Four Score and Twenty Reels Ago...

Now let's talk about a President more than half the country can get behind.

I am honored to give you one of the very first reviews of Steven Spielberg's big holiday offering, "Lincoln."  It doesn't open until next week, but I was lucky enough to see a very early screening of the film.  It's apparently a Spielberg tradition to hold a sneak preview for the Harvard-Westlake private school in Los Angeles.  His kids went to the school and he's quite active there.  A very good friend of mine is a retired teacher and administrator.  And that's how I got in there.  Ahead of Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin.  Take that, guys!

Presidential history geek that I am, there was a lot of anticipation by yours truly for this movie.  Besides the fact that this would be a close look at the greatest President this country has ever known, it would also be refreshing to see some sanctity returned to the office.  It's been years since there was a Chief Executive in the White House that I was proud to call my leader.  And, for that reason alone, "Lincoln" does deliver.  You do watch a true President in action.  And, in present day America, we haven't seen one of those in several decades.

The curveball for all, though, is director Steven Spielberg's odd choice to focus almost 98% of the movie on just one month of Lincoln's administration.  January, 1865.  The month right before the vote to abolish slavery in the United States.  It totally limits the scope and the power of the film.  I wanted to see so much more and, ultimately, got a bit less. 

Allegedly, screenwriter Tony Kushner, who won a Pulitzer Prize for the Broadway play "Angels in America,"  turned in a 500 page first draft for his work on this movie.  Most screenplays are no more than 120 pages.  Can you say "overkill?"  It was at this point that Spielberg decided to shine his key light on just 70 pages.  He wanted to show the fight for equality in America, especially in light of the rancor and nonsense we have been getting from Washington DC the past twenty years.  While I can't completely argue with Spielberg's decision, the end result is a two-and-a-half-hour discourse on slavery.  Over and over and over and over. 

And over and over and over.

This is not to say that there's an awful lot to like in "Lincoln."  The acting is top-notch.  Daniel Day-Lewis is absolutely luminous in the title role.  Hiding behind tons of age make-up, he makes you forget you're watching an actor.  This is the best Lincoln has ever looked and that includes that robot they've been using down at Disneyland for years.  Supposedly, he even nailed the sing-song style of Lincoln's speech pattern which does exist on some ancient recordings.  It is likely Oscar time again for Daniel.

He'll have plenty of company on Oscar night.  Expect to see Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones up for supporting awards.   The former "Gidget" is amazing as the "a-little-bit-off-the-beam" Mary Lincoln and there is one scene where she conveys such emotion by simply wringing her hands.  Meanwhile, Tommy Lee plays a Senator who is staunchly for the end of slavery and he commands power every time he's on the screen.  If only he could have been on the ballot this Election Day....

Indeed, it's the home scenes with his wife and children when I was most riveted by "Lincoln."  The dynamic in the private quarters of the White House was fascinating to me.  Whether it was accurate or not, it provided a layer of humanity to this movie and a welcome respite to the ad nauseum slavery debates that dominate the rest of the film.  I wanted more.  And got a lot less.

Again, the script is the ultimate culprit here that prevents "Lincoln" from being a great movie.  The speeches throughout the film are quite prolific, eloquent, and, at the end of the day, dull.  When Abe goes on and on in one scene, you realize that he has just used over 200 words and five minutes of screen time to announce that he's going down to the White House kitchen for a glass of milk.  A good half-hour could have been excised from this movie without blinking an eye.

But, oddly, because of the limited scope, I did want to see more.  A in-depth look at Abraham Lincoln would have been better presented by a 10-hour TV mini-series.  That kind of undertaking would have done the man more justice.  And give the audience a chance to absorb his greatness before viewing the following installment next week. 

For those of you Lincoln assassination buffs, you should know that you're not well-versed with this production either.  The only deviation from January, 1865 is a quick look at the last week of Abe's life.  The conclusion of the Civil War and his subsequent trip to Ford's Theater.  Except you see nothing of the latter.  In a bizarre directorial choice, Spielberg instead shows you the play that young Tad Lincoln was seeing while his parents were at another theater.  Then, he cuts to the dead President lying in the bed of the rooming house where he died.  Surrounded by his associates.  A version of that painting that you and I have both seen many times.  Except it all feels a little lacking. 

I will have to see "Lincoln" again.  As I read the end credits, I saw a host of recognizable character actor names that I totally missed in the movie.  Most were obviously buried underneath scruffy hair wigs, big moustaches, and untrimmed beards.  And, when it comes to watching good actors, you can't see some movies too much.  I will want to savor again the performances of Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field.

And endure the argument about slavery one more time.  Hoping that, at some point, somebody shows us a lot more of the life of America's greatest statesman.

Dinner last night:  Had a big lunch, so just a salad.

Tomorrow:  Greetings from the beleaguered Big Apple.