The title made me .

It's 2 in the morning, so these are my thoughts in brief. It's good, guys. Really good. Spielberg is, for the most part, restrained and not cloying. The screenplay is pretty phenomenal. The character development of both Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln is just plain great. This Lincoln isn't the perfect hero that history (and his peers) makes him out to be, but Spielberg doesn't just give him a limp and say, "Look, he's flawed!" Lincoln has equal passion and depression, but above all he has hope. It doesn't go out of its way to either glorify the man or point out his flaws. It's just a portrait of him, as he was while he lived.

Daniel Day-Lewis has already won the Oscar. Don't even bother with the nominations, it's his to lose. He plays Lincoln with tremendous, but subtle, physical presence. Also, I wouldn't rule out Tommy Lee Jones for a Supporting Actor nod for his Thaddeus Stevens. Sally Field, also great, doing great work with a character that may have turned one-note in the hands of a lesser actress. And for you Breaking Bad fans, Gale Boetticher himself, Mr. David Costabile, turns in a great supporting turn as abolitionist James Ashley.

Lincoln is a movie made entirely by professionals at the top of their game. There isn't a weak link here. Everything works like clockwork, and the movie has a very natural flow to it. The only glaring flaw is the ending, which feels tacked on, unnecessary, and is poorly executed. Other than that, though, Lincoln is pretty much a triumph for everyone involved. Is it wondrous, revelatory, a sight to behold? No. What it is is 99.9% solid. How many movies this year can you honestly say that about? I can think of few.

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2012-11-24 07:10:37)

Not to spoil anything (because there is a small element to be spoiled), but the way the film deals with his assassination is ham-fisted. I felt a little insulted, to be honest. Which sucks, because everything that comes before it is so damn good. It's one of those things where there's a perfect moment to end the film on, and then there's still ten minutes left. I get that you kind of have to include his death, but surprisingly the movie would have been a lot stronger if it were excised entirely.

Last edited by Doctor Submarine (2012-11-24 07:23:52)

I'm dying to see this. Hopefully tomorrow. So I can't really comment on the film yet.

But based on the trailers, I totally agree, Sam. The lighting looks WAY too Kamiński trademarked for this material. Lots of hard edge lighting, lotta fog and haze, big shafts of light, and washed out skin tones (though, more cyan than I would have expected given the desaturated skin)... 

After writing that I pulled up the trailer and stopped through it frame by frame. And I can see how each still shot works in theory like you say (obviously Kamiński knows how to shoot). But there is also a sharpness to everything that seems new to me. Not just with this film, but with movies in general. So my next thought was "recorded with digital?" Nope. Probably a combo of faster lenses and film stock. Either way, it's like the film traded depth within the frame for electron microscope detail of DDL's pores.

Point is: All of this feels like 2012 film styling. Putting historical characters into stylized frames not congruent with their time makes it look like dress-up stage play. I'm sure it could work for the right script, but having read Team of Rivals I can safely assume this wasn't the right script.

But eh. In 50 years everything shot today will look antiquated and less stylized. Then it will feel like a period piece.

I am disappointed at the lack of "But apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" jokes in this thread

a West Wing prequel, eh?

Is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … ZA9c#t=25s

Just watched it. Perfect movie on every level. Legally, historically, politically, story-ly... And with respect to the aesthetics argument I made above? Consider that revoked. It all worked for me within the movie. The trailer just didn't work.

To it's credit, it does not repeat many of the other mistakes of Civil War cinema, but it doesn't get it purely right either.

True. I believe Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter delivers a more accurate portrayal of his life and times.

*cracks knuckles*

1)  The film makes a point of saying (as in, Daniel Day Lewis actually says on camera) that Lincoln was always against slavery.

On the Senate floor in 1858, Abraham Lincoln says "I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

In his 1860 campaign, he calls John Brown's plan to free and arm slaves, "absurd," and vows to leave slavery as is.

And most damning, up until 1862, Abraham Lincoln had a plan to colonize freed black slaves in Africa and Mexico, because up until the end of his presidency, Lincoln clearly stated that he did not believe freed blacks could live as equals in the US.  By the end of his Presidency, Frederick Douglass did say that Lincoln "had the wisdom to be instructed" in matters of race and after the war ended he called him, "the black man's President."  But while the film insinuates that Lincoln always had this wisdom, in reality he had a very slow evolution.  Frederick Douglass himself just three years prior to his death called him "a genuine representative of American prejudice and Negro hatred." The omission of Lincoln's evolution is a problem for me.  Not because I think Lincoln needed to be bloodied up in the film, but because I actually think it lends strength to his character by showing the capacity to change and evolve a viewpoint, as his did.

2)  The "race against time," was neither a race nor time sensitive.  Lincoln had already pledged prior to the vote on the 13th amendment, that if it didn't pass, he would call congress into a special session in March to vote again, AFTER the Republican majority had expanded, which would have easily given him the votes needed.

3)  The vote tally's of congress were not done by delegates based on state representatives.  This is the House, mind you.  There are districts and states were by no means uniform.

4)  Mary Todd Lincoln was not at the vote

5) The Confederate delegate never made it to DC.

6)  Prior to the events of Lincoln's opening shot, Louisiana, Tennesse, and Virginia, had already dismantled and reformed their state constitution and ABOLISHED slavery on their own.  This is important to note because it reiterates the fact that the 13th amendment was a foregone conclusion.  Lincoln VERY BADLY wanted it passed in his first term, but he didnt need to in order for the future of Black America. 

7) Speaking of Black America, where were the Black Americans?  I understand the movie wasn't named Douglass or Tubman but it would have bee nice to ACKNOWLEDGE that emancipation would not have happened without leadership from Black Americans.

Lincoln absolutely gets MUCH right.   In fact, it is simply amazing they didn't even attempt any of the "Brother against brother," or "tragedy," bullshit.  But let's not pretend it's perfect.