Lincoln (A+)

Another election year has come to a close, and if there is one thing the year-long battle has reminded us of, it’s that we really hate politics. Democracy has an enormous amount of benefits, but it’s crucial flaw is that it requires the people to come together and debate, compromise, and battle until they can nominate/elect other people to spend their career debating, compromising, and battling for a solution that will make no one completely happy. In a way it would be better to have a dictator who says “this is the plan, and there is nothing you can do about it, so you might as well shut up.” Obviously, the above statement isn’t true (having a dictator with absolute power is bad idea) but sometimes it feels like it is. That is why to see exactly why democracy is a system we should stick with, it is important to see how it was handled at its absolute lowest point in US history: the American Civil War.

When Lincoln begins, the Civil War is in its fourth year. The surrender of the South is now an inevitability. The Emancipation Proclamation, which currently bans slavery in most of the South, was implemented as part of Lincoln’s war powers and once the war ends will be struck down by the Supreme Court. The Republicans, President Abraham Lincoln’s party, are planning to try and pass an amendment to the constitution that bans slavery completely. Most expect this to happen in the Spring, when there will be even more Republican seats in Congress. Lincoln makes the controversial decision to have the proposed amendment be voted on by the end of the current year. Lincoln fears that if he waits, the war will end and people, wanting a smooth reconstruction period, will prevent the amendment from passing. The problem is that voting now means that he will need far more votes from the rival party, the Democrats, since the newly-elected Republicans are not yet in office. To accomplish this, Lincoln makes the borderline illegal decision to offer important (and high paying) government jobs to out-bound Democrats in return for votes. He also resorts to postponing peace negotiations with the South, even though these negotiations would most likely lead to an near-unconditional surrender.

Aside from the Democrats, Lincoln is entangled in a political battle with Thaddeus Stevens, the 1800s equivalent of House Majority Leader, who is not only an abolitionist but is also openly in favor of black voting rights and (gasp!) interracial marriage. Stevens views Lincoln’s off-the-books deals and compromises with the Democrats as appalling and is already expecting a lengthy battle with the president over civil rights issues during the reconstruction. Lincoln fears Stevens outspoken attitude toward racial equality will scare off Democrats who could be persuaded to be in favor of the amendment; the president implores Stevens to deny his more radical beliefs until after the vote.

Munich scribe Tony Kushner made an interesting choice when writing Lincoln to base the plot around the six month period surrounding the passage of the amendment, not the life of Lincoln. It was undoubtedly the right choice. Banning slavery was the crowning achievement of Lincoln’s life, and the story surrounding that is by far the most interesting. Furthermore, by having the action focused in such a short time period it avoids the distant feeling created by the multiple time skips that most often accompany biopics. The audience feels all the tension, all the passion, and is completely engrossed in the moment, even if it did happen 150 years ago. Jumping around in time might have shown us more about Lincoln and what motivates him, but it wouldn’t have done justice to the goal Lincoln cared most about.

Of course, it is necessary to show some aspects of Lincoln’s personal life. Therefore, much emphasis is given to a subplot involving the president’s adult son, Robert, who desperately wants to fight for his country. Lincoln is using all of his connections to keep this from happening, which is a huge scandal, seeing as the draft Lincoln was adamant in passing has sent thousands upon thousands of unwilling young men to their deaths. The reason, at least according to the movie (and most historical sources back this theory up), is the toll it would take on Mary Todd Lincoln, who is already distraught over the death of two other sons (Edward and William, who both died as children from disease). This plot-line has little to do with the central story, but the phenomenal acting makes these scenes a personal element to what is otherwise a stuffy political drama.

Lincoln has an enormous cast, and dozens of respected actors (including Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robert and Hal Holbrook, who previously played the role of Lincoln himself to great acclaim, as a senior Republican who views Lincoln as a bit of a radical) have juicy scenes. In bigger roles there are fantastic performances from Tommy Lee Jones, capping off an incredibly cinematic year by playing Stevens, and David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln’s closest ally. The best, outside of the job of playing Lincoln himself, is Sally Field as Mary Todd, with the help of Kushner’s screenplay she makes Todd a far stronger, more sympathetic, and genuine first lady then most are familiar with.

As for the president himself, that job goes to Daniel Day Lewis. Of all historical figures, Abraham Lincoln is perhaps the one which most frequently graces the silver screen, having been played by such legendary actors as Henry Fonda, Gregory Peck, David Morse, and Tom Hanks, but there is really no doubt that Lewis has given by far the best performance. We can never know for sure exactly what Lincoln was like, but Lewis’s genuine performance (aided by Oscar-worthy make-up work) is both commanding and personal. Even though this has been a particularly strong year for acting (seriously, watch Denzel Washington in Flight), it would be heinous for the Academy to snub Lewis an Oscar for this movie.
Like every movie, Lincoln does have flaws. John Williams’ score is mildly underwhelming (to me at least), which wouldn’t be a deal except that, this being a Spielberg film, it is used frequently. Also, the movie ends on a strong note with what would have been a perfect final shot--Lincoln walking down the hall of the White House to go to the theatre. However, it doesn’t end there: We get the Lincoln family reacting to the news of his death, a few speeches at his funeral, a flashback to a speech he gave on election day, and a few other well acted, well shot, big budget scenes that couldn’t be fit into the regular narrative. These is no way detract from the rest of the film, but they are dull and add nothing to the story. My guess is they were only included to ensure award nominations for Lewis and Field.

Steven Spielberg, possibly the greatest director of all time, helms Lincoln. As usual, his gorgeous imagery, flawless editing, and bold vision bring every aspect of Kushner’s phenomenal screenplay to life. There is no question, though, that Kushner is the mastermind behind it all, as the story is by far the most important part. Kushner has not only created a captivating character study and a meticulously detailed (and accurate) portrayal of 1860s current events, he has written a strong argument for why democracy works. The constant politicking surrounding the passage of the most important amendment have been forgotten, but by bringing them back the audience sees how all of the events in Congress that when they happen disgust people are just the way the people’s voice is carried out.
A great film doesn’t just talk about big issues, but also small, personal ones as well. Lincoln also has a captivating message of the importance of doing anything necessary for the right thing, even compromise. And it is all seamlessly blended with the political aspect of the story.

Lastly, it is crucial to mention that Lincoln is not just a film for Americans, just as The King’s Speech was not just for Brits and Invictus was not just for South Africans.
Lincoln is both personal and epic, and one of the best arguments for democracy ever given.