| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/13/2012 : 18:55:00
OK this film makes me very angry indeed. Of course Steven Spielberg can direct, and Daniel Day-Lewis knows how to act. Bigtime! And the film looks great. But Steven bows down before his material, instead of absenting himself from it.
There's such a gaping hole in the storytelling that at times the film washes away all sense in a tidal wave of Yippy-Yi-Yay Americana.
The gap from which truth has been eliminated is an economic one. Given the amount of screen time devoted to some of cinema's most flowery period dialogue to put some political context onto events - the roiling economic background deserves at least a mention. Hell, it deserves a lot more than that.
Now I'm no historian, but I do know a teensy snippet or two. I know, for example, that in the early 1800s, British Abolitionists finally faced the challenge of centuries to assure the end of the slave trade. The move, however, wasn't entirely altruistic, despite some undeniable passion by freedom promoters like Wilburforce. The biggest driver, however, was the fiscal degradation of plantation owners who were obliged to pay for the care of increasing numbers of slaves as the raw material trade with the colonies grew and grew.
Much the same can be said for the dictat by Czar Nicholas II, whose freeing of the serfs fully two years before Lincoln was based on a deal made with rural landowners who couldn't afford the upkeep of their indentured workforce.
As for America - it's debatable exactly how much Lincoln might have compromised on the welfare of slaves, given his different agenda. Of course, he [like Washington] has been almost deified in US textbooks. But, there seems to be little doubt of his idealogical alliance with his fellow Republicans on the issue of the maltreatment of slaves.
Especially influential was Pennsylvania representative Thaddeus Stevens [played brilliantly in the film by Tommy Lee Jones.] Way ahead of his time as a fearless, determined, and witty campaigner for human rights of women and all ethnic minorities, Stevens helped draft the legislation that funded the Civil War. He had powerful personal reasons as well.
Spielberg's film does enlighten us as to the entwining of the passage of the 13th Constitutional Amendment [freeing slaves as a matter of principle in perpetuity] and the ending of a war that was draining the Treasury and unlikely to be resolved by diplomacy. But the film concentrates on political and military factors, not the more fundamental economic ones.
Robert E. Wright, the noted economic historian is widely quoted in his contention that if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, it would have been much cheaper, and cost far less loss of life, than actually fighting the Civil War.
I think at least part of why the film was made at this particular time in history is to say out loud what's been obvious from the day Barrack Obama won office and even more so upon his recent re-election. Just trawl internet forums and chat rooms and you'll soon read a catalog of hate. It all pretends to be about policies, but it's about race.
Actually, some of the more unconsidered postings are blatantly libellous. Against the President. Against all people of color. Against everyone who doesn't hold their own socially obscene views.
For me, ignoring this component of the century-and-a-half economic tyranny, lessens a film that will probably be nominated for lotsa awards. Betcha it'll win some, too.
|
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/31/2013 : 01:15:00
And a third huge thumbs up from me. I loved it - I was fascinated, and moved and impressed throughout, not only by the tale but the telling of it. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 01/27/2013 : 23:48:25
This is one of the completest films I have watched.
This is what you'd expect from Spielberg and Day Lewis and they don't disappoint.
When great actors take to the screen I have found the supporting cast to come across as somewhat wooden but it seems like the cast here stepped up to the mark.
Although heavy on the dialogue, you will have to have your wits about you it is a treat as it is more like history unfolding before your eyes than a movie.
Besides the impeccable DDL it is hard to say who stood out more, all I will say here is that,for me, James Spader stole every scene he was in!
Here's my blog review if you like ==> http://wp.me/p1MbTJ-j8
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/21/2013 : 18:17:20
I thought it was superb -- and far from deifying Lincoln, the flick makes evident how much horse-trading, arm-twisting and downright lying [or willful truth evasion, to be kinder] was necessary to ramrod the Thirteenth Amendment through the House. Lincoln himself is part of this campaign -- in fact, he's the co-conspirator in chief.
Here's a picture where everything -- actors, sets, costumes, lighting, the whole enchilada -- meshes together so well that it gives the illusion of a stage performance, as if all Steven Spielberg had to do was turn on the camera and sit back.
It is hard to believe that Daniel Day-Lewis is the same guy who rocked THERE WILL BE BLOOD: the vocal cadence, even the musical notes he hits, are worlds away from Daniel Plainview. The supporting cast is outstanding, not a bad apple in the bunch [special props to Sally Field as Mary Lincoln]. And I continue to love digital projection: this picture has been "spooling" five times a day at my neighborhood theater for a solid month, yet there wasn't a single blemish on the image. Goodbye and good riddance to reel-change perfs!
Magnificent, and I wouldn't begrudge it a single thing this awards season. |
|
|
