You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

Lincoln

Lincoln

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is everything a film about that towering figure ought to be: majestic yet intimate, respectful but not worshipful. It manages to humanize a historical figure without diminishing him in any way, thanks to the director’s sure hand, a superior screenplay by playwright Tony Kushner (based on the work of historian Doris Kearns Goodwin), and a miraculous performance by Daniel Day-Lewis in the leading role. Why “miraculous?” After just a few minutes’ time, I forgot about the actor and allowed myself to believe that I was actually watching Abraham Lincoln. That’s what is meant by “disappearing into the character.” (At the same time, the audience’s awareness of Tommy Lee Jones, cast as outspoken abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, also works to the film’s advantage because it plays to the actor’s strengths—and his track record of bringing curmudgeons to life.)

Spielberg has assembled a first-class team of collaborators in order to make the 1860s come alive without ever looking, or feeling, like a slick Hollywood period piece. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, production designer Rick Carter, composer John Williams, costume designer Joanna Johnston, and every other colleague’s contributions feel organic and seamless, which is no easy feat.

The film focuses on the last few months of Lincoln’s life, as the bloody Civil War is nearing its conclusion and the President exerts his considerable powers of persuasion—and determination—to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the end of slavery. As an examination of political gamesmanship in Washington, Lincoln feels surprisingly contemporary.

The cast is overflowing with talent, and every actor gets at least one moment in the spotlight. Sally Field, David Strathairn, Hal Holbrook, Gloria Reuben, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lee Pace, Jared Harris, Jackie Earle Haley, Bruce McGill, David Oyelowo, James Spader, John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, Walton Goggins, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Adam Driver are just a few of the notable players who bring their best game to this endeavor.

What do we learn that we don’t already know about the celebrated 16th President? That depends on how well-read you are on the great man’s life and work. Spielberg, Kushner, and Day-Lewis don’t put him on a pedestal: he has his failings as a father and husband, and threatens to drive some of his cohorts to distraction with his habit of telling aphoristic stories. He is kind and decent, but in order to achieve his goal of abolishing slavery he is willing to make brutal choices. He is a man of many parts, and this film allows us to see a number of those facets. That’s what makes Lincoln so memorable.

This Article is related to: Reviews and tagged , , , , , , ,


Comments

IP OP

About half of these comments sound like they
came from the publicity dept. Sad if true. Sadder still if it isn't.

As for this —8th?–9th?–10th? Hollywood Lincoln that,
in 2012, brings nothing new to the table, what to say?

AGAIN —-Sally Field, and featuring, pointedly it seems,
a foriegner in the lead.

Further, Spielberg, Godwin and Kushner, one and all
capstone vetted, authorized and 'on board' manage
to 'completely overlook' what's surely the most urgently
relevant aspect of his legacy —–ie his quite possibly
——FATAL—— diss of the Global bank monopoly
over finance of the war.

LOOK at what's unfolding all around you in 2013.

AGAIN ———————BEWARE!

Duane

This was a remarkable movie in its delivering a vivid picture of Lincoln's intellect, his soul and his political acumen. Many today don't like politics. We have moved a long way from when democracy was fragile. So, the fact some find it tedious when it was central to knowing Lincoln may only reflect how much today we in this country can take it for granted. Back then, tens of thousands would travel days to just hear political speakers. Perhaps those in countries where democracy is new formed might find this movie more inspiring than those here who feel that politics — central to democracy — boring.

Michael

Lincoln is fatally overlong and focuses on the minutiae of Congressional vote-counting. Political wonks may like it, but for the rest of us the dialogue is mostly hard-to-follow, dry-as-dust lawyer-speak. The movie should be titled "Tedious Details Involving the Passage of the 13th Amendment." Don't stick around for the assassination conspiracy to unfold — it is completely omitted. I was left cold and numb by the end. I think people are appreciating it (not liking it) for political reasons, and that is a shame. Read Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln" instead. It's much more incisive, exciting, and real-to-life.

Jeffrey

I was skeptical of this film at first. However, even with my doubts, it affected me. Although this film does celebrate a man's great accomplishments, it also portrays people as normal human beings who are flawed. We like to romanticize our history, thinking that people were better ages ago. But this film sees people as being just as mercurial and temperamental as we are today. And for that kind of realism, I applaud Spielberg.

VCQ

It was long and boring and if it gets nominated its just because of Spielberg and DDL's reputations!
A few people walked out of the theater and even heard some asking for a refund!!!

mike schlesinger

The cast alone makes this a genuine event.

teddy

excellent!!!!!!!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *