Review: Lincoln is a historical political
drama built on wonderful performances and historical significance that still
resonates today. The film is about President Abraham Lincoln’s battle within
the House of Representatives to pass the thirteenth amendment to the
Constitution (essentially making it illegal to own slaves, among other things)
before the end of the Civil War (which, in its fourth year, saw the South
beginning to wane considerably), as with the war ended it would be much more
difficult (negotiating the peace with the South).
Director
Steven Spielberg has
structured the film to be essentially a political drama centered around the
struggle to pass a piece of legislation – a historic piece of legislation but
one nonetheless – and thus the connection to the main narrative journey for the
audience comes from whether or not they care about the consequences if the
legislation does not pass. Spielberg faces a difficult challenge from the
start, as this being famous (in at least that everyone knows that Lincoln freed
the slaves, in simple terms) informs the audience of the outcome before the
film even starts. Thus, the audience must be drawn into the story by more than
just the outcome of the narrative. Spielberg accomplishes this by also making
the film a character piece focusing on Lincoln (not so much biographically
looking at his career, but more about the man himself, his personality).
Looking
first at how the film works as a political drama, excusing the fact that the
audience already knows how it ends, the film achieves its narrative goals but
lacks a powerful deeper dramatic impact. Its main flaw comes from how Spielberg
manages the tone of the film. For the most part, the film is presented as a
very serious drama with grave consequences to the actions of the characters,
matching the backdrop of the very bloody and devastating Civil War ravishing
the country – the stakes could not be higher. Plus, the importance of passing
the amendment in the House quickly (as it had already been passed in the
Senate), a main narrative point that sets the plot and characters in motion,
stems from Lincoln’s understanding that the North mostly agrees that making
slavery illegal will help end the war, but if the South is going to surrender
in short order then the amendment is not necessarily essential (as Democrats
and conservative Republicans do not support it as adamantly as liberal Republicans).
Thus if the amendment is going to pass at all, it needs to happen before the
South begins its surrender (and thus the urgency). Spielberg is able to convey
how critical the urgency is, but Washington D.C. in the film seems unaffected
by the war. Yes, there are graphic images of the war, but for the most part it
feels very removed from the drama in the film. Spielberg uses an almost playful
tone in many of the political scenes (especially those featuring Bilbo, Latham
and Schell and their mission to buy votes – though, these are among the most
fun moments in the film, but should we be talking about fun moments in a
serious political drama?), which undermines the tension that he is otherwise
building. The House is also comprised of laughable caricatures, with many of
the representatives (particularly the Democrats) portrayed as exaggerated
buffoons (again, how can the audience take the film seriously with characters
such as these). The film at moments feels like a political farce, like
In the Loop, and yet, again,
the stakes could not be higher (is Spielberg really making a satire addressing
today’s political climate?). It is as if Spielberg is worried that the film will
be overly dramatically weighty and wants to infuse light moments into the
narrative to allow the audience to breath (especially given the film’s long
runtime). However, this is ultimately problematic because the audience no
longer feels just how important the passing of the amendment is (even if they intellectually
understand it) nor do they feel the grave pressure that the war is putting on
all of the characters, as the whole political drama is presented to them as a
satire of sorts tonally. The saving grace of the drama however comes in the
form of a few serious characters that convey the full weight of what is going
on (namely Thaddeus Stevens), but it is not quite enough.
To compliment the political drama structure of
the film, Spielberg lays a character study of Lincoln on top, giving the
audience a look into the man. The tone of the character work juxtaposed to the
political drama (satire) does not always mesh well (as the character stuff is
seldom light), often leaving these moments of the film feeling overly tedious
and slow (especially those involving Mary Todd Lincoln). Spielberg wants to
give the audience a full understanding of Lincoln, not just his role in
politics but also his personal life (reminding me of the HBO miniseries
John Adams in this way).
However, despite how good the performances are, the film is first structured as
a political drama and thus the character moments should play into the narrative
of getting the amendment passed (and for the most part they do), everything
else is not needed. Lincoln’s interactions with his family, which Spielberg
uses to develop the character, add very little to the film, even detracting
from it greatly as they drag down the pacing, because they do not inform
Lincoln’s decision-making process in regards to the main narrative, they are
merely present as fluff (and thus unnecessary). It is as if Spielberg presents
Lincoln as a great man accomplishing great things in spite of his personal
family drama, even going so far as to have Mary say as much. Yet, Lincoln seems
unaffected by his personal life when it comes to his handling of the affairs of
state, which again makes these moments narratively and dramatically unneeded. The
audience never feels the toll that his personal life has on him (because it
seems to have none). Spielberg does have some great character moments as well,
however, specifically those featuring one of Lincoln’s many stories
(wonderfully illustrating both the man and his thoughts on particular matters).
The stories reveal much more emotional character detail about Lincoln that
resonates with the audience in relation to the film’s main narrative. If
Spielberg wanted to dive deeper into the character, the film should have been
structured as a character piece primarily, not centering all the dramatic
tension and action on the passing of the amendment, or sought out a longer
format to tell a more in-depth story (like a miniseries).
These
two main faults do hold Lincoln back from being great, as despite its grand
scale, social relevance and overall strong filmmaking (though, I would argue
that the finale image in the film is very sloppy, including the awkward
dissolve) it is far too tedious, infuriatingly so. The film is filled with
beautiful, powerful and electric images and scenes, but is constantly
undermined and compromised emotionally by slow pacing (resulting from a flabby secondary
narrative) and an uneven tone.
Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements:
Steven Spielberg is a master of Hollywood filmmaking. What that means is that he
is the master of making grand event films that are both highly entertaining and
dramatically impactful (regardless of the genre, be them blockbusters or
serious dramas). With Lincoln, Spielberg certainly tries to achieve this
balance, which probably accounts for the lighter tone and caricature-like
characters in a number of the scenes juxtaposed to the serious social and
political importance of the narrative – i.e. he is trying to make a blockbuster
serious drama. However, the film is quite flawed, and thus should not be
counted among his best Hollywood dramas (
Schindler’s List,
Saving Private Ryan and
Munich), and yet it is still
impressive.
John Williams’s score gives
Lincoln an added emotional depth. It has a weight to it, which coveys to the
audience the significance of the characters and events taking place. Williams
also gives Lincoln a classic theme (maybe not among his best, but a fitting one
nonetheless). Cinematographer
Janusz
Kaminski’s lighting gives the film an overall an almost cheerless feel,
matching the season in which it is set (being the dead of winter) and general
mood surrounding the country (that of devastating war). However, it does clash
a bit with the tone at times. In terms of shot composition, Kaminski’s
photography is fantastic. Lincoln is often cast in shadow or in silhouette,
playing off his famous features.
Rick
Carter’s production design compliments the cinematography adding a very
realistic grit and grim to the images. The world of 1865 was a very dirty
place, and Spielberg, Carter and Kaminski are not afraid to present a more
realistic look for the period (instead of the usual gloss that Hollywood films
have) with faded colors, dirt and incessant shadows clouding everything in
darkness and gloom. Overall, the film is very strong aesthetically.
The
acting throughout Lincoln is very good (even if some of the performances tend
towards the side of caricature). It has a massive supporting cast with many
great and well-known actors. However,
James Spader (sorting of playing
an 1865 version of his
The
Office character Robert California) steals almost all his scenes and is
very entertaining (the montage retellings of his Bilbo et al. acquiring votes
is hilarious and completely engaging).
Lee Pace (playing the vocally
opposing Democrat Fernando Wood) is also fantastic and highly entertaining.
David Strathairn (playing
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward, who was also targeted for
assassination on April 14
th, 1865 but his assailant failed) has the
difficult role of being the audience’s in to what is going on, being forced to
mainly convey exposition and context. However, Strathairn is still very good
often playing devil’s advocate to Lincoln.
Sally Field has a thankless (and
grating) role playing Mary Todd Lincoln, left to be an irritation (both for the
audience and) in her husband’s life. She does accomplish being annoying (so I
guess she played her role well?).
Tommy
Lee Jones is brilliant in the film, playing a man (Thaddeus Stevens) that
must comprise his beliefs to ultimately take the first step forward. He is able
to exist both in the exaggerated silliness of the House arguments and still
maintain an emotional connection with the audience (it is quietly the best
performance in the film). As always,
Daniel Day-Lewis completely embodies
his character (in this case Abraham Lincoln). Every line of dialog or movement
feels organic. It is a tough task to take on such an iconic historical figure,
but Day-Lewis brings so much humanity to Lincoln that the audience leaves the
film feeling like they really got a sense of the man.
Summary & score: Lincoln in many ways is a
triumph and a disappointment. 7/10
