In 2012, Timur Bekmambetov gave us Lincoln, a vampire hunter, and Steven Spielberg released a biopic about the 16th president of America. I’m not comparing Spielberg and Timur, just the fact that two completely different films about the same character were released in the same year. We will appreciate the immersion in the role of Abraham Lincoln from Daniel Day-Lewis.
The tape touches on the peak popularity of the 16th president in the United States, commemorating the Civil War: North versus South. Spielberg is not in vain focuses on one of the main historical events, the director at the expense of disputes, due to the constant search for an end to the war shows what the president is ready to go to preserve peace. The footage and dark tones of the tape are impressive: the fights as such are not presented here, but in the exposition we see a president who is close to the people. The issues of slavery are raised, and the very essence of the conflict between the Union and the Confederation shows the spread of slavery in the southern states, because the South was an agricultural region and the North was an industrial one. As a result, we began a struggle not so much for slavery, but for progress and modernization.
The picture is full of calm and measured conclusions of the president, who, as history shows, also used slaves for his own purposes. The ideals of the Americans, as Spielberg reported, affected victory in the war, and if slaves were forced to fight, then after the Civil War they would still remain slaves. This is clearly demonstrated by the soldiers when meeting with Lincoln: an ordinary American and an ordinary African-American, who receive different amounts of army rations, the inability to raise black sergeants into officers.
Then the tape is lost in the constant thoughts of Lincoln, who decides to amend the US Constitution and abolish slavery. But Washington is in the North, where industry and metallurgy are developed, and in the South all agricultural affairs are done at the expense of slaves. Besides, what is the president's voice when the initiative must be supported in the House of Representatives of all states? Here begins the game in search of allies, in dangerous and cunning tricks, blackmail and even fatal consequences.
For some viewers, the film will seem boring, as we spend most of the timekeeping in dark rooms, listening to political speeches, debates in the House, but when the camera is focused on Daniel Day-Lewis, everything else is irrelevant. This beautiful transformation, the calm and quiet voice of the president blows something magical (Russian dubbing actor Alexei Ivashchenko added more significance to this image).
The picture begins to gain momentum from the search for like-minded people who see slavery as a problem and want to end the war as soon as possible. But here comes the Southern states, whose economy is based on slavery. We will witness various machinations, political vicissitudes, blackmail and noisy debates in the House. You can understand the southern states, but the president cannot be persuaded, so completely different conditions come into play.
Behind the smiles of state governors lurk evil serpents, ready to cling to the throat (like Nagin in the neck of Severus). Mrs. Lincoln, played by Sally Field, withstands the onslaught of silent threats and without fear expresses her opinion of others.
“Old Mary Todd is calling me, so maybe it’s time to go to bed.” – Quentin Tarantino
Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones, conveys to the president all the anxiety and shows what can happen after the abolition of slavery. The President’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, stands a mountain for the head of the country, but at the same time solves problems with his own methods. David Strathairn conveys calm with his play, but he can afford to moralize the president. It’s a great game for both actors.
What could go wrong? Most people are against the Thirteenth Amendment because they are deprived of an important resource: slaves. In this vein, the picture more and more throws the viewer into all sorts of disputes and swearing. Epicity is achieved when Abraham Lincoln has already lost his temper, showing how important it is to abolish slavery, not only for the outcome of the war, but for the future of the country. Except the president didn't count one. . .
Steven Spielberg showed an interesting story that was happening inside the walls of the White House, how disputes about laws, signing bills are resolved to lead to the expected consequences. This is a historical drama of the United States, but it is also suitable for the domestic audience to expand knowledge. And Day-Lewis took another Oscar to his collection.
I liked him for his incredible ease. The simple truths in this film were surprisingly nicely portrayed. You can start with the fact that ' the leader' in the film plays calmly, the actor felt this sharpness, that if you bend, it will turn out bad.
The topic itself -- I don't care about it. What happened a hundred years ago, over three nine lands, I am not interested at all, but the music and style of storytelling allow us to call this film a success!
The acting I was worried about was the main character, the rest are not interesting.
There is one note in the film, very unpleasant - it is dullness. Yeah, Spielberg couldn't handle it. Why? I can't say for sure, there's a lot of factors. It's not editing, not even Spielberg, probably a script. There's a problem! The script was dumb, like Rick and Morty. Too, too much. I think the films were taken out by the team that was responsible for the voices. Their positive attitude, some charisma helped to remain satisfied.
Returning to the actors, I would like to mention the selection of personnel - it is beautiful! Walton Goggins, Joseph Gordon-Levith I really like and it was nice to see them. Professionals.
In the final days of the American Civil War, President Lincoln must pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to abolish slavery. It would seem that victory in the war is already in the pocket - supporters of slavery are defeated, but everything is not so simple. The unity of the country has been restored. And the president will have to exert all his might to ensure that the shame of slavery somehow begins to wash away. . .
Paradoxically, it turns out that the war between the South and the North and the defeat of the first did not mean a happy ending. This is not Russia, where the principle of "Woe to the vanquished" applies. #39. In America, the law rules, so the struggle for the 13th Amendment is primarily a struggle for equality. So there is nowhere to wait, and the drama unfolds mainly around political decisions. Probably, this explains not the highest score on the movie sites of this Spielberg picture. And, frankly, despite the inclusion in the plot of Lincoln’s wife (the beautiful role of Sally Field), who does not show wisdom one iota (Lincoln himself, rather, acts in spite of her) and his son, who wants to serve, but neither father nor mother want to see him at the front, the family line of Stephen the Chief Director of Hollywood this time is almost secondary (even if the plot with the character Tommy Lee Jones is even effectively resolved). I think it was more important for him to convey the idea that Lincoln was great not because he won the war, but because he achieved equality, and it was more difficult to do it than to send troops into battle. ' Lincoln is either a parody or a sincere believer in the power of law and law that binds the nation. It's basically a bloody declaration of independence. And Big Abe has to go against his wife for the sake of the nation's interests.
At the same time, the director and, of course, the great Daniel Day Lewis manage to slip between several scyllas and charibds: the southerners are about to appear with a proposal of surrender, the radical Republicans threaten to fail the project if it is not accompanied by an equation, including in electoral rights (by the way, the president himself was rather a racist, about which the film politely keeps silent), time to bribe Democrats who did not pass to the next Congress. Lewis generally gives Big Abe cunning simplicity and wisdom (thanks to the writers for the juicy stories from the experience of Lincoln), and Spielberg seems not to notice the full power of the character - he is not a great orator or commander and certainly not a king. So not the most attractive means in the hands of the president give new realistic colors in the spirit of soft Machiavellianism - freedom justifies both bribing a number of Democratic congressmen, and delaying parliamentarians and lawyer tricks. Only Lincoln is still great and doesn't even smell like revelations. How Spielberg managed this (thanks Lewis, of course) is a mystery.
However, it was not without pathos. But you try to present the biography of Peter the Great or Stalin without exposure and slander, and Spielberg, seemingly not shy to point out corruption and deception, makes the main historical figure of the United States even more important. Not everyone will succeed.
Faced with this picture, almost any layman based on the name will come to the conclusion that before him appeared another biographical tape dedicated, perhaps, to the most beloved President of Americans — Abraham Lincoln — a man whose name is reinforced concrete associated with the liberation of African Americans in the United States. However, the main part of the plot is not devoted to the biography of the first Republican president, nor even the culmination of his biography. The film is dedicated purely to the very thing for which he is so revered by descendants - the abolition of slavery.
In this sense, the film pays much more attention to Thaddeus Stevens (leader of the Radical faction) performed by Tommy Lee Jones - a character deliberately rude and formally unpleasant (which was the historical prototype), but, nevertheless, bribing the viewer with his oratory and completely indisputable correct views. Here Stephens is not only a brilliant performance of the actor, but also a figure that American cinema portrayed exclusively as a marasmatic wrecker of the foundations of the South. In this picture is the rebirth of this image, which eclipsed no less significant personalities involved in the degeneration of the United States as a free nation.
The Lincoln family appears only as a dramatic backdrop to what is happening. The President is forced, in addition to political activities, to fight with almost crazy wife, more than faithfully embodied Sally Field, as well as a son suffering from the fear of parents to let him go to the service. The storyline of the family looks organic, while the reason for the very existence of this branch is clearly understood - without it, the tape would finally lose touch with the title character and turn into a purely political blockbuster.
The film is criticized for its excessive focus on the American audience. The truth. It is unlikely to appeal to a person who does not understand and is not interested in the political realities of those years. For whom the discussion of the "Gettysburg Speech" by colored soldiers at the beginning of the film seems empty chatter - there is nothing to catch here.
At the same time, for a person who knows and understands American history, the film is a simple but very attractive version of the story of resolving a political conflict, with clear positive characters and their antagonists, with an absolutely brilliant cast and the same acting work. Absolutely certainly the film is not for a wide audience, but for knowledgeable and understanding people - on the verge of a masterpiece, forgive me for the historical hard-headedness.
10 out of 10
This film could not be considered biographical and should be called “XIII amendment”, if it was not shot by Steven Spielberg, who clearly understood his task: to break the death mask of the national hero, who became a monument that sits, and to show the viewer the living Abraham Lincoln. To solve this problem, he takes the well-known historical fact of the assassination attempt on Lincoln in the box of the Ford Theatre and transforms the historical scene into the main directorial method of creating an image. He places his hero in a deliberately theatrical environment: a theater of military operations, a family stage in a theater box in unison with operatic performance, a political performance in the spirit of Gogol’s “Inspector” and finally an announcement about the wounding of the president, uttered from the stage of the theater at the closed curtain. The hero is surrounded by grotesque, almost caricatured, characters who scream, wave their hands, run with high knees, wigs, in incredibly lush skirts, with fans, while Lincoln is stingy in movements, gestures and even emotions, emphatically unsuited and unexpressive, which makes him seem so achingly sincere, so openly defenseless that he wants to be covered from prying eyes. The image of Spielberg-Day-Lewis turned out to be so reliable that it is easily projected into all stages of the life and career of the sixteenth President of the United States of America. The viewer can easily imagine little Abraham with a book, his youth, his inauguration, his time proposing to Mary Gold, and the birth of each of his sons.
Just like that! And so talented. If you're Spielberg.
It is more than a biography, more than a film, it is the return of a living hero to the people. And the people applaud standing up.
Spielberg gives us his films not only individual characters, but a whole era.
Steven Spielberg showed himself after Munich (Schindler’s List did not look) not only as a master of science fiction films, but also the creator of the historical genre of cinema, where a special role is played by the detailed consecration of historical events. I didn’t think Spielberg would be able to tackle such a complex subject in the entourage of the American Civil War. I love the movie and the book Gone with the Wind. For me, the figure of Lincoln has always been ambiguous. Ever since I started making history. I quickly realized that I knew nothing about the United States and its history. However, I went to the movies to see that director Steven Spielberg and have to admit the film burned my soul. I've read Lincoln books, but I haven't seen a movie. To be honest, I was not interested in his career as a lawyer or in general the youth of the leader.
I want to say that the film turned out to be really high-quality and interesting. Yes, and the topic was chosen correctly, especially the pages of the history of the United States when it came to the existence of this state. The story of this film is unique in that we are shown an adult Lincoln as an established personality and politics. I liked it better than those American movies. He talked about his difficult childhood, adolescence and youth. The film raises exactly the question that caught everyone in Gone with the Wind - the rights of blacks in the United States, and the issue of the abolition of slavery. We were shown Lincoln as a very human character and emotional. He is portrayed as a charismatic person (like Stalin and Peter I), the latter I have great respect for. He is shown to be a good family man and a man with a sense of humor, followed by the nation. Lincoln nevertheless united the Americans, not by bribing competitors and party litigation, but by seriously uprooting cadres. He did not intend to free the Negroes in the beginning. “Lincoln, even in my speeches I would not have done this if time had not required it.” The interests of the party were of little interest to him. He wanted to preserve a unified state. The poor North could not exist without the South. Do not believe me, so look at the sources there are described. As for the family, his wife suffered from schizophrenia for a long time, and the death of her two sons, then the murder of her husband, decimated her completely. Lincoln couldn't lock her up in a madhouse because he knew it would have a big impact on his career. He was not very kind to his sons either. As a very unstable mental child, Ted was sent to a mental institution. He prevented his father and other employees from working. Robert Lincoln wanted to join the army, but his parents wouldn’t let him in until the end of the war. Rather from the desire to save the child from a devastating war. By the way, the relationship between relatives was also not unambiguous. Lincoln paid little attention to his wife at the end of his life. The children had a relationship with their mother. Although they always left the room when Mrs. Lincoln started having rabies. Ted and Robert Lincoln saw very little and the younger brother did not like much. In short, the film idealizes the world. The film is a story not so much about the struggle for black rights and the attempts of the ordinary person to achieve justice, but a saga about political will, war and unnecessary debate in government. We're shown that bunch of people who decided the fate of millions of Americans. But it was a little different.
As early as 1862, Lincoln said, My supreme aim in this struggle is to preserve the union, not to preserve or abolish slavery. If I could save the union without freeing a single slave, I would do so, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves, I would do so, and if I could save it by freeing some slaves and not freeing others, I would do so. What I'm doing on slavery and for the colored race, I'm doing because I believe it's going to save the union. I have here explained my intention, which I regard as an official duty. And I do not intend to change my often expressed personal desire that all people everywhere should be free.
Failures in the war and its prolongation gradually changed Lincoln's attitude to the question of slavery. He came to the conclusion that the United States would either become completely free or completely slaveholding. It became clear that the main aim of the war, the restoration of the Union, was impossible without the abolition of slavery. Lincoln, who had always advocated the gradual emancipation of the Negroes on a compensatory basis, now believed that slavery should be abolished. Preparations for the abolition of the institute were carried out throughout 1862. On December 30, 1862, the president signed the “Proclamation for the Emancipation of the Slaves,” declaring blacks living in territories in a state of rebellion against the United States “from now on and forever” free. The document gave impetus to the adoption of the XIII Amendment (1865) to the American Constitution, which completely abolished slavery in the United States. The proclamation was rightly criticized by radical Republicans because the liberation of slaves was carried out where the power of the federal government did not extend, but it changed the character of the Civil War, turning it into a war to abolish slavery. In addition, it forced foreign countries, including Britain, not to support the Confederacy. British Prime Minister Palmerston was unable to intervene because of public opposition. Emancipation of slaves allowed the recruitment of black Americans into the army. By the end of the war, there were 180,000 African Americans in the federal forces.
It was at Lincoln’s insistence that Congress on January 31, 1865, adopted the XIII Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibited slavery in the country. At the beginning of 1865, the victory of the North was already predetermined. In his second inaugural speech, Lincoln called for the abandonment of revenge, set the task of reconstructing the South, building a harmonious Union.
This is all the evidence of historians and eyewitnesses of the time.
Now about the film, for which I want to thank the director and actors, is for the game, good costumes and heroes all at the highest level. Spielberg was able to reach a large number of people, both heroes and ordinary citizens. At the same time, you can see several hundred people who had to work on their personal image. Makeup also helped bring the appearance of the actors closer to real historical prototypes. Lincoln himself, played by Daniel Day-Lewis and his wife are just wonderful. I felt like I was transported to another era.
Although history has been changed. This is a film about life, just as Gone with the Wind heroes go to their destination. Here, as in the UV, there are also bloody battles and scenes of death during the Civil War. The conflict itself is more of a social and religious aspect. However, I'm willing to compare it to Gone with the Wind. Because other films about Lincoln and the American Civil War didn't make me feel that much.
This is a great film, from a great director, with a great actor, pro and great personality!
Undoubtedly, director Steven Spielberg is most loved for his family paintings, adventures, fantasy, fiction such as Jurassic Park, Artificial Intelligence, Indiana Jones, etc. From recent it is an adventure fantasy action movie "The Adventure of Tintin", and soon out in rental fantasy fairy tale "BFG".
When you mention this director, you immediately remember Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Alien, and other family paintings that were stuck deep in childhood.
But also maestro Steven Spielberg is known for his war dramas, biographical, and historical tapes. “Save Private Ryan,” “Schindler’s List,” “Empire of the Sun,” “Munich,” “Amistad,” etc.
And of the newest are the biopics “Spy Bridge” and “War Horse”.
And we will talk just about one of the historical films in the huge filmography of this director.
Namely, about the eponymous biographical tape, about the 16th President of the United States Abraham Lincoln – “Lincoln”.
The film covers the very period of Lincoln’s struggle for the freedom of colored people, and the adoption of an amendment to the US Constitution, that is, the period of the Civil War between North and South.
Steven Spielberg is a huge patriot of his country, and he did everything to adequately tell the story of one of the most respected presidents of American history, whose ideals of freedom and equality are still admired by American politicians, and do not mind once again quoting Mr. Lincoln, in a favorable situation for them.
Spielberg coped with his task, he was worthy, and most importantly, reliably told the path of Abraham Lincoln. Before filming, the filmmakers read tons of historical material to convey all the credibility, and they succeeded. Naturally, this is not a documentary, but a feature biographical picture, and historical inaccuracies of artistic liberties can be found (if you are of course a meticulous viewer who loves to check every detail through Wikipedia (despite the fact that Wikipedia is a free library, not a reliable source). But in the film, all these artistic liberties are reduced to a minimum, otherwise it is a smooth and strict film, with a uniform narrative, and most importantly interesting cognitive for the viewer.
The paintings fulfill the main task, it makes the viewer interested in the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln as a historical figure.
The character of Abraham Lincoln was performed by the great actor of his time, a real mastodon of cinema Daniel Day Lewis. Many people know him as “The Butcher” from Martin Scorsese’s Gang of New York. He also appeared in dozens of excellent films. I personally like him in The Last of the Mohycans.
He is the only actor in the world, awarded three consecutive Oscars (the third Oscar for the role of Lincoln).
He is considered one of the greatest actors in the history of cinema. (DiCaprio) Don't be ridiculous. Is it worth talking about when the titles all speak for themselves? I advise everyone to get acquainted with the filmography of this greatest (and most importantly now living) actor in the history of cinema.
To say that he coped with the role of Abraham Lincoln is to say nothing.
Not only did Daniel Lewis look like Lincoln, but he played well. I would call it the best incarnation of Abraham Lincoln on the screen.
Daniel Lewis, as a true professional approached the role thoroughly, while filming the film, the actor became an ardent fan of his character Abraham Lincoln, he learned to sign as the 16th president, and spoke outside the shooting in the language of the time (fully developing an American accent). It was worth it, the character played by Daniel Lewis is great, you believe in him and empathize with him. Deserve the image of Abraham Lincoln on the screen.
I also wanted to mention Sally Field performed by Merry Todd. It was a very strong character similar to the original. During the filming, Field also went to tricks to get used to the role, namely writing Lewis in 19th-century language letters, on behalf of Mary Todd. I think it was worth it, her character turned out to be strong and believable.
Well played by Tomi Lee Jones, plays an important role in the story.
The picture came out with a worthy retelling of the history of Lincoln on film screens.
This is a great film, from a great director, with a great actor, about a great personality!
7 out of 10
“I could have written shorter sermons, but as I begin, so too lazy to stop.”
The intoxication with democratic ideology and the flickering of patriotism are an appropriate and integral part here, rather than a propaganda tool. What would a film about a great American president look like?
Steven Spielberg, of course, idealizes the image of Abraham Lincoln, portraying him as a man of supreme wisdom, almost blameless, who sincerely cares about the fate of his people. Giving it such greatness that is able to “break the frame” (according to the apt expression of Marina Latysheva from RBC daily). At some point, one feels regret that such selfless rulers as the hero of this tape appear in history so rarely. And here drawing such a perfect image, Stephen seems to beat his hands in the chest, bewilderedly shouting: “And this man was shot with the words ‘tyrant’!?.” Well, the scream is heard.
Daniel Day-Lewis breathes life into this image, takes his third golden statuette and finally confirms himself in the status of a great actor. The skill Day-Lewis demonstrates is a different level of play. There is no need to play overly emotionally, there is no need to salivate and crook, depicting a person on the verge of a mental breakdown, because Lincoln was not like that, this other level lies in another: literally to revive the historical person, and not simply, but convincingly. What Daniel does. He reconstructs the habits, manners of his hero, and where in the appropriate scenes it is still necessary to show emotionality, the actor does not overplay, still remains convincing, retains the willfulness of his character. Summarizing this, the image of Lincoln in this picture, thanks to the play of Daniel Day-Lewis, can be called real, perhaps this is the most appropriate word.
Here comes another advantage of the film: with all the above, the film does not slide into a solo benefit of the lead actor. The characters of the second and even the third plan are very well thought out, their characters are spelled out and clearly depicted. These characters, by the way, pass for household names and may look like caricatures of many political figures, and not only political ones. There are the type of people who can’t express their opinion because they are afraid, they are under pressure from the environment; there are those who manage to break this barrier and shout their positions out loud; and there are stubborn idiots who classically prevent progressive guys/men from making the world a better place. Here again we can feel regret for the times when people, even the most unpleasant of them, fought in politics for their views of the world, not for their financial gain. Such films also serve as a reminder of the prejudices that society has been burdened with, some of which may now seem even ridiculous, and this film suggests a long, thorny path that human intelligence has traveled to overcome at least some of them.
It is impossible not to mention the work on the entourage, the creation of an atmosphere. Not for nothing of the two Oscar awards, one of them went to the production artist. But the special effect of all gives the shooting in the muffled range of Janusz Kaminski – an excellent cameraman and a constant companion of Stephen. The final harmony of the technical side of the film gives the editing and soundtrack of John Williams.
“Lincoln” begins with a short scene from one of the battles of the Civil War, the only one in the whole film that completely falls out of the picture. This scene has no value in the plot, but guess why did Steven turn it on? With the help of this short scene, the director deftly suggests the senseless and merciless nature of war, its blunt destructive power - this is exactly what the humanist Spielberg most diligently tries to convey to humanity through his work. Lead to serious reflection with the help of a small detail - maybe this is the genius of the director?
9 out of 10
Steven Spielberg, unexpectedly for me from a director specializing in family films, became the author of good historical films. “Munich”, “War Horse”, the recent “Spy Bridge” and, in fact, “Lincoln” are high-quality paintings based on real historical facts with a slight admixture of the author’s vision of those events. “Lincoln” is not about the life of the 16th President of the United States, but about the most important decision in his life – the proclamation on the abolition of slavery. Today it seems to many that the victory of the North and the emancipation of slaves are two interrelated events and one is impossible without the other. However, this is not the case—even when the victory of the North was obvious, it took Lincoln a lot of trouble to convince the Senate that slavery should be abolished. This achievement I personally consider the most important in the presidency of Lincoln and it is to him that this film is dedicated.
Spielberg was able to turn this historical event into an interesting drama, which is simply impossible to break away from, even if you know from history lessons how it will end. Such "talk" films are not often very interesting, and "Lincoln" is one of them.
The acting of the key characters is also above all praise. Especially successful was the president himself, played by Daniel Day-Lewiss - he not only plays well, but also looks like Abraham Lincoln just one in one.
And, of course, as always with Spielberg, here is a beautifully recreated zeitgeist. The atmosphere of the XIX century directly immerses the viewer in what is happening on the screen, which only strengthens our empathy for these characters.
In my opinion, “Lincoln” is one of the best works of Steven Spielberg and just a great historical film.
9 out of 10
First of all, it is necessary to note the level of respect for the story and the characters with which this film is filled. There are no superfluous characters that are introduced only to fill screen time, there are no superfluous words that do not affect the development of the action. There is only a story about how one event can change the course of history. Lincoln is not a biography to the extent that we are used to seeing films of this genre. This is not a biography of man, but rather a description of political and human struggle, a story of the incredible influence of one man on the minds of his contemporaries, a description of the events that made Lincoln a symbol - the prohibition of slavery and sudden death. If you look at the film from this point of view, the film amazes with its fundamental study of characters and amazing acting.
Daniel Day-Lewis does not play the role of Lincoln, he lives the life of this character. Incredible hit in the image, in the character. The charisma and charm that the actor infused into his character, make you believe that this man was going into battle, that this man was fought, that this man had the ability to influence the history of his country.
No less, maybe even more impressed me with his play Tommy Lee Jones, the fiery speech of his character made me believe that I myself was a witness of a historical event.
And so to infinity you can talk about absolutely the entire cast of this film.
In general, respect and attention to what the characters say is the hallmark of this film. For debates and constant verbal skirmishes you watch with frozen breath. The delightful work of the entire cast who worked on the creation of the film leaves an indelible impression and belief that a good movie with bright characters and thoughtful dialogue will delight the modern viewer for a long time.
Honestly, I have been postponing this film for a long time. And even another Oscar-marathon postponed, because this film was the first in the list, and I look at the list.
I don't like movies about politicians. But I finally decided. He is one of the Pope’s favorite presidents, a well-known fighter for freedom and democracy. I respect him a lot and everything. But, man, how much can you shoot about black rights? I'm tired. It seems that all the writers and directors are trying to curry favor with Obama by making as many films as possible on this topic. I've noticed that in recent years it's just a boom on movies like this. And if I used to watch them with great enthusiasm, because the democrat is at heart, now they only cause rejection. This film is no exception.
Of course, I can't say anything - the game, the costumes are wonderful. The atmosphere is right. The director deservedly received an Oscar. But irresistibly boring. I’ve been bored with a lot of movies lately, but it was even more boring. 2.20 thrusts not everyone will withstand, that's for sure.
It was a pleasure to see the beloved 68-year-old beauty Sarah Field! I consider her nomination deserved, but the Oscar of Day-Lewis, who played Lincoln himself, I consider doubtful. He was good, I don't argue, but not exactly AH. The nominees were better, in my opinion.
In general, I am not impressed at all, but it was useful to look at general education.
2 out of 10
Spielberg made a film about the event, which in the history books is given exactly one line. Legislative abolition of slavery in the United States, forced the army of the Northerners to “fight in a revolutionary way”, together with the law on homesteads, it changed the course of unsuccessfully developing hostilities in favor of the North.
The director showed how a corrupt democracy girl rejects Lincoln’s insistent but free courtships, and only after paying the necessary fee does she begin to falsely and hypocritically act, and even wave lightly (purely symbolically, imitating consensus).
Spielberg shyly shows us the underside of the democratic process, it is described in detail by Pobedonostsev in his article “The Great Lies of Our Time”. “According to the theory of parliamentarism, a reasonable majority should rule, in practice five or six party leaders dominate,” “according to theory, conviction is confirmed by clear arguments during debates, in practice it is guided by the will of leaders and considerations of personal interest,” “in theory, they should be among the best citizens, in practice – they are the most ambitious and impudent citizens.”
Imagine a bunch of stinky men with greasy hair, stinky breath, who have a charming habit of spitting on the floor, screaming with squealing female voices, stomping their feet, and tapping sweaty palms on tables. These individuals are greedy, corrupt, cowardly and ambitious. Imagine? This meeting is called the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. These are the best examples of the human being that inhabit the most democratic country in the world. It is with them that President Lincoln needs to negotiate in order to pass a vital amendment.
The director found Lincoln excellent assistants. A fattened descendant of hobbits named Bilbo (Spader), and a slippery scum Latham (Hawkes). These couple are real singers of democracy, snippy advocates of the system of checks and balances, able to get into any kind (that is, a faction) without soap. Spader, in addition to a completely worn face, flaunts a mustache in the style of Marshal Budenny.
The main supporter of the amendment is played by Tommy Lee Jones. The face of a veteran of American cinema consists of leathery folds, wrinkles, bags, eyelids sagged (Vius cries with envy). Despite the external flabbiness, Congressman Stevens is harder than the old chancre. The reason for his persistence will be so prosaic that even awkward for the old man, the director will explain at the end of the film. Grandpa is just as much a slave to his jade rod as everyone else.
Lewis portrayed former lumberjack Lincoln as a very cold-blooded, ironic, unflappable gentleman with a set of lawyer stories for all occasions. Just one outburst of rage in the whole movie? From the actor you expect extreme malice, insidiousness, cold rabies - all these cute little things that make up the charm of evil, and here - a tired bureaucrat, apparatchik, a slave of procedure. He has to end the war, and swollen, chicky laying (Sally Field - Mrs. Lincoln) spins him balls, hysterics, threatens, in general - rude as he can. Add in a couple of dorky sons who occasionally stain their dad’s jacket with flowing snot, and you’ll see what a pleasure it is to be president.
Bottom line.
Spielberg shamefully exposed the intimate places of democracy, given that the old woman is already in the third millennium - a spectacle for a gourmet.
7 out of 10
“I don’t believe in the equality of everyone and everything, but I do believe in equality before the law.”
It's a great movie, of course. I am glad that our compatriots appreciated it. It would seem that American history should not be of any interest to Russians, except perhaps only for researchers in the field of American culture, to whom I am entitled to consider myself according to my education. However, this film will be interesting not only for researchers, but also for those who are interested in the history and biographies of great people, one of whom, no doubt, was Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States). The smartest man of his time, who made himself. Its history must be recognized not only by Americans, but also by people around the world. He is perhaps the leader that every country would be happy to have as president. It is a shame that America does not hold to the ideals that its own country has created. Not about Lincoln, but about the movie.
The actors played great. That's it. I cannot give a bad word to anyone. The main role of the actor Daniel Day-Lewis, whom I saw for the first time (perhaps to my shame) played perfectly. He won an Oscar for the third time for this role. It was nice to see Lincoln on the screen, which showed us this Oscar-winning actor. The rest of the participants in this film also did not disappoint. Especially pleased with the appearance in the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt. A worthy actor. Impressed Lee Pace in the role of a Democrat and ardent opposition to the amendment Fernando Wood.
According to the plot, as already clear from the announcement, the film tells about the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery throughout the then States of America. This amendment was one of the most important documents adopted by the American Parliament in the relatively short history of the country.
The most interesting events in the film took place, of course, in the House of Representatives. Controversy, debate, filibustering. Everything was shown here. Plus, of course, Lincoln is in the spotlight. His identity has been fully disclosed. I was personally interested in how Honest Abe answered the most inconvenient questions, knowing that he never lied (his lawyering skills here served him well), and how he made difficult decisions to promote what he believed in. It’s impossible to make this movie, because I suspect that most of those who did decide to watch this film, familiar at least in a nutshell with the history of Lincoln. So I can say that the scene where he goes to the theater, just heartbreaking, because the audience understand that we see him in health for the last time.
The only thing worth noting about this film is that little action happens in it. Most of these are conversations, intellectual reasoning, Lincoln stories (some of them very funny), arguments, and parliamentary games. Almost no battles were shown. A couple of burning buildings and a sea of corpses and maimed people.
Overall, the film was very, very thoughtful. Logically built, not boring (despite the absence of hostilities) and informative cinema. I was lucky enough to see the movie on January 31, the day the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865, even though I didn’t know what the movie was about (I didn’t read the announcement). It was a nice coincidence. As pleasant as the fact that when the plot decision on the amendment was already made, outside the window someone started to fireworks. Have you ordered 4D?
I would love to put 10, but I will hold it, because there is no chapel of perfection.
9 out of 10
In his new film, Spielberg amazes the viewer primarily with stability. It is difficult to name another “conveyor” director with such a good reputation. Last January, I celebrated for myself a soulful “Battle Horse” and as if the annual Christmas of something new and grandiose to the cinemas after exactly a year, Lincoln entered with a shuffling gait.
In this regard, it is impossible not to mention other creations of Spielberg - philanthropist. The paintings “Schindler’s List”, “Amistad”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Artificial Intelligence” indirectly, without any doubt, “Munich”, the previously mentioned “War Horse” and “Lincoln” themselves – all of them are permeated by the author’s incredible desire to instill in us a love of life. This kind and thanks to the talent of Spielberg, the tradition of lighting with the help of Hollywood spotlights is not at all Hollywood values, in itself deserves a special prize for outstanding contribution to the development of cinema. That's just the gold statuette for this award will shine too dim compared to the magnitude of the merits of this author.
Now about the movie itself. “Lincoln” will be interesting to everyone... well, almost everyone. By researching the Civil War and the 13th Amendment in Wikipedia, you will be able to understand and appreciate the art of the master. This is a necessity, because they say a lot in this film, but they speak strictly to the cause of freedom and conscience. The conscience of the nation, Abraham Lincoln, is shown in this segment of American history as a politician, and it is manifested everywhere. In the family - how brilliant his Byzantine deceit for the benefit of his eldest son, in the White House (with slippers and without), in relations with others. Lincoln doesn't give brilliant speeches like his successor, the would-be slave M. L. King -- no, he reads on paper! And after talking to the right people here and now, he buys their voice and soul (yes, in those days it was the same thing), telling them amazingly short, semi-anegdotic stories.
A brilliant idea to cut the format of the film (which, incidentally, is quite long) to the episode of making a fateful decision for the nation to adopt the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. In this context, only the truncated format of the biography was able to focus the viewer’s attention on the importance and even epicity of the event. With this format about the 16th president, we learn paradoxically a lot and this, of course, is the merit of the writer, director and the entire cast of the film.
It's worth mentioning the actors. The way Lincoln played, I'm sorry. It is still difficult to say how the brilliant actor Daniel Day-Lewis played the title role in the film. I will say, perhaps, just get rid of this deliberate slouch with which I came out of the cinema. In my average sense, it seems to be such a presidential majestic.
That's probably all. Add to all this the music of the invariable John Williams, who automatically gives to any film, as many people think too much pathetic patriotism. Add in the wonderful (albeit dim in the rays of Day Lewis) play of the supporting actors – especially here I note David Strethhern and Tommy Lee Jones. Add something else that you will find in this film. And on the way out, you and I got an Oscar nominee for 2013, to whom I wouldn't give it. No, it's just that I think Spielberg deserves more. Perhaps the Statue of Liberty? With engraved words on it that could become an epigraph for the film Lincoln:
“Bring to me all the tired, all the poor, who are eager to breathe the air of freedom.”
It is amazing how deceptive the first impression is. At first, I want to stick a low rating, to throw out of my mind tediously filmed article from “Wikipedia”, having previously gushed that Spielberg finally deflated. There may be some truth to this. But even a year after the exhausted viewing, it often pops up in memory. That means something.
Yes, we have a rather boring film adaptation of one relatively small historical episode, a kind of monument. This is a thankless case. Of course, American teachers in droves will lead unfortunate schoolchildren to look at him, and elderly people will pretend that they were almost participants in these events, adding: “That’s just how it was.” On the other hand, a considerable part of the audience, at best, will simply ignore “another pathetic epic with an eye on golden images.”
The task for Spielberg was not so simple. Of course, you could just spit on the rules of good taste and make a mini-series for meticulous connoisseurs of “historical authenticity”. And in all this game in the old days, it is easy to lose the film itself, moving into the category of costume dramas. You could add more action, but then lose all the epicity and certain grandeur of the episode itself, undoubtedly important for the producing country.
And our hero went ahead, deliberately making a monumental movie, which you have to look at, throwing your heads back, which is still not very pleasant.
Yeah, it wasn't without flaws. Even the most patient viewers can hardly resist yawning. Costume fails, a good part of the cast looks clearly not in his plate, and even with false mustaches.
There's no intrigue at all. Fortunately, the authors of the script understand this, intelligently focusing on the essence of the conflict, making the movie rather not about the abolition of slavery, and not about slavery itself, but about the essence of any political actions that can not be done without lies and some cruelty.
Lewis gets a wild high from his role, not shy at all, but miraculously not turning into a caricature. In a different technique, but no less subtly plays Tommy Lee Jones. It seems like he is not playing anyone, which is very difficult to achieve.
Cameraman Kaminski did a suicidal thing by shooting an epic movie in a claustrophobic setting. As if filmed without artificial scenery (where there is always where to turn the camera) and studio lighting, fixing the camera almost on the ceiling. The effect of presence from this is maximum. It is a pity that few people could appreciate it.
Spielberg doesn't idealize Lincoln. He becomes not a hero, but a man who achieves his goal in every way. For the sake of the abolition of slavery practically unleashes a civil war. Was the game worth the candle? The authors cannot answer this question either.
Lincoln is a special figure in American history. And, perhaps, it is worth admitting that this picture will seem quite different to an American or a European. After all, this film is more suitable for the American audience - this is their story.
This picture will tell us about the life of President Abraham Lincoln, namely those days when the fate of the most important thing of his life was decided - the case of amending the law to abolish slavery.
It seems to me that very, very many viewers this film will seem necessary and boring. The picture on the screen is more dark, some kind of harsh and overcast. It's two and a half hours in the movie, and all the while people on the screen are arguing about whether or not this amendment is necessary. Admittedly, if I had not been distracted in some places by the tablet for the messages I received, I would have been bored by somewhere in the 20-30 minutes of the film. But, when you watch this film periodically a little distracted, you do not feel especially heavy.
A wonderful director invites great actors. Actually, I take my hat off to Day-Lewis. He certainly played amazingly and, as I have seen in the photos and pictures, he looks like Lincoln alive. But it seemed to me that the character, played very well by Tommy Lee Jones, is a bit stronger, although the time on the screen is much less. For the main character, I did not feel any inspiration, and for the character of Lee Jones even as much.
The cast should be given credit, because in the picture there are practically no, let’s call it so, “arcade” moments, not to mention special effects. And, therefore, on the actors fall absolutely everything. The only thing that can take the eye away from their play and facial expressions in endless dialogue is, as in all of Spielberg's historical paintings, costumes and sets. All this was done really well - it is clear that a huge work was done.
And yet, personally, I was a bit bored. It's a political movie that shows political games.
Lincoln is a 2012 American political, military drama directed by Steven Spielberg. I’ve heard a lot about this movie and couldn’t help but watch it. This movie takes us back to the life of American President Abraham Lincoln. We see exactly the historical moment when he sought to amend the article of the Constitution on the abolition of slavery. It was from this crucial moment that the outcome of world history changed. We see in this film a true and realistic story of Lincoln’s life and his personal and political life.
The film was believable and meaningful. Each frame is saturated with a share of history, and we see the truth. The director is very strong, the acting is inspiring, so the movie turned out good. But I want to note that it is political, and therefore will not be to everyone's taste. Many people will find this drama boring, but I repeat that it is a historical and political film, so we see what we see. Winner of three Academy Awards for Best Actor Daniel Day-Lewis is a really talented and strong actor. That he could play any role I knew long ago, and in this drama of Lincoln he played realistically and clearly. We look at the actor and we see the American president in his performance. I also wanted to say that it was nice to see Sally Field in this movie. She is a wonderful American actress and winner of two Academy Awards for Best Actress. I love Sally and it's always a pleasure to see her in new movies.
Watch Lincoln and you will see the true story of how history was made, and people gained freedom and rights, and slavery was finally abolished.
7 out of 10
In the history of the United States of America, President Abraham Lincoln occupies a special position and is associated with the real heroes among most Americans, since in American history his main policy is interpreted as a policy aimed at the abolition of slavery. It is known that Lincoln had to go through a real political, but at the same time very tough struggle, the victory of the President was on the verge of collapse. However, his closest associates still managed to lobby the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery. All these events were reflected in the historical drama of the cult titan of Hollywood Steven Spielberg “Lincoln”.
Synopsis Beginning in 1865, the American Civil War is nearing its end. President Lincoln, who is now in his second term, is committed to promoting the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution to abolish slavery. His unique mind and legal experience help him to draw up a plan that will bring true personal freedom to millions of slaves and millions more unborn people.
People who are even a little familiar with the actors of Hollywood, will immediately notice that the cast of “Lincoln” is just full. Of course, a strong, but, frankly, not the brightest role of Lincoln was played by Daniel Day Lewis, who embodied in his character real wisdom, resilience and devotion to human values. The most striking role was played by Sally Field in the image of the first lady of the United States Mary Todd Lincoln, the drama and tragedy in the image of which sometimes just goes off the scale. It is impossible not to mention the role of Tommy Lee Jones, who embodied the role of strict, but at the same time endlessly sympathetic to the black population Tadeusz Stevens, who, despite her undisguised personal hostility to Lincoln, still supported him in the fight.
Directorship When the name of Steven Spielberg sounds on the poster or in the trailer as a director, most viewers immediately associate with such his most striking films as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Of course, there is no denying that Lincoln as a feature film makes a strong impression. However, as a historian, I am very confused that the director shows some exceptionally good and others exceptionally bad. Lincoln is a historical drama, and the 16th president was, in one way or another, a controversial person. Nevertheless, the very process of lobbying for the 13th Amendment looks with extraordinary interest.
Scenario The plot of the picture touches on the problem of resilience and devotion of a person to unthinkable difficulties that a person needs to go through in order to achieve his goals. Lincoln faces a difficult choice as he is forced to choose between the abolition of slavery and peace with the South. Lincoln's entourage does not believe in either, but confidence and devotion to their principles only energize faith among other people, which, in the end, leads to a long-awaited victory.
Result I cannot say that as a historian I am an ardent admirer of Abraham Lincoln, for I find him a very controversial person, despite his contribution to history. However, in the picture it is worth noting its almost complete historical authenticity to the events that took place at the end of the Civil War.
America, the time of the Civil War. For the fourth year in a row, the northern states are fighting the southern states because the blue-coat side has decided to abolish slavery, and the greys believe that without blacks, the entire economy will collapse and the country as such will not. At the head of the Northerners is re-elected for a second term Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis), who is desperately trying to turn the situation in his direction and with the help of the 13th Amendment to achieve the abolition of slavery. The problem is that there are two rather serious obstacles to enacting new legislation. First, the mood in the Senate is such that many party representatives do not support the initiative of the President. Nearly all Democrats and a significant portion of Republicans are against the amendment and are far more interested in ending the war as such. More recently, the Confederates of the South have sent a delegation that is ready to discuss with the North the conditions for peace. If the delegation gets to Washington before the amendment is passed, the subject of slavery will go to the light and talk will only be about peace. Therefore, the likelihood that the debate on the 13th Amendment will fade into the background for many years is so great that these discussions may never begin at all. Now Abraham faces the following tasks: to convince doubting Republicans of his rightness, to win over sufficiently weak-willed Democrats, to achieve a preponderance of votes in the Senate and to end slavery before a peaceful delegation of the South arrives in Washington and begins to restore the union of the States of America.
I’ve been waiting for this movie since it was announced, because the idea of D. D. Lewis playing Honest Abe was enough to make me want to see the result. Actually, what sin to hide, mainly because of him and counted the days before the release of the next creation of Spielberg in the rental. Was it worth the wait? Oh, yeah, at least in terms of casting. Without a doubt, if any cast is perfect, it is everyone involved in Lincoln. We've got Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Jackie Earl Haley and ten other famous people who give their all. We'll get to Lewis now, but the first praises will go to Jones and Field. That's who sparkled with a skill that the central character could not outshine. Sally amazingly emotionally played Lincoln's wife - Mary (confrontation with her husband in the second half, where she begs him not to let their son go to war, almost one of the most lively tantrums that I have ever seen), and Tommy Lee impressively acted as a Republican Thaddeus Stevens, who was the sullen antipode of a calm president, constantly swearing and making noise at meetings.
This is a stunning performance D. D Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. To say that Daniel's task was unbearable is to say absolutely nothing. When you play an icon and, in fact, a symbol of freedom in one person, you either do it without a hitch or you get lynched. Lewis refused Spielberg twice before finally agreeing. To me, this talented Irishman was trying to escape his fate. It didn't work out. Not to mention his role as the sixteenth president. Everything turned out so great that instantly began good jokes about the fact that, they say, Lincoln perfectly played himself on the screen. It was really a challenge for the guy. Exclusively thanks to the amazing inner flair, it was possible to recreate so impressively on the screen a person, about the habits of which almost no information has been preserved. By bits Lewis collected the image and in the end, as they say, smog. So he could that he was forced to seem surprised when the third Oscar in his life for best actor he was literally awarded. He has entered the history of cinema with this film.
Lincoln's second strength is the script. Starting with epic dialogues with monologues, where almost every second speech can be safely torn with quotes and ending with attention to all the historical details of that period of time. Jokingly, Spielberg rented and rebuilt a giant barge just to show off where Lincoln met with Confederate envoys. And they could just play in the hangar scenery, but no, they did not stint at anything (including costumes and other scenery - eyes naturally run away). Reliably recreated and relationships of people, including even the most minor characters. For example, you will be shown the history of the work of savvy agents whom Lincoln hired through Seward’s adviser, so that by outright bribery and promises of high posts after the passage of the 13th Amendment, as many Democrats as possible would win over the president.
In order not to pull the rubber, quickly describe the minuses and summarize. As you might have guessed, this work revolves around a specific theme—the last months of President Lincoln’s life and his personal war in parliament with the opposition. Therefore, if you are not interested in this part of the American history, then you will yawn the whole session for two. Or for four, considering it's a biographical, not a military, drama. No battles will be shown here. A tiny cameo of the north-south carnage will be shown at the outset, but it goes on to make it clear that all the battles in the film will take place in words. Two-and-a-half hours of great, but still chatter. The human factor is higher than ever, the factor of action is low, although full of memorable moments.
In fact, with all my respect for Spielberg and his work, I can’t call Lincoln a must-see movie. It hurts a small and specific period of time here in the spotlight. Of course, lovers of history and other polyglots should run from all sides in the direction of Lincoln, but the rest of him can only offer a wonderful casting. Believe me, the local play of actors is worth that because of it it it was possible to recommend the picture if not to all, then to many.
8 out of 10
We are all used to seeing Steven Spielberg as the king of blockbusters. The genius of epoch-making films, this director will forever remain in the history of world cinema. But Lincoln is a completely different story. It lacks large-scale scenes and shooting, and the film is based on numerous dialogues and the inner world of the characters. In films of this type, any flaws that are easily forgiven in a blockbuster can turn a movie into an absurdity. Taking all this into account, did Steven Spielberg cope with his new role?
Most people will say no. Boring, boring, long. That will be their argument. But these will be the words of uneducated and uninterested latent racists, people completely unfamiliar with the history of the great United States. Yes, the Great United States. And this great country was created, became powerful, and still exists because of people like Abraham Lincoln. The American nation should be grateful to Spielberg for plugging the shining hole caused by the lack of quality film about the sixteenth and most famous US president.
Being one of the best directors in the world, the king of blockbusters approached the creation of this picture fundamentally. All the details worked out. Costumes, everyday life, lifestyle. All of this is absolutely consistent with that era. At least when I read books on American history, that’s how I imagined it. And such blunders as a flag with fifty stars, in my opinion, are not blunders at all. Most likely, the director wanted to emphasize that the things that happened to the country of the 70s of the last century are directly connected with the country of the present.
A separate word should be said about actors. I have never seen, and will hardly ever see, such clearly drawn characters. Day-Lewis is shocked. He didn't just play Lincoln. He was Lincoln. Just two and a half hours. But now, in my memory, Lincoln’s personality will be associated with the character of Del Lewis, and when I read or talk about the sixteenth president, I will not see photographs of the real president, but excerpts from that work. Even the minor characters are beaten at least brilliantly. Take General Grant for example. It was as if he had come down from a historical chronicle. To verify my words, take a $50 bill and look at the person depicted on it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this film may be the culmination of Spielberg’s genius. I can't imagine how hard it took him to create this epic. But he did it! Jaws, Close Encounters and Empire of the Sun may be forgotten, but Lincoln will be remembered by generations of Americans. Indeed, this film is worthy of the hall of fame of the world cinema.
And finally, a quote, quite long, but it's nothing.
A compass I learnt when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you true north from where your standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps, deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp, what's the use of knowing true north?
The story of a well-known president pushing the famous 13th Amendment of “equality,” which no one at the time decidedly wanted to pass. The House of Representatives had to persuade everyone and even postpone negotiations on the surrender of the Southerners.
Surprisingly, the fact is that after the tortured “12 years”, this mocked heavy-handed political thriller looked just choppy. Moreover, there is such an incredible cast that this film definitely beats all records for the number of famous muzzles in each frame. That is, literally in the role of passing soldiers are DeHaan and Lucas Haas, one of the Democrats Walter Goggins bribed postmaster for the vote, Jackie Earl Haley – representative from the Confederation, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the son of a celebrity, brilliant Spader in the role of unscrupulous lobbyist great knocks down the level of pathos, Lee Pace loudly beats Republicans at the debate, Tommy Lee Jones is still able, but Day-Lewis! Oh, my God, this is Day Lewis. There is no actor here, you just naturally see Abraham Lincoln, tired bubbly with protruding ears and ironic grin, quietly telling funny stories and pushing a bunch of people in the right direction with all truths and untruths. A brilliant friend and, I think, deservedly earned an Oscar for this role. True, sometimes it turns out to be ridiculously foreign creature almost nimbus glows, but this is the cons of Spielberg. As well as unnecessary in places protractedness - in fact, almost all scenes of personal life are great slowing down the narrative. It would be better to take only the political part of the story. All these intrigues with collecting votes, political compromises and debates of people of varying degrees of unscrupulousness are shown with unexpected humor. And pathos - well, what to do, the material is such a cornerstone.
“Nothing is settled until it is settled fairly.” Abraham Lincoln
I love biographical films, and I especially like movies about great personalities, like Abraham Lincoln. It would seem that a wonderful director Stephen Spielberg, an excellent actor Daniel Day-Lewis, a talented screenwriter Tony Kushner and a unique composer John Williams had to create a film corresponding to these epithets.
Marketers of the project was the easiest. A big PR campaign was not required for a film called Lincoln. This persona is very significant in American culture and history. Given that this is a biopic, not a fantastic action, the box office in the states is very decent. Of course, the focus was on the American market, but in the rest of the world the film grossed about $ 100 million.
Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for Best Actor in this film. Many people asked, “What is the honor?” Don’t overestimate Day-Lewis’ performance. Other than his striking anthropometric resemblance to Lincoln, I saw nothing else. Yes, all the scenes with his participation he worked perfectly. In fact, they did not ask much of him. One of his similarities brought the film success. Definitely, Day-Lewis is a great actor! I don’t think that’s his best role.
Spielberg is a man with incredible experience in the world of cinema and a master of his craft. The ability to cope with such large-scale projects is its distinguishing feature. This name is already an attractive brand that provides increased interest to advertisers and viewers.
Of course, there are disadvantages without which it is impossible to do. As the old saying goes, “there are no friends in taste and color.” With a movie like Lincoln, you have to be very careful about creating and cultivating a personality. A few “Jewish things” can be noticed, such as Lincoln’s habit of answering questions with parables and stories reminiscent of quotations from famous Jewish books. Lincoln once said, “It would be nice to go to Jerusalem, the city where David and Solomon walked.” What are Spielberg and Kushner trying to hint at? That Abraham Lincoln was Jewish? I don't understand.
I also didn’t like the lack of a scene at the Ford Theatre. This is a very famous and intriguing fact in history. And the last minutes of Lincoln's life are shown very poorly.
Despite all this, I believe that such a film is a must see a real moviegoer. Someone might be scared of the timing of the film, however, it is worth it.
7 out of 10
I love historical films, so I came across this picture. Of course, the presence of Oscar and the eminent director under the wing of the film also influenced, although I am not a fan of Spielberg and his special pathos in films. But the professionalism of the director is visible immediately, for this he is a big bow, as well as the main character - Daniel Day-Lewis. I especially want to note what period of Lincoln’s life was covered in the film, not his entire biography, but the main moments in the history of the United States.
From the first minutes when the soldiers quoted Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech, one begins to understand the greatness and value of the individual for the history of the country. This status of “demigod” stands out clearly, and it stands out not in authority, but in simplicity and good nature. Day – Lewis and Spielberg were able to reflect down to every detail the character of the main servant of the people. Parallel to the political life is his ordinary, where the President has to get along with his wife hysterical, never once smiled for the entire segment of the picture, and his son, whose great desire to enlist in the regular troops and get to the front (and he was not even averse to die). And very well fit into the picture various Lincoln stories from his past career as a lawyer.
I repeat that the film has been refined to the smallest detail, music without excessive pathos, detail and costumes at a height. I don’t know about the others, but I didn’t see any blunders there, which is very popular in historical paintings. To plunge into the atmosphere of that era, to feel the intensity of the situation is very easy thanks to these details. Unfortunately, from the history course, I know the outcome of this bill, which made my feelings a little dull.
Undoubtedly, the film was highly regarded in America, because it is part of their history and we see how democracy was born and developed, this film is certainly for the patriotic education of the nation, but still these foundations such as equality, freedom, fraternity should be not just words, but an idea for humanity. Thank you to the creators for that.
Abraham Lincoln is an important figure in American national culture and history. Two meters tall, it stands as a colossus, an indestructible and eternal symbol of the dream of common equality. To Steven Spielberg, he seems to be a god. The filmmaker with the greatest care reproduces a key moment in the history of the United States – the adoption of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery. All this may look like a serious approach to the school Christmas production, where the baby Jesus is surrounded by lobsters, octopuses and other representatives of animal fauna. But it's not really funny. It gives rise to some sacred awe. It becomes clear why some characters in the film look at Lincoln with such admiring glances. Some people are just born great. And growth emphasizes greatness. He's the measure of everything here. Each participant of the action seems to be specially measured, so that the viewer knows who has not reached the 16th President of the United States. It works — it often seems like Lincoln is a giant in the middle of a sea of actors of varying degrees of recognition. All of them fit perfectly into their images, which allows the main role to be revealed even more. Daniel Day-Lewis once again got used to his hero, becoming indivisible with him. He deserved to take off his hat and admire his talent.
Steven Spielberg proved that he is still very early to retire. His film will be shown in history classes in American schools. Even though Americans have forgotten what “democracy” is, Lincoln will always be the model of a man, a politician, who said what he really believes.
8 out of 10
When I started watching Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, I was filled with skepticism. Americans rarely manage to please history buffs, and in our time in particular, and if you add that I have always been far from loving everything Hollywood. What I saw, however, made me admit my error.
Almost all of the film takes place in January 1865, about three months before the murder of the main character. The history of the U.S. state, due to superpower capabilities, they have always been whitewashed and ennobled (we can say licked), perhaps, more than one other. But there are still irrefutably bright pages, and one of them is associated with the name of Abraham Lincoln.
And everything begins, as befits any patriotic canvas, with a battle. Well, more precisely, not exactly from the battle, but from a half-minute show of the massacre that the Yankees of the North arrange a detachment of southern plantars. Here, of course, you can think about the topic: did the white blacks really act so unitedly in the ranks of the North? Did the slaves unite so easily with the masters (after all, during the entire period of the Civil War, slavery in the northern states was not abolished, and the famous Proclamation for the Emancipation of Slaves in 1863 freed only slaves of the rebel states from slavery). But I don’t want to be nagging: 1 because the film is so good; 2 there’s so much historical truth to it, as for Hollywood.
Still, American creators are able to convey the idea of their American dream to Shirnarmass. Especially when it comes to such a sensitive topic for staffers as the events that laid the foundation for the abolition of slavery and the gradual equalization of the rights of the black population with whites.
Daniel Day-Lewis got used to the role in the best traditions of the Stanislavsky system. I have to admit that the whole movie literally enjoyed his performance. In his work, he did not notice any hint of pathos or any unnaturalness. The main thing is captured in the image of the main character: Lincoln understood and loved his people. Anyone who watches the film will notice that this people moved at the cost of a terrible civil war in the direction of equality (mainly people of different colors) - as the basis for justice, happiness and prosperity of the nation.
The sixteenth president of the United States turned out to be quite a believer, which, however, does not prevent him from sometimes making anti-religious jokes (like the one about a preacher who could write his sermons shorter). The actress who played the president's wife plays extremely well. Very good actress. Playing natural.
The bourgeois one-sidedness of the film, for example, in the scene where Lincoln announces to General Grant his intentions regarding the surrendering troops of the South, did not hide from me:
When he surrenders, send his soldiers home. Back to their farms and shops.
Apparently, the president is referring to Southern General Robert E. Lee and his soldiers. The creators deprived the American president of the understanding that there were already at least factories in the South at that time, where a considerable number of soldiers should probably be sent. Among the Democrats at that time, by the way, there were many supporters of the plantation-slavery system of economy. But capitalist forms of property, as we know, prevailed in the end.
Although Steven Spielberg spent 12 years researching the film, the script was based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book The Rival Team. So you can forgive the writers some historical inaccuracies. Moreover, I believe that Russian directors, having watched this film, will get a natural example of how to competently show and introduce to the values of their country and their national idea. Spielberg did it perfectly.
Watching “Lincoln” is enjoyable, like a true master’s work. The pleasure of an impeccably built script, excellent acting, scenery, most realistically transporting us to America of the second half of the 19th century.
1865. The U.S. Civil War is heading towards its victorious end for the Union. The President of the Northerners inspects the military units that have left the battle and reformed. In front of him are two pairs of soldiers: blacks and whites. Whites are inexperienced, enthusiastic and understand the general spirit of what is happening rather than delve into the details. Negroes have gone through more than one battle, they look into the president’s face without enthusiastic tenderness, remember every word he says and bill for their participation in the war.
The 1862 proclamation granted slaves freedom, but with the end of the war all emergency bylaws would have lapsed, and the president is rushing to pass the 13th Amendment to the constitution enshrining the abolition of slavery. Just re-elected to a second presidential term with special powers, Lincoln rules the country as a "demigod." But even he cannot go beyond the limits defined by law. The president is in a remarkable position to choose not between two evils, but between two blessings, each threatening to destroy the other. On the one hand, the Confederation is ready to make peace, but on the terms of slavery, on the other hand, the House of Representatives hesitates to accept the 13th Amendment, which will cause the bitterness of the southerners and add new victims of the war to the six hundred thousand already suffered.
The means the president uses to achieve his goal seem impossible vegetarian in modern times, but despite the absence of gunfights and blood fountains, tension grows with each scene, making the heart beat excitedly during the climax - the counting of votes in the 13th Amendment vote. War and corpses are shown in only a few episodes, and the strongest is not the one where the battlefield is present. Just one scene that lasts a few seconds, Spielberg leaves no doubt that any killing of a person, especially war, as his concentrated expression, is disgusting and unacceptable.
Daniel Day-Lewis is a perfect President, and Lincoln in his performance is not just a face with a five-dollar bill, but a living man, balancing between solving the problems that determine the fate of the whole country and the outcome of a bloody war, and maintaining fragile peace and tranquility in his family. And this despite the fact that Spielberg conducts more than transparent analogies with his character: in conflict situations, he begins to speak parables, and going to go to the theater, where he will be brought with a mortal wound, turns to his associates, predicting his fate.
“I think I should go. Although I would very much like to stay”. After these words, when the lanky silhouette in the perfectly grotesque high cylinder is removed, illuminated by the light falling from the depths of the frame, it would be possible to start credits. But the director really wants to bring the analogy to the end, and he shows first the scene of death, and then the immortality of his hero in the words of the Gettysburg speech.
Supporting heroes - and all other characters in the film fall under this definition - confidently lead each of their own party, overshadowing one or another trait of the leader's character.
The film is not just fascinating, it gives food for thought. The story that is told in it is known to everyone, but its value is not in the ability to surprise with cheap tricks. The film shows the great people who fought in every sense of the word for the values that matter to them, and the great values that were worth fighting for.
One of the best movies of the last couple of years. Lincoln in the standard American mind is such a mix of Santa Claus and Jesus Christ -- he's so kind and very gracious -- and here's this Great Man Alive. It's real. And how beautifully shown the political system of the United States, the scheme of its interaction and adoption of laws! What struck me most was the historical precision with which the filmmakers and actors approached the film. The divine image of Lincoln, you know, Day-Lewis is a genius. But the fact that everywhere the same average actor Tommy Lee Jones so accurately fell into Stevens is a paradox, because he was taken on this role, as it seemed, solely out of external resemblance to a famous Republican.
A live story coming down to the house. Perhaps Spielberg's best film. At the same time, the pathos in the style of “we will free stupid Negroes, for we are great” is not here. There is a simple realization that slavery is an abomination unworthy of civilized society. And it needs to be eliminated as a contagion. Simple and businesslike. The way it really was. For Lincoln was a man, not just the author of the famous pathos that Americans are forced to teach in school, imposing on them a twisted understanding of their history.
Yes, we were not shown how Lincoln shoots a rebellious crowd (or rather, gives the order). But the image that Day-Lewis created is such that for all the positive character of the hero, you see that he will stop at nothing. “This is the fate of a tyrant,” he said, “and he was a bit of a tyrant.” That in the film and was transmitted through the image of the hero.
A great president, a terrific politician, incredible and eloquent speeches – all this is Abraham Lincoln. What could be done about such a great man (especially for the American people) who has done so much interesting and great in his life? In fact, it's just amazing. Especially if such a master of cinema as Stephen Spielberg is taken up. Yes, lately, Steve’s work is not happy: the fourth “Indiana Jones” turned out to be very weak, “Tintin” is interesting but too fresh, and “War Horse” at all came out pretentious and too long puff, hinting at his early work. And Lincoln was meant to be a rehab for misses and Spielberg's return to his former form. At least that’s what I expected.
In fact, again, nothing went well. To be honest, while watching, I was so bored with everything that happened on the screen that I fell asleep and was able to watch the tape only from the second approach. And after all, I can state the following: a more unsuccessful story about this American president is extremely problematic. Even the relatively recent thrash Bekmambetov, about the “vampire hunter”, was more successful. Why was it necessary to choose to film the life of such an epic character, such a boring and completely uninteresting story? After all, President Lincoln was celebrated not only because of the constitutional amendment that is being discussed here. And how could this historical fact be extended for two and a half hours, and most importantly, why should it be done? In general, there are more questions, answers.
In short, the script of the film can be described as follows. President Lincoln proposed to Congress an amendment on the freedom of people of color on American soil. All this takes place in parallel with the family drama associated with the wife and wishes of the eldest son, as well as with the consequences of the civil war. The whole story rests on whether the president will be able to persuade a certain number of people to vote “yes” and what the final result of the vote will be (although it is already clear how it will end). Help him in collecting signatures will be quite a fun gang of professionals, specializing in persuading a certain kind of people. All this is savored with incredibly tedious dialogues and predictable and stretched for the whole time of timing scenes. Well, all this is seasoned with a certain amount of humor associated mainly with the very group that is engaged in poaching voters.
That's all in principle. But, if you stop hailing “Lincoln” for the indistinct plot and production and note the strong points, then these are acting works. Maybe Daniel Day-Lewis and did not play for his third Oscar (still Joaquin Phoenix was better), but the role still coped perfectly. Although, otherwise simply could not be, because he is an actor-transformer, who is immersed in every role with his head. Lincoln was no exception. Not bad was Tommy Lee Jones, although the wig of his character was somewhat ridiculous. Nominations for “Oscar” and “Golden Globe” for “best supporting actor”, received absolutely deservedly. As expected, the old guard played, in the person of Sally Field, David Stratairn and Hal Holbrook. David Spader, who has not been seen in more or less noticeable projects for a long time, was quite pleased. A little superfluous looked such good actors as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jackie Earl Haley. The appearance on the screen of the latter, I was very much waiting, but he appeared in the end, literally for five minutes.
As always, the high-quality soundtrack created the classic John Williams, without the melodies of which you could doze off in the first half hour. He deserved the golden goat like no other. It was very strange that Lincoln was presented in so many categories. Although, quite honestly, only Day-Lewis won. I'll say a few more words about Spielberg. He is undoubtedly a very skilled director, but the biography of the sixteenth President of the United States, he clearly failed. Many will disagree with me (especially considering the high praise of both viewers and critics, plus large box office fees around the world), but the fact that the movie could be made better and more interesting, is understandable to many.
In the end, “Lincoln” seemed to me too long, poorly staged biopic about the most famous American politician, who in his life has done much more than shown in this tape. According to the acting part, there are no complaints and if you correct the plot, add live dialogue and not such a monotonous production, a great drama would come out. It's all gray and boring, so:
A movie about Lincoln immediately caught my eye. First of all, the director. After all, Steven Spielberg’s films have always been logical, and I had no doubt that he wouldn’t distort the Great Person, make him a vampire hunter or something like that. The film is true to historical events and personalities.
The plot of this film refers to the American Civil War between North and South, the defeat of the Confederacy and the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. This is not a movie, this is life. And although this life spans such a short period of Lincoln’s life and that of the United States, it is the most real one. This is truly a historical drama that shows struggle, power, bitterness. There are no drawbacks to the plot because we are living this short life with Lincoln.
The plot itself develops a little slowly, allowing us to delve into the atmosphere of the film and sanely assess the situation that developed in that historical era.
The actors coped with their images on five! Daniel Day-Lewis in the role of Lincoln looked very organic. He really deserves an Oscar. He lived the life of Lincoln, felt everything on himself. Bravo! Also, I want to mention Sally Field, who played a very strong-willed, strong woman not without her weaknesses, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He had a small role, but he lived it too and became a part of that world, a part of history.
In general, I recommend watching this movie. This page of history really deserves the attention of each of us and it is presented in a very attractive way.
My assessment:
In the 1970s-80s, Steven Spielberg was described as a bold experimenter, collecting large fees. He was able to shoot a kind and touching (and the 80s were supposed to), but nevertheless, an exciting and politically correct film.
In the 90s, he began to remove the non-format, gaining recognition after “Schindler’s List”. And in his place enfant terrible came Quentin Tarantino.
It so happened that after the recognition, Spielberg with sufficient regularity began to make historical paintings with a strong political background. These include Amistad, Munich, and Lincoln. In different ways, you can evaluate Spielberg’s choice of topics. Someone may accuse him of populism, someone will see unknown as infecting a person “the pathos of a great director.” But here I see boring movies on important topics.
It is no coincidence that once in a documentary autobiographical television film Spielberg will say that the scene in which Liam Nisson simply grandiosely played Schindler, he for technical reasons did not include in the film. This is the kind of boring and politically correct films I listed.
However, the importance of the topics raised cannot be denied. A picture of Lincoln was needed – he was an interesting man who had an impact on the development of modern civilization. Moreover, not a boring TV series, but a big film with a major world release, mandatory Oscar nominations and famous stars.
It's nice that Spielberg didn't retell all the biographical facts, focusing on a few key episodes. This made the film more lyrical.
However, the interpretation of historical events, of course, seems too patriotic. After all, the introduction of the amendment to abolish slavery, de facto, did not immediately equalize the rights of the population. And the reasons for such an intense struggle for the amendment could be speculated. After all, its appearance allowed the northerners to call up a significant reinforcement in their army.
But that's all the details. And it is important that Spielberg stylistically was captured by the recently released painting by Robert Redford “Hostage”. Views, plans, the work of the operator – everything seems very similar. Moreover, in the conditional juxtaposition of these two paintings, Redford’s work (which tells some of the circumstances of the investigation into Lincoln’s death) seems much more sincere, sharp and relevant.
Now for Daniel Day-Lewis. He's a wonderful actor. I admired him in "In the Name of the Father" and "The Easiness of Being" and was disappointed by the lack of serious prizes for the role of the Butcher. However, in Spielberg's work, Day-Lewis was very careful. Thanks to makeup and external similarity (as it turned out), the actor easily became very similar to the usual image of a person known to the world. And at that point, his work essentially stopped. The main task was not to break the similarity. Thanks to his unquestionable talent, Daniel, of course, easily played several important episodes. For example, a scene with his wife or a dialogue with Tommy Lee Jones (to my taste – the strongest scene in the whole film).
So, the success for Daniel was the fact of the invitation and work in this film, but not the performance of the role. By the way, with stronger makeup artists, Joseph Gordon-Lewit could be invited to this role.
I was impressed by Tommy Lee Jones. I really like this actor. And here, this juicy part. It's worth a lot to see him lie in bed with his woman after the vote. Despite the apparent ease, it was a very difficult job.
In the end: Spielberg shot an important large-scale, but boring movie. I wouldn't overestimate Daniel Day-Lewis' acting. Nice to see Tommy Lee Jones. Everything is predictable.