Menu

 

Lincoln Movie

MOVIE REVIEW BY: JON NELSON

Most of the reviews of this movie have been positive; I have had several Civil War buffs and Lincoln admirers tell me that this movie really brought him to life for them and that they feel this was an extremely accurate portrayal of our sixteenth president and the tumultuous time he lived in.  I attended the movie with great expectations.  It didn’t take long for disappointment to set in.

The beginning of the movie notes that the movie was largely based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. This was the first indication that the movie might not live up to its hype: Goodwin is a journalist, not a historian and, although she has written numerous popular histories, rarely shows any real depth or understanding of her main characters.  In addition, she often takes liberties with her characters that are totally at odds with their known personalities and interests.  This should be obvious to anyone who has made even the most cursory examination of the life of our sixteenth president.  Goodwin’s shoddy work manifests itself throughout the duration of the movie, which turns out to be a disaster on all fronts.

The opening scene gives us the first of many examples of historical revisionism.  In it, a black soldier begins talking with Lincoln and soon it turns into an argument with him telling the president that he should be doing all he can to free the slaves.  The very idea that a black man would speak in this manner to a white man, much less the president of the United States, anywhere in the country, North or South, lacks any kind of historical verisimilitude.

Now let us examine Lincoln’s character, played by Daniel Day Lewis.  The movie focuses on Lincoln’s well-known propensity for telling stories in order to illustrate his points.  Unfortunately, Day Lewis utterly fails to convey Lincoln’s legendary homespun manner as he relates these stories.  Instead, his mannerisms tend to reflect how someone today might relay them.  In addition to there being far too many of them in the movie, the stories as Day Lewis relates them tend to be mean spirited (quite unlike Lincoln’s real character) and drone on and on.  This is but one reason why the movie seems interminably long—and boring.

Even more unforgivable is Day Lewis’ utter failure to convey any of Lincoln’s pathos.  His Lincoln is a stodgy and wooden character bearing no resemblance to the real Lincoln.  With Day Lewis’ Lincoln, everything seems “business as usual” and his mood doesn’t change throughout the movie.  The real Lincoln battled depression most of his adult years, yet one would never know this in Day Lewis’ wooden portrayal.

Now consider some of the actions director Steven Spielberg has Lincoln taking.  The real Lincoln would never have yelled at his cabinet as he does in the movie; again, in incident lacking historical foundation.  An even greater historical travesty is seen when Lincoln engages in a shouting match with his high-strung wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, played by Sally Field.  This is absolutely unconscionable historical revisionism.  If that is not enough, Spielberg actually has Lincoln slap his son Robert across the face during an argument.  Perhaps Spielberg wanted Lincoln to appear a bit more “modern.”   However, all this is so ridiculously far fetched and wrong that it is amazing that almost no one who has seen the movie seems to recognize it as the historical travesty it is; in many respects, the real Abraham Lincoln escapes Steven Spielberg—and Godwin and Day Lewis as well.

Those of us old enough to remember earlier actors such as Royal Dano and John Anderson will recall fondly how these men were able to reconstruct the historical Lincoln—complete with his mood swings, pathos, and all the other things so glaringly missing in Spielberg’s movie.  Day Lewis’ utterly unsympathetic rendition makes us long to re-visit those earlier portrayals.

Even worse, if possible, was Sally Field’s Mary Todd Lincoln.  The real first lady was, as most people know, an unbalanced neurotic who spent most of her White House years in a blue funk, and managed to alienate virtually everyone who came into contact with her.  Little concerned with contemporary affairs, she contented herself with spending lavishly on balls, dresses and other frills.  She was a simple, plain woman with extravagant tastes.  Yet the movie characterizes her as politically savvy; Speilberg has her attending congressional meetings and playing an active role in the affairs of state.  Once again, this flies in the face of the historical facts.

There are other problems as well.  The most glaring of these is that there is virtually no plot!  It is as if we are suddenly plopped down in the middle of April 1865 and expected to engage in endless soliloquies about slavery with nothing else to divert our interest.  Spielberg has managed to take on of the most interesting time periods in American history and make it completely dull; not only is there virtually no action, the lighting is depressingly dark and there is almost no sepia change throughout the movie.  Incomprehensibly, the Civil War itself is rarely discussed.   This makes no sense at all, considering that this was what occupied Lincoln’s last days virtually without interruption.  Instead, we are forced to listen to monotonous discussions about slavery.  Even if this were historically accurate, it makes for terrible cinema.  Moreover, all the other events of April 1865, such as ending the war, what to do with the rebels, how to re-built the union, and other key questions receive only the shortest shrift here.  One can only ask: Why?

Those who enjoyed this movie are certainly welcome to get whatever they can out of it.  One thing they cannot get, however, is an accurate portrait of our sixteenth president and the disastrous Civil War period. On a scale of one to ten with ten being best, I would give this movie a one.

Categories:   Movie Reviews