Of interest is an AP article from Feb. 8, 2013: "Lincoln Screenwriter Concedes Inaccuracy"

"The screenwriter for the movie "Lincoln" has conceded taking some liberties in its portrayal of a 19th century vote on slavery, but he said his changes adhered to widely accepted standards for the creation of historical drama.

"A congressman who pointed out the flaw, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, said Friday that he was pleased screenwriter Tony Kushner acknowledged that Connecticut congressmen did not vote against a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, as depicted in the film. He said he hopes a correction can be made before the film is released on DVD."


For more, go to: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...58c088cf05

It seems to me that something so important (the voting record) is nothing to mess with. That should have been the one thing that needs to be portrayed accurately. The fact that is was known to the writer to be inaccurate is disturbing.

(02-10-2013 12:03 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  It seems to me that something so important (the voting record) is nothing to mess with. That should have been the one thing that needs to be portrayed accurately. The fact that is was known to the writer to be inaccurate is disturbing.

It should be unacceptable.

I finally got to see "Lincoln" last night and I thought it was fantastic. Daniel Day Lewis really channeled Lincoln, as did David Strathairn with his portrayal of Seward and Bruce McGill's Stanton was great. The actor who portrayed Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens made me think he was a ghost. Eerie resemblance there. I thought it rather beat the Thirteenth Amendment to death, but all in all, I think it will be the pinnacle of Lincoln films for quite a while.

(02-11-2013 09:13 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I finally got to see "Lincoln" last night and I thought it was fantastic. Daniel Day Lewis really channeled Lincoln, as did David Strathairn with his portrayal of Seward and Bruce McGill's Stanton was great. The actor who portrayed Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens made me think he was a ghost. Eerie resemblance there. I thought it rather beat the Thirteenth Amendment to death, but all in all, I think it will be the pinnacle of Lincoln films for quite a while.

Yes, the film was very much focused on the 13th Admendment issue. While that may not have been what we were expecting-I look at it as a strong way of answering those who claim "Lincoln didn't free anyone."

(02-11-2013 09:13 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  I finally got to see "Lincoln" last night and I thought it was fantastic. Daniel Day Lewis really channeled Lincoln, as did David Strathairn with his portrayal of Seward and Bruce McGill's Stanton was great. The actor who portrayed Confederate V.P. Alexander Stephens made me think he was a ghost. Eerie resemblance there. I thought it rather beat the Thirteenth Amendment to death, but all in all, I think it will be the pinnacle of Lincoln films for quite a while.

I seriously doubt that the people whose freedom was guaranteed by the 13th Amendment ever felt that too much attention had been focused on it, nor would their descendants feel that way.

I felt that too much of the movie was devoted to it. There's much more to Lincoln and his Presidency than the Thirteenth Amendment.

Joe,

After the initial raves were over with, I have heard more and more people start to really critique the movie. The overwhelming responses to it are based on the wonderful portrayals of the various characters. The crafts and techniques of photography, set design, etc. have also been praised.

However, there has been a constant thread of comments from people that I have come in contact with that it was too politically oriented, the politics went over their heads as "historians" of average or below-average knowledge of Civil War maneuverings, and that they wanted to know more about Lincoln than just his stance on the Thirteenth Amendment. One person even told me that, if it hadn't been for DDL's acting, they thought the movie would be a flop!

Since I have yet to see it, I can only pass along what I have heard from the general public. And, they are the ones that I want to see impressed in order to keep the dim flicker of history alive.

Actually, I think Spielberg made the best choice for the broadest possible audience. Most people who know little else about Lincoln know him as the Great Emancipator, so it's something they can grab on to. A movie about, say, Lincoln as commander in chief would have been in the theaters for about a week before it went to DVD. It's probably the most dramatic story arc of Lincoln's presidency. A straight biopic would have had less dramatic pull, in my opinion.

Best
Rob

I agree Rob.Tremendous-Post!

It occurred to me that perhaps the reason Lincoln has not garnered the awards from the various groups leading up to the Oscars (except for DDL) is the very reason that I have been hearing from the general public. Its focus on just the efforts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment is too much high politics and over the heads of the average viewer?? Perhaps the voters in those other awards venues feel the same way.

It is also up against two other, high-profile, historical movies - Argo and Zero Dark Thirty - both of which have more recent resonance with the average person. I wish that they would release it soon in DVD so that I could enter this discussion fully informed.

Amongst all the Best Picture Oscar nominees, Lincoln has done the best box office. Better than Argo, better than Zero Dark Thirty, better than Silver Linings Playbook, etc.

There will never be unanimity about any movie, and the Lincoln movie isn't for people who would not enjoy a superb drama in the theater. Nevertheless, I've read that the general public expects to see Lincoln get the most awards.

The problem is fairly simple. The Oscar race has become a presidential race in microcosm. Ben Affleck and George Clooney, co-producers of Argo, have been wining and dining everybody in Hollywood that they can think of, and they've won huge dividends as a result with the so-called "precursors" (i.e., the various guilds and some of the critics organizations). The Oscars could very well go Argo's way for this reason, but then again, the Oscar voters make up a more exclusive club. People at awardsdaily.com, who are extremely pro-Lincoln, are resigned to an Argo victory, but still hoping for an upset favoring Lincoln.

(02-13-2013 09:14 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  It occurred to me that perhaps the reason Lincoln has not garnered the awards from the various groups leading up to the Oscars (except for DDL) is the very reason that I have been hearing from the general public. Its focus on just the efforts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment is too much high politics and over the heads of the average viewer?? Perhaps the voters in those other awards venues feel the same way.

It is also up against two other, high-profile, historical movies - Argo and Zero Dark Thirty - both of which have more recent resonance with the average person. I wish that they would release it soon in DVD so that I could enter this discussion fully informed.

Go see Argo!

I think Liz nailed it. The Oscars (like most things in life) are political, and whoever plays the game better usually gets the spoils. At one of the newspapers I worked for we ran Charley Reese's column on the opinion page. While politically I find Reese to be both churlish and a boor, he made a valid point once when he called the Oscars nothing more than a glorified trade show. In the end, it really doesn't matter who wins. Without looking it up can anyone name five of the last ten pictures to win best film?

Best
Rob

Here is an interesting article on Lincoln's "faith" -noting that Spielberg "largely ignored" any reference to it in the movie:
http://www.pcusa.org/news/2012/12/20/abr...onnection/