I 100% second Betty - and am going to do the same. Thanks, Linda!

Linda, your review was perfect(as usual!)

I am salivating to purchase and read "One Common Country" now!

(05-07-2014 01:25 PM)James Conroy Wrote:  In many ways, I admired Spielberg's film and Daniel Day Lewis's brilliant performance, but the film took more than a little artistic license with the peace conference. The three Southern peace envoys were nothing like the evil comic book characters portrayed in the film. Contrary to Spielberg's portrayal, on their way to see Lincoln, they were not confronted at the Union lines by grim Northern soldiers as if they were emissaries from Satan. They were moderate, accomplished, well-meaning men, and they were greeted at the lines by cheers and jubilation on both sides. All three of them took politically unpopular positions in Richmond in an effort to find a peaceful end to the war.

There was a posting today on this thread and I went back to see the previous posts. The subject of Reconstruction has come up on a recent different thread and that's what caught my interest in your book thread.

You state from above that "the film took more than a little artistic license with the peace conference." Are you aware of any other portions of the film in which "the film took more than a little artistic license?"

I had big problems with the "Lincoln" movie regarding the historical facts associated with the story line, especially the portrayal of Mary Lincoln chastising President Lincoln for his lack of effort in getting legislation for the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution through Congress. I refused to see the movie after seeing all the mistakes in the movie trailers. And, when Leslie Stahl said in her lavish approval appraisal of the "Lincoln" movie on a "60 Minutes" episode (re-run in the summer with same introduction sentence by Scott Paley), I wrote to her to inform her that the "Lincoln" film was very historically inaccurate. I did not receive a reply. Leslie Stahl's introductory sentence was: ""The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."


The following is the posting that I made on March 7, 2013 on the thread White House Years/ "Lincoln" legal mistake.


Plutarch wrote: “So very difficult a matter is it to trace and find out truth of anything by history.” (“Lives,” Pericles, page 194)

Leslie Stahl in her national 60 Minutes broadcast to millions of Americans on the "Lincoln" movie began her presentation with these words: "The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."

The 60 Minutes piece made reference to an early meeting in the movie-making process arranged by Doris Kearns Goodwin in New York in 2006 with a number of Lincoln scholars, Director Steven Spielberg and movie playwright Tony Kushner.

In a recent newspaper article entitled “Is 'Lincoln' the real deal?” written by Rebecca Keegan for the Los Angeles Times (November 28, 2012), she states: “[T]here's another group whose opinion matters — historians.” The article itself was an interview with Lincoln biographer James McPherson and was conducted shortly after he had seen Steven Spielberg's biopic on Lincoln. James McPherson is a professor emeritus at Princeton University, a Civil War historian, Lincoln biographer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "Battle Cry of Freedom."

At the outset of the interview, McPherson stated that previous movies on Lincoln “tended to reflect a romanticized Lincoln, almost a mythologized Lincoln.” McPherson’s overall opinion on the “Lincoln” movie was that it “comes closer to reality.”

In response to the reporter’s first question regarding the Lincoln voice utilized by actor Daniel Day-Lewis, McPherson gratuitously added a comment of a different nature at the end of his response: “Lincoln rarely if ever used profanity, and some of the dialogue calls for him to do that. I thought that was a bit jarring.” Later in the interview, McPherson observed: “This movie reflects a fairly sympathetic reading of Mary Todd's character, although there are allusions to her going off the rails in 1862.” And in his response to the reporter’s question on Lincoln’s son Robert, McPherson states: “I'll tell you one thing that bothered me — I thought it was out of character when Lincoln slapped Robert.”

Based on the text of her own book on Lincoln, “Team of Rivals,” I am of the opinion that Doris Kearns Goodwin also considers the scene of Lincoln slapping his eldest son to be “out of character” and fictitious. At the time the alleged incident occurred, Robert Todd Lincoln was a grown man and a recent graduate of Harvard University. In her book, ”Team of Rivals,” there are two references under the heading “Lincoln, Robert Todd – Lincoln’s relationship with”:

“Very different in temperament, Lincoln and his eldest son never seemed to develop a close relationship. During Robert’s childhood, Lincoln had been absent for months at a time, traveling the circuits of both politics and law. At sixteen, Robert entered boarding school in New Hampshire, and he was a student at Harvard when his father became president. ‘Thenceforth,’ Robert noted sadly, ‘any great intimacy between us became impossible. I scarcely even had ten minutes quiet talk with him during his Presidency, on account of his constant devotion to business.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 541)

“Good Friday, April 14, 1865, was surely one of Lincoln’s happiest days. The morning began with a leisurely breakfast in the company of his son Robert, just arrived in Washington. ‘Well, my son, you have returned safely from the front,’ Lincoln said. ‘The war is now closed, and we soon will live in peace with the brave men that have been fighting against us.’ He urged Robert to ‘lay aside’ his army uniform and finish his education, perhaps in preparation for a law career. As the father imparted his advice, Elizabeth Keckley observed, ‘his face was more cheerful than [she] had seen it for a long while.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 731)

Another Lincoln scholar who was interviewed regarding his impressions of the “Lincoln’ movie was Professor Allen Guelzo, director of the Civil War studies department at Gettysburg College. He is the author of “Civil War and Reconstruction” and important studies of Abraham Lincoln's religious views and the emancipation proclamation. The Daily Beast (David Frum) interviewed him for the article entitled “A Civil War Professor Reviews 'Lincoln'” (Nov 27, 2012).

According to this article, Professor Guelzo served not only as author of the young-adult companion book to the movie (also called Lincoln), but as a “Content Consultant” for the Spielberg film. In the article, Professor Guelzo characterizes the two brief battlefield scenes in the “Lincoln” movie as “little more than contrived interjections of emotional commentary.”

Professor Guelzo expressed in this article some concern that as an acknowledged “content consultant” on the movie that he would be held to account for some of the mistakes in history contained therein:

“The book tries to tell the real story of passage of the 13th Amendment, but where Tony Kushner’s extraordinary, beautiful screenplay was concerned, not all of my suggestions were adopted. Not all of my advice was taken. And with my name up there on the credits (albeit nine minutes into the scrolling list), I know I’m going to be held to account for some of the bloopers.”

“For a few weeks, I haven’t known quite how I would respond. But yesterday at Gettysburg*, Steven Spielberg provided the eloquent answer. ‘It’s a betrayal of the job of the historian,’ he asserted, to explore the unknown. But it is the job of the filmmaker to use creative ‘imagination’ to recover what is lost to memory. Unavoidably, even at its very best, ‘this resurrection is a fantasy ... a dream.’ As Spielberg neatly put it, ‘one of the jobs of art is to go to the impossible places that history must avoid.’

(* Steven Spielberg delivered the Dedication Day Address at the National Soldier’s Cemetery in Gettysburg on the 149th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address.)

One of the Lincoln scholars who met with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Director Steven Spielberg and movie playwright Tony Kushner in 2006 to consult about the movie content was Professor Michael Burlingame, author of the prestigious Lincoln Prize two volume work “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame is now the chairman of the Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield.

According to him, he had a specific purpose when he met with Director Spielberg and playwright Kushner regarding the content of the movie.

In an interview article entitled “Experts on Abe weigh in on new movie” written by Kris Kitto for the publication “The Hill” (November 12, 2012), this eminent Lincoln scholar was quoted regarding his plea to the movie makers to realize an accurate movie portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln:

“I was invited to meet with Spielberg along with several other Lincoln specialists … five years ago. My mission was to insist that Mrs. Lincoln be portrayed accurately. I had to point out that she physically abused him, that she padded payrolls and expense accounts, that she accepted bribes and kickbacks, and that Lincoln was constantly worried that she’d do something to humiliate him— and she did. So I’m interested to see how her portrayal came out.”

In the movie trailer, Mary Todd Lincoln chastises President Lincoln for his failure up to that time to secure passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

One might justifiably presume that both Director Spielberg and Playwright Kushner understood what Professor Burlingame conveyed to them in 2006 regarding the true character of Mrs. Lincoln. And, one might also justifiably presume that both Director Spielberg and Playwright Kushner read and carefully considered important, relevant material from Professor Burlingame’s work on the subjects of the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of Thirteenth Amendment. In Professor Burlingame’s chapter entitled “The Emancipation Proclamation (September-December 1862)“ there is this unequivocal entry regarding Mary Todd Lincoln’s opinion of the Emancipation Proclamation at the time Lincoln signed the Proclamation:

“On January 1, 1863, after Lincoln spent a sleepless night, his wife, who (according to her eldest son) ‘was very much opposed to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation,’ inquired ‘in her sharp way, “Well, what do you intend doing?”’ He replied: ‘I am under orders, I cannot do otherwise.’” (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume Two, pages 468-69.)

Contrast Mary Todd Lincoln’s words with Lincoln’s own account of events that same day and decide for yourself who was for and who was against the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation:

“When Lincoln viewed the engrossed copy of the Proclamation that the State Department had prepared, he noticed a technical error in the wording of the closing subscription and ordered that it be corrected. While that task was being carried out, he presided over the traditional New Year’s reception at the White House. According to Noah Brooks, the ‘press was tremendous, and the jam most excessive; all persons, high or low, civil, uncivil, or otherwise, were obliged to fall into an immense line of surging, crowding sovereigns [i.e., citizens] . . . .’

“After three hours, Lincoln returned to his office, exhausted from shaking hundreds of hands. When he began to sign the corrected copy of the Proclamation, his hand trembled. ‘I could not for a moment control my arm,’ he later recalled. ‘I paused, and a superstitious feeling came over me which made me hesitate.’ Had he made a mistake? He wondered.354 But swiftly regaining his composure, he told Seward and his son Frederick: ‘I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper.’ He added that ‘I have been receiving calls, and shaking hands since nine o’clock this morning, till my arm is stiff and numb.’ He feared that if his signature appeared shaky, some people would think he had reservations. So, with renewed firmness, he said: ‘any way, it is going to be done!’ Slowly and carefully he wrote out his full name in a bold, clear hand. Smiling, he looked up and observed softly: ‘That will do.’”355 (“Abraham Lincoln: A Life,” Volume Two, page 469.)

It should be noted at this point that the quotation by Daniel Day-Lewis in the movie trailer regarding the importance to Lincoln of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment legislation is somewhat apocryphal according to Doris Kearns Goodwin.

“When Joshua Speed next came to visit [following Lincoln’s signing of the Proclamation], Lincoln reminded his old friend of the suicidal depression he had suffered two decades earlier, and of his disclosure that he would gladly die but that he ‘had done nothing to make any human being remember that he had lived.’ Now, indicating his Emancipation Proclamation, he declared: ‘I believe that in this measure . . . my fondest hopes will be realized.’” (“Team of Rivals,” page 501)

And, why would the “Lincoln” movie makers unnecessarily distort and misrepresent historical facts? Maureen Dowd in her opinion column questioned this reality. One Lincoln scholar informed them that the roll call on legislation at that time was made in alphabetical order. Why would the same people who take the trouble to record the actual ticking of Lincoln’s own pocket watch, divert from accurate history in this respect?

Altogether, I think that this is enough evidence to “prove” my stated proposition in my previous posting: “[T]he film may be filled with things that Lincoln scholars themselves also did not know, because they did not happen.”

I was interested to read in the book about Lincoln agreeing to gradual emancipation if the South rejoined the Union freely. Right after that statement Hunter said that the South would suffer if the slaves were freed "overnight." I can see Lincoln throwing up his hands in exasperation as if to say, "Well, if you aren't going to agree to my terms, then it's every man for himself," hence the root hog parable.

Mr. Conrad mentioned in his Stratford lecture that Lincoln had wanted to educate the slaves.

(08-20-2014 11:17 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  One of the Lincoln scholars who met with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Director Steven Spielberg and movie playwright Tony Kushner in 2006 to consult about the movie content was Professor Michael Burlingame, author of the prestigious Lincoln Prize two volume work “Abraham Lincoln: A Life.” Professor Burlingame is now the chairman of the Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield.

According to him, he had a specific purpose when he met with Director Spielberg and playwright Kushner regarding the content of the movie.

In an interview article entitled “Experts on Abe weigh in on new movie” written by Kris Kitto for the publication “The Hill” (November 12, 2012), this eminent Lincoln scholar was quoted regarding his plea to the movie makers to realize an accurate movie portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln:

“I was invited to meet with Spielberg along with several other Lincoln specialists … five years ago. My mission was to insist that Mrs. Lincoln be portrayed accurately. I had to point out that she physically abused him, that she padded payrolls and expense accounts, that she accepted bribes and kickbacks, and that Lincoln was constantly worried that she’d do something to humiliate him— and she did. So I’m interested to see how her portrayal came out.”

David, you may have answered this on another thread, what is your take on Burlingame's portrayal and interpretations regarding Mrs. Lincoln?

David:

Yours is the most interesting critique of the Spielberg film that I have read, despite your having decided to look no further than the trailer. I was enormously impressed by the performances of Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and others, and also by the look and feel of the film, all of which are worth the price of admission, but its accuracy disappointed me. Spielberg is quite right. Popular film and popular history are different things; but the past can be brought to life without changing it, as readers and reviewers have been kind enough to say about Our One Common Country: Abraham Lincoln and the Hampton Roads Peace Conference of 1865 (see http://www.jamesbconroy.com), which addresses the same subjects as the film. (The overlap, by the way, was entirely accidental. I started working on the book three years before the film appeared.)

Apart from the points noted in my previous post, the film's many flaws, in my opinion, range from Mary Lincoln's portrayal as a politically talented feminist, to a depiction of Francis Preston Blair as the virtual puppeteer of the Republican conservatives in the United States Senate, to specific facts like the location of the Hampton Roads peace conference, to trivial details like the name of the servant who accompanied Blair on his peacemaking trip to Richmond. Most unfortunate of all is what seems to me to be the anachronistic portrayal of Lincoln and other mid-nineteenth century Republicans as if they were twenty-first century Democrats. Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, and William Seward were products of their times. They freely articulated racial views, for example, that would quite properly end the career of any politician who expressed them in 2014. They were among the greatest men of their day, but men of their day they were. It does them no honor to present them to the public as if they thought, spoke and acted in 1865 like motivational speakers addressing a Hollywood fundraiser in 2014.

In my opinion, "Lincoln" is a beautifully acted, evocatively presented film, and in many ways an admirable work of art, but the true story of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference and the startling, counter-intuitive roles that men like Ulysses S. Grant, Jefferson Davis, and Abraham Lincoln played in it are cinematic enough without the embellishments and artistic license that permeate the movie.

(08-20-2014 01:07 PM)James Conroy Wrote:  David:

Most unfortunate of all is what seems to me to be the anachronistic portrayal of Lincoln and other mid-nineteenth century Republicans as if they were twenty-first century Democrats. Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, and William Seward were products of their times. They freely articulated racial views, for example, that would quite properly end the career of any politician who expressed them in 2014. They were among the greatest men of their day, but men of their day they were. It does them no honor to present them to the public as if they thought, spoke and acted in 1865 like motivational speakers addressing a Hollywood fundraiser in 2014.

Cheers, James.

(08-20-2014 01:07 PM)James Conroy Wrote:  David:

Its accuracy disappointed me. The past can be brought to life without changing it.

In my opinion, "Lincoln" is a beautifully acted, evocatively presented film, and in many ways an admirable work of art, but the true story of the Hampton Roads Peace Conference [and all other scenes] and the roles that men like Ulysses S. Grant, Jefferson Davis, and Abraham Lincoln played in it are cinematic enough without the embellishments and artistic license that permeate the movie.

[I have changed your quotation somewhat to comport with my thoughts on the subject.]

I do not know why the film could not have been done that way. Access to the highest levels of Lincoln scholarship was there. When the film was still in the conceptual stage, Spielberg gathered together the top "Lincoln" scholars; Spielberg even hired a few Lincoln historians as advisors on the film with the supposed purpose of maintaining the historical integrity of the movie. Then, once Spielberg decided that the principal story line of history would be the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, he gave theatrical carte blanche to the playwright for the movie and both men ignored the red flags thrown by his Lincoln historian movie advisors.

Leslie Stahl and the "Lincoln" movie episode director of 60 Minutes ASSUMED that entire movie was completely historically accurate. Hence, Leslie Stahl introductory line to the segment on 60 Minutes: "The film is filled with things about our 16th President that we, who are not Lincoln scholars, did not know."

What would the vast majority of Americans then watching both the "Lincoln" movie and the 60 Minutes segment then believe about Abraham Lincoln and the history of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, including all related events of history depicted in the movie?

And, then to "put the icing on the cake" for this historical movie work (corrupted with so much fiction), Director Spielberg offered "Lincoln" movie DVD's for free to schools all accross this nation. Students will not need to read a textbook on Civil War history; they can watch the much more entertaining "Lincoln" movie and learn American Civil War history just as Leslie Stahl was able to do.

So...Michael Burlingame's sole and primary concern when consulting with Steven Spielberg, Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Tony Kushner on the Lincoln movie was that Mary Todd Lincoln be portrayed accurately...HIS version of "accurate", that is...as a deranged and corrupt witch?? Am I reading this correctly, and do we need further proof of his bizarre, obsessive fixation with denigrating this woman??

It seems that Spielberg and Kushner were more interested in balance AND accuracy on the subject of Lincoln's wife, which is why they very correctly disregarded Burlingame. Perhaps people are as aware as I have become that he is NOT the go-to guy on the subject of Lincoln's wife or Lincoln's marriage.

Sally Field did an absolutely brilliant job in that role. She consulted several excellent and reputable biographies, and she nailed it according to the critics.

Never, at any time or anywhere in over 30 years of reading about Mary Lincoln, have I ever heard that she opposed the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Elizabeth Keckly's memoirs do mention her pleading with AL to provide money for blankets and food for the contraband shanty camps around the White House. Something tells me that little tidbit did not pass muster to get an honorable mention in Burlingame's tome.

Let Michael Burlingame make his own damn movie if he wants his idea of an "accurate portrayal" of Mary Lincoln to reach the wide screen!

UNBELIEVABLE!!

Bless you, Toia, for posting this. It was a very busy day at work, and I have just gotten on the forum about a half-hour ago. As soon as I read the Burlingame comments on the above post, I could feel my blood pressure rise. One of the most important films made over the years, and the so-called Lincoln expert wants to peddle his unexplained hatred of Mrs. Lincoln? Now I understand why so many of the experts in the Lincoln field look with jaundiced eye at some of the professor's work.

When I met him years ago, he had just published The Inner World... He could not understand why I was so interested in the assassination angle. I assured him I would not have been a member of Booth's gang! I don't think he believed me. In the ensuing years, I have failed to understand why he is so obsessed in waging war against Mary Lincoln. Repeated character assassination is not an admirable trait.

I have a pretty long fuse, but Michael Burlingame and his unbridled misogyny... obvious on so many levels.. has caused me to reach a boiling point.

I shouldn't be surprised that he attempted to inject his irrational hatred of Lincoln's wife into the Spielberg film, but it makes me very angry just the same. THANK GOODNESS HE WAS IGNORED. Is it not enough for him that his magnum opus, "Abraham Lincoln,A Life" is largely devoted to drumming up sympathy for how bad the poor 6'4'', freakishly strong Abe had it as the battered husband of the barely 5 foot tall Mary, and that the nonsense it contains about the Lincoln marriage will likely be considered gospel for Lincoln students in years to come??

I am so tired of and disgusted with this man I can't say more without slipping into EXPLETIVE DELETED territory.

In fact, maybe I'd better take a little break and cool off, then come back.

I can't help it, but truth to be told, I didn't and don't expect a Spielberg movie to be 100% accurate. I was indeed surprised about the degree of its accuracy!
Sadly, in this case, I, too, think there was no need to be inaccurate, 100% accuracy wouldn't have harmed any of the movie's dramaturgic effects nor A. Lincoln's image. However, I found DDL outstanding and he nailed it for me as did Sally Field's performance as Mary.

Re: "his bizarre, obsessive fixation with denigrating this woman" - I tend to wonder if the reason for his obsession is to find in his own bio...

---

As for its use for educational purposes - even in the media country USA I can't imagine any movie/docu will replace text(book) work and make it superfluous. Personally I think the value of showing such a movie in lessons is to get to exactly such discussions as we are having here - is it accurate? Why/why not? Give reasons.

(08-20-2014 03:47 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Director Spielberg offered "Lincoln" movie DVD's for free to schools all accross this nation.

When I was still teaching PepsiCo Inc. did this with the movie Glory in 1989. Some language/violence was edited out in the school version of the film.

I agree 100% with both of you!

Quote:I can't help it, but truth to be told, I didn't and don't expect a Spielberg movie to be 100% accurate. I was indeed surprised about the degree of its accuracy!
Sadly, in this case, I, too, think there was no need to be inaccurate, 100% accuracy wouldn't have harmed any of the movie's dramaturgic effects nor A. Lincoln's image. However, I found DDL outstanding and he nailed it for me as did Sally Field's performance as Mary.

I must say that I've been watching the preceding discussion with interest although I have not chimed in til now.

I was on the set of Lincoln almost daily when it was shot here in Richmond. I knew a lot of the crew from previously working with them and did get to meet Mr. Spielberg (an extremely congenial, likable gentleman - I can understand why his cast and crew love him and love working with him!)

To make a long story short, I met Jason Gordon Levitt , (Robert Lincoln) whose cheery greeting to me each day, "Mornin' Toots!" made my day, and Gloria Reuben who played Mrs. Keckly (a very beautiful and delightful lady) as well as closely observing Sally Field. Unfortunately, I did not get to meet Mr. Day Lewis (one of my favorite actors!)

Great pains was taken with this film in sets, costumes as well as history. Sally Field took great care with her part as did Ms. Reuben. All of the actors did. I now know why Mr. Spielberg is the consummate director and producer. I was equally impressed with what was on screen after having watched the film "in the making."
No detail was left undone. Sure, some historical liberty was taken. , it has to be - no one is alive today to sort out various things which actually took place; especially personal and private interactions between Mr. Lincoln and Mrs. Lincoln. These things were private but were as closely followed on screen and with as much detail and loving care as possible.

My impression is that it was a great film. It gave us a vital resurge in interest in both Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln as well as being great entertainment. It remains one of my favorites.