The trailer...I will see this movie!

[LincolnMan]

Great reading Roger. We continue to hear exciting things about the movie.

[RJNorton]

Agreed, Bill. I was most interested in the part about the actor even using Lincoln's voice when not filming. Sure wish we had an actual recording of Lincoln's voice.

[Craig Hipkins]

Roger,

If I am not mistaken there is an early voice recording of President Benjamin Harrison from around 1891 in the Library of Congress. I believe that he is the earliest President to have his voice recorded. I could be wrong on this. There are also early voice recordings of Edwin Booth. Interesting stuff! I too,wish there was a recording of Lincoln's voice.

Craig

[RJNorton]

Craig, one of the best sources I know of for descriptions of Lincoln's voice is chapter 8 in a book titled "Abraham Lincoln: Public Speaker" by Waldo W. Braden. That chapter is titled "Penetrating and Far Reaching: Lincoln's Voice." As with most things Lincoln, the "earwitnesses" were not all in complete agreement, but from what I can tell, Daniel Day-Lewis has done an outstanding job of emulating what the majority say it sounded like.

This may have been posted before, but here's the link to Edwin Booth's voice.

[Peter Taltavul]

Craig, one of the best sources I know of for descriptions of Lincoln's voice is chapter 8 in a book titled "Abraham Lincoln: Public Speaker" by Waldo W. Braden. That chapter is titled "Penetrating and Far Reaching: Lincoln's Voice." As with most things Lincoln, the "earwitnesses" were not all in complete agreement, but from what I can tell, Daniel Day-Lewis has done an outstanding job of emulating what the majority say it sounded like.

This may have been posted before, but here's the link to Edwin Booth's voice.

Perhaps it has already been done - but given the audio software technology available today - the recording of EB could be cleaned up quite a bit. Historically all of the scratches and pops are important, but it would be interesting to hear a cleaned up - enhanced version.

[Rob Wick]

Given the length of time it took me to see "Lincoln" I pretty much went into it knowing how I would feel coming out. I anticipated that I would enjoy the film generally, but feel a little disappointed and let down, given that the normal outcome for such a build up is usually disappointment. I was one of only three people in the theater which turned out to be very nice.

I wasn't prepared for the flood of emotions which overcame me after it ended.

For the first time in the 42 years that I've studied and been interested in Lincoln, it struck me that this was the very first time I ever experienced him as a full-blooded human being. One of the perils of studying history is that people tend to be almost otherworldly. You can read their letters, or maybe a diary, but to actually be able to recognize them as you see yourself is lost. They are simply two-dimensional. The passage of time has robbed them of the emotive characteristics inherent in all of us, especially someone so subject to pathos and mythos as Lincoln. Of course, film allows one to see the three-dimensional character, but there was something missing from earlier Lincolns that somehow filled me up with this version. Of course, much of the credit goes to Daniel Day-Lewis. Tony Kushner's script and Steven Spielberg's direction did their part, but what took my breath away and left me sitting there awestruck was my sudden realization that this was exactly what Carl Sandburg and, before him, Ida Tarbell were trying to do with their respective lives of Lincoln. Lincoln, of course, belongs to everyone, but Sandburg and Tarbell succeeded (and a number of academic historians failed) because they understood that the only way for us to fully comprehend him is to pull him from the two-dimensional trap of being either saint or sinner and realize just how much he embodies the American spirit in both its positive and negative connotations. This was something that Spielberg also captured. And let me add that I'm fully aware that some might question that given the view that both Sandburg and Tarbell's lives were unqualified cheerleading, but that's only to those who fail to see the deeper meanings in their respective works.

Of course, one can point to the parts which strained the story. Did he really slap Robert? Maybe. Maybe not. But that one scene transmitted both the fear he felt as a father and the heavy weight of oppression that he also felt knowing that not only could he lose his oldest son, but he bore great responsibility for all the other sons who never came home. As much as I'm a stickler for the truth, one thing which hit home and hit home hard was that the truth can emerge even when the facts may be suspect. That doesn't mean "anything goes" in the service of a good story, but both Sandburg and Tarbell knew that for Lincoln to serve a purpose for a society which struggles every day to find its way, we must see him as he truly was.

I say this with no attempt at hyperbole, but this was the best movie I have ever watched. Ever!

Best
Rob

[LincolnMan]

You nailed the feelings of many of us Rob. Exactly right!

[RJNorton]

Rob, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding Daniel Day-Lewis...I think I've already mentioned that some of the folks who live in our senior community have told me they were "lost" in the movie and found it somewhat dull. However, to a person, they raved about Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal. I do think the Best Actor Oscar is his to lose when folks who were otherwise somewhat disinterested in the story itself still rave about his role. I have less confidence in Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones winning, but I sure hope they do.

Rob, I asked this in another thread, but I think I'll bring it up again. I wonder if everyone in the audience understood that the Thirteenth Amendment did not go into effect immediately when the House passed it and Abraham Lincoln (unnecessarily) signed it. Did the movie audience understand this was not like regular legislation? Did they make it clear in the movie that 3/4 of the states had to approve it before it went into effect? I got the feeling that many in the audience felt it was law when the House passed it and really did not comprehend it would be December before a sufficient number of states had ratified it.

[Rob Wick]

Roger.

That's a distinct possibility. If one didn't know the story, they very well could see the passage as the final act. Of course, when Lincoln explained his reasoning for the passage of the amendment, one hopes that people saw it then as something that had to be ratified.

Excellent point.

I do want to make one clarification to my post. I could have stated it better when I was talking about academicians and Lincoln. I didn't mean to imply that academic historians had strived to make Lincoln into either a saint or a sinner. What I should have said was that their work sometimes forced Lincoln into the two-dimensional because of their insistence that every aspect of his life had to be documented and that myth didn't have a place in telling his story.

Best
Rob

[LincolnMan]

Roger: regarding thoughts on whether people understood that the 13th amendment required ratification by the states. I don't think the average person understood that at all. I also don't think they realized that Lincoln signing the document was anything unusual. I have asked several people about it-and these things were completely missed by them.

[Laurie Verge]

I must admit that I have not yet seen the Lincoln movie. However, a friend of mine just sent a three-page article from Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, May 2013 issue, that rips the movie, Day-Lewis, and Hollywood's version of Lincoln and Civil War history to shreds. The author of the piece is Clyde Wilson, a retired history professor and author of a number of books. He's not much kinder to Redford's The Conspirator either.

Hopefully someone more computer literate than I can locate this article online and post a link. I'm going to say right up front, however, that 99% of those who post here are going to hate this article.

[Gene C]

I'm going to say right up front, however, that 99% of those who post here are going to hate this article.

How does that compare to your typical post?

.

[Rob Wick]

I don't see that Wilson's piece is available right now, but reading some of what is, and given his ties to the League of the South, I would accept Laurie's comment.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

League of the South has an interesting web site.

[BettyO]

I must admit that I have not yet seen the Lincoln movie. However, a friend of mine just sent a three-page article from Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, May 2013 issue, that rips the movie, Day-Lewis, and Hollywood's version of Lincoln and Civil War history to shreds. The author of the piece is Clyde Wilson, a retired history professor and author of a number of books. He's not much kinder to Redford's The Conspirator either.

Hopefully someone more computer literate than I can locate this article online and post a link. I'm going to say right up front, however, that 99% of those who post here are going to hate this article.

Laurie -

Here is what is on the Chronicles of American Culture website:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2013/0...me-truths/

Definitely NOT the magazine article - but I guess close enough....