+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Writing History With Lightning (/thread-4141.html)
Writing History With Lightning - L Verge - 08-06-2019 02:30 PM
While doing something else besides arguing here, I stumbled on a new book entitled Writing History with Lightning. It is a series of essays from people who are interested in how cinema has portrayed 19th-century America over the years. As soon as I saw that one essay was about Mudd and Surratt -- i.e. The Prisoner of Shark Islandfrom 1936 and The Conspirator from 2010, I had to get it. Of course, it came yesterday, so I have only read that one chapter.
However, that piece is dead-on, I believe. In 1936, John Ford was producing Dr. Mudd's story for a national audience that was heavily into white supremacy and racism (sorry, i'm learning to hate those terms). Dr. Mudd is portrayed as the innocent country doctor who receives the wrath of the federal government for setting a stranger's leg and is sent to Ft. Jefferson to repent of his sins.
However, Dr. Mudd is still "white and supreme" and manages to take control of the situation even from prison, even to the point of threatening his black guards in order to get them to obey orders during the yellow fever epidemic, etc. The film's dialogue takes advantage of the opportunity to rant against the abolitionists, the central government that won, and the inadequacies of the Negro race. And, it ranked right up there in popularity with the earlier Birth of a Nation. At a time when lynchings were way high on the scale in the U.S., Ford's efforts appealed to the general public.
Fast forward to 2010 and Robert Redford's take on The Conspirator Mary Surratt. Again, the temper of the times contributes to the Americans' perception of history. The Middle East, terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, whether or not to use military courts were all topics of discussion ten years ago, so the 19th-century history being portrayed on screen tends to reflect these concerns. Redford may even have attempted to slightly show the strength of women during the 1800s via Mary Surratt. We know that's a current topic in society.
There are many other films reviewed in this book from the standpoint of how they portrayed historical topics of the 1800s -- and quite a few on the Civil War. Glory is one that I'm going to aim at next. My problem is that I'm reading two books at one time. Lincoln's Spies is in bed with me, and Lightning is on the kitchen table. I guess I eat and sleep history.
RE: Writing History With Lightning - L Verge - 08-18-2019 02:22 PM
Continuing on with thoughts taken from Writing History with Lightning and Hollywood's interpretation thereof, I'm herein excerpting comments made by Michael Burlingame in his essay of "Abraham Lincoln on Film." The historian has chosen to evaluate three films: John Ford's "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939), Robert Sherwood's "Abe Lincoln in Illinois" (1940), and Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" (2012).
On the first film, Burlingame quotes a cinematic critic of the film..."has come to be regarded by many as one of the greatest Lincoln portrayals of all time." He then goes on to remind us that it is based on an imaginary courtroom drama loosely based on the legendary 1858 "Almanac Trial" in Springfield in which Lincoln defended Duff Armstrong, son of his New Salem friends, against a charge of murder. He continues to point out that the film consistently deals with fabricated (or at least altered) Lincoln history and is "narrowly focused." As usual, Michael also paints Mary Todd as the woman who took the intiative to scheme her way into Lincoln's life.
He summarizes the film as revealing little about Lincoln's political or personal life, but much about his character with good examples of the legend's positive qualities -- enumerated as folksy, self-deprecating, likeable, humorous, good-natured, courageous, and an able lawyer. Burlingame criticizes this aspect because it does not portray the other side of a man who, in his earlier years, displayed sarcasm, ridicule, and demagoguery to attack his opponents. Burlingame declares the film outdated and not in touch with modern audiences.
In that respect, Michael is kinder to Abe Lincoln in Illinois, with Raymond Massey playing the lead role. Massey was also vocal during interviews regarding the film that was being released just as Europe was dealing with Hitler. The script was originally a stage play, and Massey had played the role there. He told an interviewer: "There really isn't such a great difference between Lincoln's fight and ours. In Lincoln's time, the specific issue was slavery. Today it has taken a different form. But if you substitute the word dictatorship for slavery throughout Sherwood's script, it becomes electric with meaning for our own time."
Sherwood described his play as "the story of a man of peace who had to face the issue of appeasement or war." Lincoln and the Civil War ended the evils of slavery; in 1940, another war was needed to stop the spread of Nazism; and today's audiences can make the comparison with anti-democratic Islamic Jihadists. The playwright also confessed that he was allowed considerable poetic license in bringing forth this concept in the making of the film -- showing Lincoln as a basically passive man who needs the force of his wife to give him ambition and his law partner to goad him into taking a stand on slavery. Burlingame takes great exception to Sherwood's style in those matters. The same fine lines between fact and fiction continue throughout the film, but Raymond Massey's portrayal of Lincoln is hailed as "better than any other film impersonation in history."
That accolade, however, may well have been transferred over to Daniel Day-Lewis as he portrayed Lincoln in 2012's "Lincoln." Michael again accuses the film of having a narrow focus -- the President's role in securing Congressional passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, to ensure the issue first announced in 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation. It shows Lincoln as a true champion of black freedom. On the other hand, Spielberg's film (and Burlingame's comments - as usual) spend a great deal of time criticizing Mary Lincoln (more than two pages of text on just that).
On more serious matters, Burlingame dismisses the thought that Lincoln had to decide between ending the war and saving the Union or ending slavery. The Confederate peace attempts had focused on just the emancipation issue; it was Jefferson Davis who insisted on nothing short of Confederate independence. Offense is taken also with the scene where Lincoln rises from his seat and yells about his power and that he demands the votes needed. Burlingame says that quote was originally from a Massachusetts congressman who was relating something from twenty years before and that many historians don't take it as fact. He then gently accuses Doris Kearns Goodwin of including it in Team of Rivals, on which much of the Spielberg script is based. He then concludes with a number of objectionable qualities of the film centered around politics.
In summary, Michael Burlingame considers all three of the films to be entertaining for general audiences. "But for students of history, they resemble foods that tickle the palette, but provide little nutrition." Frankly, I liked that sentence better thn any other in this essay on the three films. I suspect that Wild Bill would like Burlingame's very last sentence the best, however: "The films also call to mind an Italian expression -- se non e vero, e ben trovato -- with proper Italian accents in place, which I cannot provide here, it translates to EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUE, IT'S A GOOD STORY.
RE: Writing History With Lightning - RJNorton - 08-18-2019 03:02 PM
(08-18-2019 02:22 PM)L Verge Wrote: Offense is taken also with the scene where Lincoln rises from his seat and yells about his power and that he demands the votes needed. Burlingame says that quote was originally from a Massachusetts congressman who was relating something from twenty years before and that many historians don't take it as fact. He then gently accuses Doris Kearns Goodwin of including it in Team of Rivals, on which much of the Spielberg script is based.
In 2016 Dr. Christian G. Samito, author of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment, commented about this on the forum:
"Goodwin made several errors. As to the clothed with great power quote: Besides the fact that Lincoln likely never would have been so indiscreet in implying promises in exchange for votes, the entire exchange seems overly dramatic and out of character. It is hard to imagine Lincoln thundering an almost-threatening statement such as this one. Moreover, the same collection of reminiscences about Lincoln in which Alley’s account appears includes one from Schuyler Colfax, who said of Lincoln’s use of pardons, “No man clothed with such vast power ever wielded it more tenderly and more forbearingly.” Thus, we see an almost verbatim use of the motif given in Alley’s account."
https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-2689-post-56550.html#pid56550
RE: Writing History With Lightning - L Verge - 08-18-2019 06:10 PM
(08-18-2019 03:02 PM)RJNorton Wrote:(08-18-2019 02:22 PM)L Verge Wrote: Offense is taken also with the scene where Lincoln rises from his seat and yells about his power and that he demands the votes needed. Burlingame says that quote was originally from a Massachusetts congressman who was relating something from twenty years before and that many historians don't take it as fact. He then gently accuses Doris Kearns Goodwin of including it in Team of Rivals, on which much of the Spielberg script is based.
In 2016 Dr. Christian G. Samito, author of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment, commented about this on the forum:
"Goodwin made several errors. As to the clothed with great power quote: Besides the fact that Lincoln likely never would have been so indiscreet in implying promises in exchange for votes, the entire exchange seems overly dramatic and out of character. It is hard to imagine Lincoln thundering an almost-threatening statement such as this one. Moreover, the same collection of reminiscences about Lincoln in which Alley’s account appears includes one from Schuyler Colfax, who said of Lincoln’s use of pardons, “No man clothed with such vast power ever wielded it more tenderly and more forbearingly.” Thus, we see an almost verbatim use of the motif given in Alley’s account."
https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-2689-post-56550.html#pid56550
Thanks, Roger -- and I miss the postings of Dr. Samito.