Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry …
UPDATE: Toronto Lands World Premiere Of Godfrey …
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ …
CBS Reups Tony Awards Through 2018
HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But …
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and …
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s …
Cannes: Radius-TWC Buys Keanu Reeves’ Helming Debut …
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath …
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By …
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play …
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production …
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults …
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots …
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider …
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry …
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including …
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown …
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic …
DreamWorks and 20th Century Fox this afternoon premiered the trailer for Lincoln, which opens November 9:
Related: Spielberg & Joseph Gordon-Levitt Introduce ‘Lincoln’ Trailer
Loading ... Loading ...
I love Spielberg and all. He’s a god. But this is one of the worst trailers I’ve ever seen. Did anyone else get a headache from all the fading?
It’s OTN isn’t it? And what’s with Lincoln’s voice? I expected something with gravitas. Kinda whiny, like the drunk on Gunsmoke.
That’s how they say his voice sounded. I’m surprised that they actually did it. I was afraid they’d ruin it and give him a voice that isn’t accurate.
That is correct. It is said he had a rather high voice, somewhat harsh, and piercing.
Should’ve used the Optimus Prime voice.
Lincolns voice was reported as being a bit high a whiny. It may not be good for a movie, but it is historically accurate.
As much as I was looking forward to this movie, it looks bad. What is the story of the film? From this trailer it is impossible to tell. And Mary Todd Lincoln was nuts, not particularly noble. Obviously this will be another soapy Hollywood version of Lincoln. Oh, well.
Actually Mary Lincoln was eccentric, not crazy. Sometime after Lincoln was killed she went to NYC and tried to sell the clothes she wore while in the White House. She also carried a lot of money around in the form of bonds. Reporters wrote about her behaviour and her son Robert, now an attorney, did not like the negative publicity the family was getting. He packed a court with his lawyer friends and had her committed to an asylum. Although the asylum was more like a country club, a woman reporter found out where she was and crusaded for her release writing that it was more like a snake pit. This got her another hearing without Robert and his friends and was released after a few months. She then went to Germany, and who can blame her.
I’m hoping not, with DDL playing him, I think there is a chance the character will be done justice, though Speilberg is bound to over-dramatize.
What’s with all this Whiney junk. I always heard he was soft spoken. There’s a big difference.
Speaking of historically accurate here is a quote from Lincoln (the benevolent slave lover)
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
The Civil War had little to do with slavery and everything to do with Crony Capitalism/Corporatism.
If you’re really concerned about historical accuracy, you might try quoting his speech more accurately.
“Now, gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects—certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”
To say the least, your quote does not support your claim that the civil war wasn’t about slavery. The full quote, taken from the Lincoln/Douglas debates, is anti-slavery. If you need further proof that slavery was the issue in the civil war, read the confederate states’ declarations of independence which focus squarely on slavery as the cause.
“…I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.”
It had everything to do with slavery…everything. The Lincoln quote from the debates with Douglas must be taken in context…he was speaking to a pro-slavery crowd that was against blacks holding office, acting as witnesses in court, or intermarrying with whites. You will note that nowhere in that quote does Lincoln actually say that blacks are inferior, only that his preference (and not inalienable right) was to have a superior position in society. Lincoln did not believe that freeing the slaves would put them on equal footing in society. But Lincoln’s hatred of slavery, and his constant attacks upon it throughout his life, show that he considered it a great moral wrong, and his racial attitudes changed when blacks joined the union army on the field of battle. Lincoln had many African American clients and several who were close personal friends in Springfield, Illinois, so don’t judge the private man and his personal wishes for equality by the public persona that tried to assuage public sentiment so he could stay the political course. He ultimately achieved what he wished for…modern day African-American historians claim Lincoln was a crude bigot…nonsense! They also claim that Lincoln did not do enough for blacks. Since when is sacrificing one’s life for advocating voting rights for blacks, and being murdered by a white supremacist not enough?
This is to Alcibiades asinine statement “If you need further proof that slavery was the issue in the civil war, read the confederate states’ declarations of independence”.
Its true that some of the examples that some of the Southern States gave for the justification for secession, was how the Northern States were violating the United States Constitution by not enforcing the law confirmed in the Dred Scott decision issued by the US Supreme Court in 1857.
One important fact that many of these revisionist leave out, is the act and the reasons for secession was a totally separate event from why the Southern States was compelled to go war with the Northern States.
The South was invaded by the hostile and aggressive armies of the North that was burning, looting and murdering. That why the South was compelled to fight a war. What would you do if you’re State, home and Family was threaten? Do you think there would if been a war if the South had not been invaded? The South many times during war tried to make peace with the North, but tyrant Lincoln wouldn’t have anything to do with it.
Lincoln never said the Civil War was about slavery. Its, and his, mission was to preserve the Union.
I’m pretty sure that the speech you are quoting from was giving to a bunch of white people, and Lincoln was trying to get them to go along with something. But if you actually think that the Civil War was about slavery, then…..you lost.
Dear Will,
I never met a man I didn’t like, until I met you
Right on. Pining brother against brother, for the sake of trade wars, and States rights, was the worst act of declaring a civil war.
Lincoln’s voice was described as “high pitched” and “reedy”. It’s just a myth that he sounded like Gregory Peck.
Well, it is certain he didn’t sound like he has an Irish accent, which, at a few times in the trailor, he does.
Movies are entertainment intended to attract audiences. The voice, whether accurate or not, is off-putting.
In addition, it appears like Spielberg tried to make Lincoln appear like the head of today’s Democratic Party. By that, I don’t mean Obama, I mean any Democrat that might be heading the Party.
I wonder if the movie will say anything about how many years of Democratic domination before Lincoln’s election prevented any reform of slavery, and that is was the election, for the first time, of a Republican to the Presidency that spurred the South to begin to separate. Even before Lincoln got in office and before he did anything, simply because he was a Republican and not a Democrat–who they knew would protect slavery.
Will that be in the movie–since we are being historically accurate and all.
Check some Lincoln biographies. For such a tall, imposing presence he was reported to have a quite high, reedy voice out of character with his appearance.
It’s what he said, not how he sounded.
If you want a fairytale, Lincoln has a deep voice. But the best historical scholarship says he didn’t. In fact it’s a good thing his words were so eloquent, because his voice did not help them.
So you’re saying that everything in the movie is perfectly accurate?
No. Only that they didn’t give him an absurd baritone. Lincoln’s voice was high-pitched and squeaky. He would have also had a backwoods Kentucky accent. People laughed at him until they heard what he had to say.
I don’t know how “backwoodsy” Linclon’s accent might have been. He was well educated, albeit self-educated.
The most definitive portrayal ever done of Lincoln was by none other than Hal Holbrook back in the 1980′s in a Hallmark Hall of Fame production, and Holbrook just happens to be in Speilberg’s movie! Imagine watching another actor portray the same character years later. In any case, suprisingly, Daniel Day Lewis, who is an brilliant actor in my opinion, clearly did not study the Kentucky accent at all, something Hal Holbrook spent a lot of time perfecting. Also, Holbrook had brilliant make up…it appears that Speilberg’s production veered away from copying Lincoln’s likeness, which I think was a mistake, because at times I am too conscious of seeing Lewis and forgetting he’s supposed to be Lincoln. In any case, as Walt Whitman said, “There are many likenesses of Lincoln; there is no portrait of him.”
Couldn’t agree more. He did the best Lincoln I’ve ever seen.
Lincoln didn’t grow up in KY, so he didn’t have a KY accent. He grew up in Southern Indiana, and moved to Central IL at 21, so a Kentucky accent wouldn’t be correct. What I saw in the clips seemed pretty good, as someone from Central Illinois, where the accents still have a twing of the south.
Don’t think because he had a high-pitched voice that Lincoln was not an effective speaker. Although his movements seemed awkward, Lincoln was a very passionate, effective, and moving speaker. His Cooper Union Speech really paved the way for his being nominated for the Presidency. I must say, reading all these blogs, there is a huge contingency of the American populace quite educated on the subject of Lincoln…a true testament to the greatness of the man.
His voice did not *have* gravitas. He supposedly had kind of a higher-pitched voice.
ENOUGH with the “VOICE”, already!!!
Behold a work of power, majesty and meaning. Stunning.
Festus was not a drunk! Whiny, yes–but not a drunk! And yes, also, this is not the voice for Lincoln I expected. Don’t forget he was pretty much reviled by the northern elite for being a country bumpkin.
LOL- touche’!
A brief aside…Louie was the town drunk in Gunsmoke, not Festus.
According to everything I have read, his contemporaries considered him to have an unusually high voice.
He was not Gregory Peck, Lincoln had a high pitched, somewhat whiny voice in life. Read a book
Reason is for reality’s sake – while we all like to imagine Lincoln as having a gravely voice, accounts seem to agree with it high and a tad whiny.
Uh, maybe it’s because historical records indicate he had a high-pitched voice.
Yes, this is correct. It has been documented that Lincoln had a high pitched, nasal-y voice. I can’t wait to see this movie!
Greg, Lincoln was known to have a high pitched voice. I’m actually suprised they went with that historical fact, but glad they did.
I agree. Lincoln had a very high pitched voice. It has been documented.
I wonder how Spielberg feels about making a movie about a Republican…..
-RnsW
Republican now and republican then is two different things. Perhaps one should read into the fact that he did not care about slavery, but larger govt., which would somewhat describe liberal democrats. Abraham Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist.
You are correct. The ‘liberal’ party in 1860 were the Republicans. The ‘conservatives’ were the Democrats. The 1860 election was, in a sense, two elections with Lincoln (R) and Douglas (D) on the northern state’s ballots and Bell (Constitutional Union) and former VP Breckinridge (D) on the southern and border states ballots. Lincoln was not only NOT on the ballot in the south he also only won the northern half of the northern state’s counties — i.e. northern Illinois, northern Indiana, northern Ohio, etc. A look at the county-by-county breakdown of the 1860 Election is fascinating and worth a look. No wonder we went to Civil War after a deeply divided election like that.
re: “Republican now and republican then is two different things. Perhaps one should read into the fact that he did not care about slavery, but larger govt., which would somewhat describe liberal democrats. Abraham Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist.”
It is not true that Lincoln did “not care about slavery, but larger government”. For you to say such a thing demonstrates that you have not read very many speeches by Lincoln.
Yes, Lincoln’s primary purpose in the civil war was to reunite the country. He saw secession as a direct threat to the continuing existence of the union. If a state could simply vote itself out of the United States anytime it so desired, then eventually, all of the states could simply set up shop as an independent nation (as they basically were prior to the Constitution). We would be “Europe”, not a Nation of united states.
However, to say that Lincoln did not “care about slavery” is a wide stretch. He accurately said that, as president, he had no power over the states where slavery existed to interfere with it – that was not granted to him by the Constitution. But, he strongly supported limiting slavery to where it already was, and not allow it to spread to the territories which would become states in the future. He supported this because he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, a sin, an evil. Read his Cooper Union speech.
As to Lincoln promoting larger government? As compared to now?? Are you kidding?? Much of Lincoln’s “big government” policy moves was due to the necessities of the civil war, not because that was his goal as president.
He did think the federal government should promote the building of railroads, canals, etc. because it aided commerce and helped the country to grow. But, to compare that to what we have today?? Not in anyone’s wildest dream or nightmares of Lincoln’s day could even conceive of such a huge, all-encompassing federal monstrosity that we have today. Thank FDR for that!
Lincoln had a high and shrill voice according to people who listened to speeches at the time. The Hall of Presidents gets it wrong.
Actually, Lincoln had a very high pitched, almost squeaky voice. When he made his first major address in NY at the start of his petition for presidency, the entire crowd started laughing at first. But (and this is a testament to the difference in quality of humans then vs. now) they became silent because his words were so powerful. By the end of his speech, the entire audience was in a thrall.
According to historians, Lincoln had a thin, reedy voice – so he’s being historically accurate. Most people think George Patton sounded like George C. Scott, but if you listen to the few recordings of his voice, it doesn’t match the image of the man.
Yes, Patton had a much higher more chihuahua-like voice than George C. Scott.
Lincoln supposedly had a fairly high/weak sort of voice. I guess the filmmakers were going for accuracy rather than a portrayal similar to what we have seen in previous Lincoln films. Although accurate, I agree it is off-putting.
Read accounts of Lincoln’s speeches and you will find that President Lincoln had a high-pitched voice.
well, in BILL & TED’S Lincoln had a deeper voice and as far as I’m concerned that is the definitive record! All joking aside, seriously people? You are knocking his voice?
Lincoln had a high-pitched voice. He was from rural America and spoke like it. Pardon if he didn’t sound like a Harvard-educated, snot-nosed elitist.
Who said anything about Harvard-educated, snot-nosed elitists? You have some deeper problems here.
According to eyewitness accounts, Lincoln did have a high, squeaky voice, sort of like Walter Brennan. He was born in Kentucky, so there’s a slight drawl. I think Day-Lewis’s portrayal is probably right on.
Born in KY but raised in IL
Lincoln is known to have had a high, reedy voice.
By all accounts, Lincoln’s voice was as it is portrayed here. A contemporary called it “shrill, squeaking, piping, unpleasant.”
According to the 25 Deadline reader comments, Lincoln actually had a somewhat high, even reedy (believe it or not), voice. This is based on historical fact!
Its funny though. One of my favorite movie jokes is when movies are made about Russia or Austria and instead of doing subtitles, they just give the characters English accents to make them seem dated or intelligent. Its nice to see a movie transcend this but really, the audience just wants the people to sound how their characters are supposed to be. Lincoln should have a deep voice to match his tall stature and position. Gravitas. I like it.
Lincoln did have a high pitched voice, though I am surprised to see it portrayed. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had Tidewater Virginia accents, but Hollywood always makes them sound as if they were from Ohio.
Abe Lincoln actually had a voice that has been described as “squeaky”. His speaking range was high pitched.
I’ll take a protrayal of the man as he was, warts and all.
I was not impressed with the voice; I’m surprised that Hal Holbrook is in this movie, because when he played Lincoln in one of his movies, that was the voice I remembered as being Lincoln. It kinda makes it weird. They shouldn’t of cast him in this film…
Hal Holbrook too old to play Lincoln. He is well into 80s. Lincoln was 56 when he died.
The voice is completely wrong…I agree.
Lincoln’s voice was, when he first began speaking, shrill, squeaking, piping, unpleasant; his general look, his form, his pose, the color of his flesh, wrinkled and dry, his sensitiveness, and his momentary diffidence, everything seemed to be against him, but he soon recovered.
–William H. Herndon letter, July 19, 1887
But whenever he began to talk his eyes flashed and every facial movement helped express his idea and feeling. Then involuntarily vanished all thought or consciousness of his uncouth appearance, or awkward manner, or even his high keyed, unpleasant voice.
–Abram Bergen in Intimate Memories of Lincoln
The [second] inaugural address was received in most profound silence. Every word was clear and audible as the ringing and somewhat shrill tones of Lincoln’s voice sounded over the vast concourse.
–Noah Brooks in Washington in Lincoln’s Time
Day-Lewis’ Lincoln voice is obviously based on contemporary descriptions (quoted in this thread). Much more important, then as now, was the simple eloquence (even beauty)of what he said. I’m glad Speilberg didn’t do a hatchet job on Abe, even though Lincoln was Republican.
I agree about the voice. Does anyone know what Lincoln really sounded like?
Actually, according to historic accounts, Lincoln had a very high and nasal voice. It hasn’t been since the advent of radio, film, and television did the producers of entertainment see fit to give Lincoln the sounding voice we are accustomed to.
Historical accounts refer to Lincoln as having an irritating voice, kind of whiny cracky and all. Even journalists in his time spoke of his annoying cat on a hot roof voice.
I’ve heard that Lincoln didn’t have a great speaking voice. Sort of high pitched and nasal. A guy with that voice would not be elected today. Also someone with that somewhat less than GQ face wouldn’t get elected in today’s shallow media culture.
So today we mostly elect handsome men (comparatively) with shallow intellects (comparatively).
For your information, the real President Lincoln had a high pitched nasal voice not a resonant baritone one would expect from so grand a historial figure.
I agree! Some filmmakers seem to think that fading makes a trailer look more “epic.” It just gets to be annoying, and reminds me of all the Youtube parodies of films like this.
Why is there so much fading?
Seriously. Worst trailer ever. But all Spielberg trailers suck.
Yes, it gave me a headache from the fading. Worthy subject matter but other than Lewis, the choice of actors is an insult to history.
Too bad this is a Spielberg movie. He ruins anything in a serious vein. Everything is always so cliche’ed and full of steals from older movies. Any real movie buff can watch any Spielberg movie and pick out half a dozen scenes directly stolen from other movies. Abe deserves better than Steven.
It looks to be very sentimental and trite. I agree. Abe deserves better. And you can be sure he leaves out the part about Liberia.
I agree that this trailer was horrible with the constant fading. But the movie looks like it will be great.
Sir, surely you cannot be serious, this is an extraordinary trailer for a film that will go down as one of Mr. Spielberg’s most remarkable accomplishments.
Based upon this trailer, Spielberg has produced another deceptive and totally false view of Lincoln. Lincoln is the second worst president America has endured and his evil actions continues to grip our nation. Lincoln could have cared less about slavery and only used it when it became politically expedient. No morals or character whatsoever, and he is the father of modern day political hacks and a murderer of American men, women and children…
yep, the Great Liberator never freed a single slave. He could have freed slaves in the Northern & Border States, but he didn’t. He only declared slaves in the CSA to be free and he had no control over the CSA.
No more Dreamworks movies for me.
I wouldn’t spend a dime on this crappy propaganda.
Maybe I’ll download the torrent, just in case it has some good parts. I always liked DDL, but won’t put a penny in Spielberg’s pockets.
This looks terrible, sorry. Lincoln is a legend and an icon, and the trailer makes him look like… a legend and an icon. Not a character or a person.
Lincoln’s voice sounds like he is doing a bad impersonation of Bill Clinton
WTF? HE’S A GOD, PLEEEASE!
Festus was not a drunk, Lewie was.
Anyone notice NO scenes covering Lincolns head being shot by Booth?
If not for that Lincoln would have been called ‘that president during the civil war’
Lessee . . . An aura of sanctimony and self-importance. Awful acting as a result. Cringe-worthy writing. And all that is just from the trailer. I hate this movie already!
YEA, spielberg is a has been. The tiny clips were a waste of time.
Bad trailer and I hope it doesn’t mean there is no substance to the movie…It has to be more dialogue for Lincoln and I don’t think Spielberg is capable of dialogue…he likes to bang things around.
Probably will stick with my books.
Spielberg a God……………don’t think so.
I didn’t get a headache from watching the trailer….I did however get one from reading your wining. I love it when people set up their complaint by propping up the thing they care complaining about first.
You were not the only one….I got a migraine!
Oh my goodness, you are right! It messed with my eyes. I thought I was going to start having seizures!
I completely agree–it looks like another amistad and will likely do as well at BO–Steve is great but his achilles is smaltz and he can’t resist. also Daniel should have come up with another voice he sounds like the paperboy–no one knows how Lincoln sounds so the field is wide open–something with more gravitas
I agree on all the fading. It becomes a bit too much. But I don’t get all the complaints about Lincoln’s voice. From all the comments people spout against it, I was expecting something out of a Pee Wee Herman bag of vocal gymnastics. This sounded like what I would imagine him as having – not the deep James Earl Jiones bravado commanding the god down from Mouunt Olympus.
I’m in complete agreement Jojo. Utterly bland. I’m unimpressed.
I full agree with you – this trailer is one of the worst I have seen in a long time. Fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down… And then this dated, overly patriotic piece of music on top of everything… YIKES! WHAT A CLICHE!!!!
Day-Lewis? Perfect choice, hes about the best there is right now. Shuttup and take my money Speilberg, again.
I had no idea that President Lincoln and Forrest Gump had the same mother.
Wrong… Forrest Gump’s mom is Lincoln’s wife, so the film should have been Forrest Lincoln.
No Forest Gump’s mother was Lincolns wife. Maybe that makes means Lincoln was Forrest’s father.
Sally Field is playing Mary Todd Lincoln, his WIFE, not his mother. Geez don’t you know your history???
I wonder if when Mary Todd Lincoln walks into Ford’s theater to the sound of applause, she’ll say, “You like me, you really like me.”
I can’t believe they cast her as Mary. Mary was 10 years younger than Lincoln, SF is 10 yrs older than DDL? What were they thinking.
My thoughts exactly. Sally Field is WAY TOO OLD to play Mary Todd. The better choice would have been Jennifer Jason Leigh (or maybe even Mare Winningham, who looks just like her)
It’s funny you say that because Nancy Hanks (Abraham Lincoln’s mom) is a direct ancestor of Tom Hanks.
Tom Hanks may be related to Nancy Hanks, but can’t be a direct descendant. Lincoln’s only sister died in childbirth, along w/ the child, and Lincoln himself has no surviving descendants, last one died in the 1970s. May be a cousin or something.
Boring. Snooze. History Channel movie. SS has lost it.
Thank goodness they cut the vampires out.
@Jojojojojo: Nope, but I got goosebumps
Ok–dyzzing fade outs–WAY TOO MANY snippets..and, I’m sure this can’t be the case in the film–but DANIEL DAY LEWIS’ moment of “impassioned pleading of his case”is really THIN and flat. He’s the worst part of the trailer! He’s earned well deserved accolades because he’s brilliant–but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him be unbelievable in a moment–and here it was–Spielberg used that in the trailer? I’m scratching my head.
Looks good.
Meh. A string of grand, preachy scenes, not the realist portrayal I was hoping for.
this will probably a good movie technically, but it’s made by and populated with the typical far left hollywood liberals. they always include their leftism in their movies. I’m not really that interested any more.
What a lame comment
Lame, perhaps but more accurate than the movie will be.
What poster donzxcv probably means by his comment about “far left hollywood liberals’ is that this movie will probably be inaccurate in showing Lincoln being obsessed over abolishing slavery. He wasn’t. He was obsessed in holding the Union together. Freeing the slaves was always secondary as proven by the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t issued until late in the war and did not apply to slaves in border states not at war with the Union. You can also be sure the movie won’t show that Lincoln had the same attitude as nearly everybody else in the 19th Century about Negroes; that they were inferior beings.
I personally like Abe Lincoln and may see this movie but I do expect to be a romantic whitewashing of a complex historical figure.
Lewis Forro
Virginia Beach, VA
Excellent comment.
Will it show the concentration camps where soldiers starved to death? Will it explain that Lincoln had a very, very low opinion of blacks? Will it show Lincoln’s attempt to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Will it show Lincoln closing down NORTHERN newspapers that dared question his agenda?
What are the odds this movie will show Lincoln’s bloodlust and willingness to lead the slaughter of 620,000 Americans? Or will this be as realistic as E.T.?
Wow, Phil G. It’s pretty easy to question Lincoln in 2012. I’d like to see you live in the absolute WORST TIME period in American History and do better. I’m sure you’ve lived a perfect Phil G life and never made any mistakes. Get lost Ron Paulbot boy.
A little perspective in life would be nice.
Okay that was funny, I don’t care who you are!
“A little perspective in life would be nice.”
Really? I guess you are looking for a historically inaccurate fairy-tale perspective? It was the “WORST TIME” period in American history b/c of Lincoln, not in spite of him. But, I guess slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Americans is your idea of doing “better”. Get lost Bill O’Whiny-bot boy.
You need to learn your FACTS. Nobody is saying that Lincoln was a bad guy. He was a brilliant (but flawed) President. However, he would be considered a racist by today’s standards. All you have to do is read his first inaugural address. He wanted to keep the status quo with the south. Emancipation was initially given as a pragmatic solution to deal with “contraband”.
Perspective is important but it doesn’t change FACTS. If this is factually done most of America will be shocked. This does not denigrate Lincoln but it will change opinions. He was not the great abolitionist that many make him out to be. He was progressive for his time but certainly not extreme.
For the record – the war wasn’t about equality. It was about MONEY. It’s always about the money. The South had “assets” valued at more than the total treasury of the United States. Leaving aside the moral issue it would be the equivalent of going to Iowa and Oklahoma and telling them that they could no longer use any equipment with a gas powered engine. They would be sunk and crushed economically. This is what the South was trying to protect. The North refused to grant them protection of their greatest assets and investments.
The Civil War is a dark period of our history. We’ve made it into a battle over equality. However, for the vast majority it was a battle of States rights vs Federal rights. What the South wanted was to simply be left alone. The North wouldn’t allow that.
One final thought … the cost of the Civil War – economically and in blood loss – was tremendous. If you take issue with 10,000 soldiers dying over 10 years in Iraq/Afghanistan would you support 200K deaths today if Iowa/Oklahoma/Kansas all said that they wanted to govern themselves? The results of the war were certainly highly desirable. However, the cost of achieving those results was questionable. If both sides knew what the toll would eventually be there is NO WAY they would have fought. However, like most wars, this one dragged on much longer than either side anticipated.
Again…judging Lincoln and the Civil War in a modern day context. All of white society was racist back then. The question is the degree of Lincoln’s racism…read “Twenty Days” and take a look at his friendships with blacks – Billy the Barber, and others. If Lincoln was a crude bigot, why did he treat blacks with equanimity to whites, and work behind the scenes to represent their legal and business interests? Those are the FACTS. Also, Lincoln did not press the war..who fired on Fort Sumter? Southerners blamed “Yankee aggression” but who succeeded from the Union, formed their own government, took up arms and attacked a Federal fort? The scale and carnage of the Civil War are facts to be sure…but to blame Lincoln for the South’s course of action, and the consequences, is niave. Remember the First Inaugural Address? Lincoln told the nation that the fate of the nation was in their hands. He wasn’t about to do anything to tip the scales…but once attacked by the Confederates he had no choice but to act.
“All of white society was racist”?
Really,thats quite a blanket indictment of a whole race,what about the folks who were abolitionists?
“It’s pretty easy to question Lincoln in 2012.”
Not as easy as it is to praise him and pretend he was a saint.
“A little perspective in life would be nice.”
I agree. Every single thing that Phil G said was true. Sorry if it makes Lincoln look bad. Truth is still better than lies, even lies of omission.
You make President Lincoln out to be the boogeyman. Bloodlust? Really?
Without him, the United States of America would not exist. Without him, two separate nations would have been at each other’s throats for decades and slavery might still be an institution on the shores of the North America continent.
World history for was shaped for the better by his leadership. Or perhaps you believe that the world would be better off without his resolve?
Some historians believe there would be as many as 8 separate nations here instead of 1.
The Federal states would have probably remained united.
Texas would have likely seceded from the Confederacy within a few years. Possibly Virginia as well. California, Arizona and New Mexico (and maybe Nevada as well), would be their own country, if old Mexico didn’t seize them back. The Pac-Northwest, possibly to include Idaho, would be on their own. Montana and Wyoming; separate. Utah would have become a Mormon country of its own.
Now, project all this forward by about 90 years. No *United* states of America, but a number of small, balkanized nations. Then Nazi Germany arises. No unified industrial capability, no unified will to fight, no unified will to support the free nations of Europe.
What would the world have looked like then?
Why would the two countries be at war for decades? The south wanted to LEAVE the Union. They weren’t interested in taking land or anything. As for slavery, it ended in every other western country without a civil war and mass bloodshed. Clearly the U.S. Civil War was about something else. When you figure it out, you’ll see why Lincoln’s decisionmaking was foolhardy and unnecessary.
If he had the resolve to let the south leave and then encourage the states to come back, one by one, without mass death and misery THAT would be some good resolve.
agreed….so why did the South attack Fort Sumter and start the war?
Total baloney. Lincoln WAS a boogeyman. He did indeed start the War Between the States. He had whole towns destroyed, the men wiped out, the children and women spirited away. He willingly ordered lots and lots of sheer bloody atrocities. All you have to do is read some documented history. And quit your kool-aid addiction if you can. I bet you can’t do either. Spielberg made this funerary bit of slow-motion holy crap for gullible cannon fodder like you.
People need to read and understand Lincoln in his time. His views on blacks/slavery changed and evolved over time, although he always abhorred slavery but felt it was protected by the Constitution. Preserving the Union was his number one goal, knowing if the country was broken up, the issue of slavery became a moot point.
He went from viewing blacks as inferior, to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, to signing the 13th amendment, to professing the desire to give the freed slaves voting rights, which was one of the reasons Booth killed him. Lincoln thought slavery would eventually die out over time, and fought to limit the Expansion of slavery, when the political culture turned to start trying to expand slavery into the territories, he spoke out and re-entered politics, and the rest, as they say, is History.
As with most Hollywood drivel, the truth will be far removed from the play. This is not about education of historical facts it’s about revisionist history twisting to create a fictious foundation for modern perversions.
Until Korea, wars were fought to be won. The debate on the morality of sending men to die is obviously debatable, but Lincoln did what he had to do to save the USA, given the times.
One of the worst camps was in the SOUTH, Andersonville, where conditions got progressively worse AFTER Lincoln halted the practice of exchanging prisoners due to the South’s refusal to take black soldiers prisoner instead of shooting them on the spot. (I guess because he hated blacks so much sarc/)
I went to Fort McHenry this past year for the 1st. time in a long time. Fort McHenry was used to lock up dissenters like Newspaper Editors and State Senators in the North who opposed the war or sympathized with the South. This is what the official tour guide for the Federal Government was telling the crowd. Was shocked that was left out of the history books.
Looks rife with historical inaccuracies to me, but it’ll probably be pretty entertaining.
Is the audience supposed to prostrate themselves in reverence for the entire movie?
REALLY? So the civil war is now retroactively about the single issue of slavery? It’s the economy stupid! It always was. The abolition issue was “A” factor, but not “THE” factor that drove the country to war. it was a states rights issue, it was about power grabs and balance….
False. The slavery issue was the primary factor. The democrat Douglas campaigned on state’s rights, or in otherwords wanted each state to decide for itself if it wanted to be a free state or a slave state. Lincoln campaigned on the abolitionist stand. Even the first republican convention in 1856 had the abolitionist movement in the spotlight, check the New York Times articles.. the Lion of the evening was an abolitionist named Samuel Newitt Wood who had been fighting to make Kansas a free state. He helped get Lincoln elected and was appointed part of his cabinet. The bloody Kansas conflict, the Missouri compromise, the fugitive slave act following the Kentuckian raid into Cass County Michigan to stop the underground railroad. The county was fighting over the slave issue, with Republicans on the side of freeing the slaves and the Democrats on the side of the slaveholders. This fact is what causes most liberals to try and rewrite history to say that it wasn’t the primary cause for the war. They try and rewrite history to say that the abolitionists hated blacks. Most of the abolitionist were Quakers that were apposed to slavery going back to the 1600s and they were behind the women’s suffrage movement. They religiously believed in equality, it was their core belief in fact.
You must have been educated in the Chicago school district because you are wrong about Lincoln’s platform as a presidential candidate. Lincoln campaigned on the state’s right to choose free or slave. That is why Missouri and Kansas were such intense statehood issues of the day. Lincoln did – rightfully so – abore slavery and want to see it ended. Slavery was a central issue to the Civil War. However- The states would not have ratified the Constitution without the 10th Ammendment. Please read Federalist Paper 45. Also, the north was imposing taxes and tariffs on the transportation of good from the south along rivers. The north was ahead of the south in technology and the south’s economy would have collapsed if slavery was instantly abolished. This does not make slavery right in any sense of the word. However, you do not understand the forces that were in play associated to all elements of the Civil War.
Emancipation Proclomation – This is the anniversary of the batte of Sharpsburg MD. That is when Lee invaded the north for the first time and scared the hell out of Washington DC. Lincoln introduced the Emancipation Proclomation(freeing slave in the south only((not the North)) ) as a issue of conscience, but also as a matter of disrupting the South which in 1862 was defeating the Union if every battle except those in Tennessee.
The Civil War had to be fought to save the Union. Lincoln was on the right side of this issue. But understanding history as it happened versus the crap they teach in school or making movies out of is entirely different.
Pick up a few books from both perspectives. Understand why we became the country we did. Then understand why it is being destroyed by people that no nothing of how it was created.
Today most liberals embrace Lincoln and his Republican party as the follow progressives
and look upon the Democrats and Confederacy as conservative reactionaries not
liberal revolutionaries.
Isn’t it ironic that the states of the old Union and and Confederacy
seem to match the current red/blue political divide in this country?
Yeah, as in the right of the states to decide if its people could OWN other people. Yup states rights. If you need further convincing just refer to most of the contemporary secessionist literature of the day. It was a plank of the southern democrat platform in the 1850s. They viewed as essential to the southern way of life. Try reading a book instead of klan propaganda.
Slavery is evil,yes,but then so is war.
The FACT is,that the industrial revolution was right around the corner,and would have made slavery unprofitable in a matter of a few decades anyway.
While I’d like to state again that I am in no way a supporter of the Confederacy,because I do not believe in human bondage of any form,the Civil War,as pointed out in many other posts here,was not about slavery alone.
large parts of the north and most of south was totally destroyed 600,000 dead, the economy ruined and the nation brought to the edge of absolute armageddon,and the costs would take a century to pay off. To suggest this was about the economy is utter dumb shit
How does the death toll and economy prove that it wasn’t about the economy?
Those are functions of gross miscalculations made by both sides. You can READ THAT in the official correspondences of the North and South. Both thought that the war would be over quickly without much bloodshed. Both sides were very, very wrong.
Yes the Civil War was essentially a one issue war–slavery and the old canard that it was about “the economy” or “states rights” (divorced, of course, by the ‘right’ to own slaves) can easily be challenged by asking the claimant (you) to make a case where there would have been a civil war in mid 19th century America IF you take out the institution of slavery–completely. Now you tell us how the economics and regionalism would have spawned a war without slavery being the cause. I will await your answer.
got to americascaesar.com/
Expand the first post “Why the War Was Not About Slavery” – read with an open mind. The book Americas Caesar is also online here for free. Read the fist two chapters… with an open mind.
Money, money, money.
It’s simple – before Lincoln came to office the South pushed for guarantees that their primary economic asset (which was valued above the entire treasury of the United States) would be taken away. When they did not get the protection they were seeking they took steps to secede.
And if you think Lincoln came into office to shake things up from a racial equality perspective think again. From his first inaugural address – just months before the war would start (excerpt provided – recommend reading the entire address):
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other …”
Lincoln tried to reassure the South that things would remain status quo. However, stronger legislation was promoted by the South to provide additional guarantees under the Constitution. They could not get those passed and they didn’t take Lincoln’s word.
All of this is not to say that Lincoln was a bad person or that he didn’t make the right decision. It is to say that he was not a radical abolitionist. His primary purpose in prosecuting the war was unity not equal rights. Equality of the races is an outcome of the Civil War (and subsequent legislation over the next hundred years) but it was not the driving motivation for the war.
Well they won’t show him agreeing to a plan to free the slaves then send them back to Africa. They won’t show him deporting cooperheads who of course disagree with him. The newspapers he shut down who disagreed with him. They won’t show the Northern black codes they had at the time. They won’t show that the North did not want to count black people in the census. Southerners did, so we had the 3/5th compromise. What they will show is the myth than northern whites fought and died to free a people they look upon as inferior against all of the evil southerners. Many of which did not own slaves or fought to have any.
Great points. Lincoln was in many ways a dictator and an entire mythology has been built up to support a false image.
Phony history with an agenda. Trite, formulaic, ridiculously sentimental. That’s what the trailer looks like.
Here here!
I agree: the North and South divided over the economy. The North was increasingly industrialized and the South was dependent upon a cotton monoculture. The leadership Union, which was formed for defense and to present a common trade front, was alternately captured by the North or the South, and whichever group gained control shifted the trade policies to benefit their region. The North needed trade protections to prevent Britain from ruining them with dumping and other such practices; so when the North was in charge, they raised the import tariffs. High tariffs would adversely affect the South, which needed to sell their cotton to the world’s largest textile market: Britain. When the North was in power, the Brits complained that the tariffs were too high and in retaliation they made trade with the South suffer. So when the South gained control, they reduced the tariffs so they could sell cotton at favorable prices to Britain, but this would in turn make the economy of the North suffer. So there was a wedge being driven between the North and the South that affected everyone, via the regional economies, regardless of their position on slavery.
Eventually, after many bitter battles in Congress, the South decided to secede. Since the Union was formed voluntarily, it was held by many that states – being sovereign within the Union – could secede if they desired. This was initially tested by South Carolina during the Jackson administration. Suffering from the Tariff of 1828 (also called the “Tariff of the Abominations”), SC first tried to exempt itself from the tariff, then tried to secede from the Union. Jackson declared that this amounted to insurrection and treason, and he asked Congress to authorize a war against SC. Before that vote could take place, a compromise was reached: the Compromise Tariff of 1833. Jackson wrote: “the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.”
Jackson was correct. A generation later, after more economic woes due to tariff battles and heated disputes over slavery that continually raised the issue of state sovereignty, the South seceded toward the tail end of the Buchanan administration. In Lincoln’s inaugural address, he said he would uphold the right of the Southern states to have slaves, and he previously supported the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which protected slavery in those states in which it already existed. Clearly, he and Congress were not willing to go to war over slavery.
I realize I’ve gone on a bit, but to shorten the rest of this: while Lincoln would not go to war against the South over slavery, he did say he expected the forts which belonged to the federal gov’t that were located in the South would remain Union property, and he promised to defend them. Some Southerners, fearing their leaders would compromise with Lincoln and rejoin the Union, promptly attacked Fort Sumter. This put the nation(s) at war.
When the war was over, the slaves were freed. Also, the North purposefully established the first manufacturing center in the South at Birmingham, AL, in an attempt to bring the economy of the South more in line with that of the North.
There’s more that could be said on this, but that’s probably enough for a comments section.
I am reminded of when Apu took his US citizenship test:
“What was the cause of the Civil War?”
Apu says, “Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists,
there were economic factors, both domestic and…”
“Just say ‘slavery’.”
First line of the Georgia statment of succession:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
Take a look at the others, believe me slavery was the primary cause.
And what was driving the Southern economy? SLAVERY! It’s always profitable when you get free labor! That’s jaded socio-economic theory. The almighty buck is behind everything…this is a capitalistic society. But it is not the motivation for EVERYTHING. There are moral issues as well. Otherwise, if we subscribe to your view of things, humanity is disgusting with no redeeming social values. Lincoln lead by example, and appealed to us all to live for a higher purpose, for in the future we will be judged by what we say and do here.
I love Lincoln oddly, as a die hard southerner in NC. I thought he captured the era and the features of a number of the participants.
My direct ancestor was in the booth with him at the theater. I do not hate him, I’ve stated he should have been tried for war crimes, but I am a born and raised Northerner for generations and I’m surprised by your sentiment.
At the end of the war, Lincoln preached reconciliation. He was not after blood lust and revenge. He welcomed the South back into the Union without condition, like long lost brothers caming back to the fold. In the end, Lincoln seemed like a friend, and that is why they were shocked and saddened by his murder at the hands of a white supremacist. I live in North Carolina too. Lincoln deserves his reputation as a patient, wise father-figure to our nation. He may have overreached his Executive authority as President, but they were very perilous times, with the government in danger of collapse. Funny how the issue of the Civil War is still being fought in the minds of people…the issues are still there!
Looks War Horse-y
Looks Amistad-y also.
Absolutely…it’s so Spielberg. And like War Horse…will Lincoln look good, but leave audiences unsatisfied..
Should we anticipate accuracy? Unlikely.
All i anticipate is another Oscar for DDL no matter how bad the film is.
Not this time.
I agree DDL is the greatest actor of his generation, but this one looks like total crapola.
It didn’t feel “important” enough.
This was real? My God… I was bored to tears in a trailer! Oh this is going to be awful.
something about this film looks off. I don’t know if it’s because I feel like none of the actors (even Day-Lewis) effectively disappeared into their roles or because it looks way too glossy for the era. It’s just a trailer,so I hope I’m so,so wrong.
Great trailer. Spielberg still makes good films. Can’t wait to see it.
I thought I was the only one… Fade to black has got to be the most overused thing in trailers these days.
And yes, film looks like a snooze. Even Lincoln barely stays awake in this trailer. I’m not hoping for any drink-your-milkshake moments, but I need to see some kind of energy.
I saw David Strathairn, who is in this movie, on the Poughkeepsie to NYC Metro North train on Saturday September 8, 7:35 am. Travelling with the riff-raff. I liked that. No one recognized him.
He lives in Dutchess County, NY, far, far away from the Hollywood BS.
You are right about D. Strathairn. He came to my hometown of Auburn,NY to research where William Seward lived and was most gracious about visiting his home and seeing the artifacts.
Oh my God, the schmaltz. And poor Daniel Day-Lewis, he’s so much better than this. The drama of the Civil War and Lincoln’s life is so much bigger and better than this.
Great Trailer I will go see the movie
Daniel Day-Lewis looks like an incredible Lincoln but the trailer makes the movie look awful. It looks cheap, hackneyed and made-for-TV.