Over the Thanksgiving weekend I finally got the opportunity to catch Spielberg’s marvelous new film, "Lincoln," and what a thing to be thankful for, a powerful portrait of this incredibly gifted leader who championed the Union to one of history’s hardest fought victories. 2012, in case you don’t know it, is the year that has given us not one but two films about Lincoln, and they couldn’t be more different. "Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was a sci-fi fantasy out during the summer and produced by Tim Burton, a film with the perfectly absurd premise that our 16th president, from the time of his youth all the way through the end of his administration, had a secret double-life as a vampire slayer. It is the plot of this film that the Confederacy had a secret weapon in a vampire army and that the only reason the Union prevailed is that Lincoln personally left the White House every night to go kill rebel vampires. Perhaps I’d feel differently if I gave it a chance (a very mixed public reception and a blatant thumbs-down from the critics), but I would think any Civil War/Lincoln buff would be offended by this bastardization of one of the greatest U.S. presidents. I am very grateful to Steven Spielberg for offering his alternative in a very respectful and admiring story that could not be more different than vampires. I’m hoping that because of Spielberg, Vampire Hunter will now be forgotten in the blink of an eye.
The very title "Lincoln" is a bit of a misnomer, though. This film is not really about Lincoln as much as it is about a five week period in his presidency in which he strenuously lobbied for the passage of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. I’m a relatively well-read Lincoln fan but I must admit that I did not recall that the 13th Amendment was passed while Lincoln was still in office, but rather thought it happened during the Andrew Johnson administration. So Spielberg took this little sliver of Civil War history, a relative blink of an eye in Lincoln’s legacy, and made a 2-1/2 hour film about it. It is also a decidedly romanticized portrait of Lincoln, not the usual gritty realism that Spielberg is so well known for from films ranging from Schindler’s List to Munich, films that were not only starkly realistic but, some might argue, even more gritty than the actual history.
Remember the little girl in the red coat that proved the trigger for converting the amoral capitalist pig Schindler into the humanitarian who saves 1200 Jews? Remember everyone calling Spielberg a cinematic genius for the choice to colorize this red coat in an otherwise all black-and-white film? I too was impressed and it still ranks as one of my favorite Spielberg moments and even all-time favorite films. But then I read the book. The red coat and how it stood out for Schindler is clearly described in the book. The author invented that device, not Spielberg. Another big surprise in the book was the author’s description of a kindly Schindler who hated Hitler and remained in Germany for the express purpose of building this phony factory so he could save as many Jews as possible. This had been his plan from the beginning. He was not a capitalist pig who cared about nothing but making money until he saw that red coat in a pile of corpses. But the virtuous truth was not dramatic enough for Spielberg who chose instead to portray Schindler in a much more flawed light.
So the fact that he did not give Lincoln a more realistic treatment somewhat surprised me. This was a thoroughly romanticized heroic president who fought for truth and justice and a long overdue American way. The Lincoln that is so well known in history - a man who suffered from severe melancholia and depression, who was an awkward gangly specimen of a man widely considered a buffoonish country bumpkin whom the powers-to-be could not believe garnered 40% of the vote in the 3-way 1860 election to win the White House, a man who inspired so little respect that even his own senior advisers often openly ridiculed him to his face - is not in evidence here. The worst offender was Secretary of War Stanton who considered himself the real brains and power behind the Lincoln administration and had no qualms about letting the president know it, often screaming at him and calling him a clown when Lincoln would do something he disagreed with – like firing wildly popular generals who refused to follow the orders of their Commander In Chief.
This was one of Lincoln’s great strengths as a leader, that he was willing to tolerate all this insubordination and disrespect for the sake of having a staff composed of only the best and brightest regardless of their personal antipathy towards him. That he was able to organize this motley crew of brilliant but egotistical statesmen into a cohesive team that would ultimately preserve the Union was a testament to his genius as a manager and politician. The great leader that he was, he did eventually succeed in winning their respect and loyalty. Even Stanton was ultimately humbled by him and became his fiercest supporter such that, by the time of his reelection, he and any of the others would have proudly stopped an assassin’s bullet for him. It is reported that, after the assassination, Stanton wept for days and lamented to associates that never again would the U.S. have a president of the giant stature of Abraham Lincoln.
But it was Spielberg’s choice to present the heroic Lincoln that everyone knew at the end rather the much more realistic historical Lincoln who underwent this very dramatic arc during his White House tenure. This was appropriate since this was not really the story of Lincoln but rather that of the thoroughly seasoned finely honed leader who in a few short weeks during the final months of his presidency aggressively pushed through the constitutional amendment that would finally guarantee the fruition of the words in the Declaration of Independence that pronounced that we are all created equal and are all entitled to liberty. This was the story of the passionate debate that took place in the Congress and the White House on both sides of the issue so it was naturally quite heavy on dialogue but managed to be a fascinating drama of Lincoln’s considerable skills as a strategist and negotiator. So far, it’s the best film of the year and Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln is a shoe-in as Best Actor.
As much as I was entertained and fascinated by this portrayal, I do have to take issue with its central premise. The logic presented as to why it was considered critically urgent to push this amendment with utmost speed was because, after four years of the bloodiest war in history, everyone seemed to think this would end the war quickly. The rationale was that since the South was fighting for slavery, if slavery was ended there would be no reason to fight anymore and thus the Confederate leaders could be negotiated into a quick and generous peace. The Union negotiators were even quite careful not to use the word "surrender." They told the rebel leaders that this was not to be a surrender, simply a cessation of hostilities after which they would be welcome back into the Union as fellow citizens with all the rights and privileges that would entail. The thinking was universal amongst all parties: a constitutional amendment that ends slavery would also end the Confederacy’s reason to fight and thus end the war instantly.
What was in their Kool-Aid? Why would anyone think this? Lincoln had already ended slavery two years before with the Emancipation Proclamation. If there was any validity to this logic, the war should have ended then and there. The Confederacy did not recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution or the federal government. Why would an amendment to abolish slavery have made any difference in their eyes? If the Union wanted a quick end to the war, it would have made a lot more sense to pass an amendment guaranteeing the right to own slaves. Why did no one consider the possible option that the 13th Amendment would only further steel the South’s resolve to stay in the conflict and fight to the last man? This is, in fact, exactly what happened. After the amendment passed, rather than capitulating, the war dragged on another three months as the Confederacy fought even more ferociously until finally Grant was able to convince Lee at Appomattox that the South was headed for total slaughter if surrender was not imminent, but at the same time assuring him that the terms of surrender would be most generous.
So the entire premise behind "Lincoln" eludes me, which is yet another reason I must read the book. How much fact, and how much fiction for the sake of the drama? Was everyone in Washington really so naive as to believe that abolishing slavery would end the war instantly? Was this really the rationale behind the events of January 1865?
Speaking of rationale, in this otherwise very serious story, there was one humorous scene that got a real laugh from the audience. In an exchange of dialogue between the opponents of the amendment, it is clear that the biggest fear of the amendment passing is that it would open the flood gates. If you freed the slaves, it would only be a matter of time before you would then have to give the freed slaves the vote. And if you let ex-slaves vote, then (gasp!), you’re going to have to let women vote too! This "slippery slope" appeal was one of the main arguments being used to urge a "No" vote. They were honestly more afraid of women getting the vote than the slaves? Too funny!
If I were to make a film about Lincoln, the 13th Amendment would not be my first choice. The Emancipation Proclamation is the document that really freed the slaves and I personally feel that the circumstances leading up to that momentous event were far more dramatic than anything portrayed in this film. I have written a story for my own Lincoln film. The drama about the weeks leading up to the 13th Amendment is nothing compared to what happened during the first 24 hours of Lincoln’s presidency when he had to make the decision as to whether to send a relief ship to save the soldiers at Fort Sumter. For fifty years, every president before him had skillfully maneuvered to avoid civil war. Now on his very first day in office, Lincoln was faced with a fateful choice.
Fort Sumter had been brewing for weeks, blockaded by the Confederates and being systematically starved out. His choices: do nothing, allow the soldiers to perish, and avoid war, at least for that week. Or he could order a supply ship to Fort Sumter to relieve the troops there, knowing the ship would almost certainly be fired upon, thereby starting the Civil War. His advisers would strenuously argue with the new country-bumpkin president from the backwoods of Illinois to take the safe option and do nothing. Lincoln, in his great wisdom, decided that he could not sacrifice these soldiers. If the Confederates chose to fire upon a ship they knew had no orders to engage in hostilities, that was strictly there to bring food and medical supplies to a dying Union fort, that would be their doing and he could not control that.
There’s a story there dying to be told and someday I’m going to write it. A drama that takes place in a single day - and changed history forever. How’s that for a blink in Lincoln’s eye?
No comments:
Post a Comment