LINCOLN B-
USA (150 mi) 2012
‘Scope d: Steven Spielberg Official site
Fondly do we
hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass
away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the
bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and
until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn
with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said,
“The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward
none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see
the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the
nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and
lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
—Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. He was assassinated a month later, just days
after the Appomattox terms of surrender were signed on April 9, and died April 15, 1865.
Spielberg continues the American tradition of grandiose
filmmaking, initially spun by the mythmaking of John Ford who himself made
YOUNG MR. LINCOLN (1939), another fictionalized account of the life of Abraham
Lincoln, using Henry Fonda in another near saintly role. Though based in part by the historical
accounts of biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin in her book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, adapted by
Angels in America playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner, who also wrote Spielberg’s earlier film MUNICH
(2005), Spielberg has a Cecil B. DeMille tendency to exaggerate Lincoln into
larger than life, iconic status even while he’s alive, turning every frame of
this film into mythological spectacle instead of history. In this manner, much as he did with AMISTAD
(1997), Spielberg takes liberties in fictionalizing history that he peddles as
the truth, actually printing study guides to be used in schools alongside his
films as an example of American history, where much like Fox News on the
political right, Spielberg often blurs the lines between fact and fiction. Spielberg actually purchased the film rights
to the movie before the Team of Rivals
book was even written, suggesting a pre-conceived notion of what he wanted to
do, which is elevate Lincoln into heroic and saintly status. While he uses actual biographical accounts to
humanize the man, he continually displays skewed and preferential treatment to
show Lincoln above the fray, always seen as a noble figure, while all around
him his more self-interested minions are fighting to cover their own political
hides, forever squabbling about minor details, losing sight of the big picture,
where only Lincoln seems to hold together this vision of ending slavery. Worried that the Emancipation Proclamation
could legally be construed as only valid as a Presidential decree issued during
wartime, once the war is over, he didn’t want to consider the possibility of
the return of slavery, so he needed the 13th Amendment passed abolishing it
once and for all.
In the film it’s all about slavery, about being on the right
side of history, with barely a word about state’s rights or protectionism,
which is at least part of the Civil War argument. States wanted the right to preserve slavery,
but also their own sovereignty, and much like today, they didn’t like the idea
of a weak and often unpopular government interfering with their individual
freedoms. Lincoln took his decisive
re-election in 1864 (losing only 3 states, Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey)
as a referendum on slavery and a sign that the nation demanded immediate
redress. In typical movie fashion, even
up until a few hours before the vote, Lincoln must overcome near impossible
obstacles, as the votes are not there.
In noble fashion, he arranges private meetings with needed legislators
and speaks with a kind of mystical reverence about making history, where people
are often puzzled or a bit mystified by what he’s saying, as he’s never on the
same plane as anyone else, always in a higher spiritual register, where his art
of persuasion is miraculous, as little else explains the victory. Behind the scenes, he has hired a trio of
more conniving political operators who have skillfully attempted to offer promises
of patronage as incentives to vote with Lincoln, but they run into a brick wall
and some personal arm twisting from the President is invaluable in turning the
tide. Using a two pronged attack,
Spielberg shows Lincoln’s personal life behind the scenes, often debating
current strategy with David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Steward,
whose job at the time seems more like today’s chief of staff, balanced against
interactions with his family, including his stubbornly entrenched wife Mary
(Sally Field), still mourning the loss of a child from illness a few years
earlier, and struggling with recurrent migraine headaches. Simultaneously, much of the action takes
place on the floor of the House of Representatives during the January debate on
the Amendment, an often contentious affair filled with snide remarks, personal
backstabbing, and insults, an unflattering portrait of the messiness of democracy,
where strangely out of chaos comes order. What’s
perhaps most exceptional about Lincoln, the man, is his generous and merciful tone
expressed near the war’s end, especially the use of the phrase “with malice
toward none,” where he honors those lost on both sides and spreads no further rancor
or discord.
Like other lavish Hollywood productions, this one $65
million dollars, the movie is star heavy, where familiar faces can be seen in
relatively minor roles, but two stand out.
Ironically, it is British actor Daniel Day-Lewis that most perfectly
expresses the 16th American President, literally inhabiting his folksy
personality, the kind of guy that pays attention to minor details, often asking
the opinion of people in ordinary walks of life, but also likes telling stories
or dirty jokes. The only time he raises
his voice is to his wife who is at the same time screaming at him, as Lincoln could
easily lose his focus by the multitude of distractions, not to mention the war
dead, but he’s able to balance everything in a rational manner, somehow finding
wisdom in the most tragic circumstances.
Outside of Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones as Pennsylvania Republican Thaddeus
Stevens, the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, literally
steals the show, as his flowery oratory in describing the vile and vulgar
quality of his loathsome Democratic opposition adds a touch of much needed humor,
but also provides another tiresome supporter of the President’s views abolishing
slavery. You’d think since the bill
passed with a 2/3 majority, there’d be plenty of support, but in Spielberg’s
drama, only these two spend any time actually making the case, usually shaming
others in the room who are not so convinced.
While the mechanical aspects of the film are well constructed, it does
feel like Oscar bait, and its hammy overreach could win a slew of awards, even
Best Picture, as in the year of Obama’s re-election, Spielberg may draw
historic parallels, even if others don’t, as Hollywood adores this kind of excess
of patriotic Americana on display, utilizing a jingoistic quality of filmmaking
reminiscent of James Cagney as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY
(1942). As he did in There
Will Be Blood (2007), Daniel Day-Lewis provides a performance for the ages,
but the rest of the movie never rises to his level, always bogged down by black
and white, good and evil stereotypes of the ugly opposition, a venomous group
of Northerners who hate the idea of freed slaves actually having the same
rights as them, thinking this is inhuman and against God, where really, their
impact only detracts from the overall complexity of the drama, as too much
attention is paid to the virulent hostility of opposing views, and barely any
to actually building consensus. Given
the balance of time on the argument onscreen, it’s astonishing the Amendment
passed, as in Spielberg’s version, it’s something of a miracle. Such is the presentation of history in Hollywood
movies, as it’s always presented with the most melodramatic flourish. At some point, particularly when addressing
historical portraits, American viewers need to be able to get past the theater of
manipulation and learn to demand a more objective, less patronizing approach.