Lincoln: Beyond the Myth (Part Four)

In my last semester of college, I completed a writing portfolio entitled "Exploring Modern American Culture through Contemporary Cinema." It contained four essays dissecting four recent films. The third essay examined how Steven Spielberg's Lincoln portrayed the 16th president of the United States. The fourth and final part of that essay is below. I will post a new portfolio excerpt every day. The final essay excerpts will come from my examination of David Fincher's The Social Network (2010). Previous posts: The Dark Knight - Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four; (500) Days of Summer - Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four; Lincoln - Part One, Part Two, Part Three.
 

 Lincoln: Beyond the Myth

An Accurate Depiction

The usefulness of Lincoln as an educational and inspirational tool for modern audiences hinges on its accuracy. If the real Lincoln was not like the man depicted in the film, if the 13th Amendment was not passed the way the movie shows, then the credibility of the overarching messages would be lost. Fortunately, historians have praised Lincoln for its attention to detail and overall correctness. Of course, some fictionalizing occurred translating history to cinema, with “small historical bloopers” appearing throughout, such as Congressmen voting by state delegation and a portrait of William Henry Harrison hanging in Lincoln’s office (Holzer). Despite these little errors, experts say “virtually every point that the story and script of ‘Lincoln’ makes is grounded in historical fact” (Hertzberg). For example, much of the dialogue was “directly drawn from letters, memoirs, and speeches” from the time period (Hertzberg). This dedication to truth in the making of Lincoln goes beyond the particulars of dialogue. Based on the non-fiction book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lincoln tells the true story of the president’s crusade to end slavery. He really did play dirty to get the job done, which is good news for today’s weary Americans. It means political games are not necessarily signs of the democracy’s downfall; there may still be hope for the nation’s leaders.

Conclusion

Trying to capture a moment in history is always a tricky venture, particularly when it comes to artistic media. Facts are left out, others are exaggerated, and sometimes obvious falsehoods are included for dramatic purposes. All of these things happen in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, but for the most part, it is a historically accurate piece of cinema. After decades of misleading depictions, the film finally presents Lincoln the man – not the myth – to popular culture. His legacy as the Great Emancipator is intact, but his fabricated purity is not. He is shown to be a moral man who is also a careful, determined politician. With his strange, introverted manner, he seems neither like a winning leader nor like the solemn interpretation of Lincoln popular in American culture. He is more than either of those. He is a portrait of the real person, a servant of the people with his eyes set on what is right. But that does not mean he is above crooked scheming. As he shouts at his Cabinet members, he is “the president of the United States of America, clothed in immense power” and he demands their cooperation, whatever that may entail (Spielberg). Perhaps the authentic duality of Spielberg’s Lincoln – the light and dark – can be an illumination for Americans, a sign of hope. Disunity does not have to be permanent, and imperfect leaders can achieve incredible goals.

Sources

Hertzberg, Hendrik. "‘Lincoln’ v. ‘Lincoln.’" New Yorker. 17 Dec 2012: n. page. Web. 2 Nov.2013..

Holzer, Harold. "What's True and False in "Lincoln" Movie." The Daily Beast. The Newsweek Daily Beast Company, 22 Nov 2012. Web. 2 Nov 2013.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. Lincoln. Writ. Tony Kushner, Perf. Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and Tommy Lee Jones. Touchstone Pictures, 2012. Film. 1 Nov 2013.