Lincoln: Beyond the Myth (Part One)

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 first part of that essay is below. I will post a new portfolio excerpt every day. 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: Beyond the Myth

Introduction

Abraham Lincoln is without question one of the most revered presidents in the history of the United States. He has been transformed from man to myth with monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial and Mount Rushmore, as well as with classic movies like Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) and Abe Lincoln in Illinois (1940). In American history and culture, he is often portrayed as a larger-than-life figure, one of superior moral intelligence – a national savior. Such mythologizing can give Americans a sense of historical grandeur and patriotism, but it can also be detrimental to the current and future success of the United States. This is especially true in times of mass cynicism. People may look to the past, claiming its purity and integrity, to prove the depravity of the present. Some long for a supposed moral era gone by, with books about former leaders – like the Founding Fathers – finding major success with mainstream American audiences. But are these idealistic depictions of our great leaders accurate? And what is the harm if they are not and people believe they are?

Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film Lincoln answers the first question – at least as far as the 16^th president is concerned – with a firm “No.” Its Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) is certainly a virtuous person, but he is not above the game of politics. In fact, he thrives when playing it. This version of Lincoln is a master politician who sometimes uses corrupt means to reach righteous ends. The film does not look down on the president for this. He is not berated or belittled for his actions. On the contrary, he simply comes across as determined. Such a portrayal of the Great Emancipator may be shocking to many audience members, but according to historians, Lincoln is on target with its summation of the man and his political practices.

This brings us to that second question: What is the harm in believing unrealistic and idealistic depictions of past leaders? The harm is that it can create impractical expectations for the present. This is not to say there are currently no immoral leaders who wheel and deal in ways that are difficult to justify; but there are also plenty of leaders with good intentions who may use questionable methods to create a better world. Whether those methods are worth the moral compromise is a question for another day. The key point here is that leaders need not be perfect to be great. Lincoln provides this lesson to an American public that badly needs it by rejecting the idealization of politics through its portrayal of the revered 16th president as both a moral figure and a savvy politician.

Source

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