 |
| Poster image from the IMDB site. |
There are few films that Mr G remembers hearing about from either me or the news or reviews or the paper. Even fewer that he actively wants to see from day 1. "Lincoln" was one of the few.
Yesterday, on opening day for the film, we went to an afternoon screening of "Lincoln". Unheard of before being retired - afternoon screenings of films tend to be de rigueur at the moment ... deliberate appointment viewing without the crowds but lacking a "date night" feel.
The film is, in my view, a masterpiece of storytelling. The dialogue is so strong... this is intelligent and very adult entertainment. Everyone in the film is outstanding with Tommy Lee Jone's performance almost as strong as Lewis'. However, Daniel Day Lewis quite literally becomes Abraham Lincoln. He portrays him so brilliantly that I came from the cinema almost feeling like I had spent over 2 hours in the presence of the actual person. The depth of Lincoln's desire to end slavery forever in the USA and the effort he had to go to find the right level of compromise in order to bring the 13th amendment into law is carved into the actor's face. It is mesmerising and emotional to watch.
I didn't know that Lincoln was a teller of stories aimed at getting his point across. The film includes many parables which he uses to get those around him to see a different point of view.
The press has been quick to point out the factual flaws contained in the film. But this is, after all, a film... a brilliant piece of storytelling from a master of great storytelling, Stephen Spielberg. I came home after the film and Googled all I could find about it wanting to understand what was fact and fiction. I think the following from a 'New Yorker' article says it best ....
Afterward, mulling over my complaints, I felt a little ashamed of their cranky pettiness. So, as I say, I went back and saw it again.
I now think that I initially reacted to “Lincoln” the way that so many Radical Republicans reacted to Lincoln himself: I was demanding perfection, and pouting when perfection wasn’t forthcoming. But compromise is inevitable—in life, in politics, in movies. That’s one of the movie’s messages, and one of its meta-messages, too. On second viewing, I put aside the nitpicking. I realised that the very narrowness of my complaints was backhanded evidence of the enormous amount that the film gets right. And, indeed, virtually every point that the story and script of “Lincoln” makes is grounded in historical fact, even if the conventions and limitations of a theatrical film, especially one that eschews narrations and “crawls,” sometimes require awkward or contorted “exposition.” If some of the dialogue “sounds written” rather than spoken, that is because so much of it is drawn directly from letters, memoirs, and speeches.
I loved the film...so did Mr G. See it if you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment