What doesn't? I liked Lincoln better than Tintin but not as much as War Horse. Had a better time with that movie. They were all pretty good flicks.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
LINCOLN |OT| (dir. Spielberg; Daniel Day-Lewis)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Again, you've just completely lost me.
Lincoln is so much better than War Horse it isn't even funny.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
First off, Lincoln was personally motivated to abolish slavery, not merely for political reasons, but because he thought it was immoral. What he is expressing in that quote is his belief that the foremost duty of a president is to preserve the union. As he said at the end of the letter which contains that quote:
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Second, the letter itself demands context. At this point in 1862 Lincoln has already decided to pursue emancipation. So what he is doing is trying to make emancipation politically palatable by associating the preservation of the union with the freeing of slaves. Lincoln hoped that by issuing the proclamation as an order to hasten the demise of the confederacy and therefore the end of the war, he would garner more public support for it.
In reality, Lincoln believed that slavery was an explicit rejection of the moral clarity and eminence contained within the Declaration of Independence, depriving "our republican example of its just influence in the world" (Lincoln's words from the Douglas debates). I believe Lincoln, while he wasn't going to risk destroying the union just to destroy slavery, thought that the perseverance of slavery would seriously harm America's adherence to the principles upon which the country was initially founded. Lincoln's views on slavery were complicated and not always based on the highest ethical considerations, but his objections to slavery were not purely, or even mostly, political either. Most of all, Lincoln knew how to play the political game, and his actions contributed a great deal to the eventual abolition of slavery. So I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.
This is actually such a central rule to the foundations of our universe that merely speaking the alternative creates a parallel dimension wherein such a statement would be true.
because if the wrongness of saying War Horse was better than Lincoln was not contained within its own alternative universe, all existence would be destroyed.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Saw it last night.
Loved it.
My only wish is that Spielberg had
Otherwise, a fantastic film--one of my faves of the year.
I pity anyone in the Best Actor category not named Daniel Day-Lewis.
Loved it.
My only wish is that Spielberg had
ended the film with Lincoln's slow walk out of the WH and off to the play. I felt like that would have been a much more stylish and epic ending. I felt that everything that followed was unnecessary--we know how Lincoln's story ends, no need to even cover it here, imo.
Otherwise, a fantastic film--one of my faves of the year.
I pity anyone in the Best Actor category not named Daniel Day-Lewis.
Ha, didn't know War Horse wasn't popular here.
On a side note I did think it was interesting that Liam Neeson was attached to this project for a long time, apparently(according to IMDB anyways). Me and my friends were wondering what it would have been like with him in the role instead. I'd still take DDL though.
On a side note I did think it was interesting that Liam Neeson was attached to this project for a long time, apparently(according to IMDB anyways). Me and my friends were wondering what it would have been like with him in the role instead. I'd still take DDL though.
Alright.
Well yes of course. I'm not going to dispute anything you said for the most part. If I was alive in America during this time I wouldn't have liked either side personally.
I'm against slavery so I would have disliked the confederacy. But I believe political entities should have a right to secede so I would have been against the union's war against the south as well. I don't feel like this is a bad view point. Surely most of us can agree that sometimes secessions ARE warranted in the world. After all America was based off of secession in itself.
I basically would have been like Lysander Spooner.
If Texas wanted to secede right now it would not bother me in any way shape or form.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
The civil war was a revolution against the slave power more than anything. I really wish history books would stop printing the narrative about the civil war being a tragedy that was caused by states' rights and an overbearing federal government. It was a war to rid the country of slave holders who used their political capital to oppress not just blacks, but poor whites as well. Marx was right when he claimed slavery was holding back the economic progress of all working class people. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans were really revolutionaries more than politicians. Watered-down revolutionaries who had to play politics to get their way, but ones nonetheless.
I am aware that slavery played a huge role in it. The people who make the state's rights argument are correct but only if they include the fact that the south was seceding over their supposed right to have slavery in the first place. (Slavery being a right is so funny it hurts. It goes against Locke's theory of property in every shape and form). You have your own argument but Plantation economies are NOT sustainable in a world that is moving towards industrialization. Even if the south successfully seceded at some point they would have HAD to move on to an industrial economy or be left behind. Plantation economies don't innovate. They stagnate.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I caught this this morning and really enjoyed just about every moment of it. Great acting, great dialogue, great visuals.
I kind of felt like they should have ended it with Lincoln walking out rather than with him on his death bed, though.
I kind of felt like they should have ended it with Lincoln walking out rather than with him on his death bed, though.
I think at this point like 93% of people who have seen this movie on Earth have independently come to this conclusion. It's just so painfully obvious
The rights of the south to secede are vastly over stated. Legally they had no basis under the constitution to do so, but I would agree that they probably should have had a right to non-unilateral secession.
The trouble is that the southern states attempted to secede unilaterally, believing that simply declaring their secession made it a legal reality. After joining in the union, they placed themselves under the obligation of seeking the approval of the rest of them before leaving. Unilateral secession would make a hash out of the democratic process - any state that disapproved in the slightest of any new policy could threaten to leave, and the integrity of the nation would never be secure.
A proper route of secession would have been to go to the states and seek approval for leaving the country. A period of negotiation would follow and then eventually independence. Given the sentiment in the north at this time, such a route may well have succeeded. For examples of properly handled independence movements see Icelandic Independence movement or the British Comonwealth's home rule decrees.
Failing to consult with their fellow states when they declared secession, the southern states were in effect exercising the right of revolution. Any peoples have the right to throw off a form of government which they do not approve - but by doing so outside the bounds of legality they risk being compelled by force to obey.
Even so, war would probably not have occurred, except that the southern leaders brought it upon themselves. It is important to remember that it was the south, not the north, who began the war by firing upon Fort Sumter. After this event, a wave of militant patriotism swept both sections of the country making a negotiated settlement virtually impossible.
So in every sense, both by their illegal form of secession and by their choice to begin the war, the southern leaders bear the blame for the civil war which followed. And their cause (the protection of the 'right' to treat other humans as property) was terrible. I find nothing justifiable about their actions.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I'm the opposite. I love a good movie where acting and dialogue are the primary focus. Seems like everything needs action and romance scenes to be a "complete" movie. This was rather refreshing in that respect.
With that said, what are some good movies or documentaries on the civil war, Lincoln, and the thirteenth amendment? Nothing that romanticizes too heavily, please.
I think it's sad people don't realize that the tense, edge-of-your-seat nature of some of the best dialogue scenes rival anything in an action scene.
I did think that quick flash of the battle at the start of the movie was lovely to look at, very accurate to how a Civil War battle might have been, but I don't think the movie needed even one second more.
Ken Burns CIVIL WAR documentary is, to me, unparalleled among films about the era. Fantastic use of real photography from the time and "in their own words" readings of letters/correspondence/etc from people who actually participated in the war, giving it a gritty almost journalistic feel to it. It's typical Ken Burns style, but boy is it effective here.
MrPink93485
Member
Anybody else love Michael Stuhlbarg (George Yaeman) in this movie? His scene during the final vote got a huge reaction at the theater for its sheer weirdness and awesome.
There were a few moments where Spielberg used techniques that felt manipulative, but everything happening under Spielberg's heapings of whipped cream was compelling enough to survive. I'm particularly reminded of the crowd reactions and music before Stevens denied that he believed in the equality of all men other than equality under the law.
Maybe someday there will be a fan edit that cuts a few seconds here and there to tone down the schmaltz as it's the only thing keeping this from being a perfect film. It's an instant classic either way, though.
I was talking about War Horse though. There is DEFINITELY some "schmaltz" in Lincoln and a few moments of bs sentimentality, as I said earlier, but compared to War Horse it's pretty freakin' understated. I think it's probably one of the more recent Spielberg movies where he didn't bog himself down with manipulative filming techniques.
Expendable.
Member
War Horse was a more well-rounded film than Lincoln, certainly. Cut out the boring family stuff and I'd give Lincoln the edge. You're splitting hairs though, they are both mid-level Spielberg.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
Just saw it. I thought it was pretty damn good.
The appearances of Shane Vendrell and Arnold Rothstein was a nice bonus.
The appearances of Shane Vendrell and Arnold Rothstein was a nice bonus.
How is this movie doing box office wise? Above, at or below expectations?
I have to think that there will be terrific word of mouth. The audience applauded at the showing I went to and there was a general feeling of satisfaction that I have rarely if ever felt from a movie audience.
I have to think that there will be terrific word of mouth. The audience applauded at the showing I went to and there was a general feeling of satisfaction that I have rarely if ever felt from a movie audience.
MrPink93485
Member
It's doing very well, especially considering it's not playing in a ton of theaters (Currently about 2000, half the amount compared to say, Twilight). Will easily clear 100 million and could do 125 million +.
Byakuya769
Member
I liked it. Definitely had the Spielberg sap all over it, but I really forget that was Daniel Day Lewis. (and the sap got me a few times).
Best or second best Spielberg movie I've seen, although admittedly, I haven't seen Munich. That said, the ending is a travesty, even more so because they clearly knew it was bad and tried to mix it up. They wimped out of ending the movie when it obviously should've ended. Just dumb. Fortunately the rest of the piece is well done.
Casting is really good all around. DDL, Tommy Lee, Jared Harris all obviously great. The unexpected good performance came from the Confederate VP for me -- didn't expect him to be so solid.
The history books fail to approach the topic correctly because it's part and parcel of the deliberate Southern whitewashing of Civil War history, as part of the Lost Cause mythos. I suspect this is also true of the consistently poorly informed idea that Lincoln was a supporter of slavery.
Casting is really good all around. DDL, Tommy Lee, Jared Harris all obviously great. The unexpected good performance came from the Confederate VP for me -- didn't expect him to be so solid.
The history books fail to approach the topic correctly because it's part and parcel of the deliberate Southern whitewashing of Civil War history, as part of the Lost Cause mythos. I suspect this is also true of the consistently poorly informed idea that Lincoln was a supporter of slavery.
Davey Cakes
Member
Yeah. DDL gets a lot of praise for most of his roles anyway, but man, he completely disappeared into the role of Lincoln. I didn't see DDL, I saw Lincoln himself.
A job well done.
Expendable.
Member
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I know, right? If Solo had put the same care into his OT as DM did for TDKR, maybe it would have the same post count.
((j_k_redtail
Member
Saw it tonight - great, great movie.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I feel the same way. It's really hard to believe that the same actor played Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood as Lincoln in this movie. Incredible to me, honestly.
Great film. And yeah, give Daniel Day Lewis the Oscar now and be done with it.
However, so, I am Canadian and don't know much about the Civil War era (it's actually really interesting so I think I'm gonna start looking into it a bit. Educate myself haha), so I'm sure it's a silly question, but I'm curious as to why the Democrat and Republican parties are so different nowadays? What the heck happened? Haha.
However, so, I am Canadian and don't know much about the Civil War era (it's actually really interesting so I think I'm gonna start looking into it a bit. Educate myself haha), so I'm sure it's a silly question, but I'm curious as to why the Democrat and Republican parties are so different nowadays? What the heck happened? Haha.
I enjoyed it a lot. Felt like an excellent play, which makes sense considering the writer. Loved Spader as a pleasant surprise. So many great actors in supporting roles. Jared Harris' voice seemed a bit overdone, but I'm sure that's a result of Lane Pryce more than anything.
Surprised with the level of humor in the film.
The melodrama didn't seem over the top outside of the vote and the end.
Surprised with the level of humor in the film.
The melodrama didn't seem over the top outside of the vote and the end.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Probably some combination of opposition to the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's alienation of southern Democrats with his civil rights legislation, and the right's growing comfort with religious extremism.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
WHERE DOES IT RANK ON YOUR SPIELBERG LIST?
OMG A NEW RANKING THREAD YYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAY!
j_k_redtail
Member
Up until the middle of the last century, most black Americans were Republicans, and the Solid South was solidly Democratic. President Eisenhower, a Republican, sent troops to Little Rock Central to protect black students once the Supreme Court ordered an end to racial segregation in schools. Back then you could argue that the Republicans were the more liberal of the two parties. (This is where tea-party types get the idea that MLK Jr. was a Republican - he mayvery well have been.)
What changed: the Civil Rights movement really took off, the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. Lyndon Johnson, a southern Democrat (JFK's vice president) signed both. Among other things, these laws limited the ability of the old Confederate states to use gerrymandering to disenfranchise black voters. This is where the Libertarian/Tenther wing of the GOP really got its start: they saw the VRA as an unconstitutional power grab by the Federal government and an infringement upon their states' rights (sound familiar?)
The big turning point: The Republican Party responded with the Southern Strategy, which was basically a plan to appeal to southern racism (and states' rights) to win votes. By 1964, the Solid South was solidly Republican. [edit: see below]
ConfusingJazz
Member
BZZT!
While 1964 is the turning point of Southern politics, it was most definitely not solidly Republican. Hell, they all went for Carter in 1976.
The end of the traditional Democratic South was 1994, when the last of the New Deal Democrats had lost their power.
j_k_redtail
Member
Touche.
Thank you! Gonna read this all tonight
Edit: or I'm super slow lol. Thank you everyone for answering. Fascinating. Will read wiki and all things here.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
It's useful to note that blacks have been voting Democrat at least as far back as FDR as part of the original New Deal coalition, which included minorities, especially as African Americans began migrating to northern cities. The Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s simply made those gains permanent.
From another thread
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=499906&highlight=
"Back in the late 1800s we had anti-slavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats. Republicans were populated in the Northeast and Democrats in the south. When the hell did the two parties switch sides? "
The 1930s, when the long-poorer South started to converge with the rest of America in earnings [and hence favoured limited government policies], and the Northeast and Pacific ceased to be the bastion of old Yankee Protestants and absorbed ever higher numbers of immigrants. The beliefs of Calvin Coolidge, the Yankee conservative in Massachusetts in the 1920s, are nearly identical to modern day Republicans [other than the tariff]; he and his allies didn't change, but their electorates did. Immigrants have always voted for the Democratic Party [cf: the Irish machines in the Civil War] until their ethnic identity ceased being relevant and they became assimilated into "whiteness". (Even today, white Protestants vote overwhelmingly Republican even in California: if you confined the California electorate to their votes, CA would look like Arizona.) Once FDR remade the New Deal Party system to be about welfare state politics, the cleavages became rich and poor; as the regions changed on that front, they changed their alignments. (Note that parts of the South started voting Republican in the 1950s, well before most of civil rights politics took place, and indeed, when Republicans were still clearly the more supportive party on that front.)
As to race: Republicans were always for formal legal equality, but bristled against anything smacking of economic redistribution or compensation for historical wrongs beyond whatever was done to compensate specific individuals. [From the film: see the gap between Thaddeus Stevens, as a clear outlier, and the rest of the Republican Party which was far more conservative and refused to use government power to mandate broader equality. Ever wonder why the Republicans who fought the Civil War gutted the Freedmen's Bureau so quickly?] Republicans have stayed more or less frozen in time with their views, believing them to be timeless classical liberal and/or divinely ordained Christian principles- compare Frederick Douglass's beliefs to Clarence Thomas's, and you'll see they're the same. Democrats pivoted around from being anti-black to believing government needed to play a more proactive force in righting structural wrongs.
It's fun and easy--especially here on a left-leaning site like GAF-- to say "THE RACISTS ALL BECAME REPUBLICANS, LOL," but it's actually a result of economics instead and long preceded the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
EDIT: I should note, this is a stylized, general story, and does not include a few outlier places like Oregon, Vermont, or New Hampshire, which remain overwhelmingly homogeneous, but any attempt to explain such a broad change as national realignment will include some gaps. I could elaborate in more detail on such idiosyncratic cases, but it's not really relevant to the question asked.
EDIT 2: Also, I'm not endorsing the garbage Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War as about states' rights [as claimed by the neo-libertarian southerners] or economics [as claimed by Marxist southerners]. Party realignment in the 20th century was about economics. The Civil War was about slavery, full stop, as all the secession documents and the infamous speech given by Alexander Stephens- the lead Confederate peace commissioner- testify. A few outliers aside, Northerners believed in states' rights just as strongly as did southerners. [Hence Lincoln's refusal, during the long speech near the beginning, to interfere with slavery unless he could hook it to war powers.]
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
- Status