Gentle reader,
See it. Don’t miss. It’s riveting, suspenseful (we get to watch an election vote-by-vote — without computer, without Fox News — what more American?), gritty. People every once in a while insult one another gleefully. Says Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens to a racist conservative democrat I don’t believe in equality because I know you, you idiot, bigot, loud-mouthed animal are not my equal; I just want everyone to be equal before the law, even you. Of course there’s a myth wrapped up in that as there are many in the film you have to think about later, such as the idea that real liberty for black people was won with the 13th amendment. The film has the usual flaws of such films (e.g.,like Amazing Grace; “history as progress narrative“). Still it has much to deliver. If you don’t want to bother read on, that’s what I have to say tonight. The rest is why and how the film is good and where are some flaws.
I can’t know what you’ve read about Spielberg’s Lincoln (Anthony Lane’s “House Divided“?), screenplay Tony Kushner, focusing on Lincoln’s determined effort to have his Congress pass the 13th amendment to the US constitution, outlawing chattel slavery. I’m writing about the film because I was very moved by it — along with (it seemed to me) most people in a heavily crowded mixed-race auditorium at my local semi-art cinema in Northern Virginia. I might have said “despite its iconic material” but know it’s because of the iconic nature of its material that in this year 2012 this story, these characters are quickened with wrought up life. What US child has not been exposed to scenes of civil war carnage, the millions dead, the bloody bloody battles, the archetypal figures of Lee all formal frozen elegance and Grant taking off his hat at Appomattox. Lincoln? You cannot do such scenes ironically or as comedy. Are we still not fighting the civil war in our other present damaging wars? This is a movie about us today, about racism, about whether you believe in equality of all (whites against whites too); its issues have not yet been resolved it seems. When near the close Jackie Earle Dailey as a weasel-like Alexander Stevens, negotiating for the confederacy will not concede that it’s not a question of two countries at war but one in dire conflict, nor that anyone has the right to free “the property” of the confederate wealth, we are hearing a variant of this year’s unspoken elite-control versus egalitarian-liberty, Romney/Ryan-versus-Obama/Clinton clashes.
Historical films worth seeing are about today in disguise and present their issues ambivalently. I thought this would be like in type to two season’s ago The King’s Speech, a mini-series inside 2 and 1/2 hours, film adaptation (of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals) with Lewis taking the Colin Firth eloquent hero role. It’s not. After all these mini-series are a British form. This is not an intellectual’s film — though it helps if you know your American history, the more about this period of the civil war, these individuals the better: such as Stevens was beaten viciously so that he was nearly crippled, had a black mistress-housekeeper, Lydia Hamilton smith [played by S. Epatha Merkerson) he loved dearly. It’s like wholesome American TV: Ken Burns stuff.
Also it helps to know your cinema. Film-makers like to quote. This one quotes The Talk of the Town (1942). At the close of the forever unforgettable TOTN after Ronald Colman’s risks his career appointment as a justice to the supreme court, and gets the position, we see him walk away from home (from the back) from the POV of his endlessly loving, smiling older independent minded male black valet who has just made sure Colman is wearing the right jacket, so at the close of Lincoln, we watch Lewis walk away from home on the fatal night of his assassination (yes Spielberg neglects no buttons) from the POV of William Slade as his endlessly loving, smiling older male black valet who was never a slave and has just tried to make sure Mr Lincoln wears his gloves. This kind of worshipfulness of the great (white noble) man by the superior (black intelligent) “everyman” is still with us. We also have an obligatory scene between Lincoln as great (white) man taught by an ordinary (black) person, this time a woman, Gloria Reuben as Elizabeth Keckley, Mary Lincoln’s “colored” maid: Mrs Keckley encourages Mr Lincoln to go on with his determination to pass the 13th amendment after his wife has such raged against his refusal to try to make peace above all and at any price because now their son has enlisted.
The Lincoln family (Mr, Mrs, her maid) at the theater
There are still far too few black people in the film. It’s too much a small group of white men saving the world (something one finds in many a commercial historical film). Lincoln opens on Lincoln talking to two black men, one of whom I recognized as the powerful black male lead of Small Island, David Oyelowo. He did not appear again after the initial scene, opening scene where Lewis was Lincoln as Henry V listening to the men who fight:
Oyelowo wants to know why black men are paid less
Izzy told me biopics often begin with the death of the central figure. One of the mistakes of this film was to fast forward at its close to Lincoln’s death so we could then have a retrospective drenched in nostalgia and loss where we see and hear at long last one of Lincoln’s many stump speeches delivered to a huge crowd. I’ve read these. They have much Biblical language, but are simple direct passionate denunciations of slavery, eloquent defenses of equality (in the mode of Burns’s “a man’s a man for aye that”). I’d hoped we’d have more of them and earlier. The choice was rather to show us Lincoln at home (undoing Mary’s corset, arguing fiercely with her over their son, reminiscing and looking forward to the traveling future they would not have), Lincoln with his cabinet, with his son, with his hired band of half-drunk bribers, one-on-one with this or that person. Or alone, at a distance, privately ruminating. He is all height, a concave shadow, who walks awkwardly as if he doesn’t want to take up the space his body needs, his hands oddly strength-less.
No one can say that Lewis’s performance is one of impersonation as we have no tapes of Lincoln, only the words of his speeches, what he and others wrote down about him in life, his writing to be read — these Lewis delivers with an understated held-back, soft, low startlingly (if you remember his usual cut-glass accent in Room with a View, his cockney in My Beautiful Laundrette) western American set of vowels circa 1860; his whole posture is of laid back, withdrawn power brought forth fully when periodically force is called for. It does work because none of the speeches are wooden lines of narrative or ideas fed the audience in the way of BBC/PBS style mini-series costume-historical film drama. The character talks naturally. He can pronounce, but he is also witty (“joyful to be comprehended” he mutters at one point to James Spader as Bilbo who anachronistically greets Lincoln with “I’ll be fucked” what are you doing here?),
He is conflicted, deep in thought, worried, austere and icy too. at moments I wondered if Lewis had Obama in mind.
It may be taken as a rebuff to Obama since central to what happens is how Lincoln will not give in. He will pass the 13th amendment before ending the war lest the peace legalities find his Emancipation Proclamation does not apply post-war situation. He fights and fights hard, using all weapons, from a crew of coarse bribing networker-enforcers who bully, pressure, manipulate to get the necessary votes. When Lincoln is needed in the last days, he’s there in the thick of it, finding out individuals and persuading them. As Obama often has failed to and so given up what he should not have or not gotten what he should.
Too much radiance, too much plaintive music. Far too little sense of history as a group of forces. Ang Lee’s Ride to the Devil did that (also civil war), and somehow Lee managed to avoid cliched scenes (he’s not American himself), but Ang Lee’s film was trashed by the studios (they did not advertise it) and it flopped. Sally Field as Mary Lincoln made too dense or again too seething. But it has to have the rhetoric debates, the scenes of corpses, the songs, the lines of men in blue or grey.
I’ve an idea Spielberg made the film because the matter is iconic.
But there are also some funny moments, and wry jokes here and there (Kushner wrote it): Lane caught Mary Lincoln’s just think “four more years in this terrible house”. I loved Lincoln’s fondly told long-drawn out gentle joke-y tales, with their indirect relevance. When Lincoln moves into gnomic poetry mode, and David Stratairn as Steward beyond patience, exasperated into complaint, cries aloud “I have no idea what you are talking about,” I laughed aloud. I laughed aloud several times in the movie when no one near me did.
So go and you too can get to appreciate the jokes no one sitting near you does.
Ellen
12/30/2012. I re-saw Lincoln with Izzy, & on the 2nd go round, much better appreciated Daniel Day Lewis’s performance and realized it was the center of what was most worth while in the movie. Also Kushner’s script. A must-see movie even if too pious and iconic. (As antidote I recommend Ang Lee’s Ride to the Devil, a profound US civil war film free of shibboleths and falsifying icons.) Izzy had shining eyes through much of the movie, she was totally absorbed.
E.M.
Bryan Alexander:
Too pious and iconic definitely is the Spielborg trademark.
Questions:
1) Does it require the big screen, or can I make do at home?
2) What do you make of the historical criticism about its treatment of Radicals and blacks?
3) Why Ride to the Devil?
Me:
I’ve only seen one Spielberg and that too had a excellent writer (Bolt) and yet it was pious in the same way. You can make do at home as the fine moments are Day’s performance. I don’t know enough about the tradition but have read through Lincoln’s speeches going for his presidency. The last was at the end and I wish there had been many more — say a montage. Lee’s Ride to the Devil is remarkably free of these iconic scenes. It doesn’t look like the civil war. The fight scenes are believable. Based on a book by the man who wrote the book for Winter’s Bone. Good acting. One parallel: at one point Lee too uses a modern phrase but it works: “no shit Sherlock” says the homicidal maniac to our hero at its end. It was a flop because the studio would not distribute it. It had no belief in it. Oh basically with all its fanfare about equality, the whole thrust of the thing is conservative: politics just a racket, and we are asked to believe that things are fine nowadays (equality before the law a given — HA!).
Rachel: Read the Elizabeth Keckley memoir–download as a free Google ebook. Looks like Kushner took much of the script directly from this text.
Me: Ah, that’s interesting. A woman’s 19th century text and of course not credited. A modern woman historian woman is credited: Doris Kearns’s Team of Rivals.
Another friend: “Really, Rachel? That’s disturbing.”
“Bryan, I’m not necessarily suggesting that Kushner plagiarized Keckley, but the similarities are striking. I saw the film once; I don’t recall Keckley’s memoir being credited, but I wasn’t looking for it at the time …
Diane Kenig: “I loved the movie, but in the cold light of This American Life’s episode on the treatment of Native Americans in MN about then, the whole issue of political expediency is sickening. On the one hand, Lincoln kept 100 men from being hanged; on the other,he gave the orders to hang 6.”
Me: IN the movie we see Lincoln pardoning someone whom everyone else wants to execute. Lincoln is presented as utterly humane, deeply sickened by the carnage around him. Sensitive to black people’s feelings …
Tony Kushner if, anything, always politically correct. And I guess so is Spielberg. I only read the Doris Kearns Goodwin book, a huge tome but easy
to read. She shows that Lincoln started as a racist but ended up in quite
the opposite place. Frederick Douglas was a guest at the White House for
example. Most of his cabinet was abolitionist I might add. The amendment I guess is a different story.
Sally Field was marvelous as Mrs. L. We may never know whether those dark
moods were emotional disorders or caused by something else(thyroid
disorders often cause depression like symptoms)
I must say as long as this movie was, it went fast. AO Scott said Les Mis made him want to throw up the flag of surrender at the end of its 2 hrs and 37mn. It may not be the best Les Mis but I hear good things about it.
Penny
[…] is big this year (let’s not forget Bill Murray as Roosevelt in Hyde Park on Hudson, Mirren and Hopkins and Mr […]
[…] for supporting actress (Amour). No one dared not vote for Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln. I assume the grave seriousness of the film was embarrassing to the voters. The great genius of film-making, Ang Lee, walked away […]
[…] There is none of this heroic overcoming we had in King’s Speech, no great win as in Lincoln, the stuttering and bigotry (the butler is simply let go for not being willing to allow black men […]
[…] by Lee Daniels. Yes it has flaws. It’s yet another of these pious semi-historical biopics (Lincoln, The Queen, even Hyde Park on the Hudson), where the concluding scene tells us if all is not yet […]
[…] the experience, do not permit nuances. It’s not a very nuanced film — it reminded me of Lincoln, a pious parable. The worst thing is that the relationship between King and Johnson is apparently […]
“LINCOLN” didn’t strike me as particularly pious . . . except in a few scenes in which Day Lewis engaged in a monologue and the scenes featuring David Oyelowo and Gloria Reuben. Otherwise, the movie had a slightly rowdy and chaotic portrayal of mid 19th century politics.
Well we differ and you can write a blog yourself demonstrating that the film is not pious.