The Lincoln Film

[HoosierGuy]

So has anybody seen this wonderful film? I saw it Friday night. I thought it was wonderful. I'm not sure I would call it a great film but it was well done. Almost every scene has something interesting or powerful to offer. Daniel Day-Lewis is great as Lincoln and from the first scene all you see is Abe Lincoln and not the actor behind him. Sally Field is superb as Mary Todd Lincoln and her temper changes and love for Lincoln seems 100% natural. This is not a film where the actors give half effort. It's almost a little masterpiece.

I particularly enjoyed how they showed Lincoln as not only president but also husband and dad.

Our modern congress would be so much more interesting if they called each other names they way they do in this film.

Overall Lincoln is an excellent film and I can see this film being shown in high school classes for the next fifty years. If this film won best picture as the Academy Awards, Lincoln would be a worthy winner.

[pam]

I haven't seen it yet but it is definitely one I do want to see.

[JosephP]

Going Wednesday with one of my home teachers.

[NeuroTypical]

Overall Lincoln is an excellent film and I can see this film being shown in high school classes for the next fifty years. If this film won best picture as the Academy Awards, Lincoln would be a worthy winner.

[mordorbund]

Are we thinking about the same movie?

[pam]

Well I don't know Mordorbund...all I see is a red X on your post. :)

[pam]

Not to take away from the thread..it's very interesting when you go to DC and are able to stand in the exact same spot in the theater where he was shot. And then to walk across the street to see the room where he died.

[Guest]

I watched the first 2 minutes of the film and had to walk out! My 9-year-old couldn't handle the sounds of the opening Civil War battle with his eyes closed.

Anyway, I read some of the academia reviews on it and it seems like most agree that the visuals and characterizations in the movie was greatly done but the historical account did not quite cover the depth of the actual historical accounts.

So, probably not something you want in a classroom.

[pam]

Here is one thing I read on it about it's authenticity:

Academic historians have been more ambivalent in their reaction, however, than movie critics. Eric Foner (Columbia), a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the period, claims in a letter to the New York Times that the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main points about the choices at stake in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (November 26, 2012). Kate Masur (Northwestern University) accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” in an op-ed for the New York Times (November 12, 2012) Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012). Allen Guelzo (Gettysburg College), also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but disagrees with Holzer, arguing that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012). David O. Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).[

[bytor2112]

The movie is total BALONEY. Where was Lincoln slipping out with his axe killing some blood sucking Vampires???

[pam]

The movie is total BALONEY. Where was Lincoln slipping out with his axe killing some blood sucking Vampires???

Wrong movie. hahahaha

[BrendaM]

I watched the first 2 minutes of the film and had to walk out! My 9-year-old couldn't handle the sounds of the opening Civil War battle with his eyes closed.

Anyway, I read some of the academia reviews on it and it seems like most agree that the visuals and characterizations in the movie was greatly done but the historical account did not quite cover the depth of the actual historical accounts.

So, probably not something you want in a classroom.

This movie was fantastic! Definitely not a kid movie though.

[Wingnut]

[volgadon]

I watched the first 2 minutes of the film and had to walk out! My 9-year-old couldn't handle the sounds of the opening Civil War battle with his eyes closed.

Anyway, I read some of the academia reviews on it and it seems like most agree that the visuals and characterizations in the movie was greatly done but the historical account did not quite cover the depth of the actual historical accounts.

So, probably not something you want in a classroom.

Here is one thing I read on it about it's authenticity:

Academic historians have been more ambivalent in their reaction, however, than movie critics. Eric Foner (Columbia), a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the period, claims in a letter to the New York Times that the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main points about the choices at stake in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment (November 26, 2012). Kate Masur (Northwestern University) accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” in an op-ed for the New York Times (November 12, 2012) Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012). Allen Guelzo (Gettysburg College), also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but disagrees with Holzer, arguing that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012). David O. Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).[

Sounds about right for a higher-calibre historical film. Why shouldn't this be used in a classroom? Seems like one could convey the gist, then open the door to discuss the differences.

[Guest]

Sounds about right for a higher-calibre historical film. Why shouldn't this be used in a classroom? Seems like one could convey the gist, then open the door to discuss the differences.

Because you can get a better historical account through the proper history books. A visual medium - like a movie - has a bigger impact on the brain than the abstract words in a book. What will stick to a student's brain is the movie.

If you teach the history using the proper history books then make the movie a supplement with the caveat that it's not completely accurate, you'll get more mileage with the truth. But, in my opinion, a movie as the source of teaching is just not necessary.

[All_Apologies]

Saw the movie. Didn't like it. I found the emphasis on suspending the Constitution rather unnerving, especially since this is happening today since we now have the NDAA and the "Patriot" Act.

[volgadon]

Because you can get a better historical account through the proper history books. A visual medium - like a movie - has a bigger impact on the brain than the abstract words in a book. What will stick to a student's brain is the movie.

If you teach the history using the proper history books then make the movie a supplement with the caveat that it's not completely accurate, you'll get more mileage with the truth. But, in my opinion, a movie as the source of teaching is just not necessary.

I dunno, movies can be an effective teaching tool as long as there is a good discussion afterwards. I'm speaking as a bookworm, BTW. It has to do with how effective the teacher is, as a good teacher will employ various kinds of media. A movie also helps spark interest in a topic, encouraging people to read books they might not have tried otherwise.

[pam]

I'm kind of with Volgadon. Not all movies that I have seen or rather saw in history classes were 100% accurate and we had discussions as a class about just that.

From what I understand, Steven Spielberg tried really hard to keep it as accurate as possible as he has done with most of his historical movies. But sometimes there are some non truths to help sell the movie.

But then that makes for good classroom discussions.

[Dravin]

I'm kind of with Volgadon. Not all movies that I have seen or rather saw in history classes were 100% accurate and we had discussions as a class about just that.

How to critically examine sources is an important skill for students to learn, and in some ways it is easier to teach that with something other than a text book be it a film or a historical work.

[Guest]

How to critically examine sources is an important skill for students to learn, and in some ways it is easier to teach that with something other than a text book be it a film or a historical work.

In a Critical Thinking class, sure. In a History class, I would think the emphasis is on the history, not the media.

For example, in my World History class in high school, we touched on Ghandi's hunger strike. We had the lesson in the traditional setting - giant historical books on the matter. Then the teacher showed us clips from the movie Ghandi (Ben Kingsley) - which, according to the teacher was very historically accurate except there's a fictional character that may not be present in history that is used to move the story forward and of course, it doesn't really capture the context of the complexity of the British rule and Indian independence movement - which is what the books were for. But the movie does not have "artistic license tampering" of the context of what the movie does present - for example, it doesn't have the common error of embellishing Ghandi's role in the independence movement to make him out to be the one that did the most work for indian independence - an error that is common in a Hollywood movie portraying the life of one person, including Lincoln.

But even then, he only showed us the bits that complimented the lesson just to give our imagination something concrete to "see" when discussing the history. So, he used the movie mainly for its authentic setting and expressions and major historical events to give some visual compliment - not as the lesson itself.

Okay, so I'm thinking about this more now and I'm thinking, can Lincoln be used in that same manner? Maybe bits and pieces of it. It is really more of a dramatic presentation rather than a documentary.

And then now that I'm thinking about it, this is, I realize, a biased position because I'm basing my views completely on how I was taught.

[Dravin]

In a Critical Thinking class, sure. In a History class, I would think the emphasis is on the history, not the media.

A large part of history is learning to critically examine sources, enough so that trying to compartmentalize it into a different class completely does one's education a disservice. Trying to separate critical examination of sources from studying history is akin to trying to study science without any math. Sure, the purpose of a science class isn't to teach math, but you can't shy away from math because 'it belongs in a math class.'

But even then, he only showed us the bits that complimented the lesson just to give our imagination something concrete to "see" when discussing the history. So, he used the movie mainly for its authentic setting and expressions and major historical events to give some visual compliment - not as the lesson itself.

Who claimed the movie should be used as the lesson in singularity? Volgadon suggested using it as an opener for discussion which is not using it 'as the lesson itself'.

Okay, so I'm thinking about this more now and I'm thinking, can Lincoln be used in that same manner? Maybe bits and pieces of it. It is really more of a dramatic presentation rather than a documentary.

So? Why is something being dramatic inherently bad as far as learning? Greek plays or H.G. Wells are dramatic in nature, but they are still useful in the classroom. They have the advantage of being contemporary to certain time periods and places, but inherent in learning from them is separating the drama from what is to be gleaned. Be it insights into Greek Culture, or some of society's fears on the consequences of communism or industrialism and some of the influences of Darwinism at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). And even documentaries, which you are holding up as a gold standard, need to be critically examined when watched, for focus/scope, completeness, accuracy, and bias.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Dravin

[Bini]

Rotten Tomatoes critics gave this an amazing rating but 'the audience review' wasn't as raving. I've read that this movie is being pushed for an Oscar but from regular viewers, there were some fairly sized disappointments. No one whined about the acting, but I guess historically (as already mentioned) it lacked, and secondly, the cinematography is overly dark and gloomy (visually), making it difficult to watch.

My husband really wants to see it. I'm indifferent. Off the bat it looks "alright" but I know you can't accurately choose a book by its cover.

[Vort]

My husband really wants to see it. I'm indifferent. Off the bat it looks "alright" but I know you can't accurately choose a book by its cover.

You know, I have almost no desire to watch the movie. I have never been much of a fan of made-for-TV movies about the topic du jour. I'm pretty familiar with Lincoln's history, being an American and all. Why might I want to see Steven Spielberg's or Oliver Stone's or some other Hollywood leftist's take on the man?

[Guest]

A large part of history is learning to critically examine sources, enough so that trying to compartmentalize it into a different class completely does one's education a disservice. Trying to separate critical examination of sources from studying history is akin to trying to study science without any math. Sure, the purpose of a science class isn't to teach math, but you can't shy away from math because 'it belongs in a math class.'

I didn't say to shy away from it. But using a source that is not complete over something that is more complete just so you can exercise your critical thinking skills does not belong in history class - it belongs in critical thinking class.

Who claimed the movie should be used as the lesson in singularity? Volgadon suggested using it as an opener for discussion which is not using it 'as the lesson itself'.

Nobody said it. I assumed it. Which is, I guess where my disconnect lies.

Using a not-ideal source as a lesson opener just doesn't sound right to me. There are a lot better sources out there that doesn't introduce unnecessary error in the history.

So? Why is something being dramatic inherently bad as far as learning? Greek plays or H.G. Wells are dramatic in nature, but they are still useful in the classroom. They have the advantage of being contemporary to certain time periods and places, but inherent in learning from them is separating the drama from what is to be gleaned. Be it insights into Greek Culture, or some of society's fears on the consequences of communism or industrialism and some of the influences of Darwinism at the turn of the century (19th to 20th). And even documentaries, which you are holding up as a gold standard, need to be critically examined when watched, for focus/scope, completeness, accuracy, and bias.

Putting it that way, dramatic effect is not inherently bad. What I find bad about it is the inherent embellishment that introduces error in dramatic portrayals. "For dramatic effect", like "artistic license" is not something I would want in a history class. The dramatic effect is dramatic because it sticks in your head and sways opinion.

Critical examination of documentaries are not usually centered around what is added for dramatic effect or what is fictional just so you can advance a story. Critical examination of documentaries are usually centered around what is generally accepted fact versus what is a debateable position of the historian.

Edited December 5, 2012 by anatess

[volgadon]

Critical examination of documentaries are not usually centered around what is added for dramatic effect or what is fictional just so you can advance a story.

Actually, that is an important skill to have as those are some of the commoner embellishments and distortions in primary (and even secondary) sources.