Lincoln

Stoo said:
After learning quite a lot about Lincoln's diction in this very thread, the film's trailer doesn't show anything close to his "supposed" accent.:( Nonetheless, I have high hopes for the movie. We shall see...
If you can find it, Stephen Oates' "With Malice Towards None" is a great read...with regards to his voice the preface touches on the "Lincoln of mythology" who "spoke in a deep fatherly voice..."

It's not a make or break issue for me either, but I'll have a keen ear and eye on the whole of Spielberg's take. I'm betting the preemptive war stance gets some screen time.
Originally Posted by Stoo
Vary intarestin', Rockit
Funny here's what Oates writes:

And then there was the accent - a southern Indiana dialect that would barb much of Lincolns own speech all his life. Like his neighbors, young Lincoln said "howdey" to visitors. He "sot" down and "stayed a spell." He came "outen" a cabin an "yearned" his wages and "made a heap." He "***" from "whar" he had been. He was "hornswoggled" into doing something against his better judgement. He "keered" for his friends and "heered" the latest news. He pointed to "yonder" stream and addressed the head of a committee as "Mr. Cheermun." And he got an "eddication" in log-cabin schools and "larned" about adversity, self-reliance, and the necessity for mutual cooperation with his neighbors.

Vary intarestin' indeed.
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
Spielberg on "60 Minutes"

For Americans, Steven Spielberg is going to be promoting his film on
the CBS Television "60 Minutes" news program tonight, Sunday, October 21.

:)
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
After reading this REVIEW you can understand why from the get go, I've concluded that this work is engineered propoganda whitewashing the current administration under the nostalgia of the past.

It's a good article, but this capsulates my sentiment best...
...(T)he most glaring misstep has to be manner in which Spielberg and Co. handle their depiction of our 16th president: with kid gloves. As great a leader as Lincoln was (the country's finest, by academic consensus), he still savaged the Constitution, led a ruthless and hellish war on the South, and subverted free press and expression like it was his job. There are, at most, a cumulative three sentences in the film addressing these uncomfortable truths...
 
Nice to know before going in...

"It's a betrayal of the job of the historian, to explore the unknown. But it is the job of the filmmaker to use creative "imagination" to recover what is lost to memory. Unavoidably, even at its very best, "this resurrection is a fantasy ... a dream."
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
The rest of the awards season, and who to ask about Indy 5:

Producers Guild of America - January 26 (producers)
Screen Actors Guild - January 27
Director's Guild of America - February 2 (director)
British Academy Awards - February 10 (producers)
Writers Guild of America - February 17
Academy Awards - February 24 (director, producers)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Happy Birthday, Mr. Lincoln

Tomorrow will be February 12th and that is Lincoln's birthday!:)

Since I have The Rail Splitter on my mind:

Has anyone seen the movie yet?:confused: 6 pages of pre-amble and no reviews since it was released. (Last week, it was actually showing on the flight I took but I chose to watch other stuff because I didn't want to see it for the 1st time on such a small screen.) Curious to hear an opinion from someone who has seen it.

Happy B-day, Abe!

P.S. It just struck midnight over here when I posted this so today is now the 12th.
 
Stoo said:
Tomorrow will be February 12th and that is Lincoln's birthday!:)

Since I have The Rail Splitter on my mind:

Has anyone seen the movie yet?:confused: 6 pages of pre-amble and no reviews since it was released. (Last week, it was actually showing on the flight I took but I chose to watch other stuff because I didn't want to see it for the 1st time on such a small screen.) Curious to hear an opinion from someone who has seen it.

Happy B-day, Abe!

P.S. It just struck midnight over here when I posted this so today is now the 12th.

Well, I had reservations about the film and what I did read wasn't encouraging.

There was about a half hour to kill between the end of The Hobbit and Les Miserables so my boy and I ducked in and literally caught the last ten minutes.

On the screen came Mary Todd waxing philosophically about how she would be perceived by future generations...

...I have to say the dialog was insipid and repulsive.

I expect the biggest hurdle for me to overcome would be the dumbed down oversimplified presentation of Lincoln.

Again, from what I have read, (not seen) the film is "uncompromising Lincoln freed the slaves" when what I know is that Lincoln said if he could save the Union without freeing any slaves he would do it.

I figure its just going to turn into a pick fest if/when I see it.

I did see Skyfall and I'm wondering what problem you had with it, (other than M's play by play request)
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well, I had reservations about the film and what I did read wasn't encouraging.

There was about a half hour to kill between the end of The Hobbit and Les Miserables so my boy and I ducked in and literally caught the last ten minutes.

On the screen came Mary Todd waxing philosophically about how she would be perceived by future generations...

...I have to say the dialog was insipid and repulsive.

I expect the biggest hurdle for me to overcome would be the dumbed down oversimplified presentation of Lincoln.

Again, from what I have read, (not seen) the film is "uncompromising Lincoln freed the slaves" when what I know is that Lincoln said if he could save the Union without freeing any slaves he would do it.

I figure its just going to turn into a pick fest if/when I see it.

I did see Skyfall and I'm wondering what problem you had with it, (other than M's play by play request)

The movie was far from "Abe freed the slaves". Anyone who told you that went into the movie with a closed mind and was just looking to bash it. I have a degree in history and teach so I have a particular interest in the subject. The movie I thought did a good job showing the complexity of the issue. It actually shows that Lincoln's opinion on the issue evolved over the course of the war. The movie shows that the members of his party who were uncompromising on the issue of slavery disliked him for not being a strong enough opponent of slavery. I thought the movie did a good job showing the complexity of Lincoln the man, not as the one dimensional image many people have of "Honest Abe" but as a savvy politician who could deal with the issues of the day to get things done. I thought the movie was great.
 
dr.jones1986 said:
The movie was far from "Abe freed the slaves".
Guess I'll have to actually see it...like I wrote.

dr.jones1986 said:
Anyone who told you that went into the movie with a closed mind and was just looking to bash it.
As I wrote, I read it, and your knee jerk reaction to something you cannot know (instead of inquiring) really frames your post in just the manner you post: closed mind[ed]

dr.jones1986 said:
I have a degree in history and teach so I have a particular interest in the subject.
I appreciate your interest, (not so much your bias) but here is part of what I've read:

Columbia University Professor Eric Foner, one of the most eminent historians of the Civil War and Reconstruction, sees the film as an “inside the beltway” rendition of the period. In a recent interview on Jon Wiener’s KPFK radio show, Foner points out that during the period that the movie covers, General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Union Army was marching through South Carolina. Slaves, in full-scale rebellion, were seizing plantations and “occupying” the land that they had worked. Slavery was “dying on the ground,” Foner insisted, not just in the House of Representatives. In Lincoln, “We are back to the old idea of Lincoln freeing the slaves by himself,” Foner says, reinforcing a one-dimensional view of a complicated historical process. The problem is not what the movie shows but what it doesn’t show.

So I have to give greater creedence, (having not seen it of course) to what?

The movie I thought did a good job showing the complexity of the issue. It actually shows that Lincoln's opinion on the issue evolved over the course of the war. The movie shows that the members of his party who were uncompromising on the issue of slavery disliked him for not being a strong enough opponent of slavery. I thought the movie did a good job showing the complexity of Lincoln the man, not as the one dimensional image many people have of "Honest Abe" but as a savvy politician who could deal with the issues of the day to get things done. I thought the movie was great.

There's a lot to get into and I don't particularly fall into the "problem is what it doesn’t show" camp, with choices made like changing Connecticut from unanimously against slavery...

I think its a shame to have such talent, opportunity and true drama, only to make such changes to satisfy...what?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
From the Archives...

This past summer at my family cottage, I found this drawing of Lincoln that I had done when I was a kid. It was copied from a portait painting in the World Book Encyclopedia. (Can't find the image online anywhere).

My grandfather wrote on it: Summer 1975, 8 years old.:eek: (How many 8-year-olds do you know who are fascinated by a foreign politician that died 102 years before they were born?)

So in honour of his birthday, today, I feel like sharing it with you fine folk.:)

Pencil on cardboard, 8"x10":

Lincoln_1975_zps1c66da59.jpg
 
Stoo said:
This past summer at my family cottage, I found this drawing of Lincoln that I had done when I was a kid. It was copied from a portait painting in the World Book Encyclopedia. (Can't find the image online anywhere).
I have one from the 70's and will look for you.

Stoo said:
My grandfather wrote on it: Summer 1975, 8 years old.:eek: (How many 8-year-olds do you know who are fascinated by a foreign politician that died 102 years before they were born?)
Very cool! I'm a bit younger than you but 1976 was incredibly memorable for me as a young child. The sense of national pride during the bicentennial was formative for me, but being a Canadian makes your work more facinating.:hat:

When I was ten, I found a roll of Mitre paper and drew each president in a similar matter along with a brief bio for a school project. Wish I had it, but my teacher kept it...hung it in the hall for the rest of the school year!

Stoo said:
So in honour of his birthday, today, I feel like sharing it with you fine folk.:) Pencil on cardboard, 8"x10"
Cheers! Would have been my grandmother's 100th as well.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Guess I'll have to actually see it...like I wrote.

As I wrote, I read it, and your knee jerk reaction to something you cannot know (instead of inquiring) really frames your post in just the manner you post: closed mind[ed]

I appreciate your interest, (not so much your bias) but here is part of what I've read:



So I have to give greater creedence, (having not seen it of course) to what?



There's a lot to get into and I don't particularly fall into the "problem is what it doesn’t show" camp, with choices made like changing Connecticut from unanimously against slavery...

I think its a shame to have such talent, opportunity and true drama, only to make such changes to satisfy...what?
I couldn't disagree more with the quote from the historian you chose. Of course there were other things going on in the final months of the war. Sherman's march to the sea and subsquent Campaign in the Carolinas did free many people from slavery but with the war coming to a close there needed to be a change to the US Constitution that would ban the institution of slavery in the US forever. The South would never have given up slavery unless they were forced to. Not to mention the fact that Lincoln is absent for much of the climax of the movie because the President does not take part in the proceedings of the House.

As for the Connecticut changing, I agree with you. Spielberg and the other filmmakers should have had the people vote the way the members of congress actually voted. I am not sure, but I could see this not being an intentional change but just laziness on their part. They probably wanted to show that many people in the North did not support abolition (many didn't even support the war effort). They may have just picked a random northern congressman to vote against it to show this issue. Regardless when I heard about this the other day it did strike me as being something that should not have been done.
 
Last edited:
dr.jones1986 said:
The South would never have given up slavery unless they were forced to.
That's really not surprising. More worthy is Lincolns struggle regarding the northern border states. States he would have lost to the Confederacy if he hadn't been indecisive regarding emancipation.


dr.jones1986 said:
As for the Connecticut changing, I agree with you. Spielberg and the other filmmakers should have had the people vote the way the members of congress actually voted. I am not sure, but I could see this not being an intentional change but just laziness on their part. They probably wanted to show that many people in the North did not support abolition (many didn't even support the war effort). They may have just picked a random northern congressman to vote against it to show this issue. Regardless when I heard about this the other day it did strike me as being something that should not have been done.

The real story is just as dramatic, but, as an answer to your question:

Earlier this month, Joe Courtney, a Democratic congressman from Connecticut, wrote to the director saying that the movie incorrectly showed two of his state's House members voting against the amendment for the abolition of slavery. He asked Spielberg to acknowledge the error before the Feb. 24 Oscars -- where Lincoln is nominated in 12 categories, including best picture -- and fix the scene before the movie's DVD release. (Spielberg has said he will give the DVD to any middle school or high school that asks for it.)

"I’m a princess-and-the-pea on this issue, but I think Spielberg should refilm the scene or dub in 'Illinois' for 'Connecticut' before he sends out his DVDs and leaves students everywhere thinking the Nutmeg State is nutty," Dowd wrote in a piece that ran Sunday.

She also noted her "pet peeve about filmmakers who make up facts in stories about real people to add 'drama,' rather than just writing the real facts better. It makes viewers think that realism is just another style in art, so that no movie, no matter how realistic it looks, is believable."

Dowd also talked to Lincoln screenwriter Tony Kushner, who said that in movies, it is acceptable to “manipulate a small detail in the service of a greater historical truth. History doesn’t always organize itself according to the rules of drama. It’s ridiculous. It’s like saying that Lincoln didn't have green socks, he had blue socks.”

But, argued Dowd, "Spielberg’s production people called the National Archives in 2011 to get a copy of the original voting roll and to plumb deeply into the details of the vote on one of America’s most searing moral battles, even asking whether the vote was recorded in a bound volume or on loose ledger forms. That roll shows that the first two votes cast were 'nays' by Democratic congressmen from Illinois, Lincoln’s own state. Wasn’t that enough to show the tension?"
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
This one? ;)
YES!(y) Thank you ever so much for posting it! I used to stare at the painting so much that, now, seeing it again is like seeing an old friend. Eternally grateful, to you, Rocket!:hat: (My proportions were way off but, hey, I was only 8.)

Congratulations to Daniel Day-Lewis for winning the Oscar. During the ceremony, Seth McFarlane sang something like:

"Daniel Day-Lewis, we like the beard,
but Lincoln's voice was kind of weird."


After the discussions we've had in this thread about Lincoln's voice, this comment made me smirk. From the clips that I've seen, Day-Lewis seems to have done a decent interpretation.
 
Stoo said:
I used to stare at the painting so much that, now, seeing it again is like seeing an old friend.(My proportions were way off but, hey, I was only 8.)
I know how you feel, I wish I had any of my early stuff...you're fortunate someone saved that.

Cheers.

One item I wish I had was a 7th grade art class wood stamp I made...the art teacher expected smilie faces, stars, hearts and I whittled the Raiders logo, (on a 5"X3" block!)...had to do it backwards, (thank goodness for dyslexia).
Stoo said:
After the discussions we've had in this thread about Lincoln's voice, this comment made me smirk. From the clips that I've seen, Day-Lewis seems to have done a decent interpretation.

I've still only seen the ranting clips, but I have faith that he's done a fine job.
 
Top