Lincoln

Moderator Note: This thread is about the movie, not the person. Get back on that track or start a new thread please

I go to a movie to be entertained. If I need a history lesson I get a book.

That being said, Last of the Schmohicans was worse, but none of you got upset about it.

Daniel Day Lewis wasn't the worst Lincoln impression I ever saw......saw two Lincolns at an event once.....both were much worse....yet they have them back every year. Guess perfection ain't quite perfected yet!

I liked the movie but my wife fell asleep during it. Oh well, was just more popcorn for me! Oh, yes, they had popcorn in 1861, but it wasn't like I had at the movie I'm sure. The rebs didn't have butter!

Harry

The most insightful post under this thread is practically dismissed because it was a "really long" post. Wow... great retort!

The movie was dreadfully boring. If it was meant to be entertaining, it failed. Being such a snore-fest may be its only redeeming feature.

The bad thing is, as pointed out, the masses will accept it as gospel truth because critical thinking skills are dead across the land. The book may been well researched, but.... but this isn't the book

Oh, but it might spark interest in the period for someone! Since when is starting someone off on the wrong foot a good thing?

"But it's just a movie" ....

Jud Suss was just a movie too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reb64

so concerned about Lincoln was for native americans, he is responsible for the largest mas exection in us history. and he used the "n" word alot

---

That execution could have been a lot worse had Lincoln not listened to the appeal of Bishop Whipple and pardoned dozens more against whom there was scant and circumstantial evidence. I believe that also occurred outside the January-February 1865 timeframe of the movie. As the title is "Lincoln" I would expect the movie to shed light on the personality of the man. So after seeing it do you feel you have any insight into Lincoln's character and personality?

What I learned from watching "Lincoln":

1. White Union soldiers were just stupid hicks who couldn't recite the entire Gettysburg Address if their lives depended on it.

2. Black Union soldiers had superior intellects, were highly cultured, very articulate, and could recite the Gettysburg Address backward and forwards in their sleep if they wanted to.

3. All white people are evil.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, I think the entire point of the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artyman

I liked the movie but my wife fell asleep during it.

---

My nephew saw it with his girlfriend, and she also fell asleep. He said someone else in the audience was snoring loudly. Hmmm… I was going to see this in the theatre, but if it’s functioning as a cinematic sedative for the disinterested, I may wait until it comes out on cable.

Well, I guess we saw different films, LOL.

The film was not without its flaws, yet few films are flawless. In any case, here are some random observations:

1.) Daniel Day Lewis INHABITED the role. He became Lincoln, right down to the high, reedy voice. He showed many contradictions: empathetic to the weak, ruthless in getting his agenda passed, showing a natural charisma that appealed to common people more than some of his conceited rivals. He had very specific ideas about what he wanted to do (preserve the Union first, fight against the spread of slavery, outlaw it when he felt he had the votes), something that confounded his "betters," and which the movie brings to life.

2.) The scene where the Union soldiers recite the Gettysburg address was contrived, but did not in any way imply that white soldiers are dumb.

3.) The movie is very realistic about race and the widespread prejudice against blacks that lingers down to this day. In that respect, it hews close to Doris Kearns-Goodwin's book, which I am currently reading. It's a very fine book, too, with a grand overview of the war from Lincoln's perspective, as well as many details I did not know about Lincoln and the members of his cabinet.

4.) The movie isn't riveting, but its subject matter is very cerebral: how Lincoln found the votes to end slavery at a time when the war was almost over. It does not paint Lincoln as either a plaster saint, or as an anachronism. At one point he admits that he has very little direct experience with black people, avoiding the notion that Lincoln was anything but a man of his time. Though let us not forget that Lincoln the man said "if slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong." The movie shows Lincoln telling a scatological story about Ethan Allen and a portrait of George Washington hanging in a British out house, so he's no saint.

5.) The soldiers in the movie are simply actors in a bigger drama, and as such should not draw too much of our focus. The point of the story is Lincoln the natural, brilliant politician using the political process (and occasionally abusing it) to achieve a noble end.

6.) The movie should have closed with Lincoln leaving for Ford's Theater, but instead finds a way to tack on the magnificent prose of the 2nd Inaugural. While the words are pure poetry, the scene looks like the cheesy codas of movies in the 1940s showing the dead as living on in heaven. Spielberg is a better director than that, and should've left those scenes on the cutting room floor.

Finally, to the complaints about how it handles "our" era as we in the hobby perceive it: unlike most films or TV programs, the number of farby anachronisms was low; someone outside our hobby could see the movie and find a genuine respect there for the 19th Century and the way people lived. I liked that. The costumes were not to the taste of this campaigner, but acceptable for a Chris Anders event, and worlds ahead of most of Hollywood's period costuming. And we should not forget about whether Jared Harris was Grant or Sherman, IT'S A MOVIE.

One I recommend highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill_Cross

Well, I guess we saw different films, LOL.

The film was not without its flaws, yet few films are flawless. In any case, here are some random observations:

1.) Daniel Day Lewis INHABITED the role. He became Lincoln, right down to the high, reedy voice. He showed many contradictions: empathetic to the weak, ruthless in getting his agenda passed, showing a natural charisma that appealed to common people more than some of his conceited rivals. He had very specific ideas about what he wanted to do (preserve the Union first, fight against the spread of slavery, outlaw it when he felt he had the votes), something that confounded his "betters," and which the movie brings to life.

2.) The scene where the Union soldiers recite the Gettysburg address was contrived, but did not in any way imply that white soldiers are dumb.

3.) The movie is very realistic about race and the widespread prejudice against blacks that lingers down to this day. In that respect, it hews close to Doris Kearns-Goodwin's book, which I am currently reading. It's a very fine book, too, with a grand overview of the war from Lincoln's perspective, as well as many details I did not know about Lincoln and the members of his cabinet.

4.) The movie isn't riveting, but its subject matter is very cerebral: how Lincoln found the votes to end slavery at a time when the war was almost over. It does not paint Lincoln as either a plaster saint, or as an anachronism. At one point he admits that he has very little direct experience with black people, avoiding the notion that Lincoln was anything but a man of his time. Though let us not forget that Lincoln the man said "if slavery is not wrong then nothing is wrong." The movie shows Lincoln telling a scatological story about Ethan Allen and a portrait of George Washington hanging in a British out house, so he's no saint.

5.) The soldiers in the movie are simply actors in a bigger drama, and as such should not draw too much of our focus. The point of the story is Lincoln the natural, brilliant politician using the political process (and occasionally abusing it) to achieve a noble end.

6.) The movie should have closed with Lincoln leaving for Ford's Theater, but instead finds a way to tack on the magnificent prose of the 2nd Inaugural. While the words are pure poetry, the scene looks like the cheesy codas of movies in the 1940s showing the dead as living on in heaven. Spielberg is a better director than that, and should've left those scenes on the cutting room floor.

Finally, to the complaints about how it handles "our" era as we in the hobby perceive it: unlike most films or TV programs, the number of farby anachronisms was low; someone outside our hobby could see the movie and find a genuine respect there for the 19th Century and the way people lived. I liked that. The costumes were not to the taste of this campaigner, but acceptable for a Chris Anders event, and worlds ahead of most of Hollywood's period costuming. And we should not forget about whether Jared Harris was Grant or Sherman, IT'S A MOVIE.

One I recommend highly.

---

HERE! HERE!! Bully for you!!

As an actor studying Stanislavski's method, I now go to movies to see the actors do their work. Very few are as indulgent as DDL and it's fascinating to watch in terms of seeing a man work through his process. Denzel in 'Flight' is also at the top of his game.
The surprise to me in Lincoln was that DDL's supporting cast also elevated their acting game in this one and it was a real treat to watch.
















Oh and the short tubby R.E. Lee was amusing as well.