Lincoln

I had to force myself a little to look at Lincoln at all and I must say that it was worth watching. A myriad of great actors who have something to say... And Spielberg doesn’t make thoroughly bad movies at all and, although long-winded and boring, he makes the process of pushing through the 13th Amendment interesting. Abe (Daniel Day-Lewis is great and the Oscar nomination is more than justified) uses delay, corruption and twisting the truth to get his way. His kind and wonderfully pointed stories make him look like a nice guy, but because of this, the people have to suffer an extra month of war. A stellar moment in history they say... there’s nothing stellar about trying to get your own way and to succeed by scheming and half-truths. I should point out that during the final vote I had my fingers crossed that it would be passed and found myself with a wider and wider smile at each “Yay". Spielberg was successful in not presenting this period in history as being something ultra significant in creating history. He takes it raw, without emotion. And if it works, fine. And if not, at least they tried. Well it is a bit of a disadvantage that we know how it turns out. So it’s hard for the viewer to be fully satisfied. Excursions away from interiors (there are only a couple) where we see the war and what it involved (severed limbs in the wheelbarrow) take up just a couple of minutes of this lengthy movie. This is precisely the style (apart from the fact that the arguments have a head and tail to them) used when the Czech parliament sits (apart from the fact that in the movie someone is really sitting there and nobody is reading the newspaper or sleeping, in fact they actually speak and express their opinion) and I just can’t watch that for more than a few seconds. At least that Williams did the music, otherwise nothing special. (02/13/2013)

I love how different every Steven Spielberg film has been in recent years. How each time he tries a slightly different approach, a different genre, and works with different actors to get it right every time. Like now. For the record, I consider Amistad to be one of Spielberg's best films ever, which made me all the more eager to see how he would deal with slavery this time around. Almost as good (i.e., Amistad is better after all). To make a two and a half hour long film in which there is only talking and dozens of historical characters pass through obviously bothers some people. I don't understand why. A lot of so-called reviewers grumble that the film is a messy, chatty stew that was made just to win an Oscar(s). And most importantly, "there are no battles - even in War Horse there were more". Oh, my God, people! Lincoln is great precisely because there are no battles. We know that the Civil War is raging, we can imagine what a tragedy it is thanks to the opening scene, but why should we continue to watch it? Isn't it enough to watch what it does to people? I think absolutely. The relentless pursuit of the 13th Amendment is a hundred times more thrilling than scenes of a battlefield where cannons tear people apart. And that effort is well described - as is President Lincoln. A sensible and stubbornly opinionated man who has his quirks, his ailments, but also a sense of humor, a perpetual storyteller and (the nicest surprise for me) a thoroughly skilled schemer. The characters, of which there are definitely not as many as many people claim, can be beautifully understood thanks to their performances, the individual stories into which the whole plot is divided are excellent and especially well ended (the last scene of Tommy Lee Jones!). There's not much to say about the actors, Steven Spielberg doesn't pick bad ones... I just wonder why Liam Neeson turned down the role when he's certainly not too old to be the Lincoln we see here. But Daniel Day-Lewis is... Wow! Amazing! So now it's just classic praise for Kaminski's stunning cinematography, which once again plays with light and shadow and looks great in the movie theatre, and of course Williams' music (it doesn't stand out in the film as much as it does on the separate soundtrack, but it's still divine). Five pure stars. (02/03/2013)

People will expect from this movie whatever they will. It was made by Spielberg, so in this respect there is nothing wrong with it, more or less. Daniel Day-Lewis in turn trained god knows how many years for this character. Everybody keeps saying that he articulates like Abraham, but nobody has really seen him alive. But yeah, I get it. But I’d say that such a movie only makes sense for the USA. Over here, it’s average at best and it’s impossible to have any deep emotions about it. Quite the contrary. I only watched it because of Spielberg and it was a waste of time. (10/18/2014)

You are watching this historical borefest and keep thinking to yourself "where the hell did Spielberg's dynamism and fierceness in individual shots go, where’s the drive?". Lincoln is beautifully shot, solidly narrated with strong historical foundations, and Daniel Day-Lewis is once again captivating. However, films like this should be at least a little bit accessible to the audience, in other words, they must not be boring and tedious. Unfortunately, this was not the case here even in the slightest. (04/23/2014)

Griffith, Ford, Spielberg. Lincoln. Three great American directors and their respective versions of the Lincoln myth. Though Spielberg takes an honest and respectful approach to Lincoln’s personality, creating a cult and idealising a democratic idea is not as important to him as drawing the viewer into the narrative. Above all, this is a riveting political drama, with Abraham Lincoln as the protagonist. It is fascinating to watch how smoothly one of Spielberg’s least action-oriented and least epic films moves forward, how the individual scenes are knitted together, how the director works with the deadline (to get 20 votes by the end of January), how the personal storyline serves the work storyline. The film does not primarily set out to depict Lincoln as a messianic figure demonstrating helpfulness toward all human beings without distinction, and such deification, if it happens, never overshadows the central goal of pushing through the Thirteenth Amendment before the end of the Civil War. We may even have doubts about the “purity” of Lincoln’s relentless  pursuit of justice in the face of the law – we are not led to adopt a clear position as actively as in Spielberg’s other socio-political films, e.g. through impassioned music. Furthermore, the narrative is slowed the most by Lincoln’s “Christ-like” tendency to sit down in front of a group of listeners and start telling them a story. Does this really prove to us that Lincoln is the father of the American nation, who could take the liberty of making jokes about George Washington, or have we entered the realm of political satire about an elderly gentleman who liked to talk at times when it was necessary to act? The father interpretation would clearly be more appropriate also for the repeated adoption of the younger son’s childish perspective (including a very clever narrative feint in the climax), but to me it particularly involved the highlighting of the lack of didacticism in Spielberg’s approach. With the flawlessly cast actors and very impressive images (the meaning-making lighting and placement of the characters, frontal shooting, when there is a reason for every movement), With Lincoln, Spielberg primarily constructed an intelligent drama that ceaselessly keeps us on our toes and requires constant linking of contexts. And only then did he create a myth. 90% (01/26/2013)