis channels the man that perfectly. I really do feel like I'm in Lincoln's company.

The reason for the very narrow time frame -- only 3 months -- was to delve deep into the man. And Lincoln, by January 1865, was a man in full. He had reached his highest potential. All his life, he grew and learned and evolved -- and never more so than when put through the crucible of 1861-65. By the end of his presidency, he was wiser and deeper, more chastened, more thoughtful, more human than ever before. If you were going to pick one 3-month period out of all his life as your canvas on which to paint that portrait, brother, this one was IT.
 
Here is a review of the film that I wrote at the time:

Lincoln is the finest historical movie I have ever seen. It is cerebral, funny, naturalistic, emotional, and tragic by turns. The script treats viewers as intelligent sharers in a common history that too many of us, actually, are unfamiliar with. By crediting us with knowledge we may not in fact have, the film mimics Lincoln’s own project of lifting the commonality of people above their circumstances.

Lincoln the scheming politician, the loving father, the inadequate husband, and the American visionary dominates the film. And I say that it is Lincoln who appears as himself, because there is no sign of Daniel Day Lewis in the film. His performance here is the best of his own legendary career.

Sally Field also gives her finest performance as Mary Todd. She is a wonderful actress portraying a suffering, wronged, and oppressive woman whom history too often judges only by the criteria of whether she helped her husband enough.

The supporting cast should be given a collective Oscar.

This film will be used for generations to transmit to young people and new citizens alike the values of modern America and the sacrifice and struggle, and the dying and killing, that were necessary to realize them.
Yes! Yes! Yes! YES!! And yes again!!!

Great summary, Pat. You've hit all the points right on the nose -- especially this one: "And I say that it is Lincoln who appears as himself, because there is no sign of Daniel Day Lewis in the film." WORD.
 
I don't recall the production script covering any longer period of time frame than the film portrayed. It was well known at the time the script was created using only the ending segments of the book, and late war issues and items..... Embellished and designed in typical fashion as many book to film productions tend to do. .... Assorted scripted scenes were cut at the last minute... Assorted filmed scenes didn't make it to the final cut, which of course alters the flow, focus of the viewer, the generalized story, character building etc. The films focus was a combination of development portrayal of Lincoln the person... the politician... African-American people and troops, and the plight of passing the 13th Amendment collectively.... No one specific topic exclusively.

This film production had been slowly moving along under the radar and in various stages of development for nearly a decade. I assisted in some set scouting fodder for it back around 2002-03 or so. I also ended up working directly on the film itself. Not as a reenactor-extra, but as part of the film production crew, historical advisor, casting, set design and construction, set dressing, props etc.... So was well aware of the script being used, what we were filming, and why... and how it was to fit into the overall story line. I've only watched it once at the private premier of the film provided for those that worked on or in it were treated to a week before its public release.
 
I've said this before, but I'll toss it out again: It was a very good movie. It would have been an even better movie if it had been edited to a shorter running time. There were far too many dragging, lingering scenes.
Well, that just goes to show how various we humans are, for I would have been perfectly happy if it had been an hour or two longer! (But then, I'm someone whose favorite scene in Seven Samurai is the scene in the inn, in the first reel, when the camera just sits there for I don't know how long on the lead samurai's face as he gazes into space and ponders....)
 
Well, that just goes to show how various we humans are, for I would have been perfectly happy if it had been an hour or two longer! (But then, I'm someone whose favorite scene in Seven Samurai is the scene in the inn, in the first reel, when the camera just sits there for I don't know how long on the lead samurai's face as he gazes into space and ponders....)
You've got me on that, my friend. I liked that, too.
 
This is something I blogged about at the time, that cuts to the core of why I appreciate this film. I've never seen an historian who explained the political and legal landscape of emancipation as effectively as Tony Kushner does here:

__________________

Tony Kushner Explains Emancipation

lincolnmovie.png

Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis) confers with (l.) U.S. Representative James Ashley (David Costabile) and Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) on strategy for passing the 13th Amendment.

I went to see Lincoln again on Thursday afternoon. It’s been playing here almost a month, but the matinee showing I attended Thursday was about as full as the first time I went, soon after it opened — only a few, scattered empty seats. It seems to be doing well, and it deserves to. The first time around I missed the opening scene, with the soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address, that so many reviewers found clumsy and heavy-handed, and was ready to be turned off by it. In fact, I think it “works,” at least from the perspective of the average, non-history-nerd movie-goer, because it captures the moral core of what the Civil War had become for many in the North by the last few months of the war, and effectively frames the main narrative of Spielberg’s film.

One reason I wanted to go back was because I wanted to revisit some of the dialogue that seemed particularly sharp. One of these scenes appears relatively early in the movie, when Lincoln explains to his cabinet why he’s chosen to fight for the 13th Amendment now, during a lame-duck session of the House of Representatives whose members had previously voted it down, instead of waiting until the fall and beginning of a new Congress, when an expanded Republican majority in the House should be able to pass it easily. The time is now, Lincoln argues, because the war will soon be over, and with it his expanded authority as commander-in-chief. In this discussion, Lincoln acknowledges that Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure — a “military exigent,” his Attorney General calls it, and “slippery” according to Lincoln himself — that would be uncertain to survive review by the civilian courts once the wartime necessity of it had passed. He also acknowledges that as a result of the war — a far more desperate and prolonged conflict than any previous since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789 — no one really knew what the limits of executive power were in wartime, and (as with the legality of secession itself) those things were even then being sorted out. That’s why, Lincoln felt, the Thirteenth Amendment had to be passed and sent to the states for ratification immediately, to make permanent the provisions the Emancipation Proclamation had made temporarily, by force of arms.

Tony Kushner’s script brings all this out in that scene with Lincoln and his cabinet, where in a bit of expository dialogue, the 16th President lays out the legal and political terrain of emancipation. The discussion here is between Lincoln and John Palmer Usher, his Secretary of the Interior, and James Speed, his new Attorney General.

JOHN USHER
Then why, if I may ask are we not concentrating the nation’s attention on Wilmington? Why, instead, are we reading in the Herald that the anti-slavery amendment is being precipitated onto the House floor for debate – because your eagerness, in what seems an unwarranted intrusion of the Executive into Legislative prerogatives, is compelling it to it’s... to what’s likely to be its premature demise? You signed the Emancipation Proclamation, you’ve done all that can be expected –

JAMES SPEED
The Emancipation Proclamation’s merely a war measure. After the war the courts’ll make a meal of it.

JOHN USHER
When Edward Bates was Attorney General, he felt confident in it enough to allow you to sign. . .

JAMES SPEED
Different lawyers, different opinions. It frees slaves as a military exigent, not in any other –

LINCOLN
I don’t recall Bates being any too certain about the legality of my Proclamation, just it wasn’t downright criminal. Somewhere’s in between.


Back when I rode the legal circuit in Illinois I defended a woman from Metamora named Melissa Goings, 77 years old, they said she murdered her husband; he was 83. He was choking her; and, uh, she grabbed ahold of a stick of fire-wood and fractured his skull, ‘n he died. In his will he wrote “I expect she has killed me. If I get over it, I will have revenge.”

No one was keen to see her convicted, he was that kind of husband. I asked the prosecuting attorney if I might have a short conference with my client. And she and I went into a room in the courthouse, but I alone emerged. The window in the room was found to be wide open. It was believed the old lady may have climbed out of it. I told the bailiff right before I left her in the room she asked me where she could get a good drink of water, and I told her Tennessee.

Mrs. Goings was seen no more in Metamora. Enough justice had been done; they even forgave the bondsman her bail.

JOHN USHER
I’m afraid I don’t –

LINCOLN
I decided that the Constitution gives me war powers, but no one knows just exactly what those powers are. Some say they don’t exist. I don’t know. I decided I needed them to exist to uphold my oath to protect the Constitution, which I decided meant that I could take the rebels’ slaves from ‘em as property confiscated in war. That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don’t, never have, I’m glad to see any man free, and if calling a man property, or war contraband, does the trick... Why I caught at the opportunity.

Now here’s where it gets truly slippery. I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations. But the South ain’t a nation, that’s why I can’t negotiate with ’em. So if in fact the Negroes are property according to law, have I the right to take the rebels’ property from ‘em, if I insist they’re rebels only, and not citizens of a belligerent country?

And slipperier still: I maintain it ain’t our actual Southern states in rebellion, but only the rebels living in those states, the laws of which states remain in force. The laws of which states remain in force. That means, that since it’s states’ laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property - the Federal government doesn’t have a say in that, least not yet, then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate ‘em as such. So I confiscated ‘em.

But if I’m a respecter of states’ laws, how then can I legally free ‘em with my Proclamation, as I done, unless I’m cancelling states’ laws? I felt the war demanded it; my oath demanded it; I felt right with myself; and I hoped it was legal to do it, I’m hoping still.

Two years ago I proclaimed these people emancipated - “then, thenceforward and forever free.” But let’s say the courts decide I had no authority to do it. They might well decide that. Say there’s no amendment abolishing slavery. Say it’s after the war, and I can no longer use my war powers to just ignore the courts’ decisions, like I sometimes felt I had to do. Might those people I freed be ordered back into slavery? That’s why I’d like to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, and on its way to ratification by the states, wrap the whole slavery thing up, forever and aye. As soon as I’m able. Now. End of this month. And I’d like you to stand behind me. Like my cabinet’s most always done.


As the preacher said, I could write shorter sermons but once I start I get too lazy to stop.

JOHN USHER
It seems to me, sir, you’re describing precisely the sort of dictator the Democrats have been howling about.

JAMES SPEED
Dictators aren’t susceptible to law.

JOHN USHER
Neither is he! He just said as much! Ignoring the courts? Twisting meanings? What reins him in from, from. . . .

LINCOLN
Well, the people do that, I suppose. I signed the Emancipation Proclamation a year and half before my second election. I felt I was within my power to do it; however I also felt that I might be wrong about that; I knew the people would tell me. I gave ‘em a year and half to think about it. And they reelected me.

And come February the first, I intend to sign the Thirteenth Amendment.
I wish Tony Kushner would spend some time writing K-12 lesson plans. Not many young people, it seems to me, have any concept of the complexity of this stuff, and it seems like it mostly doesn't get covered very well. That's all our loss.​
Andy Hall, we think alike. I, too, thought Kushner did a mind-blowingly magnificent job in this scene. I was able to "cheat," though. I never saw the movie in the theaters, only on DVD -- and the great thing about DVD is that you can go back later and re-play a scene! As many times as you want! And being kind of dim with respect to legal reasoning, I did indeed have to watch it more than once to really grasp it all. Which only made me admire Lincoln's genius as a legal thinker all the more. I've since been studying the Lincoln-Douglas debates, as well as many of his other letters and speeches. The man had a mind like a frickin' steel trap.
 
One other thing. They should not have depicted Lincoln's assassination. The credits should have rolled when Lincoln walked down the steps towards the White House door. He says he's going to Ford's Theater and everyone watching the movie knows that he is going to his death. I'd wager that Spielberg intended to end the movie at that point, since the remaining few minutes seems strangely "off" from the tempo of the rest of the movie. It feels like it was added later. Perhaps producers were worried that Americans wouldn't remember what every single one of us learned in 8th grade.
Oh, my goodness, do we ever disagree! I think ending it with the greatest speech of Lincoln's career -- the 2nd Inaugural -- those awesome words that so perfectly summed up what had eventually revealed itself as the real driving force behind the war -- was absolutely brilliant. I believe it was inspired.
 
It is amazing how well informed you are on the ACW when it suits you and how uninformed you r when u want 2 b. I know u are one of the more knowledgeable people on this website on the CW and I would bet a barrel of wooden nickles that u r more intelligent than most.

Again, revisionism rears its ugly head. the EP was a footnote in Abes life...the movie implies that it defines him. This movie is an attempt to make the horrors of the ACW acceptable in 2012 and beyond. If the movie were about the 13th amendment than call it the 13 th amanedment and Lincoln or something like that. His life was much more interesting than that......Could u even imagine Bush or Obama in Afganistan, on the front line, exposed to fire, because they wanted to see what was actually going on in a war which, the results of which, they were unhappy with?

Or a modern president taking a bullet in his hat and saying, after the fact, that it was probably just an errant hunter, and not ask for increased security? The story of his life is almost "Titantic" like.... if it didnt happen u would not believe it. Sharing a bed with a man for 2 years, born in a half built cabin on the frontier, kicking *** when his friends were assaulted, marrying a woman he wanted no part of out of a sense of obligation,....come on, this mans life was extraordinary. I dont think "Lincoln" conveys that in the least.
You're right that Lincoln was an extraordinary human being. No movie could convey it all, that's true. But to make a 3-hour feature film, they had to narrow the focus somehow. Jeff Brooks above, makes a very good case for the summer of '62. I don't disagree with either you or Jeff that other choices could have been made. All I know for sure is that the movie that was made is extraordinary. No other historical movie has ever moved me as this one does. No other movie has made me feel that I was, for a few hours, in the presence of a living, breathing historical figure.
 
THANK YOU, CASH, YOU JUST MADE MY DAY!!!!!!

I second every point you make, 100 percent. And when I read that Lincoln scholars, at Gettysburg, gave it a standing ovation, well sir, that just gives me goosebumps! (quite literally. I'm sitting here shivering!)

Not only do I second what you said, I quite frankly believe that the Lord -- that's right, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, THAT One -- yes, I believe that He, Himself, intervened on this movie. I believe that He guided Spielberg, Kushner and Day-Lewis, at least, and that they were His instruments without even knowing it. I hope that's not blasphemy on my part, but I have felt convinced of that since the first time I saw it. And I have seen it many times since -- just because I love to bask in the presence of Abraham Lincoln. Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis channels the man that perfectly. I really do feel like I'm in Lincoln's company.

The reason for the very narrow time frame -- only 3 months -- was to delve deep into the man. And Lincoln, by January 1865, was a man in full. He had reached his highest potential. All his life, he grew and learned and evolved -- and never more so than when put through the crucible of 1861-65. By the end of his presidency, he was wiser and deeper, more chastened, more thoughtful, more human than ever before. If you were going to pick one 3-month period out of all his life as your canvas on which to paint that portrait, brother, this one was IT.

I sat about three seats away from Catherine Clinton, who wrote a highly acclaimed biography of Mary Lincoln. Afterward I asked her about Sally Field's performance and she was effusive in her praise. Allen Guelzo was there and he had a big smile on his face afterward.

I think you're exactly right about why this time period was used in the film.
 
Oh, my goodness, do we ever disagree! I think ending it with the greatest speech of Lincoln's career -- the 2nd Inaugural -- those awesome words that so perfectly summed up what had eventually revealed itself as the real driving force behind the war -- was absolutely brilliant. I believe it was inspired.

Well, the film could have just faded into the speech as Lincoln was walking down the steps. It would have been much more effective than the ending as we have it.
 
Well, the film could have just faded into the speech as Lincoln was walking down the steps. It would have been much more effective than the ending as we have it.
I agree completely. We didn't need to see him walk down the hall, then down the steps, then pause in the door, then finally walk out of frame. We didn't need to see a lingering shot of his gloves, either. Your solution seems perfect to me. It's yet another example of where a few minutes could have been edited out of the movie. With all similar scenes taken collectively and well-edited for impact as well as running time, we could have had a movie at least thirty minutes shorter. I am certain more than thirty minutes could have been edited out. I think it would have been better paced and equally or even more artistic, too.
 
I sat about three seats away from Catherine Clinton, who wrote a highly acclaimed biography of Mary Lincoln. Afterward I asked her about Sally Field's performance and she was effusive in her praise. Allen Guelzo was there and he had a big smile on his face afterward.

I think you're exactly right about why this time period was used in the film.
Well, you've made my day, twice in one day! I am so glad to hear that someone who really knows a lot about Mary Lincoln agrees with me that Sally Field was wonderful in that role. And I love Allen Guelzo, so visualizing him beaming... makes me beam! And since you're quite an expert yourself, sir, finding out that I align with you on why this time period was chosen is quite a thrill.
 
Back
Top