Thinkin' Lincoln

Thinkin' Lincoln

MovieBob takes a look at Steven Speilberg's film Lincoln and the depiction of one of American's most famous Presidents.

Read Full Article

So it holds that underhanded wheeling, and dealing are good things, and the way change is done? great lest just hope that current politicians don't get that message to.

Sounds like an interesting idea. lets see how it does as a film.

gardian06:
So it holds that underhanded wheeling, and dealing are good things, and the way change is done? great lest just hope that current politicians don't get that message to.

Right, because we all know what paragons of honesty and integrity politicians have been up until now.

0.0 Wow. :D You make this sound really really really good!

I will have to see this for myself.
Hope it gets rewarded for not just being lazy oscar-bait.

gardian06:
So it holds that underhanded wheeling, and dealing are good things, and the way change is done? great lest just hope that current politicians don't get that message to.

Sounds like an interesting idea. lets see how it does as a film.

Dear god, just think what would happen if they were all like that...

Hmm, just by the description it's already kind of ticked me off. (if only because I can see the inevitable interpretation and social flame war that Spielberg is making an analogy to how the healthcare bill was passed. Let's leave that mess to fox news and angry YouTubers though.) I was going to go see Skyfall this weekend, but I think I might be a fancy person instead and watch this.

I am going to be seeing this since I am taking an American history class.

I wonder if any actor found it hard to argue FOR slavery. I know its just a role...but I would have a hard time actually saying something like:
"Certain people are not born equal!"

I would feel really awkward saying that out loud.

The Wire: 1864? I can dig it.

gardian06:
So it holds that underhanded wheeling, and dealing are good things, and the way change is done? great lest just hope that current politicians don't get that message to.

In my fairly extensive study of US politics, the people who get shit done are never the paragons of virtue that are ideal in a democratic society. They are the ones that play the best poker games and keep a few extra aces up their sleeve.

Case in point: US President Johnson, easily the most radical president on Civil Rights after Lincoln. He was infamously known for knowing exactly how to manipulate a congress into passing what he wanted. Ditto Nixon and Clinton as well, although methods often differed (and Nixon lost on Vietnam funding in the end).

I am the Prime Minister of Canada! Clothed in immense power!
...
*sigh* Nope. Just doesn't have the same zeal to it. I would have loved for the occasion to shout this line, but since I'm not American, looks like I'll never get to.

OT: I'm not entirely sure about the whole 'Daniel Day Lewis = The Greatest Living Actor' thing, but if he can portray an American president in a film and not make the role seem as though its Oscar bait, then maybe he deserves the title. I'll put this one on my list.

Slightly off-topic again: I always forget Lincoln was a Republican. Most of the states that I know for sure always vote Republican were also part of the Confederacy during the Civil War, so it seems almost contraindicated that a Republican president would argue against slavery. I know the north/south divide wasn't anywhere near as simple as 'one side wants slaves, the other doesn't,' but still.

I'm pretty sure the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment were basically "Citizen's Rights for all men in the UNION." It didn't really end slavery until the Confederate States were annexed back in.

And Lincoln was seriously determined in making sure the States all got back together.

SonOfMethuselah:
Slightly off-topic again: I always forget Lincoln was a Republican. Most of the states that I know for sure always vote Republican were also part of the Confederacy during the Civil War, so it seems almost contraindicated that a Republican president would argue against slavery. I know the north/south divide wasn't anywhere near as simple as 'one side wants slaves, the other doesn't,' but still.

Actually, I can field that one: the reason most southeastern US states vote Republican was because of Nixon's Southern Strategy during the 1970s. Nixon wanted to appeal to Southern white male voters who--while still hating black Americans--felt alienated by the Democrats of the 1960s-1970s on other issues (God, guns, women's lib...). This is also why there are a sizable minority of racist Republicans today.

acsoundwave:
Actually, I can field that one: the reason most southeastern US states vote Republican was because of Nixon's Southern Strategy during the 1970s. Nixon wanted to appeal to Southern white male voters who--while still hating black Americans--felt alienated by the Democrats of the 1960s-1970s on other issues (God, guns, women's lib...). This is also why there are a sizable minority of racist Republicans today.

A history lesson? On The Escapist? Most interesting thing to happen to me today. :p

But, yeah, I gotcha. I suppose losing to Kennedy would have forced Nixon rethink his election strategies kind of hardcore. That makes sense. Thanks! :D

I am interested in this movie, but I'm also interested in it's accuracy. There of course, two sides of that coin. Most American historians fall into the area where he is worshiped. Few historians, like Thomas DeLorenzo speak of the other side. There was the cut throat Lincoln who imprisoned any reporters who spoke against his administration.

The most annoying part is how it's built around the thirteenth amendment. The abolition of slavery was a happy accident and by product of Lincoln's war on the south, and specifically the southern economy. He represented northern business interests, and the south was had the king economy in the country. The emancipation proclamation was against the southern states, the northern states that used slave labor were allowed to keep their slaves, at least till the thirteenth amendment was passed. There is also the element where Lincoln didn't agree with slavery because he felt that colored folks bring down the white people, and he spent at least part of his time trying to find a way to have all freed slaves deported somewhere.

But, that is just the other side of the coin. No one can deny good things happened after the fact... well, except for the part where black folks weren't allowed to integrate into normal white society.

I'm on a tangent, I just have to remember that while it's meant to be at least loosely factual, it is still a Hollywood movie directed by Spielberg. 'Nuff said.

Baresark:
I am interested in this movie, but I'm also interested in it's accuracy. There of course, two sides of that coin. Most American historians fall into the area where he is worshiped. Few historians, like Thomas DeLorenzo speak of the other side. There was the cut throat Lincoln who imprisoned any reporters who spoke against his administration.

The most annoying part is how it's built around the thirteenth amendment. The abolition of slavery was a happy accident and by product of Lincoln's war on the south, and specifically the southern economy. He represented northern business interests, and the south was had the king economy in the country. The emancipation proclamation was against the southern states, the northern states that used slave labor were allowed to keep their slaves, at least till the thirteenth amendment was passed. There is also the element where Lincoln didn't agree with slavery because he felt that colored folks bring down the white people, and he spent at least part of his time trying to find a way to have all freed slaves deported somewhere.

But, that is just the other side of the coin. No one can deny good things happened after the fact... well, except for the part where black folks weren't allowed to integrate into normal white society.

I'm on a tangent, I just have to remember that while it's meant to be at least loosely factual, it is still a Hollywood movie directed by Spielberg. 'Nuff said.

You don't know what you're talking about, and the sad part is you type with some pompous tone like you know anything. Lincoln was against slavery because he found the practice of enslaving men detestable. And this has been documented for decades prior to him being a president. It had nothing to do with "bringing down white people" and the movie makes a point to show they were going a step at a time, and slavery was a separate issue than blacks having the right to vote. (In fact, it's a huge point of discussion between Stevens and Lincoln, and Stevens on the House floor.)

Totally agree with Daniel Day-Lewis being the greatest actor alive. His performance in There Will Be Blood is probably the best acting I've ever seen. One of my favorite movies of the last decade. I am so psyched to see him in this!

Captcha: Domino's Pizza: Describe this brand with any word(s)
Cardboard with marinara sauce on top

I hope they do it accurately, and it's not just a massive BJ for Lincoln. He was not what we'd call progressive, accepting, or anything other than a racist. He gets a lot of credit he only partially deserves. It'd be interesting to see Abraham Lincoln for real, for once.

-Abraham Lincoln:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

(4th Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858)

gardian06:
So it holds that underhanded wheeling, and dealing are good things, and the way change is done? great lest just hope that current politicians don't get that message to.

The scary thing is that many, many politicians--especially members of the GOP--do believe "The End Justifies the Means" no matter WHAT they're ultimate goals may be (reversing Roe vs Wade, etc).

tmande2nd:
I am going to be seeing this since I am taking an American history class.

I wonder if any actor found it hard to argue FOR slavery. I know its just a role...but I would have a hard time actually saying something like:
"Certain people are not born equal!"

Countless people did support slavery with a clear conscience because they could use passages from the Bible to support it.

It was a different world, back then. More so than any of us could probably truly grok.

Good actors take that sort of thing into consideration when preparing for their characters. My sister is an actress (not famous, just starting really, but doing well) and "getting into character" necessitates focused detachment.

I doubt that Steven Spielberg hired any amateur actors or actresses for important parts.

Baresark:
I am interested in this movie, but I'm also interested in it's accuracy.

There is also the element where Lincoln didn't agree with slavery because he felt that colored folks bring down the white people, and he spent at least part of his time trying to find a way to have all freed slaves deported somewhere.

But, that is just the other side of the coin. No one can deny good things happened after the fact... well, except for the part where black folks weren't allowed to integrate into normal white society.

The question of whether Lincoln's well documented preference to deport blacks back to Africa arose in my mind, too.

Gunnyboy:

Baresark:
snip

You don't know what you're talking about, and the sad part is you type with some pompous tone like you know anything. Lincoln was against slavery because he found the practice of enslaving men detestable. And this has been documented for decades prior to him being a president. It had nothing to do with "bringing down white people" and the movie makes a point to show they were going a step at a time, and slavery was a separate issue than blacks having the right to vote. (In fact, it's a huge point of discussion between Stevens and Lincoln, and Stevens on the House floor.)

A little harsh there, don't you think?

Plenty of Americans, of all racial backgrounds, object to racism and inequality, etc. But that doesn't stop most of them from preferring not to "mix the races".

I'm white. I remember asking a black girl out in high school and she said that very thing. I didn't take insult, but I wasn't the only white guy she turned down either. She never dated whites. Does that make her a racist?

Yes, Lincoln was on the record as despising slavery. That's not the same thing as saying that he would have wanted to marry a black woman or have any children of his marry blacks.

MrGalactus:
I hope they do it accurately, and it's not just a massive BJ for Lincoln. He was not what we'd call progressive, accepting, or anything other than a racist. He gets a lot of credit he only partially deserves. It'd be interesting to see Abraham Lincoln for real, for once.

-Abraham Lincoln:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

(4th Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858)

Lincoln was progressive...for his time! Don't forget "The White Man's Burden" mentality that dominated American and European whites throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are degrees of prejudice.

George Washington was also progressive...for his time.

He owned slaves all his life. Genetic and historical research has revealed that he even sired a child with one of his female slaves.

He wanted to do away with slavery, but never moved towards it politically because it would have torn the freshly founded USA apart.

Instead he freed his slaves in the only "politically correct" manner available to him...in his day and age.

He freed them through his Last Will and Testament after he died.

Gunnyboy:

Baresark:
snip

You don't know what you're talking about, and the sad part is you type with some pompous tone like you know anything. Lincoln was against slavery because he found the practice of enslaving men detestable. And this has been documented for decades prior to him being a president. It had nothing to do with "bringing down white people" and the movie makes a point to show they were going a step at a time, and slavery was a separate issue than blacks having the right to vote. (In fact, it's a huge point of discussion between Stevens and Lincoln, and Stevens on the House floor.)

I never said I was explicitly right or know everything about Lincoln. But the ideas I paraphrased was documented in his writings and political goals. But you are clearly looking at Lincoln through the common rose colored glasses that most historians espouse. People like to ascribe to him these amazing qualities that made him better than the average man at the time. But just like the average man at the time, he had all kinds of negative qualities that a lot of historians like to gloss over. I am probably the only person on this forum to admit imperfect knowledge of history. But everyone has imperfect knowledge of history, the opposite is a common misconception.

I can tell you more about Lincoln I'm sure you never knew though. Things that are documented facts. Like, he was the first president in history to ever use a policy of deficit spending. He also could have let the south secede without war or blood shed, but instead chose to put the union of the time through the bloodiest conflict in American History. He started the civil war, not the south as secession was states right outlined by the very government that created this nation. But the union needed the economy of secessionist states as they were the biggest producers in the country. As it stands now, 75% of all the goods produced in this country are made in Texas. And in the union fighting against individual states, he is actually indirectly responsible for War on Drugs as that was the main conflict that made federal laws preempt states rights to choose for themselves. And I said this before but it bears saying again, he did jail reporters and shut down newspapers that openly spoke against his administration and it's goals, this is very important as that was the primary form of public freedom of speech at the time.

And as I said in my original statement, he had good qualities and great things were done in his name. Such as the freedom of slavery. Keeping the union together is a mixed basket, but you can't say that many positive things didn't come to be from that. A larger more unified nation is what is necessary when facing foreign threats. I don't know that either north or the south could have succeeded by themselves. I do know that the North most likely would not have survived without the south, and I am still a happy northerner this day and age.

It is amazing how you cannot read a single thing about the man that was not just fact. I just read about how he was lenient to the majority of the Native Americans from the Dakota-US Conflict, and while it eventually released facts about the situation, it first had trudge through the motions of telling me how great, compassionate, and forgiving he was. My main issue of the whole thing is that last part. He was a lawyer and politician. These two careers have not changed since long before Lincoln was even born. At the end of the day, he was a great a politician and a pretty good lawyer, but he was not the perfect angelic being that history makes him out to be.

Edit: I missed this before but, how does on type with a pompous tone? You negate what you are saying a bit by starting out with an attacking statement. And then you simply say he despised slavery. You are right, he did, he mostly despised slavery spreading into the territories. And he didn't like black folks being around. That is why he supported movements both politically and in his private life that wanted all freed black people deported from at least Illinois.

After seeing the trailer, why does the lighter voice DDL uses remind me so much of this:

I know everyone is having some great political discussions, but I am going to take a quick break and just say how excited I am for this movie. In a day and age when most movies are defined by their marketing (well I guess ones not done that well) it is very refreshing to see a movie that seems it was goading those who love the "oscar bait" into something that is completely different than what was expected. I will not deny that I am no fan of the those type of movies. From the way they will take a "true" story and seem to tout it as fact and a quick bit of research shows many, many aspects were distorted or just completely fabricated. To when I ask those who liked it what was so entertaining the main response I almost always received was, "It is just a good movie." What does that even mean; was it well written characters, interesting plot devices, or excitement? No, it seems like a movie that they felt compelled to see because of a quasi-historical event or person tugging at their heart strings with their supposed accomplishments. Of course that is just my opinion, and there are many exceptions to the rule (or my understanding of some existing rule). I will be off that soapbox now, and be happy that I came across this article that let me know of the truth behind this movie I would have passed up because I myself fell for the marketing too.

still dont know why we are making another lincoln movie when the best portrayal of lincoln has already been made, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter and even is accurate in its portrayal of the south as blood thirsty monsters.

Fellow marfanoid(FBN1) here, like Lincoln(MEN2B). Can't wait to see how Spielberg utilizes his stature for presence. I appreciate Day-Lewis, but for facial structure, height, bone symmetry, and by far most importantly voice, I wish he'd used Bill Nye.

Scorpid:
The Wire: 1864? I can dig it.

I was thinking more like the West Wing. If Bradley Whitford has a role in this film I might have to see it.

On a related note: Anyone seen The Conspirator? (Obviously pronounced Conspiritah!)
It's an only slightly succesfull historical film made by a 'The American Film Company'

Wikipedia:
The American Film Company, founded on the belief that real life is often more compelling than fiction, produces feature films about true stories from America's past.

It has a 6.8/10 on IMDB, I personally gave it an 8 out of 10. It has James McAvoy in it!

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here