In this interesting video, sound designer Ben Burtt discusses how he added special authentic sound touches to Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012). Although there are no known recordings of Abraham Lincoln’s voice, Burtt was able to capture some other sounds from the 1860s.
For example, they sought out the sounds from clocks and doors in the White House from Lincoln’s time. As part of Burtt’s research, he also was able to track down two pocket watches owned by Abraham Lincoln. For the watch that was in Lincoln’s pocket when he was killed, the Kentucky Historical Society allowed the filmmakers to wind the watch so they could capture its sound for the movie. Check out “The Sound of Lincoln” below.
What do you think of the lengths Burtt went to capture authentic sounds? Was it worth it? Leave your two cents in the comments.
I recall hearing a story how after Director John Ford approached Henry Fonda to play Abraham Lincoln in Young Mr. Lincoln (1939), Fonda declined the role because he could not imagine filling the shoes of the great president. But Ford explained that he was not asking Fonda to play the Great Emancipator, he was asking him to play a young country lawyer. With that assurance, Fonda agreed to the part.
Director Steven Spielberg could not make such an assurance to Daniel Day-Lewis, who also was reluctant to take on the part of one of America’s biggest icons, because Spielberg’s film focuses on Lincoln during a key moment of his presidency as the president pushed for Congress to pass the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Although Spielberg’s Lincoln (2012) follows the president as a war leader and politician, Day-Lewis, like Henry Fonda, found in the character’s core the country lawyer with a great mind and great compassion.
In a screenplay by Tony Kushner based in part on a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln focuses on a short time period in Lincoln’s life, allowing Day-Lewis and Spielberg to delve into the man’s character and tell a story while avoiding the pitfalls of some historical dramas that suffer by trying to cover too much. One might argue Lincoln falls into this trap at the end when it speeds forward to show us the end of the Civil War and Lincoln’s death, but I doubt the movie could have ended earlier when audiences already know the end of the story and want to see the resolution.
Lincoln is a glorious film with a great story, great drama, and great acting. Day-Lewis chose to portray the president in a voice that probably sounded more like Lincoln than the traditional deep-voiced portrayals. The choice to use the high pitched twangy voice, similar to what was used by Lincoln co-star Hal Holbrook in his own 1974 portrayal of the president, seems to have freed him to search for the human qualities of the icon as the character relays his humorous tales to anyone who will listen. I suspect that the voice of Lincoln in Lincoln will forever change our perception of how Lincoln is portrayed in future films. In the video below, Day-Lewis discusses “the voice.”
While the movie cannot completely escape Lincoln-as-bigger-than-life, Spielberg probably does the best one could do by choosing a lesser known story from Lincoln’s presidency. Additionally, audiences may be able to feel some human connection to Lincoln’s struggles with Congress if they think of current political struggles in Washington in our own time.
The acting is uniformly good with several excellent actors appearing in the film. Sally Field, who had to convince Spielberg she was right for the part despite her age, humanizes Mary Todd Lincoln, helping show the good qualities and the faults of both the First Lady and her husband. David Strathairn is great as William Seward. Tommy Lee Jones plays the abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens, who is faced with a difficult choice. James Spader adds some comic relief as someone working behind the scenes to help Lincoln get the Congressional votes he needs. Jackie Earle Haley, who always makes me recall Breaking Away (1979), is perfect as Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens. And the list goes on.
Conclusion? There is something enjoyable about spending a few hours with one of the greatest figures in American history, and Spielberg and Day-Lewis do an excellent job of bringing Abraham Lincoln alive. Although Lincoln is 149 minutes long, it did not seem long and I hated for the film to end. If you do not mind that the film focuses on political negotiating and is not a war film, you will find Lincoln completely engaging.
Bonus Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me?: Rotten Tomatoes currently gives Lincoln a 90% critics rating and an 83% audience rating, perhaps reflecting some audience disappointment that the film is about politics. Kimberley Jones of The Austin Chronicle loved the film, writing, “Master shape-shifter Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a monumental portrayal of a man so firmly monumented in our nation’s history.” Austin Kennedy at Film Geek Central was disappointed, noting, “I expect spectacular things from Spielberg, so when he delivers something that’s just average, it’s a bit of a letdown.”
What did you think of “Lincoln”? Leave your two cents in the comments.
One of the first things I noticed in watching the newly released trailer for Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is the voice Daniel Day-Lewis gives to the sixteenth president. As discussed in a previous post about The Gettysburg Address, actors often portray Abraham Lincoln with a booming deep voice, and we seem to imagine him that way because of his legendary status in American history. But contemporary reports of his voice discuss a higher-pitched nasally sound coming from The Great Emancipator.
As you can see from the trailer, Spielberg and Lewis are aiming for something close to reality, even in Lincoln’s voice.
The movie that examines the life of Lincoln in his final months before his assassination. I cannot wait to see this film, which is based in part on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. By contrast, Slate gives the trailer a B-.
What do you think of the trailer for Lincoln? Leave your two cents in the comments.
If you are a fan of director Stanley Kubrick, check out the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001). Although the film does not feature interviews with the notoriously reclusive Kubrick, the late director’s voice comes through clips of his movies and through many people who knew and worked with Kubrick.
I recently re-watched one of Kubrick’s early films, Paths of Glory (1957), the outstanding WWI film starring Kirk Douglas. Seeing it for the second time, I noticed many of the Kubrick touches in the camera angles and story themes and fell even deeper in love with the great film. I have always been a fan of Kubrick’s films, but watching Paths of Glory made me want to know more about the director, so I rented A Life in Pictures on Netflix.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes, director Jan Harlan’s A Life in Pictures is not a lightweight overview of Kubrick’s career, but covers all of his movies with comments from many who worked with the director such as Jack Nicholson, Nicole Kidman, Malcolm McDowell, Steven Spielberg, and Tom Cruise, who narrates the film. Martin Scorsese, a director who is knowledgeable about film history, provides additional insight, as does Kubrick’s widow (who had a small but important role in Paths of Glory).
The documentary covers films such as The Killing (1956), Spartacus (1960), Dr. Strangelove (1964), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), A Clockwork Orange (1971), The Shining (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987), and Eyes Wide Shut (1999). I particularly enjoyed the insight and behind-the-scenes stories about the underrated and misunderstood Eyes Wide Shut. While A Life in Pictures may not change your views of the films or tell you exactly who Stanley Kubrick was, the documentary helps peel back a few layers to give you a greater appreciation of Kubrick’s works.
Conclusion? Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures is an entertaining documentary about one of the great American directors that is worth your time if you have any interest in film history or in Kubrick’s films.
What is your favorite Stanley Kubrick film? Leave your two cents in the comments.
It is hard to believe that it has been that long, but on June 11, 1982, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) first appeared in movie theaters. The film, directed by a 34-year-old Steven Spielberg and written by screenwriter Melissa Mathison, told the story of the children who found the little alien far away from home.
Reportedly, Spielberg drew on his own lonely experience as a child of divorce in telling the story. The movie featured excellent performances by child actors Henry Thomas, Robert MacNaughton, and Drew Barrymore.
One cannot dispute the classic status of E.T., although for some odd reason it only has a low 65% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, perhaps due to over-exposure through the years? Still, it has a stellar 98% critics rating.
Did you know that the original idea for the film was to have a family terrorized by an alien? Also, at one point Spielberg planned a sequel to E.T. with E.T. rescuing the family from other aliens.
Check out the video below for some trivia about the classic film.
In honor of the 30th anniversary of the film, one writer noted similarities between Spielberg’s Poltergeist (1982) and E.T. Also, in celebration of the anniversary, a new specially remastered Blu-ray version of E.T.was released. It might be something to phone home about. Why do you think the film has such a low audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes? What is your favorite scene in E.T.? Leave your two cents in the comments.
, Lincoln focuses on a short time period in Lincoln’s life, allowing Day-Lewis and Spielberg to delve into the man’s character and tell a story while avoiding the pitfalls of some historical dramas that suffer by trying to cover too much. One might argue Lincoln falls into this trap at the end when it speeds forward to show us the end of the Civil War and Lincoln’s death, but I doubt the movie could have ended earlier when audiences already know the end of the story and want to see the resolution.
