Movie Review: "Lincoln" (2012)

After more than a decade of gestation, Steven Spielberg's bio-pic of Abraham Lincoln, based (as the credits say, "in part") on Doris Kearns Goodwin's best-selling book Team of Rivals, offers a sympathetic and humanizing portrait of the 16th President.  The 2 1/2 hour film, which takes place entirely during the final four months of Lincoln's life, focuses on the contentious debate in the House of Representatives over the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, including how it might affect efforts to encourage the Confederates to surrender.

Rather directly, the movie seeks to explore the man behind the monuments and myths.  Much like the famous Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, where Daniel Chester French's massive marble Lincoln sits between full-text inscriptions of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address, Spielberg's movie opens with the war-time president talking with two African-American Union soldiers, who begin reciting the Gettysburg Address, and concludes with the last third of the Second Inaugural.

With these speeches and snippets of surrounding dialogue, screenwriter Tony Kushner bookends the film with the common schoolhouse portrait of Lincoln.  Between the famous words and their magnanimity, though, Kushner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright whose previous film experience was scripting Spielberg's 2005 movie "Munich," breathes life into the mythic figure.  Through personal interactions with his family, encounters with common soldiers and citizens, and meetings with other government leaders and generals, Lincoln here is funny, passionate, beaten down, wise, cunning, and occasionally misunderstood and unapproachable.

Central to this is two-time Academy Award-winner Daniel Day-Lewis, who almost certainly will be nominated again for his performance.  In addition to the brilliant make-up artistry that makes Day-Lewis look uncannily like the often-photographed Lincoln throughout, the famously intense method actor inhabits the role fully, with wit, determination, quiet intelligence, weariness, and a surprising steadiness that manifests itself, intriguingly, in the ease of a man completely comfortable with himself in every situation he faces, whether political, military, or personal.  

Much will likely be made of the high voice Day-Lewis employs, especially by those who have heard actors portray Lincoln with rich baritone voices on television and in previous movies -- or even at Disney's Hall of Presidents.  However, Day-Lewis has relied on the surviving testimony about Lincoln's voice, which says that Lincoln had a high voice, sometimes almost squeaky, and spoke with a Western twang that always turned words like "scared" into "skeered."  (Personally, I think that the voice Day-Lewis uses is a bit more polished than I imagine from contemporary descriptions of Lincoln, but it is clear that the actor has skillfully crafted his performance from these descriptions.)

A key insight into Lincoln's character in this film, and the point at which the movie "Lincoln" is closest to the spirit of Team of Rivals, is that much is revealed through Lincoln's interactions with other equally strong people.  One of the many strengths of Kushner's fine screenplay is the character development of those around Lincoln, especially his wife Mary, son Robert, Secretary of State William Seward, and influential Republican patriarch Preston Blair, but also of other identifiable historic figures with less screen time.

Spielberg has cast strong actors to portray these many roles, and the ensemble gives consistently excellent performances.  While Tommy Lee Jones perhaps has the showiest supporting role as the outspoken Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, David Strathairn and Hal Holbrook (a portrayer of Lincoln himself on stage and screen) find authenticity as Seward and Blair, respectively.  The most surprising supporting performance, owing in equal parts to the strength of Kushner's script as to the acting, is Sally Field as Mary Lincoln.  Although she is too old for the character (which is noticeable given that most of the other actors are pretty close to the age of the historic figures they portray), she not only gracefully embodies the First Lady's contradictory personality traits, she demonstrates some of the gifts -- noticeably a passion, and relative skill, for politics -- that must have served as the foundation for the lasting, though sometimes stormy, marriage between Abraham and Mary Lincoln.

Such character details, too many to mention, are but one aspect of the depth of research evident in virtually every aspect of the film.  While there are a few mistakes and inaccuracies, the movie is overwhelmingly rooted in well-documented details -- a point made clear in the credits where more than a dozen noted Lincoln and Civil War historians are thanked for their assistance.  From the set design -- including an amazing recreation of Lincoln's White House office -- to the period music incorporated into John Williams' outstanding score to the frequent inclusion of contemporary-recorded comments in the screenplay to the  appearance, dress, and accents of the large supporting cast (even those with few lines), the film is consistently, and by Hollywood standards almost fanatically, accurate.

Even the feel of the movie points to this historical accuracy, which is a credit to Spielberg.  Unlike some films "based on historic events" that simplify characters and plot details for clarity, there is a complexity, even messiness, to "Lincoln" that evokes the turbulence of January 1865.  At times dialogue is overlapping or even muttered inaudibly, and there are disorienting, quick emotional shifts from the deadly serious to the ridiculous, as when yet another public reception painfully reminds both Lincolns of their son Willie's death during a previous formal White House dinner, but they must they must immediately happily welcome their guests in a receiving line.

With the usual top-notch production values of a Spielberg movie, added to Kushner's strong screenplay and the excellent acting ensemble headed by Day-Lewis, "Lincoln" is a remarkable film.  Despite its short time span, it has an epic vision of the personalities and circumstances surrounding the central figure.  And in the midst of those dramatic circumstances, it offers a compelling and vivid presentation of Lincoln the man, quirky and wise, compassionate and irreverent, and in some ways more impressive than even the marble statues.

Spielberg's Lincoln Movie May Shoot in Fall 2011

The long-gestating Steven Spielberg movie about Abraham Lincoln, based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's acclaimed Team of Rivals, has lost one Lincoln (Liam Neeson) and hired another (Daniel Day-Lewis).

There are rumors that Spielberg plans to begin shooting in the fall of 2011. Toward this end, a production team including "the man who would be Lincoln" recently met with a representative of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency doing research. Evidently they toured Lincoln sites and viewed some Lincoln artifacts.

Neeson was reported to have done such research during his several years of association with the project, so development scouting does not mean that the film will definitely be shot. However, there are some indications that this effort may finally come to fruition. Spielberg's calendar is open for shooting this fall -- before beginning his anticipated sci-fi Robopocalypse in early 2012; Tony Kushner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning screenwriter, has been publicly touting his screenplay in recent months; Day-Lewis is the sort of actor whose prestige projects are always taken seriously (this will only be his fifth film in the past decade). More important than all of these, though, is the slate of other Lincoln films in production, especially Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which means that several studios believe there is a market for Lincoln right now.

I hope the film will one day be shot, as a new Lincoln-related movie is long overdue. However, I am sad that Neeson withdrew from the project. Unlike others who believe the project has awards written all over it, I think that Neeson (even at age 59) would be a better fit for Lincoln than Day-Lewis. Some point to Day-Lewis' obvious -- even extraordinary -- talents, and his performance may be compelling, but after seeing Neeson in Kinsey, I became convinced that he could offer a definitive Lincoln.

New Lincoln Book

A new Lincoln-related book was released today, the second recent book focusing on the 1860 presidential election, which was a wild free-for-all, with no fewer than a dozen serious candidates for nominations and four candidates in the November election.

Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War by Douglas R. Egerton (Bloomsbury Press, hardcover, 416 pages)

Doris Kearns Goodwin's prize-winning Team of Rivals revealed to many that Lincoln faced several better known Republicans for the 1860 presidential nomination, before inviting several of them to serve in his cabinet after his election. It should come as no surprise that the Democratic nomination was just as fiercely contested -- so much so that the party actually split into regional factions, each nominating a candidate. Steven Douglas, who had worked tirelessly over the past decade to position himself as the front-runner (including his assertive chairmanship on the Senate committee on territories), had positioned himself as the only Democrat acceptable to both North and South, only to discover that he wasn't acceptable to both regions either.

This book has only gotten a couple of reviews today, but one is in The Wall Street Journal. It seems that Egerton focuses more on Douglas than Lincoln, which certainly is an accurate portrayal of the year 1860 -- Lincoln won the election, but Douglas was the central personality of the year.

John Waugh's Reelecting Lincoln offers an entertaining portrayal of the 1864 election. The 1860 contest was much more action packed, with plenty of tension and lots of big personalities. So Egerton has plenty of material to work with -- here's hoping that he does it justice.

Random Lincoln News: Spielberg, Podcasts, and a New Website

Three bits of short information to pass along today. Last week, I wrote about recent information about Steven Spielberg's long-planned Lincoln movie. Earlier this week, Spielberg's publicist confirmed that the award-winning director plans on shooting the movie sometime in 2009. Read the brief confirmation given to a reporter from Entertainment Weekly. Despite the financial and legal issues involved, I imagine that Spielberg will get to do what he wants.

I'm still coming across bicentennial week features about Abraham Lincoln. Bloomberg.com featured a series of five Lincoln podcasts with scholars like Harold Holzer and James McPherson. (A tip of the hat to Samuel Wheeler at his Lincoln Studies site for uncovering these interviews.) I've listened to the solid interview with McPherson and look forward to listening to the others during upcoming trips to the gym. Here are links to the podcasts:

• James McPherson
• Michael Beschloss
• Harold Holzer
• Doris Kearns Goodwin
• Mario Cuomo

Earlier this week, I wrote about a new educational site designed to introduce middle school students to the Lincoln White House, sponsored by the White House Historical Association. Last night, I found another new online resource, Lincoln's Commute, sponsored by the White House Historical Association and President Lincoln's Cottage at the Soldier's Home. This site, appropriate for all ages, shows some of what Abraham Lincoln would have seen on his roughly three-mile commute in the summer month's between the Soldier's Home and the White House. There is a short film and the ability to learn about various locations and people along Lincoln's normal route.

TV Review: "Looking for Lincoln" (PBS)

Toward the end of Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s excellent exploration "Looking for Lincoln," the African-American scholar admits that his examination of Abraham Lincoln had challenged his cherished image of The Great Emancipator. "It's been deeply disappointing to me to learn that Lincoln came to emancipation slowly," Gates laments, "and that he questioned even the basic assumption of the equality of the races."

Then he sits with noted Lincoln biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, evidently a personal friend (likely given that both historians live in Boston), and has a remarkable exchange with her reflecting on how troubling it was to discover Lincoln's prejudicial attitudes toward race, even as he praises Lincoln's political skill in his actions involving emancipation and racial issues, because of his status within the African-American community as the white man who made civil rights possible.

"Do you know what's so interesting, Skip, in listening to you talk? The problem is not your understanding of what was possible for Lincoln; the problem is the infatuation, the myth, that Lincoln was presented in the first place to you," Goodwin says, getting emotional. "It's not Lincoln's fault that he got mythologized...And I think to just bring him down now to the human being, with his strengths and his weaknesses -- if you could feel that as well as you're saying it, I think you would feel more empathy for him."

"No, but you're right," Gates responds, "it's clear that I don't feel it. I can think it, I can understand it--"

"Exactly," Goodwin affirms over him, "that's what I'm feeling," and suddenly stopping to let him continue, can't finish her thought -- that's what I'm feeling you're feeling.

In the middle of a documentary attempting to detect the historical facts about Lincoln, a discussion about feelings between two historians who are obviously emotionally involved in their study of the sixteenth president. More than that, though, this extraordinary exchange represents the crux of the Lincoln myth -- Americans are as emotionally attached to the iconic Abraham Lincoln as they are intellectual attached, if not more so.

Though I am not an African-American, I know Gates' disappointment with Lincoln firsthand, having gone through my own de-mythologizing of Lincoln several years ago. For a couple of years, I didn't like the man who I discovered was not an idealist but always a practical politician. Worse, he was a rather ruthless partisan hack in his early days, and those skills never faded away, even though his attitude did. (Eventually, I gained a great appreciation for how Lincoln ultimately used his political skills.)

"Looking for Lincoln," a PBS production, is less a documentary than a two-hour visual essay by Gates, a Harvard professor of African-American Studies. Gates intercuts his cross-country travels looking for Lincoln the icon with a mostly chronological presentation of the historical Lincoln. The film moves a good clip, though it never feels rushed, covering lots of ground; Gates interviews a dozen scholars, two former presidents, and others. He visits with Lincoln presenters (people who dress up like Lincoln), and descendants of Confederate veterans who strongly dislike Lincoln. He walks the Gettysburg battlefield, visits the Soldier's Home where Lincoln probably wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. He sits in on a high school discussion about Lincoln in Chicago.

Along the way, Gates struggles to present the personal complexity of Abraham Lincoln, as opposed to the marble icon of the Lincoln Memorial. Most often he focuses on the complexity of Lincoln's racial views, which is understandable given his other research on race in the United States.

The film is a great success, owing to Gates unstinting honesty and his skills as both a historian and a storyteller. Most people will learn a lot about Lincoln and will be forced to think directly about how Lincoln the man relates to Lincoln the myth. If the film has any flaw, it is that Gates' conclusion is a bit underwhelming, but the strength of the film makes up for that.

"Looking for Lincoln" premiered on PBS on Wednesday, February 11, 2009.

No News about Spielberg's Lincoln Movie

Long before Doris Kearns Goodwin published her acclaimed Lincoln biography Team of Rivals, Steven Spielberg and his company DreamWorks Pictures acquired the movie rights. (I cannot find a reliable date as to when Spielberg acquired the rights; I find confirmations of this as early as 2001, but I seem to recall rumors about this film about ten years ago.) Since then, the project has idled, with only occasional flashes, such as when Goodwin's book was published in 2005.

Last year, Spielberg himself stoked new rumors about the film when he announced that he hoped to film it in 2009, the year of Lincoln's bicentennial. At that time, it was known that Liam Neeson had verbally agreed to star as Lincoln, and Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Tony Kushner, who was Spielberg's screenwriter for Munich, was set to write the script.

The rumors erupted again this year, as the named players have been questioned about the potential film. Neeson told reporters last month that he was still attached to the film, but that he didn't know anything new. Just last week, Kushner reportedly suggested at a Lincoln forum at Harvard that a decision would be reached "next week," if it was to be filmed this year and released in December 2009 (just in time for awards season).

This has led to lots of anxious speculation this week, waiting for an announcement about the film. However, it looks like the problem is not the script -- reportedly finished -- or Spielberg's intentions -- evidently he still wants to film this movie next. The problem is money, part of the recent squabbling between DreamWorks and Paramount (which bought DreamWorks in 2006). Spielberg has recently cut some of his ties to Paramount (and created tension in his relationship with Universal Studios with a recent deal to distribute movies though Disney), but in the process, Paramount apparently ended up owning the rights to Goodwin's Team of Rivals. Per Slate's "The Big Money," Spielberg is now scrambling for cash to support his production company, fund the Lincoln movie, and convince Paramount to either sell the rights to him or allow him to direct.

As yet, there is no news about whether Spielberg is finding success or not. The folks at IMDB are pessimistic, suggesting that the film is slated to release in 2011. I am slightly more optimistic. If the script is done, and Neeson is attached, and (more importantly) Spielberg wants to do the movie, the problems with funding and rights will probably be worked out. While some people think that the movie has limited financial prospects -- one suggesting that it would be as unsuccessful as Amistad which only grossed $44 million -- I think that it has a better financial upside, especially if the Team of Rivals association is played up. And I think the movie itself has great potential, aside from Spielberg's instinct to be rather stuffy with historical elements sometimes, especially with Neeson as Lincoln. If the right movie executives agree, the movie will get made sooner rather than later.

Why Lincoln? A Bicentennial Reflection

As this, the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth winds down, I'm pausing to reflect on the meaning of this celebration. It's been a busy day, spent watching lots of Lincoln coverage on television, from the Congressional noontime celebration to the (online) coverage of Barack Obama at the Abraham Lincoln Association dinner in Springfield tonight, along with several hours of CNN's special coverage. (I've also been catching up on the PBS documentaries, owing to lengthy Cable interruptions because of weather the past two nights; reviews to come.)

I could comment on the celebration as a whole, at least those parts of which I've been aware and in which I've participated electronically, but I want to try to step back and consider this phenomenon from a broader perspective. (Also, I'm not really capable of giving an objective analysis of CNN's coverage. I missed part of it to watch the Congressional celebration. And, in my experience, a little Soledad O'Brien goes a very long way. Multiple hours of her anchoring coverage was a little much for my taste.) I will include, though, a couple of comments made during today's ceremonies.

The question that kept nagging at me today was "Why?" Why this persistent and pervasive interest in Lincoln? Watching the coverage, I saw all types of people expressing their fascination in Lincoln -- all types of people who have read and thought about the 16th president of the United States. In our society, which has a love/hate relationship with its history -- or at least an selectively passionate, mostly apathetic relationship -- Lincoln is an amazing phenomenon. Why?

In looking at this question personally, I realize that I've been interested in Lincoln so long that I take my interest for granted. What was it about Lincoln that first attracted me? Frankly, I don't remember. My interest goes back to when I was very young, almost as far back as I can remember. Something grabbed my attention, so I started reading about Lincoln. And I've kept reading about Lincoln all the years since.

For most of my life I've admired Mr. Lincoln greatly, though not always. Over the years, especially when I first discovered part of Lincoln's "dark side" -- his cutthroat political instincts and, especially early in his career, actions -- I was embarrassed by Lincoln and even a little betrayed. But I was already committed, and I kept reading. Since then, I've discovered more of Lincoln's dark side, but, in general, I've grown to admire him even more.

But why? Earlier today in her fine remarks, Doris Kearns Goodwin offered one answer to the why: Lincoln's moral example is the source of his enduring legacy. She wasn't talking merely about his goodness or his kindness, but, quoting Tolstoy, his "peculiar moral power." This moral power goes beyond Lincoln's common touch, it goes beyond his lack of malice, and it might even go beyond his status as the Great Emancipator. Lincoln made decisions that most people are, first, convinced they would not want to have to make under unfathomable pressures, and, second, astonished by how consistently wise and prescient Lincoln's decisions were. This attitude is fairly consistent, cutting across age and depth of knowledge about Lincoln. There are no secret stories that explain Lincoln's decision-making abilities or his skills in inter-personal relations.

In fact, this attitude is so consistent with Lincoln that we forgive him his obvious mistakes -- appointing the wrong generals or sometimes speaking out of both sides of his mouth (or pen). We forgive him for his fractured relationships: with his wife, with his father, with his eldest son. Sometimes, confronted with evidence of shortcomings or failings, we even rationalize for him. But mostly, even as we learn these stories, we evidently still think he lived better/wiser/juster than we ever could. Lincoln's moral example has such depth that it keeps giving, which may be why he's been almost instinctively compared to Christ by so many intelligent and religious people. It is impossible to know to much about Lincoln or the context in which he lived.

Harold Holzer offered another alternative in his remarks today; twice, he called Lincoln a "prophet of unfinished work." Perhaps Holzer has published this remark elsewhere or is quoting someone else, but I don't recognize it. Most directly, I suppose, it comes from Lincoln's two unforgettable speeches: the Gettysburg Address -- "It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced" -- and the final paragraph of the Second Inaugural Address -- "...let us strive to continue the work we are in...." Then again, it is an ongoing theme in Lincoln's speeches, partially by necessity -- Lincoln vowed to prosecute the war until the end. But partially it seems to be key part of Lincoln's personality, of the man whose ambition was, in the words of William Herndon, "little engine that knows no rest."

As such, the parallels between Lincoln the man and his herculean task are eerie. Lincoln was always striving to do more work -- even after he became a successful appellate attorney, which should have allowed him to take only cases that came to him, he rode the Illinois circuit for months. His hours as president were legendary; it is almost impossible to imagine him sleeping. There was always more work to be done. And Lincoln was performing that work in service to a republic that in its founding document sought "a more perfect union." Lincoln led a nation in preserving that always unfinished union, leading an "almost chosen people." And in this task, he embodies the American spirit.

There's much to recommend both suggestions, though both can be criticized. They both implicitly suggest that Lincoln's legacy is strong because Lincoln's example still has great meaning for our lives; studying Lincoln can not only make us smarter, but can make us better -- better leaders, better Americans, better people. That has been my experience, too, but I hesitate to push it too far. While it is true that many people see themselves in historical figures -- sometimes to the point that those figures become mirrors rather than people -- some people have a sincere interest in Lincoln that appears distinct from this. I don't think most of the finest Lincoln scholars are looking for themselves in Lincoln; they're sincerely looking for Lincoln.

These answers are unsatisfying, but so are the other answers. Lincoln was the great American leader; yes, but so was Washington or Roosevelt. Lincoln was a great charismatic presence; yes, but so was Washington or Roosevelt. Lincoln was a prime actor in a time of unprecedented national drama; yes, but so was Washington and Roosevelt. Lincoln was the greatest president; yes, but so was Washington or Roosevelt. But neither Washington nor Roosevelt (TR or FDR) has 16,000 books written about them and counting. And those people, and countless others in American history, are fascinating.

In the end, I cannot explain it. Perhaps as I grow older, I will become more self-aware and I can offer a better answer to the question, Why Lincoln? Maybe it is a combination of answers; perhaps Lincoln is more fascinating on multiple levels and in multiple ways than other people. Maybe Lincoln is, as Sen. Dick Durbin suggested at the beginning of the week, "the one truly indispensable American," just as for countless millions, Shakespeare is the one truly indispensable English author, Napoleon is the one truly indispensable military leader, and Jesus Christ is the one truly indispensable example of faith (to compare Lincoln to the other most written-about people). Then again, maybe it's something else entirely. Why Lincoln, indeed.