23 of 31 people found the following review helpful
A few pearls in the mud,
This review is from: Lincoln [DVD] (DVD)
I looked forward to this movie and was immensely disappointed. Redeemed a little by some stupendous acting it nevertheless made me squirm. Hollywood cannot resist gilding the lily with a rose tinted syrupy coating of sentimentalism and myth. This is America attempting to hold onto itself against the tidal wave of repugnance for it's perpetual imperialist wars and its arrogant disdain for anyone not American. This is the plutocracy politically re-educating Americans about its "greatness". The eloquent and refined speeches from house servants and foot soldiers with their far off eyes made me nauseated.
The American dream has become a myth as epitomised by this production. Lincoln did not give a fig for the negroes at the beginning of the war, he believed that they should be equal before the law but would never be equal intellectually, he never attempted to moderate the destruction wrought by the Union Army on its march south and he moderated his murder of the American Indian only because he didn't want provoke Europe into joining in the war.
" Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.
So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."
Most journalists in America are nothing more than Government cheerleaders. Most Hollywood directors too and, new to me, film critics, apparantly.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 4 Mar 2014, 22:59:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Mar 2014, 23:00:22 GMT
A 'tidal wave' from irrational anti-Americans who fail to grasp the fact that every country in the world could be construed as bad if we all dwelt on their negatives.
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2014, 08:23:40 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 5 Mar 2014, 08:25:01 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Mar 2014, 08:28:19 GMT
Mr. M. R. MOORE says:
"irrational", you say. In what way, Professor? The movie, John Adams, by the way, is good.
Posted on 19 Sep 2015, 09:57:46 BST
Andrew Dalby says:
The point of a review is to comment on the film not the politics of the time. Lincoln was a man of his times and those times were racist and violent. He behaved as any other President of his time would have, and better than most. The corruption of Grant, for example is legendary. The speeches from the servant is the only one over-done, for the black soldiers he is giving the perspective of those who fought and actually got nothing in return but they were not to know that at the time of the film. After his death the resettlement deal negotiated by the Southern States and the Democrats would give the Democratic Party dominance in the South for a century until Segregation would put the Democrats on the side of integration and the Republicans would come to dominate the old south as the two party's positions flipped over. Reality is much more complex and right and wrong is fine for the textbook or the arm-chair but Real-Politik is not the same. This is a film and it is a good film and an emotional one. It is not a perfect retelling of history. That is for history books.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›