lincoln movie review historically accurate

Fact-Checking 'Lincoln': Lincoln's Mostly Realistic; His Advisers Aren't

Spielberg's film gets the president's disposition right, but doesn't quite do justice to everyone else.

In May 1862, to the considerable frustration of anti-slavery stalwarts in his own party, Abraham Lincoln overturned an order issued by General David Hunter that would have freed every slave across vast swaths of the southern Atlantic coast. It wasn't the first time that the president subordinated his personal antipathy toward slavery to placating the border states, and it wouldn't be the last.

Slavery was crumbling fast. Lincoln knew it and encouraged it. The year 1862 would see the president sign legislation banning the "peculiar institution" in Washington, DC and the western territories. Even as he disavowed abolition as a primary objective, Lincoln privately beseeched border state representatives to emancipate their slaves under generous terms, before the tide of war swept away the whole system under no terms at all. "You can not if you would, be blind to the signs of the times," he warned. Still, he couldn't abide General Hunter's order. "I wanted him to do it," Lincoln explained to a friend, "not say it."

lincoln movie review historically accurate

This was Abraham Lincoln in a nutshell. Inscrutable and unknowable, he was, by his own admission, "rather inclined to silence." William Herndon, his law partner, worked beside him for 16 years but found him the most "shut-mouthed man who ever lived."

How, then, can we access his mind, 150 years after the fact, when those closest to him found Lincoln so impenetrable in his own time? Relative to other presidents, he wrote comparatively few letters, and virtually none of a personal nature. We have no diaries with which to work, and obviously no film footage or recordings. Much is left to context, and invariably, to imagination.

Steven Spielberg's new biopic, Lincoln , is probably the most ambitious Lincoln film in the history of its medium. Based largely on Doris Kearns Goodwin's monumental volume Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln , the film follows Lincoln over the last four months of his presidency, as he simultaneously works to draw the Civil War to a close and secures congressional passage of the 13th Amendment. Though Spielberg wisely confined himself to just one chapter of Goodwin's expansive history, the argument is unmistakably hers: Lincoln was a strong executive, astute in all matters political and military. He placed his former rivals in positions of considerable influence and then wielded firm authority over an unruly and divided cabinet to achieve great things.

In fact, Goodwin's central argument (and, by default, Spielberg's) originated with John Nicolay and John Hay, Lincoln's White House aides, who play bit roles in Spielberg's film. Twenty-five years after the president's assassination, they published his authorized Lincoln biography. Enjoying exclusive access to Lincoln's papers, which were otherwise embargoed until 1947, they were the first to claim Lincoln's mastery of his fractious cabinet, his evolving genius for military strategy, his mystical bond with the citizenry, and his deep intelligence. As Nicolay assured Robert Lincoln, "we hold that your father was something more than a mere make-weight in the cabinet... We want to show that he formed a cabinet of strong and great men—rarely equaled in any historical era—and that he held, guided, controlled, curbed and dismissed not only them but other high officers civilian and military, at will, with perfect knowledge of men." It's that notion that informs Spielberg's film.

Lincoln's faced a very real dilemma in January 1865, and the film does a masterful job of explaining his complex set of exigencies. The war was nearing its end. The president had grounded the Emancipation Proclamation in his wartime powers as commander-in-chief. A cessation of hostilities would undermine the legal basis of that order, and it was not inconceivable that the courts might order the re-enslavement of millions of African Americans, including many who fought in the Union Army. The new Congress, which was scheduled to convene in December 1865, was sure to pass the measure, as Republicans had routed their opponents in the recent election. Lincoln even had the option of calling the new Congress into session early. But he was under intense pressure to negotiate peace with the Confederacy, and he needed the amendment in order to make abolition a sine qua non. Only when the rebels realized that slavery could not be saved would they lay down their arms.

The film shows Lincoln prevailing over the opposition of his advisers. But while it's true that Lincoln's original cabinet was an unruly and independent bunch, by January 1865 the president had grown weary of the incessant squabbling and back-stabbing. He scrapped his Team of Rivals for a Team of Loyalists. Those who couldn't find comity, like Salmon P. Chase, the fiercely antislavery Treasury Secretary, and Postmaster Montgomery Blair, a cantankerous conservative, were out, replaced by men who understood that they served at the pleasure of the president. Attorney General Edward Bates retired to his home in Missouri, replaced by James Speed, a Lincoln loyalist and slavery foe. Interior Secretary John Usher was swapped out for James Harlan, one of Lincoln's staunchest supporters in the Senate. Of the original cabinet, those remaining—Secretary of State William Seward, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, and Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles—were deeply loyal to the president.

It's therefore highly unlikely that Lincoln had to do much cajoling and convincing when he announced his intention to push for the 13th Amendment. But if Spielberg's narrative is a little off, his principal argument isn't. Lincoln did, in fact, assume great risk in backing the amendment during his re-election canvass the year before, and he placed the weight of his presidency behind it in 1865.

Spielberg's film also credits Lincoln with sanctioning, and in some cases directly negotiating, the brazen use of patronage appointments to buy off the requisite number of lame duck Democratic congressmen. Here, the record is hazy. Historians generally agree that the president issued broad instructions to Seward, who in turn hired a group of lobbyists from his home state of New York to approach potential apostates. It's highly implausible that Lincoln dealt directly with these men, or that he immersed himself in the details. He was too smart a politician to do that. But he did whip hard for the amendment. He visited a Democratic congressman whose brother had fallen in battle, to tell him that his kin "died to save the Republic from death by the slaveholders' rebellion. I wish you could see it to be your duty to vote for the Constitutional amendment ending slavery." That scene is true to history.

Lincoln did, in fact, tell Congressman James Alley, "I am the President of the United States, clothed with immense power, and I expect you to procure those votes." Or at least that's how Alley remembered it, 23 years after the fact. If those were Lincoln's precise words (unlikely, as they don't sound like him; he was a man who liked things done, not said), the president probably didn't bellow them across the room, but rather, slyly conveyed his determination to use patronage as a blunt legislative instrument. But a movie is a movie, not a scholarly monograph, and screenwriter Tony Kushner's use of the line does no real violence to Lincoln's larger position.

Having begun his political career as a Whig, a party founded in opposition to the heavy-handed leadership of Andrew Jackson, Lincoln still believed that presidents should defer to Congress. Though the war ironically demanded that he preside over a massive expansion of executive authority, he rarely demanded much of the legislative branch and even more rarely used his veto power. More usually, he sidestepped Congress when he thought it necessary. His campaign for the 13th Amendment was a rare example of intercession in the legislative process, and Spielberg and Kushner are right to emphasize that point. Whether Lincoln would have continued this active role during Reconstruction, we will never know.

Much has been said about Daniel Day-Lewis's imagination of Lincoln's voice. The high pitch, the raspy texture, the vague traces of a Southern Indiana draw—it's probably closer to contemporary descriptions than any previous attempt on stage or screen. But it's the disposition that is pure genius. Day-Lewis perfectly captures what John Hay described as "that weary, introverted look" of Lincoln's. He also captures his exhaustion.

The presidency ages its incumbents prematurely, but none so much as Lincoln. He worked 14 hour days. During critical battles, he stayed up until the early daylight hours, reviewing telegraphic dispatches from the War Department. He battled chronic insomnia. Unlike modern presidents, Lincoln never took a vacation. He worked seven days each week, 52 weeks of the year, and left Washington only to visit the front or, on one occasion, to dedicate a battleground cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The president once told the journalist Noah Brooks that "nothing could touch the tired spot within, which was all tired." Day-Lewis makes you believe it. He plays Lincoln as he really was: a man in his mid-50s, shivering with cold in the dead of winter, weary, concerned, bones aching, mind distracted.

The most touching scenes in the film probe the depth of the Lincoln family's sorrow, as they continue to struggle with the death of their middle son, Willie, three years earlier. After Willie's death, the president took to locking himself in the boy's bedroom each Thursday, retreating for hours at a time into his private grief. "He was too good for this earth," Lincoln said, with tears in his eyes, "...but then we loved him so." Their younger son, Tad, became his father's constant companion. Many nights, Tad fell asleep in his father's office, until Lincoln knelt by his side and carried him off to bed. Day-Lewis reenacts this ritual with powerful authenticity and emotion.

Over time, Lincoln came to view the war as God's divine punishment for the sin of slavery, and in some fashion, he saw Willie's death as the personal cross that he must bear to atone for that crime. The film does not make Lincoln out to be humble, and indeed he wasn't. "It is absurd to call him a modest man," Hay later remarked. "No great man was ever modest." Lincoln's "intellectual arrogance and unconscious assumption of superiority" were hallmarks of his personality. His certainty allowed him to preside over a carnival of death. As Day-Lewis plays the part, Lincoln has the people's touch, but he never once confuses himself for common. His determination to clean house of slavery stemmed from a belief that he was acting as the hand of God, and when leaders begin to think that way, they either become very frightening or other-worldly. Day-Lewis gets that, too.

Every good story needs an antihero. Lincoln also follows the motives and machinations of Thaddeus Stevens, the stern, steely eyed chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a position that in the 19th century doubled as House Majority Leader. He was "the dictator of the house"—a zealot in the cause of freedom and racial equality. Brilliant, sharp-tongued, and tremendously intimidating to friend and foe alike. In life, Stevens had little patience for Lincoln, whom he viewed as a temporizing moderate. In Spielberg's movie, he is the president's sworn enemy, cautiously willing to drop his armor and work with the president to abolish slavery.

Tommy Lee Jones captures Stevens's spirit well. Unfortunately, Kushner's writing leaves the part flat. In the film, Stevens deploys clever ad hominem attacks to smack down his opponents; in life, he never needed to resort to cheap shots, for he was deft at using cold, hard logic to leave his adversaries the laughing stock of the chamber. In the film, Kushner ascribes Stevens's hatred of slavery to his secret private life. (Spoiler alert: if you don't know much about Thaddeus Stevens and haven't seen Lincoln yet, skip the rest of this paragraph). Indeed, Stevens's life partner of 20 years was Lydia Hamilton Smith, whom the world knew as his black housekeeper. It was the worst-kept secret in Washington.

But Stevens's relationship with Smith was an outgrowth of his conviction, not the cause of it. He grew up in Vermont, where he likely never met an African American. After college at Dartmouth, he moved to Adams County, Pennsylvania, on the border between slavery and freedom. There, as a young and starving attorney, he took on the case of one Norman Bruce, a Maryland farmer whose slave, Charity Butler, had fled across the state line with her two young children—one of them still a baby. Bruce tracked down his property and sued for their return; Charity sued for her freedom, claiming that she had ceased to be a slave the moment she stepped foot on free soil. Stevens was a clever attorney, and he won the trial for Bruce. Charity Butler and her children were remanded to slavery. Within three years, Stevens became an almost fanatical abolitionist. He put skin in the game, too, conducting fugitive slaves along the Underground Railroad, through his home and office, even while serving as a member of Congress. The realization of what he had done, and the memory of it, made him sick. He was unforgiving of other people's shortcomings, because he was unforgiving of his own. The film captures none of this complexity, a fact attributable to the one-dimensional way in which Stevens is written.

Spielberg's film makes Stevens an unnatural compromiser. He wasn't. He was a politician's politician and had no problem crawling in the mud to achieve an objective. A year and a half after the events portrayed in the movie, Stevens gave a rousing campaign speech in which he excoriated the Democratic party. "We shall hear it repeated ten thousand times," he intoned, "the cry of 'Negro Equality!' The radicals would thrust the negro into your parlors, your bedrooms, and the bosoms of your wives and daughters....And then they [Democrats] will send up the grand chorus from every foul throat, 'nigger,' 'nigger,' 'nigger,' 'nigger!' 'Down with the nigger party, we're for the white man's party.' These unanswerable arguments will ring in every low bar room and be printed in every Blackguard sheet throughout the land whose fundamental maxim is 'all men are created equal.'" In one paragraph, he managed to take down the crude racial incitements of his opponents, while simultaneously assuring listeners that those incitements were false. That was a politician.

One can find matters small and large with which to quibble. With the exception of Secretary of State William Seward (played convincingly by David Strathairn), Lincoln presents almost every public figure as either comical, quirky, weak-kneed or pathetically self-interested. Only the president is able to rise above the moment and see the end game. This treatment does injustice to men like Rep. James Ashley, Sen. Charles Sumner, and Sen. Ben Wade (misidentified in the credits as "Bluff" Wade, his nickname, for when challenged to a duel by a pro-slavery congressman he accepted and chose broadswords. His foe assumed that he was bluffing but didn't care to find out.). These men were serious, committed legislators who fought a lonely fight for black freedom before the war, and a difficult struggle for black equality after it. They deserve better.

In the film, Stevens and Lincoln meet secretly to agree on strategy. There, Stevens lays out his plan for Reconstruction, including a massive expropriation of rebel plantations and land redistribution to freedmen and loyal whites. Lincoln tells Stevens that they will soon be "enemies" but for now, they are friends. The scene constitutes a clumsy attempt to deal with a complicated historical question. Stevens did not formulate his plan for Reconstruction until after Lincoln's death, and the president had not yet decided on his own course of action. It is likely that he would not have embraced the radical blueprint in its entirety. But Lincoln did not view the radicals as enemies.

"They are nearer to me than the other side, in thought and sentiment, though bitterly hostile personally," he told Hay. "They are utterly lawless—the unhandiest devils in the world to deal with—but after all their faces are set Zionwards." Inadvertently, Spielberg has echoed a discredited school of Reconstruction historiography that dominated the field in the early 20th century. It doesn't seem likely that Spielberg actually believes this interpretation, for his closing scene includes Lincoln's fire-and-brimstone premonition that "every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another with the sword." Lincoln could be just as cruel as Stevens.

Smaller quibbles:

The film's gray-haired House Speaker, Schuyler Colfax, looks nothing like the young, black-haired House Speaker, Schulyer Colfax, in real life (interestingly, he does look a lot like Colfax's much older predecessor, Galusha Grow).

Spielberg changed the names of many Democratic opponents of the 13th Amendment. That fact alone is problematic, but one of the pseudonyms assigned to a proslavery congressman, if I heard it right, is "Washburn." There were actually four Washburn brothers who served in Congress before, during and after the war, and they all opposed slavery. Their mother would be very upset.

Hay and Nicolay are portrayed as cowering in Lincoln's presence. They wouldn't have. They knew him more intimately than anyone outside of his family, and they were brash, arrogant White House aides whom many people found a little too big for their britches ("a fault for which it seems to me either Nature or our tailors are to blame," Hay once quipped.) Tony Kushner should have asked Aaron Sorkin to help write their parts.

But these are trivial objections, mostly. Lincoln is not a perfect film, but it is an important film. Spielberg has positioned his work as something that should unite a divided nation in the aftermath of the 2012 election, but, paradoxically, his story points to a different conclusion. Sean Wilentz, one of those rare historians who moves seamlessly between the academy and the public sphere, noted that "Abraham Lincoln was, first and foremost, a politician." Lincoln probably didn't bribe congressmen to pass the 13th Amendment, but he instructed others to do so. He forged a deep connection with soldiers and their families, and won 78 percent of the soldier vote in 1864 because of it. He knew the power of his office, and used it.

Days before Lincoln opened in limited release, the United States reelected its first black president. Barack Obama makes no secret of his love for Lincoln. He opened his first national campaign on the steps of the Illinois State Capitol, the building where Lincoln delivered his famous "House Divided" speech. Both men served several years in the Illinois state legislature, and both were elected to one term in Congress before improbably ascending to the presidency. A particular strain of history has imagined Lincoln as a great conciliator. Barack Obama has aspired to rise above politics and forge unity in a sharply divided polity. Like Lincoln, his enemies have made it all but impossible for him to do so.

Steven Spielberg's film reminds us that there was another Lincoln: a profoundly controversial, loved and hated president. Before his apotheosis on Good Friday, 1865, he was scorned as much as he was revered. "It is a little singular that I who am not a vindictive man should have always been before the people for election in canvasses marked for their bitterness," Lincoln told Hay. But Abraham Lincoln understood that politics was combat. He was able to reconcile his supreme confidence and a people's touch. He came to believe that he was the hand of God without believing that he was God.

One has to assume that President Obama will soon take the opportunity to see Lincoln . If he does, we can hope that the film reminds him that he is clothed with immense power, and he should continue to use it in ways that will prove untidy in the moment, but wise in the rear-view mirror of history.

Recent changes
Random page
View source
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Page information
Create account

How historically accurate is the movie Lincoln (2012)

Abraham Lincoln is one of the giants of United States history. When it was announced that Steven Spielberg was making a movie based on his life during a critical moment in American history, the project was great excitement and interest. In 2012 Lincoln was released, and it was a huge box-office hit and a critical success. The title role was played by Daniel-Day Lewis, one of the finest actors of his generation, and he was singled out for praise by the critics. The other leading actors included Sally Field, David Strathairn, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, and Tommy Lee Jones. The screenplay was written by Tony Kushner, and it was based on the award-winning historical work 'A Team of Rivals.'

The movie concentrates on four critical months in the career of Lincoln and America. It focuses on the period when Lincoln tried to have the 13th Amendment passed, which sought to prohibit slavery in the United States. In January 1865, the Union was about to emerge victorious in the American Civil War. The movie focuses on Lincoln's efforts to ensure the freedom of African-American slaves, which had been promised under the Emancipation Proclamation (1863). Spielberg directed and produced the movie, and it was much darker and serious than many of his works.

In December 2012, the film received seven Golden Globe Awards, including Best Motion Picture. Lincoln was nominated for twelve Academy Awards, including that of Best Picture and Best Director. It won two academy awards, including that of best actor for Daniel-Day Lewis. While the movie was critically acclaimed, there was some controversy regarding its accuracy. Some believe that it was inaccurate and ignored vital issues and facts. In contrast, the film is deemed to be largely factual by others. This article will try and determine how historically accurate is Steven Spielberg, Lincoln (2012).

The Setting

The movie focuses on the critical period when Lincoln tried to pass the 13th Amendment in early 1865. In 1863, he had issued the proclamation that gave freedom to many African-American slaves. At the time, this action was a strategic move designed to undermine the Confederates' ability to fight the war. At some time, the Confederacy was inflicting defeats on the Union army [1] .

Since then, the tide had turned in favor of the Union, and by 1865, the Union army under Ulysses S. Grant had Lee practically cornered in Virginia. The victory of the Union was inevitable, and Lincoln had saved the Union. However, Lincoln was also profoundly alarmed at this time, and it is shown in the movie. He believed that many in the Senate and the House of Representatives wanted to backtrack on the Emancipation Act of 1863. There were many senators and congressmen who had sympathies with the white slaving owning class. They were racists and regarded slavery as the natural state of African-Americans. Even if the Union was victorious, several American political establishment was willing to accept the continuation of slavery in the United States [2] .

The movie accurately captures Lincoln's concerns that the Civil War would fail to secure the emancipation of the slaves. This aspect of the was accurate. It was by no means certain that Lincoln and his followers could secure the necessary votes to pass the amendment to prohibit slavery. This is all very accurate. The motion picture shows Lincoln fighting to secure the passage of the 13th Amendment and that he faced significant opposition. Traditionally, it was widely believed that the abolition of slavery was inevitable after the Union victory. This was not the case. It was a great struggle to pass the Amendment, and only a figure with the prestige of Lincoln could have achieved it. Spielberg captures the scale of Lincoln's achievement.

The movie shows the vote on whether to pass the 13th Amendment as passing in a critical moment in the American Civil War is correct. The vote was scheduled to occur just as the Union and the Confederates were about to enter peace negotiations. The south was on the verge of defeat, and many Confederate units had collapsed or were on the point of collapse. Lincoln was committed to ending the war as quickly as possible to preserve both Union and Confederate lives. Indeed, as the Confederate officials traveled north, the motion to pass the Amendment had begun [3] .

Many in the southern states hated the idea that slavery would be abolished. It had even persuaded many Southerners to fight on. There was a great fear among many in the Union army that even after the Confederates' defeat, many would continue the struggle. It did seem at one stage that the Confederate representatives would abandon the talks and end any hopes of a ceasefire or peace agreement. Furthermore, many in the Houses of Congress wanted to use the negotiations to delay the vote. Lincoln did manage to save both the peace negotiations and the vote by a clever piece of wordplay. This is very accurately captured in the movie.

The President stated that the southern peace negotiators were not in Washington, and therefore the debate on passing the 13th Amendment could continue. This was not strictly true, and they were on their way to Washington. This allowed Lincoln to secure his twin goals of getting the Amendment debated and starting the peace negotiations with the north. This was a piece of brilliant political scheming. The movie accurately shows us that 'Honest Abe' was a shrewd political operator and that he was not above using cunning to get his way. The actual vote in the house is mainly realistic. Spielberg shows the house as being very raucous and noisy. Very unlike the modern Senate. This was the case at the time.

In the nineteenth century, political debates were often full-bloodied affairs and much more passionate than present-day politics. The motion picture does a great job of capturing the febrile environment in Houses of Congress. There is one error in the movie: the presence of Lincoln's wife during the debate. Mary Todd Lincoln, played by Sally Fields, is shown by Spielberg as being present during the historical debate. This was not the case as it would have been considered 'unladylike for her to be present during a raucous political debate [4] .

Lincoln and his tactics

The vote for the passage of the 13th Amendment was very close. In Spielberg's film, Lincoln is shown as a shrewd political operator capable of resorting to some common tactics to secure the passage of the Amendment. While the film shows Lincoln as an idealist and a humanitarian, it does not shy away from Lincoln could be as devious as his political opponents and enemies. This period in American politics was characterized by outright bribery and shady deals. Lincoln had no choice but to operate in this environment and deal with unprincipled people.

The movie shows Lincoln using the party machine to secure the votes that he needed for the passage of the 13th Amendment. 'Honest Abe' is shown to be in league with his Secretary of State William Seward to secure the necessary votes in any way they can. Seward employs three lobbyists who use underhand tactics to get the votes needed for Lincoln to win. The movie shows Lincoln actively cooperating with Seward and the lobbyists. Lincoln probably kept his distance and merely secretly condoned the activities of the lobbyists. This is all very accurate.

In one scene, the great liberal politician Thaddeus Stephens is shown discussing the Amendment with his African-American housekeeper and commenting that the freedom of the slaves had been secured by low-means. This dialogue did not happen, but it captures the reality of the vote and how Lincoln, despite being a very moral man, was prepared to engage in 'dirty politics to secure the freedom of countless slaves [5] .

slavery and the Civil War

This was not always the case. By the time of the movie, Lincoln was undoubtedly committed to the prohibition of slavery. However, the film seems to show that Lincoln was always committed to the abolition of slavery. It also gives the false impression that the civil war was fought on the issue of slavery. In this way, the movie and Spielberg missed a golden opportunity to promote a greater understanding of the Civil War's origins and course. Lincoln started the war to stop the break-up of the Union. Slavery was only one of many issues that divided the north and the south.

The war was not a result of the President's efforts to end the institution of slavery. Indeed in the early 1860s, he was prepared to accept that it was up to the individual states to decide on the matter [6] . However, during dark periods of the civil war, when it seemed that the Confederates might prevail, he came to a belief that the Union could not survive without a genuine commitment to freedom and liberty. It was only in 1864 that Lincoln was fully committed to the abolition of slavery, and he made it one of his key slogans during his re-election campaign that year.

The abolition of slavery became the 'second purpose' of the Civil War [7] . This is not shown in the movie. Moreover, the film gives a false impression of the situation on the ground. The institution of slavery was already collapsing in the south as many African-Americans were leaving their plantations and moving north [8] . This is not shown in the movie.

The portrayal of Lincoln and his family

The casting of Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln was an inspired one. He could capture the character of Lincoln. 'Honest Abe' was a complex man. He was in many ways an ordinary man and was genuinely modest and self-effacing. The movie also shows how Lincoln loved to tell a story and was a great storyteller. Day-Lewis also captures the other side of Lincoln, the passionate orator, and the fiery idealist. He becomes convinced that the Civil War had a higher purpose and America an extraordinary destiny. Day-Lewis also captures the physical characteristics of Lincoln.

Like Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis is tall, lean, and has a tenor voice. The Anglo-Irish actor studied the appearance and mannerisms of the US President and this in large measure accounts for his ability to portray Lincoln so well. The movie also presents the character of Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, largely accurately. Sally Fields was like Lincoln's wife as she too was petite. In the movie, Lincoln's wife tells him that she has only made him unhappy and that she was made.

There is some convincing evidence that shows that Mrs. Lincoln had mental health issues. However, there are some historians who argue that she was also a helpmate of Lincoln and gave him sound political advice. She is also shown in the movie, correctly as urging her third son not to join the army. The Lincolns had already lost two sons in the war. Lincoln could get his son a position on the movie shows Lincoln's third son serving in the army of Grant and being present at the surrender of Lee at Appomattox Court House. This is all historically correct.

How accurate was the movie Lincoln?

In many ways, Spielberg's movie is very accurate. The director and producer bring Lincoln to life and present a key period in the history of America very accurately. The motion picture does capture the drama surrounding the passage of the vote of the 13th Amendment and Lincoln's role in it. It shows very well the often-dubious tactics adopted by Lincoln and his supporters to get enough votes.

The 2012 motion picture also captures the complex nature of the US President and his often-contradictory character and it presents a more plausible and realistic one that was shown in previous Hollywood movies. The circumstances surrounding the vote are all excellently done and we get a real sense of American politics at the time. However, there are shortcomings and errors. For example, the chief one being that Lincoln is shown as being a committed abolitionist and this was not the case throughout the war. Then the movie does not show that slavery was collapsing in the south and that the 13th Amendment was only recognizing what was happening on the ground.

↑ Goodwin, Doris Kearns Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (London, Simon & Schuster, 2013), p. 113
↑ Goodwin, p. 116
↑ Goodwin, p. 234
↑ McGovern, George S. Abraham Lincoln. London, Macmillan, 2008), p. 345
↑ Goodwin, p. 312
↑ Manning, Chandra, "The Shifting Terrain of Attitudes toward Abraham Lincoln and Emancipation," Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 34 (Winter 2013), 18–39
↑ Goodwin, p 234
↑ Zilversmit, Arthur "Lincoln and the Problem of Race: A Decade of Interpretations." Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. 2 (11) (1980) 22

Ewhelan , Admin and EricLambrecht

This page was last edited on 1 October 2021, at 00:29.
Privacy policy
About DailyHistory.org
Disclaimers
Mobile view

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Sign up for the HNN Newsletter

Is "lincoln" the movie historically accurate.

Is 'Lincoln' the real deal?: Interview with James McPherson (11-28-12)
Eric Foner: "['Lincoln'] offers a severely truncated view" (11-27-12)
NPR Asks a Historian: Just How Accurate Is 'Lincoln'? (11-22-12)
Spielberg, with new ‘Lincoln’ film in theaters, speaks at ‘Gettysburg Address’ commemoration (11-19-12)
NBC singles out Doris Kearns Goodwin's role in the new Lincoln film (11-15-12)
Lincoln biopics go back to the ‘talkies’ (11-14-12)
Historical sound effects captured in Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ (11-13-12)
Daniel Day-Lewis faces criticism for giving a voice to Abraham Lincoln (11-9-12)
NYT calls "Lincoln" "among the finest films ever made about American politics" (11-9-12)
Shooting Lincoln: How local talent and the Virginia film industry made Spielberg’s blockbuster possible (11-6-12)
Abe Lincoln as You’ve Never Heard Him (10-31-12)
Mr. Lincoln Goes to Hollywood (10-29-12)

Commentary: Historians

Gregory L. Kaster: The Law of Slavery Lies at Heart of Both "Lincoln" and "Django" (1-7-13)
Jon Wiener: 'Django Unchained' ... Quentin Tarantino’s Answer to Spielberg’s 'Lincoln' (12-25-12)
Sean Wilentz: Lincoln in Hollywood from Griffith to Spielberg (12-21-12)
Patrick Rael: "Lincoln's" Unfinished Work (12-17-12)
Alan Singer: Will the Real Abraham Lincoln Please Stand Up? (12-10-12)
Kelsey McKernie: How Historically Accurate is "Lincoln"? (12-10-12)
Barbara Krauthamer: Slavery’s Grotesque and Relentless Violence (12-4-12)
Kate Masur: A Filmmaker’s Imagination, and a Historian’s (11-30-12)
Louis P. Masur: Lincoln at the Movies (11-26-12)
Jon Wiener: The Trouble With Steven Spielberg’s 'Lincoln' (11-26-12)
Ira Chernus's MythicAmerica: "Lincoln": Jesus Christ! God Almighty! What a (Biblical) Movie! (11-25-12)
Harold Holzer: What’s True and False in “Lincoln” Movie (11-22-12)
David O. Stewart: How True is "Lincoln"? (11-20-12)
Jim Cullen: Daniel Day-Lewis's Abe Lincoln: (Racial) Trailblazer (11-19-12)
Kate Masur: In Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln,’ Passive Black Characters (11-13-12)

Commentary: Media

Hendrik Hertzberg: “Lincoln” v. Lincoln (12-17-12)
Kelly Candaele: Film History: Columnists and Historians Assess Spielberg’s 'Lincoln' (12-14-12)
Ricky Kreitner: 'Lincoln,' Thaddeus Stevens and Why American Politics Still Needs Radicals (12-10-12)
Doyle McManus: The Lessons Obama Can Draw from 'Lincoln' (11-28-12)
Peggy Noonan: Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ (11-28-12)
Lynn Parramore: What Spielberg’s “Lincoln” Conveniently Leaves Out (11-25-12)
David Thomson: Spielberg's "Lincoln" is a Film for our Political Moment (11-13-12)
Peter Galuszka: 150 Years After the War, Richmond Embraces ‘Lincoln’ (11-13-12)
Jim Castagnera: Daniel Day-Lewis *is* Lincoln (11-9-12)

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

'Lincoln': A Great Emancipator, But Not Quite A Saint

Ian Buckwalter

Daniel Day-Lewis takes on one of America's most famous presidents in Lincoln . DreamWorks hide caption

Director: Steven Spielberg
Genre: Drama
Running time: 159 minutes

Rated PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language

With: Daniel Day Lewis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones

This election season, pundits have been fond of pointing out the near-50/50 split of the electorate and talking about how the American people are as deeply divided as at any other time in our history. The opening moments of Lincoln put those hyperbolic claims in perspective, as Steven Spielberg — with his usual flair for highlighting how truly ugly war really is — shows a nation so divided that its opposing factions are killing one another in numbers so extreme that the bodies are literally piling up on top of one another.

There's also a lot of talk today about the incivility of the discourse between our elected representatives. But Spielberg's depiction of the state of affairs on the floor of Congress during debates over the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is another shot of cold water to the face.

The conflicts here between the congressional Democrats (who oppose the amendment) and the Republicans (who were themselves fostering a shaky alliance between opposed internal camps) are only barely more civil than the soldiers on the battlefields. Not even wartime and daily national tragedy is enough to keep these politicians from sniping at one another so viciously that it makes the most heated modern exchanges feel like a legislative love-in.

Presiding over all of this, with a reputation for nobly rising above the fray, is Abraham Lincoln, here portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis in a performance so effortless and invisible that it's easy to forget this is an actor playing Lincoln and not the man himself.

Day-Lewis' Lincoln is soft-spoken and folksy, with a gentle, reedy voice unlike that of many of the actors who have played the man before, but truer to historical accounts of what he sounded like. That voice, as thin and willowy as the man himself, seems almost incongruous for a man of such charisma and presence — even more so when it becomes clear that Spielberg, along with screenwriter Tony Kushner, has put together a portrait of Lincoln that is as averse to pulling punches as are his battle sequences.

Working from Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals, Kushner's script looks at just the few months leading up to the end of the war — and, more importantly, to the difficult passage of that 13th Amendment. As the movie begins, Lincoln is far short of the needed votes, and even his Cabinet is fighting his commitment to its passage, which it views as a distraction from and impediment to the coming end of the war.

Sally Field plays Mary Todd Lincoln, whose emotional volatility has been described in terms that lead some contemporary observers to believe she may have suffered from bipolar disorder. DreamWorks hide caption

Sally Field plays Mary Todd Lincoln, whose emotional volatility has been described in terms that lead some contemporary observers to believe she may have suffered from bipolar disorder.

What follows is a campaign of graft, bribery and carefully orchestrated manipulation that is ethically dubious at best, impeachable at worst. A team of men, led by the slimy W.N. Bilbo (James Spader) is tasked by Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn) with essentially buying the votes of lame-duck Democrats, while abolitionist firebrand Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones, in a performance just as central and Oscar-worthy as Day-Lewis') coordinates backroom deals within his own party.

Spielberg's Lincoln is a man of undeniably noble intentions, but one not afraid of getting his hands dirty in pursuit of those goals. The true genius of Day-Lewis' performance is in how he allows just a glimpse at the passion, rage and Machiavellian drive beneath the surface of a man given to telling wry, folksy parables to get his points across.

Even with the narrow focus, the film sometimes bites off just a little more than it can handle. A subplot about Lincoln's oldest son's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) determination to serve in the Army feels like a superfluous distraction, while attempts to address the president's complex relationship with his wife, Mary (Sally Field), never quite approach the thoughtful depth and detail of the political maneuvering.

In fact, the human drama of Lincoln is often less compelling than its political plot — which, even given its on-the-record outcome, becomes a gripping political thriller at its peak. Spielberg occasionally slips into the sort of maudlin sentimentality that sank last year's War Horse , viewing Lincoln with a gauzy, deifying reverence that threatens to undercut the surprising toughness of the rest of the movie.

But such moments are thankfully few and far between, allowing for a more genuine admiration of the man: This Lincoln isn't an abstracted, infallible ideal, but rather a deeply conflicted, often lonely leader simply trying to do the right thing — even if that means a few wrong things along the way.

Bulletin Board
Document Lab
Field Trips
Media Center
Teacher’s Desk
Report Card

Historians React to the ‘Lincoln” Movie

By Matthew Pinsker GO TO “LINCOLN” MOVIE TEACHER’S GUIDE

The public reaction from most historians to the “Lincoln” movie has been positive, although there have been a few important holdouts and plenty of corrections and suggestions from the academic community that should matter greatly to anyone attempting to teach the film. There has also been a revealing scuffle over which sources most influenced scriptwriter Tony Kushner.

The leading academic critics of Spielberg’s movie so far have been Eric Foner, Kate Masur, and Patrick Rael. Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the most respected historians in the field, claims the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main point about the stark choices confronting the president at the end of the war over abolition or peace ( Letter to the Editor , New York Times, November 26, 2012). Masur accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” ( Op-Ed , New York Times, November 12, 2012). She follows up on that criticism with a piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education suggesting several other interpretive possibilities that Spielberg might have pursued to more fully integrate his film ( November 30, 2012 ). Rael (Bowdoin College) provoked a lively discussion at H-Slavery by arguing in an extensive critique that the film is rooted in “some of the oldest, most out-dated strands of scholarship” ( January 7, 2013 ).

Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there are “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a lively piece which details many of them for The Daily Beast ( November 22, 2012 ). Along with Holzer’s notably balanced assessment, one of the most helpful early historical evaluations of the film comes from Joshua Zeitz writing for The Atlantic ( November 12, 2012 ). Zeitz, who is currently preparing a biography of Lincoln aides John Nicolay and John Hay, considers the depiction of the president and his political challenges to be “masterful” but finds extensive fault with the one-dimensional portraits of nearly all the president’s men. He writes, “With the exception of Secretary of State William Seward (played convincingly by David Strathairn), Lincoln presents almost every public figure as either comical, quirky, weak-kneed or pathetically self-interested.”

Other historian / fact-checkers have been more kind. Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College, writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but argues that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” ( November 27, 2012 ). David Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network , describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” ( November 20, 2012 ). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admires the film, though he noted a few mistakes and points out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” ( November 23, 2012 ). For the Chronicle of Higher Education, Louis Masur finds the opening scene (where a black soldier recites the Gettysburg Address) “contrived” but otherwise considers the rest of the film to be a masterpiece that truly “conjures Lincoln’s world” ( November 26, 2012 ). The Los Angeles Review of Books produced one of the best summaries detailing the range of historian reactions in a piece by Kelly Candaele ( December 14, 2012 ). The article quoted extensively from CUNY historian James Oakes who offers a particularly nuanced critique of Kushner’s interpretive choices. Oakes has praise for the screenwriter’s decision to draw together the politics of abolition and peace talks, but finds “more troubling in terms of historical accuracy” Kushner’s insistence that conservative Republicans (such as the Blair family) opposed the slavery amendment. In his interview and in his new book, Freedom National (2012), Oakes demonstrates that the Republicans were almost entirely united on nearly all wartime votes regarding emancipation and abolition. Their differences emerged on other issues, such as reconstruction, a fact that the movie obscures.

Benjamin Schmidt, a graduate student from Princeton, has an eminently teachable piece in The Atlantic on the film’s linguistic anachronisms ( January 10, 2013 ). Schmidt was able to employ an arsenal of textual databases and easy-to-use tools such as Google’s Ngram viewer to figure out exactly which words and phrases from Tony Kushner’s script were out of place for that period. Despite Kushner’s brilliance with language, there were many problems of that nature, from important but modern phrases such as “racial equality” to gritty, non-period-style cursing.

Writing for the New York Times “Disunion” series, Philip Zelikow from the University of Virginia dismisses all such academic nitpicking and grandly dubs the filmmaker, “Steven Spielberg, Historian” ( November 29, 2012 ). Zelikow, a diplomat whose specialty is 20 th -century history, actually claims that the movie offers an “original” interpretation of the Civil War’s endgame that will “advance the way historians consider this subject.” Zelikow argues that Kushner and Spielberg have pulled together various strands concerning the slavery amendment and the Hampton Roads peace talks in a way that no previous historians have accomplished. Naturally, many historians working in the Civil War field find this claim to be seriously overstated. Michael Vorenberg, author of Final Freedom (2001), was especially pointed in his comments to Brown University students on their Facebook discussion of the movie. Vorenberg calls Zelikow’s piece “way off” and argues that “it’s unfortunate that Zelikow trashes historians in that piece” when “it’s clear that all he’s done is to skim a few pages of some books” ( November 30, 2012 ). Other scholars quickly jumped into this fray –see especially thoughtful comments from Akim Reinhardt and Gary Gutting .

Michael Vorenberg

What’s most interesting about Vorenberg’s strong reaction is that his work was critical to the making of the movie. Some even believe it might be the most influential secondary source behind the film –at least that’s what Timothy Noah has been arguing in The New Republic ( January 10, 2013 ). Vorenberg’s Final Freedom (2001) is widely regarded as the best academic study of the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the main topic of the movie. Noah points out the Steven Spielberg optioned Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals (2005) long before it was actually written and that Tony Kushner’s final script bears little resemblance in style or content to the book from which it was “officially” adapted. Both the online magazine Slate ( January 10, 2013 ) and the Brown University student newspaper ( January 13, 2013 ) also reported on this brewing mini-scandal until Kushner responded by acknowledging that even though Vorenberg’s book is not credited in the film, it is what he termed the “definitive account” of the congressional passage of the amendment and “fantastic” in its achievements. Kushner says that he read Final Freedom carefully but denies that it was a “principal” source for the movie. To help allay any concerns about his use of sources, Kushner then shared with Noah a list of more than thirty sources –both primary and secondary—which he claims were especially influential in shaping the script beyond Team of Rivals . Vorenberg was gracious in his response. “Films don’t have to have footnotes,” he told the Brown student newspaper, “If my book helped add accuracy to the film, I can take some pleasure in that.”

Historical author / blogger Kevin Levin finds the whole process of historical analysis to be more than a little aggravating. Writing for The Atlantic, he complains, “Historians Need To Give Steven Spielberg A Break” ( November 26, 2012 ). I agree with Levin in some ways, but for the opposite reason. I have argued for Quora (and Huffington Post) that people must stop worrying about whether any movie which necessarily invents dialogue, characters and scenes should ever be considered as “historically accurate.” It’s a work of art –historical fiction —which we need to judge by other standards ( November 27, 2012 ). That’s also the point, Spielberg himself made at the Dedication Day ceremonies at Gettysburg ( November 19, 2012 ) when he called his effort a “dream” and made a careful distinction between his historically inspired movie and actual works of history. The rest of this teacher’s guide will help explain, however, specific areas in the film where students might raise questions about accuracy or interpretation, in order to help them decide for themselves what they think about the film, the challenges of the period, and ultimately, Lincoln’s legacy –both as a president and as movie.

Earlier versions of this piece have appeared at Quora and Wikipedia.

GO TO “LINCOLN” MOVIE TEACHER’S GUIDE

3 Responses to Historians React to the ‘Lincoln” Movie

Pingback: House Divided Project of Dickinson College | Enfilading Lines

Pingback: Abe Lincoln Resurfaces, Still Helping with our Better Angels | That Devil History

Dear Colleagues

Thank you for this conspectus of links to scholarly opinion. It is encouraging that a movie elicited it and seems to survive it better than might have been expected, given the commercial imperatives of the film industry.

Best regards

David Broadhurst http://physics.open.ac.uk/~dbroadhu/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Search for:

Credits & Contacts

Producer: Matthew Pinsker House Divided Project PO Box 1773 / Dickinson College Carlisle, PA 17013 [email protected]

Featured E-Book:

Forgotten Abolitionist: John A.J. Creswell of Maryland

TexasExes.org
Scholarships
The Alcalde
Gameday Central

Current Issue
Association

Spielberg’s Lincoln: A Historian’s Review

By Nicholas Roland in 40 Acres , Special on November 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm | 22 Comments

As Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln draws crowds to theaters, a UT history graduate student reviews the film through a historian’s lens.

His verdict: while flawed, lincoln is a solid, mostly accurate portrait of a complex man..

Steven Spielberg’s latest historical drama chronicles the 16th president’s final months and his struggle for passage of the 13th Amendment by the House of Representatives in 1865. Lincoln’s enduring popularity means that this film will be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate by historians, movie reviewers, and culture warriors alike.

Fortunately, Lincoln is blessed with a remarkably accomplished cast. Daniel Day Lewis is Abraham Lincoln. Having supposedly read over 100 books on Lincoln in preparation for the role, he manages to convincingly replicate many aspects of Lincoln’s persona and physical aura: Lincoln’s purportedly high voice, his wry sense of humor and knack for storytelling, his slouched posture and awkward gait, and the overwhelming weariness incurred by the “fiery trial” of war all ring true.

Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Fields) is portrayed as a more or less sympathetic character, in accordance with more recent scholarship rejecting long-standing depictions of Mrs. Lincoln as a shrew, possibly suffering from a mental illness. Fields plays a First Lady who is grief-stricken over the loss of her son Willie and weary from the stress of a wartime presidential marriage. During a scene at a White House reception, she draws on her social training as a daughter of the Kentucky elite to skillfully defend against political critics.

Secretary of State William H. Seward (David Strathairn) also appears as an important source of support for Lincoln. Seward cuts patronage deals with lame duck Democratic Congressmen in order to help secure the passage of the 13th Amendment and acts as a sort of political muse to Lincoln. Seward harangues and cajoles Lincoln on policy and political strategy but ultimately serves as a loyal ally in carrying out Lincoln’s intent, a depiction born out in the historical record.

Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) is also a convincing secondary character, albeit with some historical problems. A leader of the radical wing of the Republican Party, Stevens is accurately portrayed as an advocate of racial equality and a vehement opponent of secessionists. However, a scene revealing the purported relationship between Stevens and his African-American housekeeper risks conveying the sense that this relationship was the primary motivation for Stevens’ crusade for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Despite the excellent performances turned in by the star-studded cast, Lincoln has a number of shortcomings from a historian’s point of view. Based on Doris Kearns-Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln , the film is at times a taut political thriller and at times the inspirational story of the final abolition of American slavery. The choice to focus on the last few months of Lincoln’s presidency is appropriate given the ultimate outcome of the American Civil War: the defeat of the Confederacy and the end of legal slavery. However, this narrow focus glosses over Lincoln’s famously ambiguous views on slavery and racial equality.

Spielberg’s Lincoln appears committed to rapidly ending slavery and even suggests that suffrage might eventually be extended to black men. In his lifetime, Lincoln was consistently criticized by radical Republicans and African-American leaders such as Frederick Douglass for his equivocation on slavery and lenient plans for Reconstruction. Lincoln seems to have held a lifelong commitment to the free-soil ideology that every man, white or black, has the right to earn for himself by the sweat of his brow. Despite this conviction, Lincoln repeatedly stated that he wished to preserve the Union, either with or without slavery. Lincoln viewed the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of black troops as a wartime expedient to preserve the Union.

Spielberg risks reviving the Great Emancipator myth. The best evidence suggests that Abraham Lincoln personally abhorred slavery as an institution while simultaneously denying the concept of racial equality.

Some historians have argued that Lincoln’s personal beliefs underwent a significant change during the last year of the Civil War, and Lincoln did in fact suggest to the reconstructed government of Louisiana in 1864 that “very intelligent” black men and “those who have fought gallantly in our ranks” might be given access to the ballot box. As depicted by the film, during the 1864 Presidential campaign Lincoln threw his support behind passage of the 13th Amendment and was active in securing its passage in 1865. But he never became a radical abolitionist like Thaddeus Stevens, or an outright advocate of racial equality. Lincoln continued to put forth plans for the resettlement of freedmen to the Caribbean even after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and possibly even after the passage of the 13th Amendment.

Early in the war, when Lincoln strenuously wished to avoid confronting slavery, black enslaved workers fled to federal lines and congregated around federal camps such as Fortress Monroe, Va. Congress passed the Confiscation Act of 1861 in reaction to this development, marking the first movement by the federal government to separate rebellious slaveholders from their enslaved workers. While Lincoln continued to insist that the war was a struggle to preserve the Union, African Americans did not wait for the Emancipation Proclamation to turn the war into much more than a sectional conflict. Slavery was destroyed as much by their individual actions as by the political workings of white politicians.

Perhaps most inexplicably, the movie does a poor job of identifying the various cabinet officials and Congressmen central to the plot. The average moviegoer is likely to be somewhat unsure of the exact role or importance of several characters. This is especially curious given the fact that obscure members of a Confederate peace delegation such as Confederate Senator R.M.T. Hunter and Assistant Secretary of War John A. Campbell are explicitly identified onscreen.

On the whole, Spielberg’s Lincoln is a masterful politician and a dynamic character, able to carefully mediate between his own evolving beliefs and the political realities of his age. This interpretation falls solidly in line with the mainstream of Lincoln scholarship. For an incredibly complex, sphinxlike figure such as Abraham Lincoln, perhaps we shouldn’t expect a more thorough interpretation from Hollywood.

Nicholas Roland is a graduate student in the UT history department. His academic interests include the 19th Century American South, Texas History, Military History, and Historical Memory.

This review first appeared on Not Even Past .

Photos from top:

Series of Thaddeus Stevens photographs by Matthew Brady, sometime between 1860 and 1865 (Image courtesy of Brady National Photographic Art Gallery)

Lydia Hamilton Smith, housekeeper and alleged common law wife of Thaddeus Stevens, photographed sometime prior to 1868 (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Mary Todd Lincoln, 1846-7 (Image courtesy of Library of Congress)

Lincoln depicted as the Great Emancipator in Thomas Ball’s statue, Lincoln Park, Washington, DC (Image courtesy of Library of Congress)

Promotional studio image of Abraham Lincoln (left) and Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln (right)

Images used under Fair Use Guidelines

Tags: 13th amendment , Abraham Lincoln , civil war , Daniel Day Lewis , Doris Kearns-Goodwin , Lincoln , Movie review , Sally Fields , Steven Spielberg , Tommy Lee Jones , UT history

Share this article

22 Comments

West Campus Market Provides Venue and Music Community

A Longhorn Family Explores Their New Home Country One State at a Time

Q&A: A Documentarian and a Longhorn Explore the Spirituality of Sports

Engineering Students Work on Project Connect in Professionalism Course

The Way Back: Flower Power

Longhorns Atop America’s Mountain

Horns Celebrate 40 Years of Marriage Down Under

The Alcalde Meets Stonehenge

The Carolyn Jackson Show

HookedIn Spotlight Series: Zaina Sarwar

How Historically Accurate Is The Movie Lincoln?

While Steven Spielberg is best known for thriller and family-friendly adventure films, he has stepped into very serious subjects as well. In 1993, " Schindler's List " provided audiences a grim picture of the realities that came with internment and occupation by Nazi Germany. Spielberg once again chose to pay homage to such material with 2012's "Lincoln," which provides an overview of Abraham Lincoln's final year as president and the policy he enacted in it. Thematically the film is somewhat dramatized, but a great deal of research went into not only political history and set design, but how Lincoln himself was portrayed.

That is where Daniel Day-Lewis, the actor selected to play the 16th president, came in after Spielberg pursued him for the role over nearly a decade (via IndieWire ). Lewis has been widely recognized as an extraordinarily dedicated method actor, reported as often refusing to break character even off set. As a result, Lewis made a concentrated effort to research accounts of his mannerisms, speech patterns, and general disposition in order to humanize Lincoln rather than play a purely romanticized caricature (via The New York Times ).

The film did justice to Lincoln, but could have done more

There are areas of the film where many historians feel there could have been much improvement, including author Ronald White in an interview with NPR . Specifically, the film's relative lack of screen time for historical African American figures. They are given quiet roles in the film at a time when abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass (pictured above) were very outspoken on the plight of those still enslaved. In fact, Douglass does not even appear in the film (via The Washington Post ).

Meanwhile, according to White, Douglass' son Charles was historically (but without acknowledgement in the film) among the African Americans who are shown gathering as the 13th amendment is being voted on. Other aspects of the film, again in keeping with the dramatized nature of the film, include exaggerations of how Lincoln managed to secure votes on the amendment, the length of his anti-slavery stance, and the likelihood slavery might remain legal after the war (via Daily History ). Despite this, many critics concede that the film does generally give faithful, if not totally accurate, portrayals of the historical figures shown on screen.

Newsletters
Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The legislative process has never been this dramatic—or this fun.

Lincoln feels like a movie Steven Spielberg has always been fated to make. Of course these two figures were bound to collide at some point: the most mythic of American presidents and the most myth-making of American filmmakers. The values Abraham Lincoln has come to represent in the collective imagination—freedom, equality, justice, mercy—are the same values Spielberg has spent a career celebrating and not infrequently sentimentalizing.

Lincoln does sometimes get a little sappy around the edges. Though his project here is clearly one of conscious self-restraint, Spielberg can’t resist the occasional opportunity for patriotic tear-jerking, usually signaled by a swell of John Williams’ symphonic score. But in between, there are long stretches that are as quiet, contemplative, and austere as anything Spielberg has ever done.

In large part, this quality of austerity derives from the fact that Abraham Lincoln is played by Daniel Day-Lewis, an actor who is to other actors as Nijinsky was to other dancers of his time: He seems to be engaging in a different art form entirely. Day-Lewis’ embodiment of Lincoln is less a portrait than a sculpture. You can walk around it and see different things from different angles. The character is so fully imagined, so lived from the inside out, that we leave feeling we’ve met and briefly known, if not Lincoln himself, certainly someone real and extraordinary. This isn’t a Hollywood-style historical epic, like War Horse or Amistad —it’s history on an intimate domestic scale, Lincoln wandering the halls of the White House wrapped in an old wool blanket.

Lincoln does begin on a grand scale, with a horrific, mercifully short depiction of the realities of Civil War-era battle (a swarm of confused, frightened men hacking at one another with bayonets and drowning each other in puddles). Immediately after, we witness the 16th president at the front, greeting two pairs of war-weary Union soldiers, one black, one white. The on-the-nose parallelism of this scene—and the unlikelihood that two separate soldiers would h ave independently memorized the Gettysburg address, and have the presence of mind to quote it in full back to its author after a brutal battle—gets the film off to an unpromising start. Is this going to be a stiffly inspirational civics diorama?

Blessedly, we soon move into the main storyline, which focuses very tightly on the last few months of Lincoln’s life, as he struggled both to end the Civil War and to pass the 13 th Amendment abolishing slavery. The script by Angels in America playwright Tony Kushner draws heavily (though not exclusively) on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s best-selling book Team of Rivals , which is about Lincoln’s clashes with his Cabinet over how to accomplish these two seemingly complementary, but in reality conflicting, goals. Would it be better for the Union to negotiate an end to the war first, or to use the promise of peace as leverage to get the amendment passed? Is Lincoln’s primary moral duty as a leader to end the soldiers’ suffering with all possible speed, or to ensure that the abolition of slavery is permanently written into the Constitution? The moral, legal, and political questions raised by Lincoln’s Scylla/Charybdis dilemma are the meat of the story here—and if that means most of Lincoln’s moments of high suspense occur in offices and legislative chambers, well, Kushner is writer enough, and Spielberg director enough, to turn vote-wrangling and strategic political chicanery into both wry comedy and high drama.

Advised by Secretary of State William Seward (a superb David Strathairn), who despairs of his boss’s habit of first seeking, then ignoring, his advice, Lincoln tries everything to get a two-thirds majority vote, from personally strong-arming reluctant legislators to hiring a team of Falstaffian secret operatives (James Spader, John Hawkes, and Tim Blake Nelson) to offer patronage jobs in exchange for votes. The vision of Lincoln as a world-class horse-trader, capable of deploying slippery lawyer’s tricks in the service of lofty goals, animates many of the movie’s sharpest and funniest scenes. And though Day-Lewis’ Lincoln is a surpassingly gentle, soft-spoken man, given to long homespun anecdotes and bone-dry witticisms, there are scenes in which Lincoln more than justifies his reputation among many of his contemporaries as a steel-willed autocrat seeking to usurp the powers of the legislative branch.

In its second half, the film focuses increasingly on Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), a Pennsylvania congressman who’s spent his life battling for full racial equality. Stevens’ opposition to the amendment on the grounds that it doesn’t go far enough endangers its passage, and he and his fellow lawmakers square off repeatedly over the meaning and necessity of political compromise. Decked out in a curled black wig and limping on a cane, hurling poetic invective at his opponents (“Slavery is the only insult to natural law, you fatuous nincompoop!”), Jones gives a magnificent performance that should have his best supporting actor nomination in the bag. The climactic voting scene in the House chamber is a rowdy mélange of low comedy, high drama, and suspense—though we know, of course, that the amendment will pass in the end, Spielberg and Kushner have so ably orchestrated the stories of multiple sought-after votes that each “Aye” or “Nay” plays out like a miniature cliffhanger.

The movie’s depiction of its president’s enigmatic domestic life is only intermittently successful. There are some blisteringly honest scenes between Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), his depressed, resentful, but politically savvy wife. The portrait of the Lincolns’ marriage is remarkably complex, especially in the scenes where she rebukes him for insufficiently mourning their dead son. We see how her bottomless neediness and his core of emotional reserve made for a toxic combination, but we also sense their deep love for each other. I never quite believed in the storyline about Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the Lincoln’s oldest son Robert, who insists on enlisting in the Army against his parents’ wishes—their Oedipal squabbles seemed familiar from too many other, lesser movies. But the tender, lively relationship between Lincoln and his adored youngest son, Tad (Gulliver McGrath), runs through the movie like an animating spark, with the boy racing through Cabinet meetings to leap on his ever-tolerant father’s lap. An early, quiet scene in which Lincoln finds his child sleeping by the fireside, lies full-length next to him and kisses him was the movie’s “had me at hello” moment for me—from that point, I could tabulate its flaws as it went along while still loving every minute of it.

Well, all but the last few minutes, in which we see not quite Lincoln’s assassination but a related event taking place at the same time. I admire Spielberg’s choice to conclude on a note of indirection and discretion: Ending on a tableaux vivant of the well-known facts of that night at Ford’s Theatre might have been both dramatically inert and crass. But I think the film should have ended even earlier, on a long shot (beautifully framed by cinematographer Janusz Kaminski) of the lanky, stooped president walking alone down a hall of the White House, on the way to take his wife to the theater on April 14, 1865, five days after ending the bloodiest war in the nation’s history. We all know what happened next—and given how much we love this man we feel we’ve come to know, it’s sad enough just thinking about it.

an image, when javascript is unavailable

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘lincoln’: film review.

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as the 16th president in the historical drama directed by Steven Spielberg and written by Tony Kushner.

By Todd McCarthy

Todd McCarthy

Share this article on Facebook
Share this article on Twitter
Share this article on Flipboard
Share this article on Email
Show additional share options
Share this article on Linkedin
Share this article on Pinit
Share this article on Reddit
Share this article on Tumblr
Share this article on Whatsapp
Share this article on Print
Share this article on Comment

Far from being a traditional biographical drama, Lincoln dedicates itself to doing something very few Hollywood films have ever attempted, much less succeeded at: showing, from historical example, how our political system works in an intimate procedural and personal manner. That the case in point is the hair-breadth passage by the House of Representatives of the epochal 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and that the principal orchestrator is President Abraham Lincoln in the last days of his life endow Steven Spielberg ‘s film with a great theme and subject, which are honored with intelligence, humor and relative restraint. Tony Kushner ‘s densely packed script has been directed by Spielberg in an efficient, unpretentious way that suggests Michael Curtiz at Warner Bros. in the 1940s, right down to the rogue’s gallery of great character actors in a multitude of bewhiskered supporting roles backing up a first-rate leading performance by Daniel Day-Lewis . The wall-to-wall talk and lack of much Civil War action might give off the aroma of schoolroom medicine to some, but the elemental drama being played out, bolstered by the prestige of the participants and a big push by Disney, should make this rare film about American history pay off commercially.

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Justice smith, dominic sessa join ariana greenblatt in ‘now you see me 3’ (exclusive), ‘the people’s joker’ review: a sharp dc parody delightfully crossed with a trans coming-of-age tale, cj’s miky lee to give usc school of cinematic arts commencement address, babs olusanmokun talks ‘the ministry of ungentlemanly warfare’ and a ‘dune 2’ surprise, dan goozee, renowned walt disney imagineering and movie poster artist, dies at 80, ariana greenblatt joining cast of ‘now you see me 3’.

How Historically Accurate Is "Lincoln" the Movie?

The best answer to any question

It's a mistake to worry about whether "Lincoln" the movie is historically accurate. It's historically inspired and inspiring, but by definition, any work of art that blends fiction (such as invented dialogue) with fact should never be considered "accurate." Spielberg himself acknowledges all this when he describes his movie as a "dream" and as a work of "historical fiction" (see his Dedication Day speech, November 19, 2012 at Gettysburg on YouTube for a good example). That doesn't mean that the movie has no use in the history classroom or for the lifelong history student. "Lincoln" the movie creates an unforgettable historical mood or experience that almost no actual history of the period can match. It truly feels like "writing history with lightning" (Woodrow Wilson on another powerful movie, "Birth of a Nation"). But accurate history sticks to the evidence, and Spielberg and scriptwriter Tony Kushner don't. When they want to convey the complicated dynamic of the Lincoln household, they take that responsibility seriously and consult several leading historical studies to create a layered account but at the end of the day, they simply invent the most compelling scenes, such as a bitter bedroom argument between First Husband and wife or a stunning scene where Abraham Lincoln slaps his oldest son (which, by the way, would NEVER have happened). They also condense, conflate, and simplify the politics behind the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the focal point of the movie. Just compare the Spielberg / Kushner interpretation to the best academic account of the subject ("Final Freedom" (2001) by Michael Vorenberg) and you realize how many corners the movie has to cut and nuances it has to ignore. Watching the movie, for example, it's easy to forget that Lincoln was pushing for approval from a lame duck Congress where his numbers were worse than they would be in the newly elected Congress. Why would he do that? The movie also struggles to portray the details of the lobbying effort (relying heavily on invention, imagination and more than a little corny comic relief). Yet this movie probably does better on this difficult subject than any other American film. So, accurate? No. But excellent anyway? Absolutely. In other words, don't go to this movie (or any historical movie) to learn the facts. Go to imagine the experience and to enjoy the illusion that a great filmmaker can create.

Why are the Lincoln-Douglas Debates so important in American History?
Why did Abraham Lincoln and so many Unionists persist in wanting to bring the Southern states back with force after sustaining so many casualties?
How likely would Abraham Lincoln be to survive his wounds today?

Support HuffPost

Our 2024 coverage needs you, your loyalty means the world to us.

At HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.

Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.

Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.

Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.

Dear HuffPost Reader

Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?

The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.

Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Popular in the Community

From our partner, more in entertainment.

'Lincoln' Movie Review: 10 Ways It Distorts History

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is sailing through awards season with a tremendous amount of success and is about to make a big push for Oscar gold at the Academy Awards ceremony.

The highly-acclaimed film is the most ambitious and historically accurate depiction of President Abraham Lincoln ever attempted, and its service to honoring and humanizing the man's memory will no doubt earn it a place in middle and high school curricula for years to come.

Despite its praise and accuracy, though, historians can pick out a few areas where certain liberties were taken. Here are some of them.

1. Soldiers probably never recited the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln

The beginning of the film depicts two Union soldiers, one white and one black, reciting the Gettysburg Address to Abraham Lincoln while he is making a visit to the troops. Though a touching scene that helps emphasize the devotion of Union soldiers to their cause, there is almost no chance that the speech was memorized by anyone. The speech itself did not achieve the type of great acclaim it holds today until after Lincoln's death.

2. President Lincoln was not known for pulling speeches out of his top hat

A scene in the film depicts Lincoln at a flag-raising ceremony, pulling his short speech out of his top hat. As president, Lincoln would have had secretaries with him and would not have committed such a faux pas. That said, young country lawyer Abraham Lincoln was known to keep his notes in the lining of his hat.

3. Mary Todd Lincoln did not attend meetings of the U.S. House of Representatives

Contrary to Sally Field's portrayal, the first lady did not keep an eye on Thaddeus Stevens from the House gallery. While Mrs. Lincoln did have a keen political mind and a combative relationship with Stevens, it would have been highly unusual for the first lady to watch the House's proceedings.

4. Mrs. Lincoln would have never publicly berated Thaddeus Stevens

While the first lady did indeed have some qualms with Thaddeus Stevens and his investigations into her spending habits, she would have never launched a verbal attack on him at a White House function as she does in the movie. It would have been too much of an embarrassment to both Stevens and her husband.

5. Black soldiers did not greet the Confederate peace commissioners

When CSA Vice-President Alexander Stephens and the rest of the Confederate delegation arrived in Union territory, they were not greeted by a contingent of black soldiers. This would have been seen as an overt diplomatic faux pas that would have threatened any chance of peace talks. The scene did help illustrate the fact, however, that over 200,000 black soldiers fought to preserve the Union.

6. The film took some liberties with the final vote tally on the amendment

And, boy, are some people incensed. Congressman Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) wrote an official letter to Steven Spielberg expressing how insulted he was that the film portrayed two Connecticut representatives voting Nay on the amendment to abolish slavery.

Courtney pulled up the official congressional record to point out that all four members of Connecticut's delegation voted in favor of the amendment. Screenwriter Tony Kushner has since shot back , trying to remind the Congressman that it is just a movie.

7. Speaking of the House of Representatives and its debate, Thaddeus Stevens never called a congressman a fatuous nincompoop during debate

The same rules that governed the House then govern it today: Members are not allowed to directly address each other during debate. They have to address the Speaker, who would have surely ruled the radical Republican out of line if he called someone a nincompoop. That said, Stevens certainly did have quite a sharp wit, which comes through in certain scenes.

8. The Union did not print Abraham Lincoln's image on any currency until after he died

While Lincoln was conversing with the political operatives he employed, James Spader's character comments that he couldn't bribe undecided Congressmen to vote yes because so many 50-cent pieces had Lincoln's face on them. In reality, Abraham Lincoln did not appear on any currency until 1869 , where his face began an 11-year stint residing on the $100 bill.

9. Lincoln probably never even talked to these political fixers, especially not about bribes

While Lincoln's political skills and his all-out attempt to get the amendment passed were real, he probably never met directly with the political operates his administration employed. If he did, bribes were almost surely never discussed. Part of the man's political genius would have ensured he resisted exposing himself too much to the mud of politics.

10. Lincoln did not die in a nightgown

The last five minutes of Spielberg's Lincoln are the worst five minutes of the film. It could have ended early, but he wanted to show the death and include the candle-lit second inaugural address.

The death scene itself is inaccurate. Daniel Day-Lewis is shown in a nightgown, lying in a hunched position on the bed. In reality, he was nude when he died, as doctors had removed the clothes to inspect his wounds and proceeded to cover him in a blanket. Also, as a giant man standing tall at 6'4," he was diagonally set down on the tiny bed.

Most of these inaccuracies are done to help exhibit things and paint a better, larger picture of what happened. Despite the inaccuracies, no other film has ever captured the sixteenth president as clearly as Lincoln has.

In spite of the errors, the movie presents an excellent history lesson for all.

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Review: ‘Lincoln’ Is A Handsomely Shot, Immaculately Acted & Terribly Dull Historical Biopic

Drew taylor.

Share on Facebook
Share to Flipboard
Share on LinkedIn
Show more sharing options
Submit to Reddit
Post to Tumblr
Print This Page
Share on WhatsApp

Steven Spielberg directing a biopic on Abraham Lincoln , even one that concerns the President’s last four months in his second term, is a scenario that oozes with endless possibilities. This is, after all, a filmmaker who has cast his virtuosic eye on to past historical injustices like the Holocaust (“ Schindler’s List “) and the aftermath of the Munich Olympics massacre (“ Munich “), and who has always had a keen interest in the African American experience (“ The Color Purple ,” “ Amistad “). Imagine what he could do with the actual Civil War! Unfortunately, as it turns out, he does very little. “Lincoln,” for all its technical accomplishment, fine performances and intricate script work, is something of a lifeless bore. It’s in desperate need and short supply of the very Spielberg-ian dazzle that it was assumed he would bring to the project.

Related Stories Steven Spielberg Calls ‘Dune: Part Two’ Sandworm Scene ‘One of the Greatest Things I’ve Ever Seen’ ‘Manhunt’ Is the ‘Lincoln’ Sequel You May Not Know You Needed

“Lincoln” begins with a battle sequence, but instead of the gut-punching, no-holds-barred nature of “ Saving Private Ryan ” (or even “Munich,” which, like “Lincoln,” was penned by playwright Tony Kushner ), it feels half formed and safe. The sequence is the recounting of a battle between black Union soldiers and white Confederate troops, but it’s interrupted by a conversation between one of the soldiers and Lincoln. The soldier is complaining about being paid $3 less than white soldiers, and Lincoln is thoughtfully listening and bestowing his wisdom upon the young soldier.

As Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Day-Lewis is nothing short of mesmerizing, even in this brief introduction, and in a way this sequence is evocative of the film as a whole – it’s overtly chatty, with little interest in anything beyond the dynamics of two people communicating with each other. The Civil War is raging, but Spielberg and Kushner are more worried about two dudes talking.

The story then shifts to the White House, and the movie’s concerns become more adroitly mapped out – Abraham Lincoln wants the South to surrender and the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution to be passed by the House of Representatives. How those two goals intermingle and conflict is a source of drama, but mostly this film is an endless series of scenes where white men bicker inside candlelit rooms about the fate of the nation and the foolhardiness of trying to get something like this passed. On one hand, this kind of restraint is admirable, showing a mostly stripped-down Spielberg narrowing his focus and jettisoning most of his tricks. But on the other, it’s something close to deathly, oftentimes dull and plodding. “Lincoln” is less a historical epic than an extremely lengthy, Civil War-set episode of “ The West Wing .”

If there’s one thing that enlivens “Lincoln,” it’s the film’s supporting cast. Clearly, no actor would say no to a phone call from Steven Spielberg asking if they’d like to participate in an Abraham Lincoln movie, so even the smallest part is filled by either a big name movie star or a noticeable character actor, among them Lukas Haas , Hal Holbrook , Joseph Gordon-Levitt , Tommy Lee Jones (serving as the de facto emotional center for the movie), David Strathairn , Lee Pace , Jackie Earle Haley , Bruce McGill , Gregory Itzin , Jared Harris , Michael Stuhlbarg and Walton Goggins . The clear standouts, oddly enough, are a troop of morally nebulous political operatives played by Tim Blake Nelson , James Spader , and John Hawkes . They add some much-needed live wire electricity to the midsection of the movie, which is comprised mostly of montages where the three of them scramble around to secure enough votes for the amendment to pass.

Day-Lewis’ Lincoln is uncanny, giving off the sensation that this is the closest anyone alive today will ever get to seeing to the President walking around and talking to people. Day-Lewis inhabits the character fully, in his distinctive gait and posture (his back sometimes bending into a question-mark), his reedy voice (given the painstaking amount of historical research that went into the rest of the movie, it must be based in fact) and the more honest-feeling portrayal of his moral righteousness, which wasn’t as arrow-straight as most like to think it was. Lincoln, in this movie at least, was a conflicted, often tortured man, who knew what had to be done and was willing to bend certain rules and obligations to achieve his desired outcome.

If Lincoln has a foil, it’s not the Democrats who wanted to callously shoot down the Amendment, but rather his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln ( Sally Field ), a woman still mourning the loss of their young son and whose mental instability was the source of much speculation and gossip. She is the only one who can stand up to the great and powerful President and Field does so in a way that feels very real and emotionally sound. Their relationship was not a warm one; Lincoln was brittle and intermittently callous, and any romance that the two might have had seems to have seeped into the earth, like so much Union and Confederate blood. When Mary threatens Lincoln about sending their son Robert (Levitt) off to fight in the war effort, it’s the closest Lincoln comes to being genuinely scared.

But for all of its finely calibrated performances (seriously, Spader is amazing), for all of its visual splendor (longtime Spielberg cinematographer Janusz Kaminski makes sure even candles throw off fat lens flares), “Lincoln” remains remote, hermetic, bloodless and antiqued. At 150 minutes, it’s far too long, especially when the suspense-starved climax concerns the ratification of votes in a sequence so painstakingly detailed that it feels like it’s happening in real time. Spielberg even shies away, in the film’s closing moments, from explicitly depicting the assassination, which, aside from being an opportunity for actual thrills in the film, would have been a suitable emotional climax. Not only were several of the movie’s major characters involved in the assassination plot (it was a multi-pronged affair and involved other attempts on lives of the cabinet), Lincoln drove through throngs of people, enraptured in celebratory glee, following the passing of the Amendment. There’s something deeply poetic about the man making his way through a changed nation to meet his demise. But such poetry is nowhere to be found in “Lincoln.” [C]

Most Popular

Historical Accuracy of the Movie Lincoln

Matthew Pinsker talked about Stephen Spielberg’s film, Lincoln , analyzing what was fact and what was Hollywood fiction. Professor Pinsker sp… read more

Matthew Pinsker talked about Stephen Spielberg’s film, Lincoln , analyzing what was fact and what was Hollywood fiction. Professor Pinsker spoke about the historical significance of the events the movie portrays, but also the areas where Mr. Spielberg exercised his artistic freedom.

“Mr. Spielberg Goes to Washington: What Hollywood Got Right (and Wrong) About Passage of the 13th Amendment” was part of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society 2014 Spring Conference “A Just and Lasting Peace: Ending the Civil War ", held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. It was the eleventh symposium in the series, "The National Capitol in a Nation Divided: Congress and the District of Columbia Confront Sectionalism and Slavery.” close

Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.

Text type Closed Captioning Record People Graphical Timeline
Filter by Speaker All Speakers Paul Finkelman Matthew Pinsker
Search this text

*This text was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

People in this video

Hosting Organization

U.S. Capitol Historical Society U.S. Capitol Historical Society
The Civil War
American History TV

Airing Details

Aug 22, 2014 | 9:30pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 23, 2014 | 1:11am EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 23, 2014 | 4:52am EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 23, 2014 | 7:08am EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 25, 2014 | 9:29am EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 25, 2014 | 1:08pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
Aug 25, 2014 | 4:48pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
Sep 13, 2014 | 7:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
Sep 13, 2014 | 11:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
Sep 21, 2014 | 11:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
Sep 22, 2014 | 7:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3

Wartime Press

Panelists talked about the evolution of the American wartime press from the Civil War to the present. They spoke about t…

Black Politics in Civil War Washington

Kate Masur, associate professor of history at Northwestern University, talked about Steven Spielberg’s film Lincoln , and…

Celluloid Wars

Professor Stephen Curley talked about his book, Celluloid Wars: A Guide to Film and the American Experience of War , abou…

Open Phones

Telephone lines were open for viewer comments on the question, “Does the film American Sniper glorify war?” There were a…

Screen Rant

8 historical epics prasied for accuracy & realism by experts.

Accuracy and realism can make historical epics much more immersive, and the most carefully detailed movies have been commended by experts.

Historical accuracy is crucial for immersion. Realistic depictions of emotions and drama enhance the viewing experience.
Detailing both the broad strokes and minute details is key. Movies that strike this balance tend to earn recognition from experts.
The suspension of disbelief is broken by glaring faults. Audiences are more likely to invest in a plot with accurate historical representations.

Historical epics are often judged based on their historical accuracy, and some outstanding movies have even earned praise from historians. Complete realism isn't the only metric that a movie should be judged by, but historically accurate movies can feel incredibly immersive. This is especially important for historical epics, which try to communicate the scale of historical events or time periods in full detail. Any glaring faults can immediately break the suspension of disbelief, and audiences will likely struggle to become as invested in the plot.

The discussion of historical accuracy in movies often focuses on small details like clothing and language. Otherwise, it's concerned with any deviations from the historical record, but these technical hang-ups aren't the most important way a movie can represent the past. It's vital for historical epics to communicate the emotions and the drama of the time period. Movies which succeed in depicting the broad strokes as well as the minute details often tend to work the best, and they can earn plaudits from historians and other experts.

15 Movies That Completely Cover Historical Events From Start To Finish

8 the northman (2022), a viking epic that blends myth with history.

*Availability in US

Not available

In terms of its structure and its rules, The Northman fits in with the Norse canon better than it fits in with 21st century cinema.

Although The Northman is based on myth, and it features several elements of pure fantasy, it still provides a realistic depiction of life for Viking warriors. The Northman is inspired by Vita Amlethi , an oral story which was passed down for hundreds of years before being definitively recorded at some point around the year 1200. The story then spread throughout Europe, and it eventually formed the basis of William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Despite The Northman 's mythical elements, a lot of the movie is based on hard facts.

The Northman 's mythological influences are a key factor in constructing the world of the movie. Medieval historian David M. Perry recognized that The Northman would fit in with the tradition of Norse literature. (via Smithsonian Magazine ) In terms of its structure and its rules, The Northman fits in with the Norse canon better than it fits in with 21st century cinema. Perry also praised the movie's portrayal of Viking culture, not just in its mythology and political structures, but also in the clothing, housing, and belongings of the people.

7 Lincoln (2012)

Steven spielberg's civil war drama recreates abraham lincoln's life in minute detail.

Ronald White, author of A. Lincoln: A Biography, noted that Daniel Day-Lewis both talks and walks just like historical accounts of Lincoln suggest that he did.

Steven Spielberg's historical biopic is one of his most ambitious movies, but Lincoln lived up to the hype. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Abraham Lincoln earned him his third Academy Award, and his performance also garnered praise from historians for its accuracy. Ronald White, author of A. Lincoln: A Biography, noted that Day-Lewis both talks and walks just like historical accounts of Lincoln suggest that he did. (via NPR ) The actor studied Lincoln intensely from first-hand sources to present the most faithful portrayal he could.

Ronald White was careful to note that there are some things about Lincoln's life that are bound to remain a mystery. His exact feelings on emancipation, and how much of a factor this was in his motivations for the Civil War, can only be guessed, but Lincoln presents a faithful interpretation of the facts which are available. In any case, Lincoln 's representation of the political climate within Washington at the time is fascinating. Lincoln attempts to deconstruct the quasi-mythological image of Abraham Lincoln , and it gets to the core of the man.

6 Free State Of Jones (2016)

Although it was panned by many critics, free state of jones was commended by historians.

Garry Adelman, a Civil War historian, admired the movie's portrayal of the Battle of Ellesville, in which a small militia of former Confederate soldiers took arms against their corrupt local government.

Free State of Jones features Matthew McConaughey as a man who leads a rebellion against the Confederate government in Mississippi. The movie received mixed reviews, and it failed to recoup its budget at the box office. However, Free State of Jones earned praise from historians for some aspects of its portrayal of the true story. Garry Adelman, a Civil War historian, admired the movie's portrayal of the Battle of Ellesville, in which a small militia of former Confederate soldiers took arms against their corrupt local government.

Free State of Jones can still be considered a disappointment, both critically and financially, but it adheres to the facts a lot better than most historical movies. The battle scenes show women entering the fray, which is exactly what happened when the people of Jones County decided to fight back against the Confederates. Free State of Jones shows the disorganized fighting which took place , with people improvising with weapons and defense fortifications using whichever materials were available to them at the time.

5 Apollo 13 (1995)

Ron howard's nasa drama is faithful to both the history and the science.

Not many historical dramas have the benefit of recorded dialogue to use, or so many survivors from the story still alive to talk directly to the filmmakers.

Apollo 13 is one of the best movies about space travel ever made. It has all the scope of a sci-fi epic, but it's actually a historical drama about a lunar mission which nearly ended in disaster. In a video with Vanity Fair , astronaut Chris Hadfield appraised Apollo 13 's historical and scientific accuracy, and he found that it succeeded on both fronts. Director Ron Howard spent a lot of time working with different people from NASA to get a holistic image of the operations at mission control and on board the lunar craft.

Ron Howard tried to use official transcripts as the basis for the dialogue between the astronauts and mission control. The most famous line from Apollo 13 , " Houston, we have a problem ," is just one example of a direct quote being used in the movie. Not many historical dramas have the benefit of recorded dialogue to use, or so many survivors from the story still alive to talk directly to the filmmakers. Apollo 13 recreates events which happened just 25 years earlier, but it still takes an incredible amount of care to get the history and science correct.

4 Titanic (1997)

James cameron's passion project features several real characters from history.

Director James Cameron has a passionate interest in the story of the Titanic, so the movie was his opportunity to recreate the disaster with an acute level of detail.

Titanic was the most expensive movie ever made at the time, and a lot of the budget went into building a replica of the HMS Titanic that would stand up to scrutiny. Director James Cameron has a passionate interest in the story of the Titanic, so the movie was his opportunity to recreate the disaster with an acute level of detail. His hands-on approach involved looking at photographs taken on board the ship to make sure every fitting was accurate, and poring over transcripts from the subsequent inquests to find out exactly what happened when the Titanic went down.

Titanic fictionalizes some elements of the story . For example, Jack and Rose are Cameron's own creations. But many of the characters in Titanic did exist, such as Captain Smith, White Star's managing director Bruce Ismay, and Second Officer Charles Lightoller. Historian Robert Toplin praised Titanic when it first came out for the way it presented life in 1912. (via Perspective on History ) Cameron made sure that Titanic is about more than just the furniture and fittings . It's also representative of the social injustices of the time and people's attitudes.

3 A Knight's Tale (2001)

Although it's intentionally anachronistic at times, a knight's tale communicates the spirit of the 14th century.

A Knight's Tale doesn't try to present the period exactly as it occurred. What's more important is the movie's ability to communicate a certain idea of the time.

A Knight's Tale is a comedy, and it has an intentionally anachronistic approach. The script uses modern language and references, and some of the clothing and music choices are also completely discordant with the movie's 14th-century setting. However, there are some aspects of A Knight's Tale which are remarkably accurate. The historically accurate elements of the movie underline how the faults are all completely deliberate . The team behind A Knight's Tale could have made all the period details as accurate as possible, but they chose not to.

In a video for History Hit , medieval historian Dr. Eleanor Janega praised the way A Knight's Tale represented the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer as a comedic figure. The portrayal of Chaucer highlights A Knight's Tale 's approach to historical representation. A Knight's Tale doesn't try to present the period exactly as it occurred. What's more important is the movie's ability to communicate a certain idea of the time, but for this still to be easily understood by modern audiences. By using some modern references, A Knight's Tale is much more relatable, even though it takes place roughly 700 years in the past.

2 Ben-Hur (1959)

The iconic chariot racing scene is more than just hollywood spectacle.

The Romans had a different approach to sport and violence, and brutal chariot races were a cathartic release for the vast crowds.

Ben-Hur is one of the greatest historical epics of all time , and its scale typified the lavish excess of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Ben-Hur tells the story of an enslaved nobleman who returns to Rome to seek revenge against his adopted brother. There are some historical inaccuracies, but Ben-Hur received overall praise from Roman historian Dr. Simon Elliott. (via History Hit ) For example, Elliott states that Roman ships would never have been rowed by enslaved people, since the rowers comprised roughly 90% of the crew on board, making a revolt extremely likely.

Ben-Hur 's most iconic scene is the climactic chariot race at the Roman Circus Maximus, and this also stands out for its historical fidelity. The Romans had a different approach to sport and violence, and brutal chariot races were a cathartic release for the vast crowds. In Ben-Hur, the racers are not the only ones in danger, as some of the guards surrounding the track also get trampled.

Ben-Hur depicts the action of the chariot race in all its glory, but it also focuses on the roar of the crowd, showing the place that such sporting events held in Roman society.

1 Gladiator (2000)

Ridley scott's attention to detail ensures gladiator earns top marks from historians.

Ridley Scott has developed a reputation as a master of historical epics, and Gladiator is his finest achievement in that regard.

Dr. Simon Elliott also praised Ridley Scott's historical epic Gladiator. (via History Hit ) He noted that many of the characters were based on real people, even those only mentioned in passing. This all contributes to the movie's immersive feeling, as does the period-appropriate armor and weaponry that the Roman soldiers wear when they face the Germanic tribes at the beginning of the movie. Elliott also commended Gladiator 's portrayal of Commodus. Joaquin Phoenix plays the despotic emperor perfectly, highlighting his deranged rage.

Ridley Scott has developed a reputation as a master of historical epics, and Gladiator is his finest achievement in that regard. The upcoming sequel, Gladiator 2 , is set for a November release date. The plot remains a mystery, but fans can be confident that Scott's famous attention to detail will ensure that the sequel is just as historically correct. Gladiator won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and this relfects well on the movie's strenuously researched production design, as well as its compelling script and performances.

Sources: Smithsonian Magazine , NPR , Vanity Fair , Perspectives on History , History Hit , History Hit .

‘Manhunt’ Creator Answers Burning Questions: Why Lincoln’s Onscreen Assassination Had to Be Gory, How Much Is Historically Accurate and More

By William Earl

William Earl

administrator

‘SNL’ Sets Dua Lipa as Next Host and Musical Guest 3 days ago
‘Peacemaker’ Season 2 Begins Production as James Gunn Shares Helmet Pic 3 days ago
Kevin Costner Says ‘I’d Love’ to Finish ‘Yellowstone’ After Contract Disagreements and ‘I Thought I Was Going to Make Seven’ Seasons 7 days ago

SPOILER ALERT: This article discusses plot twists from the premiere episode of “ Manhunt .”

Popular on Variety

What was your initial research process for “Manhunt”?

First, I stumbled upon the figure of Edwin Stanton, and that was my way in. I thought it was such a fascinating dramatic situation for a lead character to essentially fill in for the president between the assassination and Andrew Johnson the next day. For those 12 hours, we had no conscious president, so it fell upon his shoulders. When I learned he also was this close colleague of Lincoln, that they shared the loss of children, and he had asthma at a time before medicine, I just thought this is just such a rich figure for a lead role. So my idea was to tell the story through him as a cat-and-mouse thriller with Booth.

The book is nonfiction, and Mr. Swanson documents the assassination night and Booth’s escape in great detail, as well as the soldiers surrounding Booth. I used pretty much all that research in the show. I was lucky enough that the book was available when I had this idea to tell the story through Stanton.

Which of the conspiracy theories was the wildest that you encountered?

There’s a theory called the Dahlgren Affair, this theory that Lincoln, possibly, Stanton, or both approved an attempt to assassinate Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President. Because he was the mastermind of the Confederacy — and the war was going on for so long, and was so brutal — they wanted a quick end. It’s possible that the failed attempt at assassinating Davis gave Booth or the conspirators around Booth the idea to do the same thing to Lincoln.

In the first episode, we see Lincoln get shot, and there’s a ton of blood. It’s very visceral. What was your process when considering how graphic you wanted this pivotal scene to be?

I’m very sensitive to violence and horror, but I felt it was really important to show how gruesome this murder was, and how cowardly it was to shoot someone in the back where they can’t defend themselves. Also, to learn that it was a time before we understood bacteria and viruses, before doctors even washed their hands, was fascinating to me. The fact that essentially Lincoln bled out, that’s really how he died. They didn’t really do surgery on him, even though there were three surgeons brought in. So I wanted to hit people viscerally with what Stanton was facing, and I do remember a moment in the mix where I asked to turn up the bloody towel just a little bit, because I think it was just a horrific way to die. It was important so you could understand why Stanton would want to avenge his death so much, to the point of sacrificing so much of his own life.

Compared to a lot of historical dramas, the world of “Manhunt” feels period-accurate in terms of the hygiene, the sets and costumes that feel lived-in and gritty, not pristine and elegant. What was behind the choice to take this approach?

There are very few photographs — photography was just getting going — but there is a photo of the bed where Lincoln died. You can see blood on the pillow and it struck me: because so few photos at that time were domestic, or criminal. It was mostly portraits of important people. So the fact that they took the time to do that struck me.

It was interesting to learn that people only really had a couple of pairs of clothing and they would wear them in rotation. Also, at the time, beards were modern and fashionable because of Lincoln, but also because razors hadn’t evolved that much. A man could become ill and die if they nicked themselves with their razor, so it was a very vulnerable time in terms of cleanliness and hygiene. There’s a rawness to what people were living through.

What was the most challenging part of shooting this sweeping historical drama?

But I think making sure, with so many characters, that emotionally it was going to pay off. That the audience would be invested and care about so many people, and that I could pay off the journey for such different walks of life.

Would you want to tackle another historical thriller in the future?

It depends on the story. I’m drawn to stuff where, when I know the central relationship or idea, it moves me. It feels relevant. That’s where I start, and if it happens to take place during the Depression or another time, then maybe. But if it’s contemporary, I might be into it, too. It’s really about the character and then it would go from there. But I don’t want to pigeonhole myself and just be The History Girl.

What was an interesting fact you learned about Lincoln that didn’t make it into the show?

He had slippers he wore in the house that had little goats on them: Hamish and I will joke all the time about goat slippers. Our costume designer, Katie Irish, actually got us copies of them. I don’t think we ever have a shot that goes down to his feet, but I thought that was charming.

Also, just how witty and folksy he was, and how the arts sustained him through such a hard time. One of the times Stanton got mad at him was because they were supposed to have an important war meeting, and Lincoln insisted on reading Shakespeare or something to them in the meeting. Stanton was like, “Come on already!” — so I think that there was something very charming about his whimsy.

This interview has been edited and condensed. Watch the trailer for “Manhunt” below.

More From Our Brands

Kid cudi added to coachella 2024 weekend two lineup, robb report’s napa valley wine club has 3 stellar new reds on the way, caitlin clark smashes another tv record as wnba draft draws 2.45m, be tough on dirt but gentle on your body with the best soaps for sensitive skin, christina applegate: i was asked to join real housewives of beverly hills but ‘i would be the worst housewife’, verify it's you, please log in.

Share full article

Supported by

Lincoln’s Murder Is Often Re-enacted, but Not at Ford’s Theater

The theater says that allowing the assassination to be recreated there would undermine the gravity and significance of Abraham Lincoln’s death.

A black-and-white image of Abraham Lincoln in a dark suit with a bow tie.

By Rebecca J. Ritzel

Reporting from Washington

Since Ford’s Theater reopened as an active theater in 1968, it has rarely been the scene of a dramatic re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln being shot to death there on April 14, 1865.

“Manhunt,” the Apple TV+ series, said it recently asked for permission and was turned down. Robert Redford considered it at one point but was dissuaded, an executive at the theater said. A 1971 docudrama by David Wolper did film critical scenes inside the theater.

The theater’s website explains the reasoning behind the resistance to such recreations.

In a posting titled, “Why Ford’s Theatre Doesn’t Stage Assassination Re-enactments,” the historian David McKenzie, who worked at the theater for nine years, wrote in 2021:

“For us at Ford’s, in the place where the tragedy actually happened, a re-enactment of the Lincoln assassination would take attention from the gravity of the event and its impact on our society at large,” adding that “it would focus attention instead on the macabre details of one night. It could prove kitschy, downplaying the event’s significance. It would also give John Wilkes Booth the prominence he desired in his quest to topple the United States government and preserve a system of white racial superiority.”

Paul Tetreault, the Washington theater’s veteran director, said that, despite the resolute tone of McKenzie’s posting, the rationale against such a re-enactment is not a formal policy, but more a matter of “common sense.”

“So the reality is,” he said, “there is nothing written that says no re-enactments. It’s just that it’s just respectful. You know, at Ford’s we have an obligation. We have an obligation to the facts. We have an obligation to truth, we have an obligation to, you know, be respectful and be reverential. This is a memorial site. It’s a national historical site.”

Tetreault said Robert Redford considered using the theater in his 2010 film “The Conspirator,” and even toured the space to mark camera angles.

“What I ended up saying was, ‘Quite honestly, I’m not sure it’s worth the cost, the extra costs, that you’re going to have to put into this project to shoot at Ford’s,’” Tetreault said. “And you know, Redford kind of agreed.”

Those costs would have included reimbursing the theater for the value of ticket sales in the event performances were canceled, Tetreault said, as well as daily charges from the National Park Service, which jointly operates the historic site. The filmmakers would pay up to $750 a day to use the site, plus salary and overtime costs for Park Service employees, such as those who would monitor the filming.

Redford, who could not be reached for comment, ultimately opted to recreate Ford’s Theater in a Georgia warehouse, but he held the premiere for his film at Ford’s.

Monica Beletsky, the showrunner for “Manhunt,” which recreates the 12-day search for Booth, said that her team and James Swanson, the author of the book on which the series is based, had hoped to film at the scene of the crime.

“I campaigned so hard to get in there,” Beletsky said, in part because of how difficult it was to find a comparable 19th-century theater. (Above-stage boxes, such as those at Ford’s, were often sacrificed when older theaters designed for stage acting were converted to cinemas.)

Tetreault said he had several conversations with Swanson, but warned him about the costs and logistical concerns, rather than telling him “no.”

A spokesman for the Park Service, Mike Litterst, said the agency had not received a “formal application” for on-site filming at the theater from the series.

Ford’s Theater was only open a few years before the assassination, and after the shooting it tried to continue to stage performances before shutting down in 1866. It languished for a century, first as a government warehouse and later as a shrine-like Lincoln museum. But in the 1960s Lady Bird Johnson, wife of President Johnson, and Actors’ Equity, the union for stage performers and stage managers, pushed for a major restoration project, believing that an avowed lover of Shakespeare like Lincoln would be better honored with a working theater.

Restoring the theater without putting plays onstage “would make the space a monument to what John Wilkes Booth did, rather than a place to commemorate Lincoln,” McKenzie wrote in his blog post.

William F. McSweeny, a special assistant to Johnson who has served on the Ford’s board since the early 1970s, said that there has long been strong resistance to allowing re-enactments at the theater. His modus operandi as longtime board chair was, “never do anything that would be damaging to the name or memory of Lincoln.”

Today the theater offers actors the highest-paying regional contracts in Washington. A typical season includes an American history play, “A Christmas Carol” and a spring musical. About 650,000 people visit each year, and on most weekday mornings, hundreds see “One Destiny,” a one-act play where two actors share eyewitness accounts of the assassination.

One performer depicts an actor who starred in “Our American Cousin,” the play onstage when Lincoln was shot. The other portrays the theater operator Harry Ford. Together, they recall the night of April 14. Although a shot rings out and the lights in the presidential box dim, neither actor impersonates Booth or Lincoln.

“One Destiny” is one of several scripts set in the Civil War era that Tetreault commissioned since taking over Ford’s in 2004. He has also expanded the repertoire to include more 21st-century plays.

“Manhunt” went to great lengths to recreate the look of Ford’s Theater at the Miller Theater in Philadelphia, where its assassination scene was filmed. As would have been the case in Washington, Beletsky navigated restrictions to protect the historic structure. But it was worth it, the showrunner said, to end up with footage that conveys both Lincoln’s humanity and Booth’s depravity.

“The Lincoln assassination is one of those things that you know happened, and you’ve seen it in your mind, but I don’t know how much we’ve really sat with it, and thought about what happened and how horrific it was,” Beletsky said, emphasizing that Lincoln was shot while enjoying a popular comedy.

“He wasn’t able to defend himself,” she said. “He wasn’t ever able to speak again. And so I think living through that scene dramatically really has an effect on people. Hopefully we show what America lost by that crime being committed.”

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Ford’s Theater had never been the scene of a staged re-enactment of Lincoln’s assassination. A 1971 docudrama, “They’ve Killed President Lincoln!,” by David Wolper, did film critical scenes inside the theater.

How we handle corrections

Past Factory

Historically Accurate Movies That Are Worth Watching

Posted: December 19, 2023 | Last updated: December 20, 2023

<p>From award-winning epics to cult classics, nothing brings history books to life like a cinematic masterpiece! But only when the filmmakers get it right - because let's be honest, not everything we see on the silver screen is 100% accurate. Keep reading to blast off into time as you take a look at some of the most iconic films that have nailed historical accuracy down to every detail. </p>

From award-winning epics to cult classics, nothing brings history books to life like a cinematic masterpiece! But only when the filmmakers get it right - because let's be honest, not everything we see on the silver screen is 100% accurate.

Read on to blast off into time as you take a look at some of the most iconic films that have nailed historical accuracy down to every detail.

Full Metal Jacket Was An Accurate Portrayal Of The Vietnam War Era

Written and directed by Stanley Kubrick, Full Metal Jacket is a Vietnam War-era drama about two privates (Matthew Modine and Vincent D'Onofrio) under an aggressive drill instructor. Later, the privates are shipped off to Vietnam to be readied for combat. The film received a 92 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and was wildly popular at the box office.

Critics from Time , Metacritic , and more thought Full Metal Jacket was an accurate portrayal of this time in American history. The movie touched on themes of masculinity, military brainwashing, and testing one's limitations.

Brian Wilson Says Love & Mercy Is "Very Factual"

Most fans of 1960s music have heard of the Beach Boys, but they may not know much about their co-founder and leader, Brian Wilson. Love & Mercy centers on two important stages of Wilson's life including the making of his hit album, Pet Sounds , and during his treatment with psychologist Dr. Eugene Landy.

While the real Brian Wilson had little to do with the making of the film, he told the Los Angeles Times that it was "very factual." The scenes with Dr. Landy made Wilson freeze up in fear because they brought back many traumatizing memories. Paul Dano as the younger Wilson earned critical praise for his performance.

<p>Martin Scorsese directed 1980's <i>Raging Bull</i> based on the memoir by professional boxer Jake LaMotta. Actor Robert De Niro starred in the main role as a self-destructive boxer who ends up ruining his relationships with his wife and family. De Niro won the Oscar for Best Actor and the film also won for Best Editing.</p> <p>De Niro was inspired to make the movie after reading LaMotta's memoir and got Scorsese involved. LaMotta felt that De Niro perfectly captured his essence.</p>

Raging Bull Captured The Essence Of Jake LaMotta

Martin Scorsese directed 1980's Raging Bull based on the memoir by professional boxer Jake LaMotta. Actor Robert De Niro starred in the main role as a self-destructive boxer who ends up ruining his relationships with his wife and family. De Niro won the Oscar for Best Actor and the film also won for Best Editing.

De Niro was inspired to make the movie after reading LaMotta's memoir and got Scorsese involved. LaMotta felt that De Niro perfectly captured his essence.

<p>Jennifer Lopez rose to superstardom as the titular character in the 1997 musical biopic <i>Selena</i>. She portrayed the internationally acclaimed Tejano pop star Selena Quintanilla-Pérez as a teenager and her last years as a young adult. Writer and director Gregory Nava wanted to make this film as a response to her passing.</p> <p>Nava got right to work on <i>Selena</i> because he didn't want any negative stereotypes or stories about her spreading through the media. In order to get Selena's accent just right, Lopez told <i><a href="https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/jennifer-lopez-selena-film-anniversary-interview-7728858/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Billboard</a> </i>that she studied old tapes of her interviews and performances.</p>

Jennifer Lopez Amazed Audiences In Selena

Jennifer Lopez rose to superstardom as the titular character in the 1997 musical biopic Selena . She portrayed the internationally acclaimed Tejano pop star Selena Quintanilla-Pérez as a teenager and her last years as a young adult. Writer and director Gregory Nava wanted to make this film as a response to her passing.

Nava got right to work on Selena because he didn't want any negative stereotypes or stories about her spreading through the media. In order to get Selena's accent just right, Lopez told Billboard that she studied old tapes of her interviews and performances.

<p>One of the most pivotal moments in American history was the Apollo 13 mission by astronauts Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise. They attempted to go to the moon in 1970, but an explosion aboard their spacecraft caused them to lose oxygen and electricity.</p> <p>Ron Howard brought this story to the silver screen with actors Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton in 1995's <i>Apollo 13</i>. Since there was a lot of video footage, Howard was able to work off something tangible. According to <a href="https://screenrant.info/apollo-13-cutting-edge-training-for-the-stars-of-ron-howards-film/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Screen Rant</a>, Howard brought NASA consultants on set and needed special permission to film at various locations.</p>

Apollo 13 Brought A Real Story To The Silver Screen

One of the most pivotal moments in American history was the Apollo 13 mission by astronauts Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise. They attempted to go to the moon in 1970, but an explosion aboard their spacecraft caused them to lose oxygen and electricity.

Ron Howard brought this story to the silver screen with actors Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton in 1995's Apollo 13 . Since there was a lot of video footage, Howard was able to work off something tangible. According to Screen Rant , Howard brought NASA consultants on set and needed special permission to film at various locations.

<p>Hollywood has a history of rewriting the true stories of slavery in the United States, but 2013's <i>12 Years a Slave</i> did its best to stay accurate. The film is based on an adaptation of an 1853 slave memoir by Solomon Northup, which was co-edited in 1968 to check for accuracy.</p> <p>Actors Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Sarah Paulson, and others, played real people and the actors shot their scenes in historic plantations. The movie earned three Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress (Nyong'o).</p>

12 Years A Slave Was Shot On Historic Plantations

Hollywood has a history of rewriting the true stories of slavery in the United States, but 2013's 12 Years a Slave did its best to stay accurate. The film is based on an adaptation of an 1853 slave memoir by Solomon Northup, which was co-edited in 1968 to check for accuracy.

Actors Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Sarah Paulson, and others, played real people and the actors shot their scenes in historic plantations. The movie earned three Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actress (Nyong'o).

<p>One of the most memorable Daniel Day-Lewis films ever was the Steven Spielberg-directed <i>Lincoln</i>. The movie focuses on the last four months of the president's life, during which he was trying to abolish slavery in the United States. Day-Lewis earned the Best Actor Oscar for his performance and the film grossed over $275 million at the box office.</p> <p>"The film was 90 percent on the mark, which given the way Hollywood usually does history is saying something. [It] got with reasonable accuracy a lot of Lincoln's character, the characters of the main protagonists, and the overall debate over the 13th Amendment," said American historian <a href="http://www.allenguelzo.com/new-page" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen Guelzo</a>.</p>

Lincoln Depicted The Final Months Of The President's Life

One of the most memorable Daniel Day-Lewis films ever was the Steven Spielberg-directed Lincoln . The movie focuses on the last four months of the president's life, during which he was trying to abolish slavery in the United States. Day-Lewis earned the Best Actor Oscar for his performance and the film grossed over $275 million at the box office.

"The film was 90 percent on the mark, which given the way Hollywood usually does history is saying something. [It] got with reasonable accuracy a lot of Lincoln's character, the characters of the main protagonists, and the overall debate over the 13th Amendment," said American historian Allen Guelzo .

Moneyball Is Based On A Non-Fiction Novel

Moneyball is based on a nonfiction novel of the same name, which centers on the Oakland Athletics baseball team and their general manager. Brad Pitt starred as general manager Billy Beane alongside Jonah Hill his assistant general manager Peter Brand, and the two earned Academy Award nominations for their performances.

According to Razorgator , Moneyball got most of the story accurate. Both Pitt and Hill played their characters as realistically as possible and the filmmakers understood how to incorporate baseball data measurements correctly in the film.

Spotlight Is 76.2 Percent Historically Accurate

Spotlight swept the Oscars by winning the Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture Academy Awards. The film is based on The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team who investigated priests in the area during the early 2000s. According to the visual blog Information is Beautiful , the film was 76.2 percent historically accurate.

It was clear that the filmmakers wanted to be correct when it came to the small details such as the costumes and set design. While the movie was released in 2015, there had been many technological changes since 2001 that needed to be portrayed on screen.

<p>Written by the Coen brothers and directed by Steven Spielberg, <i>Bridge of Spies</i> is a Cold War drama about a lawyer (Tom Hanks) who must negotiate the release of a U.S. Air Force pilot (Mark Rylance) who was captured by the Soviet Union. The film did very well at the box office and Rylance won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.</p> <p>The visual blog <a href="https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Information is Beautiful</a> said that <i>Bridge of Spies</i> was 88.8 percent historically accurate. The actors were able to bring this Cold War-era story to life by capturing the essence of their real-life characters.</p>

Bridge Of Spies Brought A Cold War-Era Story To Life

Written by the Coen brothers and directed by Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies is a Cold War drama about a lawyer (Tom Hanks) who must negotiate the release of a U.S. Air Force pilot (Mark Rylance) who was captured by the Soviet Union. The film did very well at the box office and Rylance won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

The visual blog Information is Beautiful said that Bridge of Spies was 88.8 percent historically accurate. The actors were able to bring this Cold War-era story to life by capturing the essence of their real-life characters.

<p>Released in 1982, <i>Gandhi</i> is a biographical film about the life of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi. Coming in at three hours and 11 minutes, the film accurately depicts Gandhi's life, the Indian independence movement, and the British colonization of India.</p> <p><i>Gandhi</i> received 11 nominations at the Oscars and won eight of them, including Best Actor (Ben Kingsley), Best Director, and Best Picture. Not only was the film successful in India, but audiences all over the world thought it did a great job of telling Gandhi's story with brilliant performances from the entire cast.</p>

The Cast Of Gandhi Delivered Brilliant Performances

Released in 1982, Gandhi is a biographical film about the life of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi. Coming in at three hours and 11 minutes, the film accurately depicts Gandhi's life, the Indian independence movement, and the British colonization of India.

Gandhi received 11 nominations at the Oscars and won eight of them, including Best Actor (Ben Kingsley), Best Director, and Best Picture. Not only was the film successful in India, but audiences all over the world thought it did a great job of telling Gandhi's story with brilliant performances from the entire cast.

<p>Directed by Ava DuVernay, <i>Selma</i> is a historical drama focusing on the 1965 voting rights marches in Alabama led by Martin Luther King Jr., Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and more. <i>Selma</i> earned a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars and John Legend and Common won the Best Song Oscar for "Glory."</p> <p><a href="https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/based-on-a-true-true-story/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Information is Beautiful</a> did a scene-by-scene analysis of <i>Selma</i> and scored it with 100 percent accuracy. "This movie painstakingly recreates events as they happened, and takes care to include everybody who was involved," said journalist David McCandless.</p>

Selma Included A Perfect Scene-By-Scene Reenactment

Directed by Ava DuVernay, Selma is a historical drama focusing on the 1965 voting rights marches in Alabama led by Martin Luther King Jr., Hosea Williams, John Lewis, and more. Selma earned a nomination for Best Picture at the Oscars and John Legend and Common won the Best Song Oscar for "Glory."

Information is Beautiful did a scene-by-scene analysis of Selma and scored it with 100 percent accuracy. "This movie painstakingly recreates events as they happened, and takes care to include everybody who was involved," said journalist David McCandless.

<p>From the mind of Martin Scorsese came the crime biopic <i>Goodfellas</i>. The 1990 film starred Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, and more as members of a mob group during the mid-20th century. It's based on the novel <i>Wiseguy</i>, which details the life of mobster Henry Hill through the eyes of a crime reporter.</p> <p><i>Goodfellas</i> is now a classic part of American cinematic history, with a 96 percent rating on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1032176-goodfellas" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rotten Tomatoes</a>. Famed critic <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/goodfellas-1990" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roger Ebert</a> said, "No finer film has ever been made about organized crime - not even <i>The Godfather</i>."</p>

Goodfellas Was Based On The Novel Wiseguy

From the mind of Martin Scorsese came the crime biopic Goodfellas . The 1990 film starred Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta, Joe Pesci, and more as members of a mob group during the mid-20th century. It's based on the novel Wiseguy , which details the life of mobster Henry Hill through the eyes of a crime reporter.

Goodfellas is now a classic part of American cinematic history, with a 96 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes . Famed critic Roger Ebert said, "No finer film has ever been made about organized crime - not even The Godfather ."

<p>Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman starred in 1989's <i>Glory,</i> about the Union Army's first African American regiment during the Civil War. The film was partially based on the personal letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Broderick) during the Second Battle of Fort Wagner.</p> <p>The film earned a 93 percent rating on <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1008415-glory" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rotten Tomatoes</a>, with critics saying, "Bolstered by exceptional cinematography, powerful storytelling, and an Oscar-winning performance by Denzel Washington, <i>Glory</i> remains one of the finest Civil War movies ever made." American Civil War historian James M. McPherson believes it's one of the most accurate Civil War on-screen depictions.</p>

Glory Is One Of The Finest Civil War Films Ever Made

Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman starred in 1989's Glory, about the Union Army's first African American regiment during the Civil War. The film was partially based on the personal letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw (Broderick) during the Second Battle of Fort Wagner.

The film earned a 93 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes , with critics saying, "Bolstered by exceptional cinematography, powerful storytelling, and an Oscar-winning performance by Denzel Washington, Glory remains one of the finest Civil War movies ever made." American Civil War historian James M. McPherson believes it's one of the most accurate Civil War on-screen depictions.

<p>Leonardo DiCaprio, Margot Robbie, Jonah Hill, and more starred in Martin Scorsese's 2013 biopic, <i>The Wolf of Wall Street</i>. The movie tells the story of a stockbroker named Jordan Belfort in New York City who goes down the wrong path by committing corruption and fraud.</p> <p><i>The Wolf of Wall Street</i> earned five Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. The real Jordan Belfort thought DiCaprio was spot-on throughout his entire performance.</p>

Leonardo DiCaprio Gave A Spot-On Performance In The Wolf Of Wall Street

Leonardo DiCaprio, Margot Robbie, Jonah Hill, and more starred in Martin Scorsese's 2013 biopic, The Wolf of Wall Street . The movie tells the story of a stockbroker named Jordan Belfort in New York City who goes down the wrong path by committing corruption and fraud.

The Wolf of Wall Street earned five Academy Award nominations including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. The real Jordan Belfort thought DiCaprio was spot-on throughout his entire performance.

<p>While the 1997 version of <i>Titanic</i> with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is the most-watched version, it doesn't accurately depict the true story of what really happened aboard the <i>RMS Titanic</i>. Those who want a more factual film should watch 1958's <i>A Night To Remember</i>.</p> <p>A young boy named William MacQuitty, who saw the actual <i>RMS Titanic</i> leave Belfast in 1911, was later hired as the producer. He made sure the original blueprints were used to build the ship and even hired one of the surviving officers (Joseph Boxhall) as the technical advisor.</p>

A Night To Remember Tells The True Story Of The RMS Titanic

While the 1997 version of Titanic with Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet is the most-watched version, it doesn't accurately depict the true story of what really happened aboard the RMS Titanic . Those who want a more factual film should watch 1958's A Night To Remember .

A young boy named William MacQuitty, who saw the actual RMS Titanic leave Belfast in 1911, was later hired as the producer. He made sure the original blueprints were used to build the ship and even hired one of the surviving officers (Joseph Boxhall) as the technical advisor.

<p><i>Tora! Tora! Tora!</i> is a 1970 war drama about the events of Pearl Harbor told through the eyes of the Japanese army and United States Navy. The term "tora" comes from the Japanese codeword that "a complete surprise has been achieved." This was one of the most important events in American history, so the filmmakers wanted it to be as accurate as possible.</p> <p>The filmmakers used research from both the Japanese and American sides to make sure the film had no implicit bias. <a href="https://screenrant.com/world-war-ii-movies-veterans-day/" rel="noopener noreferrer">Screen Rant</a> said that <i>Tora! Tora! Tora!</i> is so close to the original events that it is sometimes used in U.S. history classes.</p>

Tora! Tora! Tora! Is Used In U.S. History Classes

Tora! Tora! Tora! is a 1970 war drama about the events of Pearl Harbor told through the eyes of the Japanese army and United States Navy. The term "tora" comes from the Japanese codeword that "a complete surprise has been achieved." This was one of the most important events in American history, so the filmmakers wanted it to be as accurate as possible.

The filmmakers used research from both the Japanese and American sides to make sure the film had no implicit bias. Screen Rant said that Tora! Tora! Tora! is so close to the original events that it is sometimes used in U.S. history classes.

More for You

TikTok star Kyle Marisa Roth dies at 36

Clarence Thomas Calls Veteran's Argument 'Especially Unconvincing'

Scott Peterson addresses the appeals court over Zoom

Scott Peterson defense drops motion to seal in bid for new trial after prosecutors note files mostly public

This Is How Long You Can Leave Butter On the Counter, According to Land O'Lakes

McDonald's menu adds new takes on a fan-favorite sandwich

The world’s most remote island open to tourists no longer takes five nights to get to

The Vatican’s Bewildering New Declaration

29 Ridiculous Lies That Hollywood Has Managed to Mainstream

The Pool Noodle Hack That Makes Spray Painting Cabinet Doors A Breeze

8 Shoes to Wear with Leggings This Spring That Aren’t Sneakers

Another popular beer, brewery brand files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

4 Things You Should Never Cook in Cast Iron

Jean-Pierre on Arizona's Abortion Ban: 'More Extreme and Dangerous'

White House Response To Soaring Gas Prices Sparks Backlash

Top 10 Times Bill Hader Broke The SNL Cast

From Sea to Shining Sea: Iconic Landmarks in All 50 States

The Most Visited Attraction in Every US State

Israeli strikes in Lebanon kill three including Hezbollah commander - army video

Ex-PBS Producer Says He Was Fired From Al Roker Cartoon for Complaining Show Didn't Honor DEI Policy

The Food City Anthony Bourdain Considered One Of His All-Time Favorites

The health condition many women are getting diagnosed with after COVID

High-Protein Vegetables to Eat on a Regular Basis

Election 2024
Entertainment
Newsletters
Photography
Personal Finance
AP Investigations
AP Buyline Personal Finance
Press Releases
Israel-Hamas War
Russia-Ukraine War
Global elections
Asia Pacific
Latin America
Middle East
Election Results
Delegate Tracker
AP & Elections
March Madness
AP Top 25 Poll
Movie reviews
Book reviews
Personal finance
Financial Markets
Business Highlights
Financial wellness
Artificial Intelligence
Social Media

Movie Review: In Alex Garland’s potent ‘Civil War,’ journalists are America’s last hope

This image released by A24 shows Kirsten Dunst in a scene from “Civil War.” (A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Kirsten Dunst in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows a scene from “Civil War.” (A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Cailee Spaeny, left, and Kirsten Dunst in a scene from “Civil War.” (A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Wagner Moura in a scene from “Civil War.” (A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Wagner Moura, left, and Kirsten Dunst in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Cailee Spaeny, left, and Wagner Moura in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Cailee Spaeny in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Nick Offerman in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows Stephen McKinley Henderson in a scene from “Civil War.” (Murray Close/A24 via AP)

This image released by A24 shows promotional art for “Civil War.” (A24 via AP)

Copy Link copied

The United States is crumbling in Alex Garland’s sharp new film “ Civil War, ” a bellowing and haunting big screen experience. The country has been at war with itself for years by the time we’re invited in, through the gaze of a few journalists documenting the chaos on the front lines and chasing an impossible interview with the president.

Garland, the writer-director of films like “Annihilation” and “Ex Machina,” as well as the series “Devs,” always seems to have an eye on the ugliest sides of humanity and our capacity for self-destruction. His themes are profound and his exploration of them sincere in films that are imbued with strange and haunting images that rattle around in your subconscious for far too long. Whatever you think of “ Men ,” his most divisive film to date, it’s unlikely anyone will forget Rory Kinnear giving birth to himself.

In “Civil War,” starring Kirsten Dunst as a veteran war photographer named Lee, Garland is challenging his audience once again by not making the film about what everyone thinks it will, or should, be about. Yes, it’s a politically divided country. Yes, the President (Nick Offerman) is a blustery, rising despot who has given himself a third term, taken to attacking his citizens and shut himself off from the press. Yes, there is one terrifying character played by Jesse Plemons who has some pretty hard lines about who is and isn’t a real American.

FILE - Jeff Skoll arrives at the Los Angeles premiere of "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" at the Arclight Hollywood, July 25, 2017, in Los Angeles. Participant, the activist film and television studio that has financed Oscar winners like “Spotlight” and socially conscious documentaries like “Food, Inc,” and “Waiting For Superman” is closing its doors after 20 years. Billionaire Skoll told his staff of 100 in a memo shared with The Associated Press on Tuesday, April 16, 2024, that they were winding down company operations. (Photo by Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP, File)

But that trailer that had everyone talking is not the story. Garland is not so dull or narratively conservative to make the film about red and blue ideologies. All we really know is that the so-called Western Forces of Texas and California have seceded from the country and are closing in to overthrow the government. We don’t know what they want or why, or what the other side wants or why and you start to realize that many of the characters don’t seem to really know, or care, either.

This choice might be frustrating to some audiences, but it’s also the only one that makes sense in a film focused on the kinds of journalists who put themselves in harm’s way to tell the story of violent conflicts and unrest. As Lee explains to Cailee Spaeny’s Jessie, a young, aspiring photographer who has elbowed her way onto their dangerous journey to Washington, questions are not for her to ask: She takes truthful, impartial pictures so that everyone else can.

“Civil War” a film that is more about war reporters than anything else — the trauma of the beat, the vital importance of bearing witness and the moral and ethical dilemmas of impartiality. Dunst’s Lee is having a bit of an existential crisis, having shot so many horrors and feeling as though she hasn’t made any difference — violence and death are still everywhere. She’s also a pro: Hardened and committed to the story and the image. Her colleague Joel (Wagner Moura) is more of an adrenaline junkie, chasing the gunfire and drinking himself into a stupor every night. There’s Jessie (Spaeny), the wide-eyed but ambitious newbie who is in over her head, and the aging editor Sammy (the great Stephen McKinley Henderson), wise and buttoned up in Brooks Brothers and suspenders, who can’t imagine a life outside of news even as his body is failing him. All are self-motivated and none of them have a life outside of the job, which might be a criticism for some movie characters but not here (trigger warning for any journo audiences out there).

The group must drive an indirect route to get from New York to Washington as safely as possible, through Pittsburgh and West Virginia. The roads and towns are set-dressed a little bit, but anyone who knows the area will recognize familiar sights of dead malls, creaky off-brand gas stations on two lane roads, boarded up shops and overgrown parking lots that all work to provide an unsettlingly effective backdrop for the bleak world of “Civil War.”

Dunst and Spaeny are both exceedingly good in their roles, effectively embodying the veteran and the novice — a well-written, nuanced and evolving dynamic that should inspire post-credits debates and discussion (among other topics).

Dread permeates every frame, whether it’s a quiet moment of smart conversation, a white-knuckle standoff or a deafening shootout on 17th street. And as with all Garland films it comes with a great, thoughtful soundtrack and a Sonoya Mizuno cameo.

Smart, compelling and challenging blockbusters don’t come along that often, though this past year has had a relative embarrassment of riches with the likes of “Dune: Part Two” and “Oppenheimer.” “Civil War” should be part of that conversation too. It’s a full body theatrical experience that deserves a chance.

“Civil War,” an A24 release in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for “strong, violent content, bloody/disturbing images and language throughout.” Running time: 119 minutes. Three stars out of four.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a more worthy, time-tested miniseries about America’s founding than HBO’s “ John Adams ”—a riveting, elegant chronicle of one of our nation’s most famed architects. It’s a subject writer Kirk Ellis can’t seem to get away from; here, in 2024, he, along with co-writer Howard Korder (“Boardwalk Empire”), zeroes in on another of Adams’ contemporaries, Benjamin Franklin, for an eight-episode miniseries on Apple TV+. But where “John Adams” illuminated one of American history’s more self-serious advocates for liberty and equality, “Franklin” has a bit of fractured fun with its more libertine protagonist.

It’s 1776, and the Revolutionary War is raging; to drum up monetary and logistical support from France, America sends Benjamin Franklin (a wry, taciturn Michael Douglas ) across the Atlantic with his teenage grandson and aide Temple ( Noah Jupe ) in tow. There, the two ingratiate themselves to French society, attempting to work their way through the deeply entrenched barriers that keep them from the purse-string-holders who might unlock the coffers of the French war machine. In the early stretches, “Franklin” sees both American boys engaged in a charm offensive with their hosts, whether it’s Benjamin batting eyes at Anne Louise Brillon de Juoy (a radiant Ludivine Sagnier ) or Temple cozying up to a group of idealistic revolutionaries (including “On Becoming a God in Central Florida”’s Théodore Pellerin as the charming Gilbert du Motier, who’d soon become the famed Marquis de Lafayette).

However, the more their efforts find purchase within the French aristocracy, the more their problems compound: British spies and representatives quickly enter the negotiation to either stop Franklin entirely or present a suitably attractive offer to the Americans to stop the war in exchange for concessions. What’s more, Franklin’s own physician, Edward Bancroft ( Daniel Mays ), juggles his care for Franklin with his work as a double agent for the Brits. That’s to say nothing of a mid-negotiation interruption by Franklin’s stateside rival, John Adams ( Eddie Marsan ), whose uptight self-righteousness threatens to derail Franklin’s more socially deft handling of the French mood. And as the pair of them and John Joy claw their way to a formally signed treaty with Britain at war’s end, their competing perspectives about what America should look like and how it should treat its allies come to loggerheads.

“Franklin”’s see-sawing priorities are made clear in the show’s entertaining title sequence, a Pythonesque array of figures drawn from political cartoons of the time showing Franklin in varying states of scandal and intrigue. That’s also captured in Tim van Patten’s thorough, considered direction; he and cinematographer David Franco lean heavily on natural light and desaturated blues to craft a France still clinging to ostentatiousness even as its own cruddiness becomes clear (see: the frequent reveals of characters pissing against stone walls of ornate architecture). Jay Wadley ’s score effortlessly balances the classical stuffiness of 18th-century France with modern scoring techniques that sell the show’s frequent dips into political thriller mode.

As Franklin, Douglas is an entertainingly droll figure; he balances the presumed historical wit of the real Franklin with a decidedly Douglas-ian twinkle in his eye. He’s grandfatherly with Temple, but no less a hedonist than someone like Gordon Gekko—he plays Franklin as if one of his erotic-thriller protagonists from “ Basic Instinct ” or “ Fatal Attraction ” got zapped back in time and slapped on a powdered wig. He’s wizened but no less amorous for his advanced years, the kind of aging playboy that fits in nicely with the pre-French Revolution decadence around him. Douglas handles the dry wit of Ellis and Korder’s script with a nimbleness belying his years, even as Franklin’s own health threatens to leave him bedridden for much of the latter stages.

While he plays well against his co-stars, especially his paternal guidance of Jupe’s Temple, he comes most alive when sniping with Adams, who appears halfway through the series as if he were Nick Fury about to rope Ben into the Founders Initiative. Marsan’s energy as Adams is decidedly different from Giamatti’s in Ellis’ original 2008 miniseries—“Franklin” feels like a series-long extension of that series’ third episode, which depicted a more truncated version of these events—but no less welcome. He’s a haughtier, more confrontational balm to Franklin’s frivolity, a junior statesman who hasn’t yet figured out how to play the game. (His private attempts to speak and memorize French are some of the show’s more archly funny moments.)

The show stumbles more when focusing on Temple, though Jupe plays the role with an admirable, youthful pluck. Where Franklin struggles to carve out a legacy in his final years, Temple comes of age, losing himself in the frippery and bustle of French life. He falls in love with an opera singer, gets involved in love triangles, and even finds a job as a page rushing letters across Paris at speed. While these subplots could carry a show on their own, they pale in comparison with the heftier statecraft of Douglas’ sections; in a show already stretching past eight hours, they often feel like distractions, and don’t sufficiently contrast Ben Franklin’s more sophisticated statecraft to make them feel worth the runtime.

As historical dramas go, “Franklin” is a cracking glimpse at the delicate works required to build a republic, even from an ocean away. After all, America’s freedom from Britain was won by more than muskets on the battlefields of Lexington and Concord; it took gumption, charm, and no small amount of promise-making, whether real or illusory, to our allies. What Van Patten and his crew accomplish is the feeling of a new nation being forged in the waning embers of an old empire and the cautious optimism all parties feel toward that potential.

Whole series screened for review. Franklin begins streaming on Apple TV+ April 12.

Clint Worthington

Clint Worthington is a Chicago-based film/TV critic and podcaster. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Spool , as well as a Senior Staff Writer for Consequence . He is also a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and Critics Choice Association. You can also find his byline at RogerEbert.com, Vulture, The Companion, FOX Digital, and elsewhere.

Now playing

High & Low – John Galliano

Niani scott.

On the Adamant

Peter sobczynski.

You'll Never Find Me

Sheila o'malley.

Space: The Longest Goodbye

Marya e. gates.

The First Omen

Tomris laffly, film credits.

Franklin (2024)

Michael Douglas as Benjamin Franklin

Noah Jupe as Temple Franklin

Marc Duret as Monsieur Brillon

Daniel Mays as Edward Bancroft

Eddie Marsan as John Adams

Ludivine Sagnier as Anne Louise Brillon de Juoy

Tim Van Patten
Howard Korder

Latest blog posts

Ebertfest 2024 Announces Full Lineup, With Guests Including Eric Roberts, Mariel Hemingway, Larry Karaszewski, and More

How Do You Live: On the Power of Edson Oda’s Nine Days

Eleanor Coppola Was the Guardian Angel of Apocalypse Now

The Overlook Film Festival 2024 Highlights, Part 1: Fasterpiece Theater, Exhuma, All You Need is Death, Me

IMAGES

Lincoln movie review & film summary (2012)
Lincoln Movie Review
Movie Review: Lincoln
Lincoln
Movie poster of "Lincoln"
Image gallery for Lincoln

VIDEO

Lincoln's Legacy Unveiled: The Fascinating Fact You Never Knew
♥ Abraham Lincoln ♥ Biography Drama War (1930) D. W. Griffith {Full Movie}
Lincoln Movie “Now” scene. annotated to teach the logic of his frustration
Lincoln Movie Errors Part 4
Unveiling the Untold: The Enigmatic Legacy of Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln Movie Errors Part 1

COMMENTS

We Ask A Historian: Just How Accurate Is 'Lincoln'?
Lincoln biographer Ronald White lauds the accuracy of Daniel Day-Lewis' depiction of the 16th president. A great many families going to the movies over this Thanksgiving weekend will probably see ...
How Historically Accurate is "Lincoln"?
The short answer is: very. The long answer requires a bit more digging. Lincoln is set during a short period of a few months in early 1865, and its overall plot is entirely factual. As the movie ...
Fact-Checking 'Lincoln': Lincoln's Mostly Realistic; His Advisers Aren
He forged a deep connection with soldiers and their families, and won 78 percent of the soldier vote in 1864 because of it. He knew the power of his office, and used it. Days before Lincoln opened ...
How historically accurate is the movie Lincoln (2012)
Poster of Lincoln (2012) Abraham Lincoln is one of the giants of United States history. When it was announced that Steven Spielberg was making a movie based on his life during a critical moment in American history, the project was great excitement and interest. In 2012 Lincoln was released, and it was a huge box-office hit and a critical success.
Lincoln historical accuracy: Sorting fact from fiction in the Steven
Steven Spielberg's new historical drama Lincoln, written by Tony Kushner and based in part on Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, depicts the crucial final weeks of Abraham Lincoln's life ...
Our Favorite Roger Reviews: Lincoln
Roger's review of Steven Spielberg 's "Lincoln" resonated with me because he did not focus on identifying what was and was not historically accurate which, while important, wasn't the purpose of the film. Instead, he focused on the cinematic, emotional impression of Abraham Lincoln as a human being and leader during a horrific war and ...
Is "Lincoln" the Movie Historically Accurate?
Spielberg, with new 'Lincoln' film in theaters, speaks at 'Gettysburg Address' commemoration (11-19-12) NBC singles out Doris Kearns Goodwin's role in the new Lincoln film (11-15-12)
Now and Then: 'Lincoln,' the Movies, and Historical Accuracy
Now and Then: 'Lincoln,' the Movies, and Historical Accuracy. By Matt Brennan. November 13, 2012 1:28 pm. "Lincoln" is no dour disquisition, no romance of an imagined past, but a heroic, even ...
Movie Review
Genre: Drama. Running time: 159 minutes. Rated PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language. With: Daniel Day Lewis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tommy Lee ...
Lincoln movie review & film summary (2012)
The hallmark of the man, performed so powerfully by Daniel Day-Lewis in "Lincoln," is calm self-confidence, patience and a willingness to play politics in a realistic way. The film focuses on the final months of Lincoln's life, including the passage of the 13th Amendment ending slavery, the surrender of the Confederacy and his assassination.
Historians React to the 'Lincoln" Movie
The leading academic critics of Spielberg's movie so far have been Eric Foner, Kate Masur, and Patrick Rael. Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the most respected historians in the field, claims the movie "grossly exaggerates" its main point about the stark choices confronting the president at the end of the war over abolition or peace (Letter to the Editor, New York Times ...
Spielberg's Lincoln: A Historian's Review
As Steven Spielberg's Lincoln draws crowds to theaters, a UT history graduate student reviews the film through a historian's lens. His verdict: While flawed, Lincoln is a solid, mostly accurate portrait of a complex man. Steven Spielberg's latest historical drama chronicles the 16th president's final months and his struggle for passage of the 13th Amendment […]
How Historically Accurate Is The Movie Lincoln?
How Historically Accurate Is The Movie Lincoln? While Steven Spielberg is best known for thriller and family-friendly adventure films, he has stepped into very serious subjects as well. In 1993, "Schindler's List" provided audiences a grim picture of the realities that came with internment and occupation by Nazi Germany.
Lincoln: Daniel Day-Lewis' Performance Is Astonishing
This isn't a Hollywood-style historical epic, like War Horse or Amistad—it's history on an intimate domestic scale, Lincoln wandering the halls of the White House wrapped in an old wool blanket.
How Accurate Lincoln Is: 5 True Story Changes
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is regarded as a powerful historical drama, yet like many films based on a true story, Lincoln changed history to heighten the story's drama. The film depicts President Lincoln during the Civil War and trying to ensure the 13th Amendment's passage. While Lincoln is hailed for a gripping cinematic portrayal of U.S. history and a powerful performance from Daniel Day ...
'Lincoln' Review: 2012 Movie
The wall-to-wall talk and lack of much Civil War action might give off the aroma of schoolroom medicine to some, but the elemental drama being played out, bolstered by the prestige of the ...
How Historically Accurate Is "Lincoln" the Movie?
Answer by Matthew Pinsker, Historian and College Professor. It's a mistake to worry about whether "Lincoln" the movie is historically accurate. It's historically inspired and inspiring, but by definition, any work of art that blends fiction (such as invented dialogue) with fact should never be considered "accurate."
'Lincoln' Movie Review: 10 Ways It Distorts History
The highly-acclaimed film is the most ambitious and historically accurate… Menu 'Lincoln' Movie Review: 10 Ways It Distorts History. Culture. By Robinson O'Brien-Bours. Feb. 15, 2013.
Steven Spielberg's $275M Lincoln Overexaggerates Civil War Battles
Steven Spielberg's Lincoln exaggerates battle scenes, with a Civil War historian rating one scene a 4/10 for historical accuracy. Despite the film's artistic liberties, Lincoln is generally considered historically accurate in portraying Lincoln's presidency and the passage of Thirteenth Amendment. The film is focused on political maneuvering ...
Lincoln (film)
Lincoln is a 2012 American biographical historical drama film directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as United States President Abraham Lincoln. It features Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, and Tommy Lee Jones in supporting roles. The screenplay by Tony Kushner was loosely based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's 2005 ...
Review: 'Lincoln' Is A Handsomely Shot, Immaculately ...
Review: 'Lincoln' Is A Handsomely Shot, Immaculately Acted & Terribly Dull Historical Biopic. Steven Spielberg directing a biopic on Abraham Lincoln, even one that concerns the President's ...
Historical Accuracy of the Movie Lincoln
Historical Accuracy of the Movie Lincoln. MP3 audio - Standard. Price: $0.99. Request Download. Civil War Motion Pictures American History TV. Matthew Pinsker talked about Stephen Spielberg's film ...
8 Historical Epics Prasied For Accuracy & Realism By Experts
Steven Spielberg's historical biopic is one of his most ambitious movies, but Lincoln lived up to the hype.Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Abraham Lincoln earned him his third Academy Award, and his performance also garnered praise from historians for its accuracy. Ronald White, author of A. Lincoln: A Biography, noted that Day-Lewis both talks and walks just like historical accounts of ...
How Accurate Is 'Manhunt'? The True Story Of Abraham Lincoln's
Compared to a lot of historical dramas, the world of "Manhunt" feels period-accurate in terms of the hygiene, the sets and costumes that feel lived-in and gritty, not pristine and elegant.
Lincoln's Murder Is Often Re-enacted, but Not at Ford's Theater
Reporting from Washington. April 14, 2024. Since Ford's Theater reopened as an active theater in 1968, it has rarely been the scene of a dramatic re-enactment of Abraham Lincoln being shot to ...
Lincoln's Assassination Changed American History
April 14, 2024 6:30 AM. Lincoln's death elevated a bigoted Democrat from east Tennessee, Andrew Johnson, to the presidency — and thereby changed the course of Reconstruction. O ne hundred and ...
Historically Accurate Movies That Are Worth Watching
Hollywood has a history of rewriting the true stories of slavery in the United States, but 2013's 12 Years a Slave did its best to stay accurate. The film is based on an adaptation of an 1853 ...
'Civil War' review: A haunting portrait of a crumbling United States
The United States is crumbling in Alex Garland's sharp new film " Civil War, " a bellowing and haunting big screen experience. The country has been at war with itself for years by the time we're invited in, through the gaze of a few journalists documenting the chaos on the front lines and chasing an impossible interview with the president.
Franklin movie review & film summary (2024)
As historical dramas go, "Franklin" is a cracking glimpse at the delicate works required to build a republic, even from an ocean away. After all, America's freedom from Britain was won by more than muskets on the battlefields of Lexington and Concord; it took gumption, charm, and no small amount of promise-making, whether real or illusory ...