Lincoln is a good film but hardly great even if it goes down as the standard bearer for Lincoln films to come. Daniel Day Lewis, who plays Abraham Lincoln, will probably win the Oscar for his performance since he immerses himself in the role as usual. This is an improvement over Spielberg’s previous effort, War Horse (2011), however the maudlin sentiment in this, his latest , film masks the hidden political cynicism at its core. The cinematography and Art direction are superb as well as the make up for Daniel Day Lewis who plays Lincoln. There are times where lighting in a dark room casts a shadow on the man thereby illuminating the essence of the Lincoln legend. These are the strongest moments of the film particularly as Lincoln's essence is imprinted everywhere like an engraved image; a fantastic abstract devoid of any flaws; the legend that has swayed the USA since time immemorial. He champions the abolition of slavery although the filmmakers masked the fact that he was paving the way for wage slavery another rabid system of mass exploitation by the capitalist class. Lincoln promised freedom but even he with all his rhetoric and political dogma must have been cognizant of the illusion of freedom. This is what has limited the film significantly. Black people were granted freedom but they subsisted in penury and were largely considered the wretched of the earth in America; even to this day as the majority of that ethnic group languishes on the fringes of bourgeois society. This is what is called freedom hence why Lincoln as a republican emerged in a period when capital was destined to take sway in America. He was the representative of capital abolishing the ties to the outdated mode of production called slavery with its low levels of productivity. The Southern states have benefited tremendously as we see the vast plains devoted to agricultural production today on the basis of wage labour which is another form of slavery to the ruling class. The republican party are the true representatives of capitalism in America and so abolishing the mode of slave production was in their best interest so as to fully exploit the ‘free’labour of the blacks by generating surplus value/unpaid labour time which is calculated on the basis of the capital advanced to be calculated as profit. Slavery was an outdated mode of production because investments in the North were awaiting the opportunity to fully exploit the resources of the land. Slavery was more of a hindrance because it implies low levels of productivity, poverty and low levels of investment. Lincoln unified the country by waging the American civil war, 1861-65, and this unification would pave the way for investment by capital. In the development of bourgeois society therefore Lincoln is not unique for prior to the advancement of this class its rule must be consolidated that is the government would largely represent its interests. This happened with the unification of Germany under Bismarck, it also happened with the unification of Italy; it happened during the French and English Revolutions. Lincoln is no champion of virtue for he really is the champion of freedom in the strict sense of capitalist production only. His civil war is a classic example of how capital shatters barriers in favour of its class. The reconstruction period that followed the civil war is testament to this fact when the investors ploughed through the south and stifled the southerners with taxation and credit. Lincoln is a hero within the strict sense of capitalist production hence why his legend is so paramount in the American psyche. He championed the virtue of capitalism like no other president before him. He unified the country in such a way that it was able to begin on the path of mass exploitation of wage labour which characterizes America. The greatness of Lincoln is manifest in America’s preeminent role as the propagator of capitalist virtues and the great crises that go along with it. The 1% vs. the 99% is a classic example of the freedom promised by Lincoln. His protégé, Barack Obama, is also grappling with this freedom by encouraging big government as he indulges in political rhetoric and dogmas that can only be associated with the penchant illusions of an idealist.
This film ignores all these issues while focusing solely on the moral principles about whether all men are created equal.
It is a good film when it documents the legal process of getting the 13th amendment passed. This amendment would abolish slavery for good and the legal dilemma was that Lincoln proclaimed the emancipation Act during the civil war as a means of confiscating the property of the confederate states which would include the slaves themselves. Lincoln is also racing against time because he arranged for a delegation of the leaders of the confederate states to speak of terms of peace in Virginia when in fact he delays them so as to discuss terms of surrender with the hope that he can get the bill passed by January 31 and then proceed to win the war which would see America conquered by the bourgeois class. This film deals specifically on the passage of the 13th amendment in the House of the representatives and the political subterfuge necessary for this to occur. The republicans control the House but in order to get the two thirds majority they would have to convince at least 20 democrats to support the bill along with some abstentions.
What’s good about this film?
The performance of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, the cinematography and art direction and the presentation of the political divide between Democrats and Republicans are the best elements of the film.
Daniel Day Lewis clearly immerses himself in the role and you clearly feel at times that you are in the presence of Abraham Lincoln although the ideological reasons of the film are clear as it is testament to the decline of America today as they seek to elevate this heroic image of a dead president. The cinematography is also instrumental to the Lincoln characterization particularly the use of silhouettes and faint lighting which serve to ground him in a particular milieu. There are also moments when the aura of Lincoln rubs off onto those who were in awe of his celebrity status. It would have been good to see some shots of Lincoln on the rise and the prejudice he had to endure. This is made clear in a conversation between Mrs. Lincoln (Sally Fields) and a prominent member of the republican party, Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) at a gala at the white house regarding the stature of Lincoln amongst the people. His popularity amongst the people is not presented in this film, apart from some conversations with soldiers but it would have added some panache to the film apart from strictly seeking to paint a picture of Lincoln amongst the shadows or as some abstract representing American liberty. A portrayal of Lincoln as a man of people would have been appreciated because it would have been testament to his legend among the people.
The portrayal of the political milieu of the time is well done and we are presented with the timeless divide between republicans and democrats. The irony here being that the republicans represent change and the democrats represent regression and stagnation. The democrats in this film would have been livid if they saw Obama presented as the leading candidate of their party for the Presidency. There is also an accurate portrayal of Lincoln’s political maneuvering in order to terminate slavery in America once and for all. One of the most entertaining moments of the movie is the process taken to find 20 democrats to support the 13th amendment. This is done on behalf of Lincoln by rogues of the party or those of the campaign team that are asked to canvass on behalf of Lincoln. When these individuals identify those democrats that they wish to target, in order to seek the 20 votes in the House, it is the most riveting aspect of the movie as we witness the difficulty in reaching across the aisle. It shows that for all of Lincoln’s greatness he had a team behind him particularly his Secretary of State. This political element does seem calculating however and it is hardly a genuine process. This art of politics therefore does not seem like an idealistic profession hence why they should have addressed the material mode of production that Lincoln was pushing to replace slavery in the confederate states. This is alluded to only once during a discussion between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy lee Jones) where they refer to the reconstruction that was to take place. Lincoln however puts it off and the only other reference is when someone tells him that he will have to lead them out of slavery i.e. he would be the leader of a unified United States of America. The debates in the house are also interesting and do put into perspective how the two parties differed along ideological lines with regards to the abolition of slavery. The Democrats were in favour of a return to slavery even after the proclamation of the emancipation act. The republicans push for the end of slavery is not made clear for some it is clearly not humanitarian or moralistic but is clearly along the lines of the material mode of production called capitalism which they support vociferously as a party. Even Lincoln is vague in his approach and his stories only serve to obfuscate the issue rather than have it pointedly addressed. When they celebrate the passage of the 13th amendment it is certainly not a moral victory for all as it is for some because they are rejoicing the amount of cheap labour they will now be able to exploit. We now see how they are perceived today as a party.
The Art direction and make up is quite good because it is a period piece. The lighting is quite good for it serves to portray Lincoln as an engraved image throughout. All his gestures are meant to lend weight to the character within his time; he certainly died as a hero.
What’s bad about this film?
The main issue in this film is the maudlin sentiment and the sanitized portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is characteristically portrayed as a leader burdened by doing what he is supposed to do. He is even burdened by his wife who pesters him about a son that died in the war and another, Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who intends to join the army. This element is neither here nor there and becomes a bore. The great burdens he carries takes the life out of the film and his constant amusements with the telling of fables are mere exercises in cheap entertainment which are good for the time in which Lincoln resided but not for a 21st century audience. It bogs the film down in tedious unimaginative material. Focus is lost when Lincoln starts telling his stories. It would not have been bad if he told one or two but he tells several. It is all vague because people still have to ask what was meant. He parades like a layman with all the lordly wisdom to hold sway over his followers even though the wisdom was merely contrived political rhetoric with no substantial elements apart from the warped idealism at its core. I was not bamboozled by this man who is simply another politician and the filmmakers seem to spend too much time trying to depress the mood by portraying him as a man that carried this great burden. The character becomes so mired in shadow that there are times when you have to wonder what was so amazing about him apart from the fact that he issues orders and expects people to follow them blindly. He is a typical politician that says do this and do that but cannot do the work that is required. The skills of delegation are all he has and only once is his knowledge of the law brought forward as a means to examine the 13th amendment. He himself does not even address the people about the amendment and leaves it to political wrangling to get the job done. This emphasis on politics should have brought to the fore the bourgeois character of the politics which is sorely absent and only serves to sanitize the portrayal of Lincoln. Let us be clear Lincoln was a petty bourgeois and he championed the rights of the bourgeois class and his training in the law was on the basis of a bourgeois interpretation of the law. When Lincoln promises freedom he promises bourgeois freedom, that is domination by the bourgeois class and the workers that are free to sell their labour power to the few that control the means of production. The freedom to have the workers be exploited is the freedom that Lincoln espouses hence why the freedom of blacks saw them become simpering yes men and believers in a hollow deranged American dream about salvation through money (the bourgeois creed). The blacks after they became free subsisted in inhuman poverty because they represented the surplus population that depressed the wage bill i.e. they would only be able to find the most inhumane jobs. A job as a janitor was once glorified by the black community. This is the freedom that Lincoln speaks of and it is to the film’s credit that they briefly addressed the issue of equality with women. This freedom to sell your labour power is all that you have in bourgeois society and when you cannot sell it you end up deranged by illusions or you become one of the bourgeois class. The film fails to address and to put on the table the real reason why the republicans want to free the blacks because even Lincoln shamelessly reveals in the film that he declared emancipation so that the blacks would be the confiscated property of the confederate states. He was compromised because he had to wage war to challenge the secession of the confederate states. If he did not do it then someone else would; the material forces of production would have made it a necessity.
The maudlin sentiment therefore reinforces the political rhetoric and dogma that Lincoln represented. On the day of the vote there is a moment when several free blacks enter so as to help sway the situation. This is not geared towards any sentiment it is calculating politics yet it is portrayed as sentimental. It is clearly not a genuine moment. The blacks celebrate but look at the state of free societies today.
Lincoln therefore sacrifices the real causes and motives that would have made the film more definitive in its portrayal. Instead the film portrays a man so burdened that the film seems to suffocate. The pace is slow as a result and the canvassing of democratic votes is a life line in terms of entertainment. The film moves forward in a fatalistic manner and you can basically predict the outcome therefore the only element to be brought forward is less a faithful rendition than a touch of artistic freedom that would bring these issues to the forefront. There are only one or two sparks demonstrated by Lewis in his portrayal since he wishes to portray Lincoln faithfully; because the performance seems to engrave the picture of Lincoln on the mind of the audience there is no sense of any internal mannerisms that made him truly definitive. If Lewis does win the academy award i would not be surprised but I would not be surprised if he does not win because it seems like an easy way to win an oscar by portraying a famous dead president. It would still be good to see Lewis upstaged in favour of an up an coming actor that thrills the world with a vibrant acting performance that seems characteristic of the 21st century.
The faithful rendition almost makes the film historically accurate although the real reasons for the proclamation of freedom still lay beneath the surface of scheming politicians.
No comments:
Post a Comment