Reviewed by David Orrick
AT THE CINEMA Lincoln
In this issue of the Vermont Bar Journal we initiate a new feature. In each issue we will publish a review of a current or past film that raises interesting issues about law, its practice, and its practitioners. If you are a film buff, we encourage you to review any film you think our readers would find interesting and submit the review to us. We look forward to your contributions.
For those of us too old to need Christmas gifts, the best present may be the one we pick for ourselves. So it was that over this Christmas break, a cinema-goer was faced with the pleasant choice of either Les Mis- erables or Lincoln, both remakes of themes with important legal overtones. Both were released with the cynical timing of making them eligible for 2012 Oscar consideration. Lincoln has already received Golden Globe and Oscar nominations. Whatever an anal- ysis of the story suggests, this is a film with tour de force acting performances. It would be no great injustice if the three protago- nists, Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, Sal- ly Field as his wife, Mary, and Tommy Lee Jones as the abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens swept their categories. The film’s title is somewhat misleading. It is not a comprehensive reflection on Lin- coln’s life. Too quick a comparison with Henry Fonda’s performance as the Young Lincoln would be wrong. Day-Lewis’ voice has been an issue with some reviewers: the pitch of his voice is well above Fonda’s. Be- cause of Lincoln’s height, a stereotypical impression may have been gained over the years that Lincoln must have had a deep voice. Part of the beauty of Day-Lewis’ per- formance is his diction, where one can hear the strain that Lincoln was under during that time. To the extent that the film brings insights into the life of Lincoln in that last, tumultu- ous year of his life, it reminds us that a mar- ried president is also a family man. Mary Todd’s emotional problems and the chal- lenges they created in their marriage are well-known. Lincoln is not alone in this con- flict. It should be hard for us in the twen- ty-first century not to wonder what help the president’s wife gives him. What is our current president like as a family man, with two young daughters at such sensi- tive ages? The interaction between Lincoln and Mary Todd, whom he calls Molly, is a key part of the film. What this Lincoln does quite well is also to show Lincoln’s interac- tion with his younger son, Tad, and his old- er son, Robert, who wants to enlist, against his mother’s wishes, with a father conflicted in his knowledge of his son’s patriotism and desire to serve. No father watching the film could not be moved by those father/older
www.vtbar.org son scenes.
Over and above these biographical ele- ments, the main thrust of this Lincoln is an intense look at the political process that led up to the passage of the thirteenth amend- ment in early 1865. Even more precisely, it is a detailed look at the interaction of Lin- coln with the House of Representatives. Let it not be forgotten that the U.S. Senate of the 1860s was not the upper chamber we know today. It was not directly elect- ed by ordinary people. The passage of the proposed amendment through that Sen- ate had not been the source of significant conflict as it was in the popularly elected House, a conflict that this film reveals so well.
There is a timeless quality to the process
of legislation, if not also marriage. While the number of House members is far larg- er today than in Lincoln’s time, the basic formula of the process has not changed. Those proposing legislation still need to get the votes. Perhaps Speaker Boehner will get the chance to watch the film when it goes to DVD, to be reminded just what is involved in the sausage-making we know as legislation. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” as Lafayette might have noted.
Shortly before the end of the film, there is a quiet moment where Lincoln is sitting and talking with his dominating general, Ulysses S. Grant. Grant notes how Lincoln has aged in the past year. That may be the scene that all aspirants to the White House should consider. Is the world’s most power- ful job worth the physical stress it provides the incumbent? Lincoln would surely have answered “yes,” as would Kennedy. Both were cut down, never to see the ultimate success of their endeavors. To some extent, this Lincoln can serve as cinematic relief for student and professor both in a “Process of Legislation” course. Both need to be reminded just how messy the process of legislation can be in the Unit- ed States Congress, with a constitution- al amendment taking the parameters to a new dimension. Anti-smoking bans may be widespread today, but certainly lots of ne- gotiation to get votes for such measures took place in smoke-filled rooms over the years. In the mouth of William Seward, Lin-
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • WINTER 2013
coln’s secretary of state and shrewd real es- tate agent, the cigar was almost a weapon. Perhaps one of Seward’s fine cigars in this film will get an Oscar for the most impor- tant prop. This Lincoln is superbly filmed through that smoke from cigars and cannons. Spiel- berg used the same cinematographer, Ja- nusz Kaminski, he had worked with in Sav- ing Private Ryan. The opening scenes in Lincoln show the reality of hand-to-hand combat and mimic that World War II epic, or rather, serve as its precursor. Thankfully, the gore is more restrained this time, only lasting a minute or so. But it still gets the point across. In the U.S. Civil War, fight- ing was personal, hand-to-hand. The con- sequences led to an emotional and recur- ring theme in the film—Lincoln’s personal awareness of the horrors of war, especial- ly when he visits soldiers in hospitals. Pat- ton, the self-appointed military historian, could have learned that from Lincoln. More generally, the film is full of close-ups, which serve to show the strain on the characters, and add a play-like intimacy to the film. With the provenance of Spielberg as di-
rector, this film will automatically achieve a high measure of credibility. It is such that it can only be hoped that people interested in the topic will also examine other sourc- es. The source material for the film comes from Doris Keane Goodwin’s acclaimed bi- ography, Team of Rivals: The Political Ge- nius of Lincoln. Nonetheless, it is still only one interpretation. Innocents who have not read or seen anything else can be easily misled by Oliver Stone’s JFK, his idiosyn- cratic look at President Kennedy’s assassi- nation. This Lincoln can give the impression that the thirteenth amendment was all Lin- coln’s idea, when it was also in large part the energy of the radical Republicans, the anti-slavery party, on which Lincoln proper- ly built. Certainly what this film does beau- tifully is to remind us of the incandescent energy of Thaddeus Stevens, the unapol- ogetic abolitionist, portrayed here, with a smirk, by Tommy Lee Jones.
The ongoing personal political conflict for Lincoln comes through well. His hopes for peace, as soon as possible, competed with his hopes for the passage of the thir- teenth, the anti-slavery, amendment even
31
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36