Movie Review: "Lincoln"

"Lincoln": C+.  As I was viewing Steven Spielberg's latest epic, Lincoln, in the comfort of my stadium-style seat at the West End theater, I couldn't decide which adjective better described the film, "ponderous" or "tedious." I have settled on labeling it "ponderous tedium." Yes, I know this movie has been hailed as a masterpiece and as an unparalleled accomplishment, but I am not drinking that kool-aid. Sometimes when people go to a comedy club they want to laugh at every joke, maybe as a way of justifying the price they paid for the admission ticket, or perhaps because they fear by not laughing with the crowd they will be deemed unhip. Is that a valid explanation for the almost unanimous praise heaped upon Lincoln? Is it uncool not to like Spielberg's latest offering? I am willing to chance it.

Lincoln focuses on the last four months of President Abraham Lincoln's life. During that time he faced two enormous challenges, viz., bringing an end to the Civil War, and overseeing the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the US House of Representatives. The Thirteenth Amendment, which permanently abolished slavery, went beyond the two year old Emancipation Proclamation, which was deemed a temporary "war powers" edict with limited application. Although he wanted desperately to accomplish both missions, the timing of those two events as they related to each other was problematic. The President and his advisors presumed that the Confederacy would not surrender unless it was assured that its member states would be readmitted to the United States without thenceforth being treated as inferior political entities. In other words, the leaders of the Confereracy would demand that their citizens have representation in Washington under the same rules and regulations as their northern counterparts. If surrender and readmission happened prior to passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, the obvious danger was that the amendment might never be passed by the House due to the southerners' objections. On the other hand, if the Union delayed the final siege required to end the war, that meant more bloodshed for both sides, as hundreds of soldiers were dying every day on the battlefields. Lincoln faced a lose-lose situation. In fact, even if it turned out that the Thirteenth Amendment was already passed by Congress before the end of the war, the amendment could be still rescinded once the former confederate states were able to vote.

The movie fails to show us why Lincoln is considered among the best presidents in history. Instead, it concentrates on Lincoln the politician and deal maker. He needs bipartisan support to get the amendment passed, and this means keeping his fellow Republicans in the fold and convincing roughly a half dozen Democrats to buck their party. Lincoln is portrayed as a master of political strategy. There is constant head counting to determine how many more votes are required in the House. Lincoln would dispatch his representatives to use hard sell tactics, if necessary, to convince politicians on the fence, and even those who'd already announced their opposition to the amendment, to vote "Aye." Lincoln and his henchmen were not above playing dirty pool, promising jobs to some men who could be bribed, and even going so far as to change official election results. Spielberg takes us along every step of the way. There is meeting after meeting in smoke filled rooms, followed by debates on the House floor. Almost every meeting and debate has a character or two delivering a grandiose speech with much pomp and gesticulation. This might make for engaging theater, but that form of storytelling does not lend itself well to cinema. Two, or at the most three, of those scenes would have sufficed for me, but this film is comprised of a series of them. When you deliver the same message time after time, the effectiveness of any one of them becomes diluted, especially for a movie viewer who is subjected to the repetitiveness over the course of a hundred and forty minutes.

There is an old saying that you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Lincoln illustrates that axiom. All the major players are middle age white guys wearing vested suits. Are they Republicans? Democrats? (Members of the two parties do not sit on opposite sides of the proverbial aisle for easy identification.) Reporters? Cabinet members? Lower ranking gophers? For example, W.N. Bilbo, the character played by James Spader, randomly shows his face from time to time with his ever-present cigar. He speaks a line here and there but does not really add anything to the plot development. Even as I write this, I'm not sure who Bilbo is supposed to be or why he is in the film. (I'm guessing a hack reporter.) Maybe Spielberg is a big Boston Legal fan and wanted to give Spader some work. One thing I found puzzling is that even though there are dozens of politicians and government workers in the cast of characters, Vice President Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln to the presidency following his assassination, was left out of the story. I guess he was attending the funeral of a foreign dignitary, a task often relegated to the VP even today.

No explanation is given why some representatives from the Union States are opposed to the amendment - - we already know why the slave-owning southerners are against it - - yet when the roll is called in the House many of them vote "Nay." Another flaw is the dreaded non-sequitur which rears its ugly head at key moments. For example, when there is a question on the House floor as to whether the President's representatives are currently meeting with a Confederate delegation in Richmond, Virginia, there is a motion to postpone the vote on the amendment. Maybe I was dreaming, but I swear that motion passed. Yet, a few minutes later the crucial vote proceeds. A congressman from Kentucky tells everyone that he is going to vote against the amendment, but for reasons unexplained he changes his mind when the roll is called. After Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, secretly meets with President Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward and is informed that his demands are not going to be met, the southern army surrenders anyway. Why show the meeting if the logical expected result from it does not materialize? Two plus two does not always equal four here. 

For all its faults, the performance by Daniel Day-Lewis is special. I can't remember anyone else nailing Honest Abe so well. This is the first movie Day-Lewis has made in three years, and the first one anyone has actually heard of since 2007. According to the Hollywood press, he originally turned down the beseeching Spielberg, but Leonardo DiCaprio persuaded him to change his mind. Had he not, I would be forced to grade Lincoln a C.