Lincoln

Cecil says: OK, I have a confession to make. Within five minutes of the start of Lincoln I had fallen asleep and was apparently heard by Bea to be gently snoring (but only for a couple of breaths, honest).

Trouble was, it was very comfy in the Manly Cinema on Sydney’s North Shore, and the film did begin with a bunch of heavy dialogue by a lot of bearded blokes in black suits talking about very technical things to do, presumably, with the state of the American nation in the midst of the American Civil War.

I did wake up about 20 minutes in to the film and enjoyed the remainder, without any relapse into slumber or boredom.

But part of the problem throughout Lincoln is that it almost feels like part of a Sixth Form (or eleventh grade) multi-media syllabus. It almost needs the teacher to freeze frame now and then to point out who is who and what stage in history we are at.

We managed relatively well, having picked up a fair bit of Civil War history during our year in the States in 2010-11, but how would anybody watching from outside America cope with this film if really all they have as vague reference point is that Lincoln was the President who ended slavery?

Daniel Day-Lewis is, as always, fantastic in role: likeable on some levels, but also exasperatingly boring as he always has to sum up the situation he’s in with some anecdote from his past. Entertaining raconteur, some would say, but boring old buffoon who likes the sound of his own voice, others might have argued…

And I’d love to see some Democrat critique of the film. The Democrats in Congress come across as either scheming underhand politicos or spineless cowards fearful for their own career. Was this really what Democrats were like and if so, how on earth did they transform themselves into a party that could elect Obama? Was FDR the key to Democratic change?

I guess these aren’t the themes of Lincoln, but it might have been nice to get some sort of feel for WHY the Democrats were so opposed to the 13^th Amendment?

I liked this film overall, but I couldn’t help wondering if Spielberg was hoping for a gold star from his history teacher for the effort.

And I might need to see it again once I’ve genned up a bit on some of the key Civil War characters, but I won’t go at the end of a long day next time….

***.5

Bea says: Having spent a year living in Washington DC I was keen to see this film.  Prior to my stint as a docent at the historic American Red Cross headquarters there my knowledge of the American Civil War was based on Gone With the Wind!  Like Cecil, I wondered through the film how those without the benefit of an American education or an interest in the period would cope, and the film was certainly heavy, but I liked that about it - I was ready for it, I guess.

Daniel Day-Lewis was of course excellent in his performance, but the character of Lincoln was stiff and staid, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, and grieving the death of his own son and the many, many sons who had died during the Civil War.  His anecdotes worked for me, they did lighten his character somewhat, as did his affection for his younger son.  I had a little knowledge (from a Smithsonian tour of the American History Museum) of the sadness Lincoln carried with him over his son's death, and of the difficulties that caused his marriage, so I was pleased to see the film address this, and it was certainly good to see Sally Field tackle the role of his wife.

In my opinion, the scene stealer in this film is the highly underrated Tommy Lee Jones, whose performance was shaded both light and dark and not just due to the character he portrayed - we have recently seen Jones in Hope Springs and he did the same thing there, moving me from laughter to tears in the space of a sentence.  He has not always been someone who chose roles well, but I am hoping to see much more of him after these two sterling performances.

One thing I was disappointed by - visiting a civil war hospital in DC and no mention made of Clara Barton?  Shame on you, Spielberg!

***.5