As is often the case, I found that Alyssa Rosenberg summed things up nicely.
Lincoln is at its most clear-eyed, and its most-effective, when the movie tackles the question of how to muster votes, and bipartisan votes at that, for the end of slavery, a section of the film dominated by Stevens and Secretary of State William Seward (David Straitharn). The two men begin the movie in very different positions, Stevens as a life-long advocate for the end of slavery and racial equality, Seward unconvinced of the Amendment’s viability or necessity. “Since when has our party unanimously supported anything?” he asks his president, particularly given the prospect of the South suing for peace. “Why tarnish that luster with a battle in the House?” But Lincoln makes himself clear: he will have the Amendment in January of 1865, even if it means buying off lame duck Democrats who need employment when they leave their offices in March. “If procuring votes with jobs is what you intend, I’ll procure from Albany the skulking men who are suited to this shady work,” Seward tells Lincoln, resigned to his task.
I think that there is a fair case to be made that it doesn't do a great job telling the larger story of abolition as with the exception of a great corporal at the start, the African American characters are often passive in an ahistorical manner. However, the film is called Lincoln, after all. It might be best viewed with Glory for the time being although I think there's also room for a great film about abolition.
I actually would prefer to be writing about how I liked the film's portrayal of politics: rough and tumble at times but also requiring genuine skill and yet historically offering a means for progress. I think it also did a reasonable job of depicting politics in wartime. Corey Roberts above cites some unfortunate statements by Tony Kushner; I thought the film itself fairly clearly favored pushing for the 13th Amendment even if it meant possibly delaying the end of the war and the subsequent death toll at Petersburg. I also thought that the relationship between Lincoln and Stevens was one of the more interesting ones of the film and that it noted the importance of principled radicals in politics even if arguing that at times they should compromise if only for appearance's sake.
However, I think the importance of African American contributions, which the film points to at several times but does not accord a main role (e.g. one that could be filled by Fredrick Douglass) deserves enough mention that I'm closing by linking to Ta-Nehisi Coates' discussion of the Civil War as having three factions. The reason I think this is so vital is that the Civil War, the war to end slavery, is often used as a moral benchmark when considering other wars. However, our use of it is highly damaged if we forget that slaves and freemen and women were vital to victory. It was not a humanitarian intervention on their behalf; it was a war that they vitally committed to the extent they were allowed to do so.
Update: Kushner clarified his meaning in a manner I found quite satisfying and in keeping with the film. I don't want to endorse his viewpoint necessarily, but it's a perfectly reasonable one. It also was in keeping with my reading of the film.
Recent Comments