Spielberg's Lincoln Delivers

I'd been following the development of this film for a couple years now, anticipating something as big as its theme. Spielberg's Lincoln, finally released after twelve years in development, is stellar, laden with stars who undoubtedly anticipated this film would deliver as potently as imagined. And it does.

The knockout punch is not just the fine acting, but the cinematography. When we went a few weeks back, the theater was packed, and our seats were near the front off to the side. No problem though. I'm sure that from any angle I would have had this same experience of wishing I could stop the film and breathe in through my eyes every image from every minute of the film. I'm serious. Every shot was a work of art, bar none. The painstaking beauty of creating the sets, re-creating every detail of the times, was so hyped ahead of time that I did not expect to be so moved by it. But it's a moving film, in every respect.

The story, which you no doubt know by now, is about Lincoln's efforts to pass the 13th Amendment that would ban slavery forever in this country. He had the foresight to recognize that once the Southern states were returned to the union, the passage of such an amendment would become impossible. As this movie demonstrates, the passage was nigh impossible even with the absence of the South.

Daniel Day-Lewis deserves the praise he's received from the critics. The film is a masterpiece in every sense of the word and casting has to be atop that list. Having read numerous books on Lincoln and listened to the speeches of Lincoln as delivered by Raymond Massey who a generation ago "became" Lincoln for a spell, it's quite a task to capture all the nuances of Lincoln's character in such a brief time frame as this 150 minute film permits. But the screenwriters worked deftly and Day-Lewis assumes the persona of the self-taught backwoodsman who became a president during one of our most critical historical periods.

Frequently when reviewing films I like to cite a few comments from imdb.com. Not everyone shares the same point of view on even the most cherished classics, whether film or literature and imdb.com is usually reliable to serve up some spicy contrarians.

One criticism is that the film is not about the Civil War or slavery or even Lincoln. To this I would say that in the field of cartography, a map is not necessarily made more accurate and useful by being increased in size to the point of being an identical reproduction of the city, state or country. All storytellers, as well as memoir writers, but wrestle with the problem of what to leave in and what to leave out. In this instance, Spielberg has given us a magnified close-up of a singular event in Lincoln's life, the passage an amendment through congress. Like any good story, the chosen event is revealing about the character and motivations of the man. The event takes place in a context, and the story has significant reverberations for all who see or hear of it.

Another criticism of the film was the film score by John Williams. I suppose the purpose of this film was more to tell the story rather than sell CDs afterwards. I do not recall it being offensive or intrusive, and recall noting early in the film that it seemed suitable at the time.

A third criticism leveled at Lincoln has to do with the manner in which the screenplay has been sponged through and through with political correctness. The film, they claim, is devoted to the greatness of Lincoln and is unrestrained in making him out to be heroic. Well, it took about 125 years for critics of Robert E. Lee to have their voices heard without being hounded and howled out. Lee was a great man, but still just a man. Lincoln's critics were vocal much sooner. He was hated in his lifetime and certainly the grounds for that have never dissipated in some places where he has been regarded as the primary cause of the immense loss of life during the Civil War.

When I saw the film I myself was (perhaps foolishly) blind to the PC observations some critics have made, absorbed as I was in the cinematic depictions of the times. Yes, I noticed that the White House was not called the White House till years later but it didn't bother me.

In an age where action films about terrorists and terminators and superheroes abound, a straight up historical drama is not going to grab its audiences in quite the same manner. But then again, this film is a work of art and art appreciation varies with different audiences. People who gravitate to the Bourne Identity just might find Henry Fonda a tad boring in Twelve Angry Men. And I promise you, there are no chase scenes trying to compete with Daniel Craig for the best chase scene ever in a motion picture.

Bottom line, I thought the film quite powerful and worth seeing. I also had something of a epiphany at the end. Lincoln, after he was shot at Ford Theater, died the day on April 15. If you know your history, you'll also recall that he was born on February 12. These two dates are the birthdays of two of the four most significant women in my life: my mom and my daughter.

Three or four years ago I became friends with a passionate Lincoln buff who was living in Springfield, Illinois at the time. You might enjoy that blog entry titled Ten Minutes with an Ardent Lincoln Buff from Illinois.

If you see the film, tell me what you think. In the meantime, have a very special day.

There Will Be Blood

2007 was, in my opinion, a weak year for Hollywood. At some point in late spring it seemed that the summer movie season had been set up to be especially uninteresting. Despite featuring everybody’s hero Johnny D., Pirates III failed to entice me to part with anything green. Bourne III also came and went with the same effect.

Meanwhile, while commuting to the office, I thoroughly enjoyed two really engrossing audio books: Mr. Wilson’s War and No Country For Old Men.

The fall movie fare was equally dismal, though the family did go and take in that most unusual Sixties reprise, Across the Universe. As we tiptoed toward the year’s Christmas culmination, it was with great exhilaration that I learned that both audio books which I so thoroughly enjoyed had been made into films, and I knew that I’d find a way to see each of them.

For some reason this film, There Will Be Blood, never crossed my radar. I have been a strong admirer of some of the work Daniel Day-Lewis has produced, beginning with My Left Foot, the film that for me put him on the map as a serious actor.

As Oscar season approached Day-Lewis buzz was all the rage. This film, written, directed and produced by Paul Thomas Anderson, had created a phenomenal opportunity for Day-Lewis to shine, if you call being a very dark-hearted character shining. Anderson was the director of Magnolia, a film heavily populated by tragic and pathetic characters.

There Will Be Blood is primarily a character study of one character, Daniel Plainview, as portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis. It could be argued that Eli Sunday is also a character in the story, but his role seems more as a foil for the singular story of Plainview.

Anderson’s achievement here has him being compared to Kubrick, which is saying plenty. Some say it was with great intentionality that he has become more like Kubrick, specifically in the manner in which the story is told. The eye of the camera is all. The film exemplifies the preeminent rule of storytelling: show, don’t tell.

For this reason we are never “told” the motivations of characters. We extrapolate motivations by the behaviors revealed by the camera's lens. At one point Daniel Plainview states outright, "I don't like to explain myself."

This style of film making is much like life. People seldom explain the why of their behaviors. Often they do not even understand themselves the why of what they do. Yet we can see who they are by what they do. Sort of. Every picture tells a story, but it takes a lifetime of pictures to fill out the full orb. This film strings together the key pictures of a man’s life, the hardening of a very hard man.

The soundtrack of this film exacerbates the tensions whirling about inside its central character. The strings, rhythms, syncopated percussion, create a disconcerting, grating feeling. The irresolution and intensity of the strings is most effective in leaving viewers unsettled and uncomfortable.

The film does have its critics. It is not a pleasant experience. But it is a powerful film, and Daniel Day-Lewis is incredible to the end.

personal pages // creative writing // articles // spiritual light