Spielberg misses the mark with his long-anticipated take on one of the US's most beloved presidents. Daniel Day-Lewis gives an almighty performance based on morsels of historical information, but is let down by a surprisingly narrow narrative. The film fails, or rather does not triumph, because it is a condensed epic, based on the book 'Team of Rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln' by Doris Kearns Goodwin, and dubiously adapted by Tony Kushner.
Seldom boring, but often mundane, Lincoln, like the book, is about the arduous and uncertain process by which slavery was abolished. We see the political machinations needed to cover up Lincoln's personal abhorrence of slavery with the pretence that ending it would end the civil war.
Spielberg should have kept to the title and made a straight up bio of the great man's life. Perhaps then, the 150-minute run time would be justified. The film ends up being a run-of-the-mill political drama with moments of cringeworthy triumphalism, notably in the closing scenes, where votes are cast to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Pursuing DD-L for the lead role was Spielberg's smartest directorial contribution. No one – no one – could have played Lincoln other than the master craftsman. It takes a genius to play one. The startling Noam Chomsky-esque voice, pensive gestures and body language control all conspire to evoke the supreme intelligence and acumen of this exceptional man. DD-L's physical likeness is a happy coincidence.
Sally Field is noticeable in a minor role as Lincoln's wife. I liked the scene where she undermines Tommy Lee Jones's character, a profane, wig-wearing republican, by reminding him how powerful her husband is and how impotent he is. It isn't necessary to state but I feel compelled to remark just how beautiful she is for a lady in her mid sixties who, incidentally, has been acting since the mid-60s.
In a brilliantly written and played scene, DD-L intellectually justifies ending slavery by recalling Euclid's first common notion of mechanical law: things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Sadly, the theory cannot be applied to the film. DD-L's force far outweighs that of the material. (It won't stop him from making history by winning his third 'best lead actor' Oscar.)
My recurring thought was: why make another guilt-ridden film which attempts to absolve the white male for slavery? Why not do as Tarantino has done and make a film which empowers the black male instead?
Seldom boring, but often mundane, Lincoln, like the book, is about the arduous and uncertain process by which slavery was abolished. We see the political machinations needed to cover up Lincoln's personal abhorrence of slavery with the pretence that ending it would end the civil war.
Spielberg should have kept to the title and made a straight up bio of the great man's life. Perhaps then, the 150-minute run time would be justified. The film ends up being a run-of-the-mill political drama with moments of cringeworthy triumphalism, notably in the closing scenes, where votes are cast to pass the thirteenth amendment.
Pursuing DD-L for the lead role was Spielberg's smartest directorial contribution. No one – no one – could have played Lincoln other than the master craftsman. It takes a genius to play one. The startling Noam Chomsky-esque voice, pensive gestures and body language control all conspire to evoke the supreme intelligence and acumen of this exceptional man. DD-L's physical likeness is a happy coincidence.
Sally Field is noticeable in a minor role as Lincoln's wife. I liked the scene where she undermines Tommy Lee Jones's character, a profane, wig-wearing republican, by reminding him how powerful her husband is and how impotent he is. It isn't necessary to state but I feel compelled to remark just how beautiful she is for a lady in her mid sixties who, incidentally, has been acting since the mid-60s.
In a brilliantly written and played scene, DD-L intellectually justifies ending slavery by recalling Euclid's first common notion of mechanical law: things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Sadly, the theory cannot be applied to the film. DD-L's force far outweighs that of the material. (It won't stop him from making history by winning his third 'best lead actor' Oscar.)
My recurring thought was: why make another guilt-ridden film which attempts to absolve the white male for slavery? Why not do as Tarantino has done and make a film which empowers the black male instead?