“Lincoln” As Both Icon and Human Being (Short Review)

Lincoln film Spielberg 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.

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.

Buy from Amazon

  • Daniel Day-Lewis and the Voice of “Lincoln”
  • The Sound of “Lincoln”
  • Tommy Lee Jones and “The Homesman” (Missed Movies)
  • Godzilla Versus Ida (Short Reviews)
  • Steven Spielberg’s New Film with “Daniel Day-Lewis” as Obama
  • Lincoln & Liberty Too!
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Apocalypto: Mad Max Meets Rambo (Missed Movies)

    Apocalypto Amazon Blu-Ray When Mel Gibson announced he was going to follow up his hit The Passion of the Christ (2004) with unknown actors in a film set in the Mayan kingdom in the early 1500s using the Yucatec Maya language with subtitles, many thought he was crazy (besides other reasons that people think he is crazy). But Apocalypto (2006) is not a dry history lesson but the type of exciting action yarn one might expect from Gibson, despite its unusual setting.

    The film begins in a peaceful village and you are immediately drawn to the characters despite the language barrier. Among the characters, we are introduced to the young warrior Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) and his pregnant wife, Seven (Dalia Hernandez). But soon, things are disrupted when warriors from the center of the civilization arrive to destroy the village, attack the women, and take the men back to the temple in the city for sacrifice. As Jaguar Paw becomes separated from his wife after hiding her and his son, we wonder if he will be able to escape the captors led by Zero Wolf (Raoul Trujillo) to be able to return to rescue her.

    The film has some similarities to Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and Braveheart (1995) in that they all follow a movie tradition of having the hero suffer brutality so that the audience wishes for some type of vengeance against the tormentors. And there are scenes of blood and brutality. But the film that Apocalypto most reminded me of was First Blood (1982), the original Rambo movie. Like that Sylvester Stalone film, the hero here is captured and we watch as he tries to escape, survive, and defeat his pursuers.

    Of course, nowadays any film attached to Mel Gibson suffers because of his controversial behavior away from the screen, and the film likely suffered at the box office because of its connection to Gibson. Questions about the film’s accuracy in portraying an ancient civilization also caused some controversy. But as a film, Apocalypto has much going for it, as recognized by other actors and directors like Robert Duvall and Quentin Tarantino.

    Conclusion?: If you avoided Apocalypto when it was released because a film about Mayans in another language sounded boring, and if you like action adventure films, you should give the film a chance. It might be worth reading the subtitles to see an entertaining and exciting action film.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Listen to Me?: Critics at Rotten Tomatoes combine to give Apocalypto a 65% rating, but audience members enjoyed the action yarn more, giving the film a 79% rating. On ReelViews, James Berardinelli gave Apocalypto 3-1/2 stars (out of four) and concluded that “it’s unlike any other movie to reach theaters this year and, because it is as visual an experience as it is visceral.” By contrast, Rob Gonsalves at eFilmCritic.com pans the film, calling it “a skimpy action flick.”

    {Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}

    What do you think of Apocalypto? Leave your two cents in the comments.

    Buy from Amazon

  • The Last Known Survivor Stalks His Prey in the Night
  • What Tarantino’s “Star Trek” Might Look Like
  • 8 Things About Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight”
  • What Song Did Jennifer Jason Leigh Sing in “The Hateful Eight”?
  • Moral Ambiguity and “Lawman” (Missed Movies)
  • What If “Pulp Fiction” Were a 1980s Video Game?
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    The Hobbit: There and Balloon Again

    This video shows “The Balloon Guy” Jeremy Telford using balloons to create a replica of Bilbo Baggins’s home from J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. In the time-lapse video, Telford uses 2,600 balloons to create Bag End, including such details as a candle chandelier. Check it out.

    The room seems comfortable. The first film in The Lord of the Rings prequels, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is scheduled to premiere November, 28 2012 in New Zealand.

    What do you think of Bilbo’s balloon room? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • SNL Brings Together “The Hobbit” and “The Office”
  • Folk Singer Glenn Yarbrough, the Real Most Interesting Man in the World
  • New Teaser Trailer for “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies”
  • “That, My Lad, Was a Dragon” in the New Hobbit Trailer
  • Two Spocks and an Audi
  • 80 Years of Willie: From Opry Singer to Outlaw to Wizard
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    “I’m Walking Here”: 25 Famous Unscripted Movie Scenes

    Did you know that Dustin Hoffman’s line “I’m walking here!” from Midnight Cowboy (1969) was not in the movie script? Similarly, Robert De Niro came up with the classic “You talkin’ to me” line in Taxi Driver (1976). Check out this video to hear other classic unscripted movie scenes. The captions provide some additional explanations.

    What is your favorite unscripted movie scene? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Did you Know Taxi Driver Was Inspired by Astral Weeks?
  • The Modern Prometheus Published
  • Understanding De Niro
  • Taxi Driver Music: Late for the Sky
  • Taxi Driver Music: “The Pilgrim, Chapter 33”
  • Elizabeth Taylor RIP
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Paul Thomas Anderson’s Epic Poem on an American Cult: “The Master” (Short Review)

    the master Writer and Director Paul Thomas Anderson‘s latest film, The Master (2012), stars Joaquin Phoenix as a troubled man who finds a home for awhile with the leader of a movement played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. The navy veteran played by Phoenix bounces around aimlessly, apparently haunted by some mental illness, until he attaches himself to Hoffman’s character, an author who developed “The Cause” as a method he claims will help people live their lives.

    Although the film is fictional, many have pointed out a number of similarities between Hoffman’s character and Scientology founder and author L. Ron Hubbard, which adds an interesting layer to the film.

    It is a challenging film in a number of ways, highlighted by vignettes more than a narrative story — although the movie is not without plot. Yet, as in Anderson’s There Will Be Blood (2007) that starred Daniel Day-Lewis, what one may remember most from the movie is the fine acting combined with haunting images throughout.

    As happens after I watch a Stanley Kubrick film, after watching The Master I keep reconstructing and re-imagining certain scenes and the way the director laid them out. Scenes like one of Phoenix stretched out on a ship above his shipmates or of Hoffman riding a motorcycle in a desert convey a certain haunting feeling that cannot be described in mere words.

    Because of those images and others like them, perhaps the movie will hold up well on repeated viewings. But on my first viewing, I did find the movie watching experience a pleasant one even as I admired the film.

    The weakness in the movie is that pretty much all of the characters, including the Master’s wife played by Amy Adams, are not very likeable. A movie can be enjoyable and about unlikeable characters, but I might have liked the movie more with a little more information about why the characters were like they were, although there were hints that Phoenix’s character’s troubles resulted from the war. Yet, as it was, I spent 2 hours and 18 minutes with unlikeable characters, whose oddities were emphasized with a musical score of dissonant chords.

    I found a similar weakness in There Will Be Blood, and missed a heart that appeared in some of Anderson’s great earlier works like Boogie Nights (1997). Of course, in The Master, Anderson is trying to say something about 1950s America that would have been lost had he included likeable characters. So, I get it.

    Conclusion? The Master is a very good and challenging film but not for everyone. If you are looking for a conventional story with sympathetic characters, you might want to skip this one. But if it is worth it for you to ponder scenes of chilling beauty, make sure to see this one on the big screen.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Listen to Me?: Andrew O’Hehir at Salon has an excellent discussion of the film, praising its genius as a tale about L. Ron Hubbard’s America while thoughtfully considering its weaknesses too. Lisa Kennedy at The Denver Post says the film is both “confounding” and “magnificent.” By contrast, Cole Smiley claims “the audience is left to decide if the movie is some kind of bad joke, or an artistic project gone horribly astray.” Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an 84% critic rating and a 62% audience rating, and that disparity is not surprising considering how the challenging aspects of the film may endear critics more than most general filmgoers.

  • Laugh of the Day: Shining Trailer Parody
  • The 25 Best Films of 2010-2014
  • Pres. Kennedy Advises U.S. to Start Digging
  • The Unfinished Films of Stanley Kubrick
  • The Legacy of Bridget Bishop and the “Witches” of Salem
  • Critics Really Love “Her” (Short Review)
  • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)