“Lincoln,” Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by
Tony Kushner, 2012
Any reader of this blog knows that I pay particular
attention to the U.S. Civil War.
Understanding the forces that led to that war allows you to ‘look under the
hood’ of subsequent events. So, being
this is a film review, I’ll just say what is expected - “See This Film.”
In this film a trifecta of cultural heavy weights is taking
on the last year of Lincoln ’s
life, as he attempts to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which would
outlaw slavery. Steven Spielberg, the
ace of ‘big picture’ crowd-pleasers; Daniel Day Lewis, one of the top actors in
the U.S., and Tony Kushner, a gay leftist, whose pretty-much Marxist play “A
Bright Room Called Day,” I reviewed below; all combine to deliver a vast
political punch. Kushner, unlike most
American writers, actually understands the political issues around the passing of
the 13th Amendment, and this comes out in the film’s intricate
dialog and situations. People who see in
this film a reflection of, and meditation on the present state of the U.S.
Congress and presidency might not be imaging things either.
Spielberg applies his gargantuan mainstream film skills into
making a film that is already the front-runner for Oscar. Daniel Day Lewis, who carried 2007’s great
adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s “Oil, in the film “There Will Be Blood,” plays Lincoln as a joking
genius, who doesn’t have a bit of frivolity in his considerable body. Lewis seems a bit young at times, and less
austere than the mythological Lincoln
we all carry around with us, but is probably the most arresting cinematic Lincoln ever. Sally
Field, of “Norma Rae” fame, has been rescued from oblivion to play his wife, in
a powerful performance. And Tommy Lee
Jones is the great surprise, escaping the ridiculous world of the “Men in Black”
to play Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the radical Abolitionists in Congress.
The play centers around attempts by the Congressional
Democrats in the North – the right-wingers of their time – to continue slavery
and stop the war on any basis whatsoever.
And, in opposition, Lincoln ’s
intention, after his re-election, to get rid of slavery as a permanent legal measure, prior
to the end of the war. Lincoln understood that slavery had been suppressed only as a ‘war measure’ when the “Emancipation Proclamation’ was
issued, and could possibly be reinstituted after the war's end without the 13th
Amendment.
In the end, Lincoln
relies on, let us say, various subterfuges, his own 'big muddy feet,' and the political dynamism of Stevens
and the Abolitionists to cut through the moderate Republican opposition and
the violent Copperhead reactionaries of the Democratic Party. Of course, like nearly all American histories, it is told from the individual 'great man' point of view.
A key contradiction, of course, is between the Abolitionists
and Lincoln, who was to their right.
In a critical scene, at least for leftists, Stevens and Lincoln
meet and Lincoln criticizes Stevens for advocating the end of slavery right at
the start of the Civil War. This would, according to Lincoln, have allowed the
Border States to go with the Confederacy, and might have broken up the Union
coalition too. Stevens has no response
to this statement in the film except sheepishness.
Might I, as a dialectician, make one. The existence of the Abolitionists actually
made Lincoln himself possible. Lincoln is a what you might call a 'synthesis' between the Abolitionists and the slavers. Without a
strong Abolitionist movement, Lincoln
would not have been elected twice, nor would he have been able to pass the 13th
Amendment. Nor, in a certain measure,
would the Union have won the Civil War, as the Emancipation Proclamation forestalled
international support for the slaver Confederacy, and also allowed the Union
Army to enlist tens of thousands of black soldiers and spies in the cause. Stevens should have said, “Mr. Lincoln, with
all due respect, you would not be sitting here today without me.”
Lincoln was the most clear-eyed representative of northern capital - and a big friend of the railroad titans. He understood that slavery was incompatible with a modern capitalist economy, and also that the southern landowners had to be integrated into the governing class as quickly as possible. And that is what happened. The success of Reconstruction actually was not a part of this vision, though it was a part of the radical Abolitionist vision. So, in a way, the continuation of Jim Crow for 90 years was the legacy of Lincoln's centrism.
Lincoln was the most clear-eyed representative of northern capital - and a big friend of the railroad titans. He understood that slavery was incompatible with a modern capitalist economy, and also that the southern landowners had to be integrated into the governing class as quickly as possible. And that is what happened. The success of Reconstruction actually was not a part of this vision, though it was a part of the radical Abolitionist vision. So, in a way, the continuation of Jim Crow for 90 years was the legacy of Lincoln's centrism.
Of course, this relates to the present. In our present great battle, which is now not
about chattel slavery but wage slavery, there is no independent radical mass
movement in the country or the Congress dedicated to being anti-capitalist, or
even anti-war or anti-corporate. The one that existed for a time, Occupy, was undermined by the Department of "Homeland" Security and the Obama administration. Which
is why Obama will never even be a Lincoln or a Roosevelt, in spite of the reams of
liberal hogwash hoping for this that predated his 2008 election. Mass movements make history, not just ‘great
men.’ Without the former, there is no
latter.
(Reviews of other Civil War books - “Last Battle of the Civil War?”, “Why the South Lost the Civil War,” “County of Jones,” “The Bloody Shirt,” “Appomattox,” are below.)
(Reviews of other Civil War books - “Last Battle of the Civil War?”, “Why the South Lost the Civil War,” “County of Jones,” “The Bloody Shirt,” “Appomattox,” are below.)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Originally, this day became a national holiday not to ‘remember’ the
couple years of peace between Native Americans and Puritans so long ago,
but as
a Thanksgiving dedicated to a victory of the Union
in the Civil War. The proclamation was issued not soon after the Union
victory at Gettysburg. The fact that this
origin is covered up again shows the political strength of the Southern
aristocracy to this day.
Red Frog
November 22, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment