Killing Lincoln

[Loomings]

(02-16-2013 06:48 AM)Jim Garrett Wrote:  [quote='Gene C' pid='13161' dateline='1360943204']
Did President Lincoln have his coat off at the theater as shown in the photo in the US News article mentioned above?

AL was wearing his customer made Brooks Bros. overcoat. He hung it up before sitting down in the rocking chair. At some point, he got up and put the overcoat back on and was wearing the coat when he was shot.

You know, I was unable to find corroborating evidence about that (more than one RELIABLE account). Leale nowhere mentions it. So we shot it with overcoat off, jacket on.

I believe the shawl comes to us courtesy DW GRIFFITH.

Hope we got it right.

---

This is terrific:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/televis...-on-screen

[L Verge]

The NY review is exactly what I want everyone of them to say! Until the general American public learns that history is much more than sometimes boring words on a piece of paper, we will never achieve our purpose as historians. I can't tell you how many times I have heard visitors to Surratt House come back from their tour (especially if they have certain guides) saying that they never realized how interesting history could be -- "I hated history in school;" "It was so boring to just read the chapter and do the questions;" "We skipped through half the book."

History is the story of people, and people can be brave, cowardly, funny, sad, dependable, crooks, whatever; but they all compose our past and have left marks that should be teaching us a lesson. And with that lesson, we should be considering all angles -- not just our own conceived notions of what was good and bad. I have come in contact with too many so-called "experts" in the field who are totally one-sided in their views. Somehow, they end up looking stupid in their efforts to put down others who are making definite in-roads in the field.

If Killing Lincoln shows one person - no matter their age - that the Lincoln assassination was the culmination of a horrible war that changed forever the face of American history, I will be a happy, used history teacher.

[MaddieM]

(02-16-2013 11:34 AM)L Verge Wrote:  The NY review is exactly what I want everyone of them to say! Until the general American public learns that history is much more than sometimes boring words on a piece of paper, we will never achieve our purpose as historians. I can't tell you how many times I have heard visitors to Surratt House come back from their tour (especially if they have certain guides) saying that they never realized how interesting history could be -- "I hated history in school;" "It was so boring to just read the chapter and do the questions;" "We skipped through half the book."

History is the story of people, and people can be brave, cowardly, funny, sad, dependable, crooks, whatever; but they all compose our past and have left marks that should be teaching us a lesson. And with that lesson, we should be considering all angles -- not just our own conceived notions of what was good and bad. I have come in contact with too many so-called "experts" in the field who are totally one-sided in their views. Somehow, they end up looking stupid in their efforts to put down others who are making definite in-roads in the field.

If Killing Lincoln shows one person - no matter their age - that the Lincoln assassination was the culmination of a horrible war that changed forever the face of American history, I will be a happy, used history teacher.

That about sums it up... ."The culmination of a horrible war".

[Loomings]

This is what we should all be very proud to read. This forum had so much to do with making it so...

http://www.indiewire.com/article/televis...-on-screen

[RJNorton]

I've got the whole neighborhood watching, Erik!

[Josh M]

@L Verge - I think you answered my question pretty well

I was VERY pleased with the finished product at the premiere and I can definitely say a perfect blend of history and high drama. ENJOY!

[Jim Garrett]

The Washington Post reviewer Hank Stuever did not exactly give rave reviews to "Killing Lincoln". I am waiting to make my own judgement tonight. We have not had a subscription to the Post for over 10 years. I bought a copy today for the magazine section that has an article on two crazy people interested in the places where presidents died.........and it's not Rich Smyth and myself. Anyway, there are people who "get it, and people who "don't get it". I'm looking forward to tonight, even though I would have preferred to have gone to the premier....

[Loomings]

A very fine TV critic who wrote for years in San Francisco and is now in LA had a hard time with Jesse's performance. The critic and I have exchanged thoughts over the years and we engaged in a correspondence about this over the past coupla days. Thought you all might be interested in a portion of my response:

Let's begin with the premise that the subject matter is not, in itself, "entertaining."

Let's take it seriously and bend every possible effort to invest every moment and every frame with authenticity -- based on multiple reliable primary source references to each moment depicted.

In other words, let us allow truth to lead the way rather than the exigencies of "entertainment" and create a definitive film version of the event (definitive also in its embracing of what can never be known).

My principle source of research was an archive of 28,000 documents relating to this tale (more material than I had when I wrote the bible for and led the writing on Band of Brothers).

All of this leads specifically to your most intriguing question re. Jesse's performance.

The answer is positively NO. We did not -- nor would we ever -- change the truth of Booth's bombastic behavior for the sake of the film. There was a great deal of discussion about this. We took an enormous risk -- Jesse put his ass on the line. And Jesse happens to be a friend. So I asked my friend to play the man as he was -- as EVERY first person account of Booth describes (and there are more than you'd imagine, by friends and enemies alike) -- knowing full well that I was pushing him head-first into the danger zone. To my mind it took brass balls to go there, to risk being percieved as a bad actor.

But, if the premise of your 90 minute film is to swim against the current, to forego the liberties to which cinema somewhere acquired the magical right, then you have no choice.

So, we sink or swim.

Not to mention that the style of speech in 1865 unavoidably sounds stiff and wooden to a 21st century ear.

But, there was ONE moment...

In the editing room.

When Booth places his lit cigar on the shelf inside the box office where Clay Ford is standing, he paraphrased a line of dialogue from the play, Bombastes Furioso. He said: "Whoe'er this cigar dares displace / Must meet Wilkes Booth face to face."

We shot it. It was the QUINTESSENCE of John Wilkes Booth and...of "over-the-top."

We were cutting to time - nipping and tucking. I remember looking to director Adrian Moat...to the editor...we winced...

And we cut it without saying a word.

Now all of this is to say that your question is certainly one that haunts anyone attempting to film an historic event. Yes, Twain was right. "Truth IS stranger than fiction because fiction owes an obligation to truth."

But tell the unvarnished truth, and risk being laughed at.

And sometimes, that forces a flimmaker either to grit his teeth and stand firm, or to surrender to what the public might percieve as palatable.

It's all a question of what story are you telling? What's the point of telling it? What's the purpose of the project? Is it worth the risk?

This was for National Geographic -- a channel that's struggling to redefine its noble brand. So...to quote Booth...

Right or wrong, God judge me, not man!

[J. Beckert]

It sounds like your conviction to portraying the events as accurately as possible will result in something folks like us will really appreciate. Thank you for doing this.

[L Verge]

Erik,

You already know how I feel about your efforts with Killing Lincoln. The Lincoln assassination story has been my day-to-day life for the past thirty-eight years -- and I was addicted to the subject for at least twenty years before that. For all these years, I have just asked why someone in the film industry couldn't tell the story based on the facts. It really is a true American epic set within the backdrop of the most defining moment in American history.

From what I have seen on the trailers and what I heard from my staff members who attended the premiere, I think you have gotten it as right as anyone can hope for.

[Jim Garrett]

So looking forward to watching it tonight. There are so many great stories in history that might seem a little stiff if told in the context of the time, but it helps to get it right. I appreciate the risk involved.

[BettyO]

Erik -

I am eagerly awaiting tonight as well....so are my friends. Again, I want to thank you, Adrian, Jesse and Josh for "Getting it right" while also being able to entertain - not an easy thing to do with a historical topic such as this - but you all have accomplished this magnificently! Being involved with the study of the assassination for over 35 years, I'm thrilled that someone was finally serious enough and interested enough to lay the cards on the table as it were and promote GOOD history!

Thank you again!

BTW - please take a look at the grand post that Dave Taylor has made on his BoothieBarn site regarding Killing Lincoln -

http://boothiebarn.com/

Great stuff, Dave! Thanks!

[Loomings]

Would someone do me a favor and go onto IMDb.com - then the Killing Lincoln page - then the Message board - then respond to the so-called "advanced review" therein? I can't do it, because it'd be obnoxious. But someone's gotta correct this so-called "reviewer." It'd be much appreciated.

E

[BettyO]

I'm looking into this Eric!

Thanks.....

[John E.]

I left the following response to the inaccurate review:

Seat 42, if you were writing this review based upon the book 'Killing Lincoln', I wouldn't have a rebuttal to your remarks. But since this is IMDB and a review of the movie, I had to address your comments. I was privileged to see an advanced screening of the movie and couldn't disagree with you more. You do your readers a disservice by doing the exact same thing you accuse this movie of doing. -- Telling falsehoods.

Seat 42 Wrote:

1. As for historical accuracy, well, that leaves a little something to be desired. The source material which KILLING LINCOLN is based on has been criticized quite severely because of the numerous untruths contained within, and while O’Reilly calls it non-fiction, others consider it a novel.

** Your review is confusing and misleading. The primary sources for O'Reilley's book may have been criticized severely, but not the movie. I know for a fact that the producers of this film went to great lengths to see that the story was told with as much accuracy as possible. Is it perfect? No, but its the best thing that's been done to date.

2. The missteps are mostly details, such as a scene set in the Oval Office that couldn’t have happened since the Oval Office hadn’t been built yet, and Ford’s theater did not have the portrait of Washington on the front of the box. But it’s enough to make one question how much research and care actually went into the book.

** I'm beginning to wonder how much research went in to your review. The portrait of George Washington being in front of the box seats is most certainly accurate and I don't recall any scene taking place in the Oval office. Is this a review of the book (which has many flaws) or the movie?

For anyone interested, here's a link to a photo of Ford's theater that was taken soon after the assassination: http://712educators.about.com/library/gr...ncoln6.jpg

Folks, do yourselves a favor and watch this historical docudrama. It's very good.