Spielberg's "Lincoln", and the state of Politics in 2013
I am writing today about Steven Spielberg's latest film, Lincoln. Before writing this, I verified that it is in fact a film that leans more toward historical accuracy than most. Here is a link to a discussion about its accuracy with a historian:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765616476/New-Spielberg-movie-Lincoln-mostly-accurate-Lincoln-expert-claims.html
I have two points about the film that I want to discuss.
Just so the reader has some idea about where I'm coming from, I will state that I am all of these things, which may or may not be relevant: a US citizen, an atheist, in favor of universal health care, pro-choice, someone who has lived outside the US since Feb 2001 (in both the UK and Canada), someone who appreciates the US Constitution as a solid document for setting up a government, a voter for Democratic candidates, and a person who has been devoted to the same girl for 20 years.
As a US Citizen, I was proud to see that a film about an American president from 150 years ago was sold out for the two showings I attended. This happened two months after the film's release, and most importantly, it happened in Canada.
My second point is more complex, and contains spoilers. So if you haven't seen the film yet, and want to be amazed as it happens, I recommend seeing the film before reading on.
I think Spielberg was interested in making this film for deeply political reasons. He wanted to remind Americans about the realities of politics in Washington in a bygone era, but not through the rose-colored glasses through which we tend to view our heroes.
Simply put, the US as a nation was conceived in idealism, but born of pragmatism. I mean those words "conceived" and "born" exactly as they relate to human pregnancy and birth. The conception happens more easily, and with great passion. But it is the birth where the hard work and effort is necessary.
Lincoln shows the process by which the 13th Amendment was passed through the House of Representatives in 1865. For those who do not know, or have not yet seen the film, that amendment is the one that abolished slavery in the US. This exposition shows that Abe Lincoln was not a politician who operated through idealism. He did strive toward ideals he held dear, but used pragmatic methods to do so.
One of the most interesting scenes in the film shows Lincoln explaining the complications of the Emancipation Proclamation. He was using his war powers as President to issue an executive order freeing the slaves, but as a lawyer recognized that slavery was governed by the states, and so it was a move of questionable legality. Once the war ended, he knew that it would be up to the courts to decide. He describes at length how complex the Proclamation was in legal terms - I had no idea it was more than a simple declaration.
As the vote in the House approaches for ratification of the amendment, he uses a form of bribery to get enough Democratic votes to pass the measure. (An aside: the core principles of the two main political parties in the US has shifted several times over the decades. The parties in the film are not the Democrats and Republicans we know today.) As stated in the article linked above: "Lincoln even fudged the truth when necessary, such as saying the Southern peacekeepers were not in Washington or Virginia, which was only technically true — they were just outside those boundaries, waiting in a harbor."
One of the major factions interested in passing the amendment would not support it if a certain powerful representative insisted on it being about "racial equality". This particular man had to state (reversing what he had argued for years previously) that the amendment was about "racial equality before the law" rather than "racial equality". It is this compromise of a man's ideals to pass the amendment that is at the core of the film's exposition.
If we look at what is happening in Washington today with regard to taxes and the debt crisis, we see Representatives and Senators who refuse to compromise on their ideals, and in doing so end up getting little done. This film is reminding us that our government in the past has not functioned that way, and some of its greatest accomplishments were built through hard compromises instead of clinging to the purity of idealism.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765616476/New-Spielberg-movie-Lincoln-mostly-accurate-Lincoln-expert-claims.html
I have two points about the film that I want to discuss.
Just so the reader has some idea about where I'm coming from, I will state that I am all of these things, which may or may not be relevant: a US citizen, an atheist, in favor of universal health care, pro-choice, someone who has lived outside the US since Feb 2001 (in both the UK and Canada), someone who appreciates the US Constitution as a solid document for setting up a government, a voter for Democratic candidates, and a person who has been devoted to the same girl for 20 years.
As a US Citizen, I was proud to see that a film about an American president from 150 years ago was sold out for the two showings I attended. This happened two months after the film's release, and most importantly, it happened in Canada.
My second point is more complex, and contains spoilers. So if you haven't seen the film yet, and want to be amazed as it happens, I recommend seeing the film before reading on.
I think Spielberg was interested in making this film for deeply political reasons. He wanted to remind Americans about the realities of politics in Washington in a bygone era, but not through the rose-colored glasses through which we tend to view our heroes.
Simply put, the US as a nation was conceived in idealism, but born of pragmatism. I mean those words "conceived" and "born" exactly as they relate to human pregnancy and birth. The conception happens more easily, and with great passion. But it is the birth where the hard work and effort is necessary.
Lincoln shows the process by which the 13th Amendment was passed through the House of Representatives in 1865. For those who do not know, or have not yet seen the film, that amendment is the one that abolished slavery in the US. This exposition shows that Abe Lincoln was not a politician who operated through idealism. He did strive toward ideals he held dear, but used pragmatic methods to do so.
One of the most interesting scenes in the film shows Lincoln explaining the complications of the Emancipation Proclamation. He was using his war powers as President to issue an executive order freeing the slaves, but as a lawyer recognized that slavery was governed by the states, and so it was a move of questionable legality. Once the war ended, he knew that it would be up to the courts to decide. He describes at length how complex the Proclamation was in legal terms - I had no idea it was more than a simple declaration.
As the vote in the House approaches for ratification of the amendment, he uses a form of bribery to get enough Democratic votes to pass the measure. (An aside: the core principles of the two main political parties in the US has shifted several times over the decades. The parties in the film are not the Democrats and Republicans we know today.) As stated in the article linked above: "Lincoln even fudged the truth when necessary, such as saying the Southern peacekeepers were not in Washington or Virginia, which was only technically true — they were just outside those boundaries, waiting in a harbor."
One of the major factions interested in passing the amendment would not support it if a certain powerful representative insisted on it being about "racial equality". This particular man had to state (reversing what he had argued for years previously) that the amendment was about "racial equality before the law" rather than "racial equality". It is this compromise of a man's ideals to pass the amendment that is at the core of the film's exposition.
If we look at what is happening in Washington today with regard to taxes and the debt crisis, we see Representatives and Senators who refuse to compromise on their ideals, and in doing so end up getting little done. This film is reminding us that our government in the past has not functioned that way, and some of its greatest accomplishments were built through hard compromises instead of clinging to the purity of idealism.
posted by Almo at 1:29 PM
0 comments
