Films are subjective, some will love Lincoln and some will hate it and all I'm saying is that the majority of people who love it, will be American. Thusly, the majority of people who don't like it, won't be American.
But this is not all you are saying. In your OP, you’re saying that “the film fails on many levels,” largely because, in your view, it will only appeal to Americans. You are also distressed, apparently, because “this film is being tipped to win the Oscar for best film, over such great movies as Argo, Amour and Django Unchained.”
So, as with all critics who choose to criticize a movie, professional and non-, you tend to reveal more of yourself than you do about the movie you hope to criticize—you reveal partisan preferences for other directors’ films, and confess having no interest in the film’s subject matter. Subjective opinions or not, these are biases based on flimsy-to-no evidence, a typical rhetorical ploy of the troll. You don’t enumerate the “many levels” on which you claim
Lincoln fails, thereby narrowing the choices anyone might have in refuting your critique, such as it is, nor do you give any insight into
why you consider the other nominated films “great,” allowing you to make the comparison but no one else.
Further, you claim that your lack of interest in American history—the Civil War, and the greatest legislative accomplishment of a man widely regarded around the world as America’s greatest president, and the problems he faced in achieving that goal—“should” be irrelevant to anyone’s enjoyment of the film. But they are not irrelevant; instead, they’re at the core of what makes the film great, offering, as they do, a deep window into just about everything that is still going on in American political life. Historical dramas are only superficially about the past. Their real narrative and psychological purpose—always, always—is to hold a mirror up to what is going on right now, to reveal how closely connected we are to recent ancestors, though we may wear different clothes or have a slightly different vocabulary.
The fact is, you think a film should do certain things to hold your attention (certain things that are never named, of course), and you are a.) unwilling to open your mind to a film that uses a different narrative style from the ones you’ve decided are best, and b.) unwilling to admit that you refuse to be interested in American history—the real stuff, not filtered through Tarantinoesque revenge fantasy—and you’re incapable of seeing how the past might truly relate to the present. Instead of recognizing the huge gap between what is known about history and your own meager knowledge of it, you blame Spielberg (“Shame on you Spielberg, shame on you,” you say).
But it’s your own lack of interest that bored you, not Spielberg.
We didn't exactly believe your story...we believed your 200 dollars.
reply
share
Felix-La-PuBelle
11 years ago
Thanks for saying all that!
There's a whole lot of empty opinion on the IMDB boards...so very little engaging critique.
reply
share
lukeashnufc
11 years ago
Interesting post and I will admit I was wrong. The film doesn't fail on "many levels", in my opinion, it has just one HUGE failing. It's not accessible to people who don't already have any prior knowledge of the story, or indeed any knowledge of Lincoln himself. The only way I could have enjoyed the movie was if I read Lincoln's Wikipedia page before watching it, which I shouldn't have to do. I'm not asking for the movie to be dumbed down, far from it actually but Spielberg made the film as though he believed that it was a prerequisite that everybody who was going to watch it already knew all about Lincoln and all about the story, which he shouldn't have done. I wanted to learn about Lincoln, unfortunately though, the film was so alien to me, I couldn't.
reply
share
raimund-berger
11 years ago
The only way I could have enjoyed the movie was if I read Lincoln's Wikipedia page
Still your problem. I didn't have much of a clue about the history the film's based on, and in fact did not fully comprehend many of the finer details while viewing. But found it to be gripping enough to make me curious. Which is a rare thing by the way, a film having enough momentum to make me curious about the parts I maybe didn't really understand.
That's when I read the script. Had some talks. Caught a couple of civil war documentaries on TV. And learned to fully appreciate the film and what it has brought to me.
reply
share
TrevorReznick
11 years ago
I didn't have much of a clue about the history the film's based on...But found it to be gripping enough to make me curious...Caught a couple of civil war documentaries on TV. And learned to fully appreciate the film and what it has brought to me.
That's awesome, raimund-berger.
I love it whenever I hear that a history-based film/show has piqued the curiosity of viewers enough that it encourages them to follow up and seek information on the subject, on their own.
reply
share
Felix-La-PuBelle
11 years ago
"The only way I could have enjoyed the movie was if I read Lincoln's Wikipedia page before watching it, which I shouldn't have to do. "
I'm confused about that statement...are you saying you had never heard of Lincoln? Didn't know he was a US president? Didn't know about the US civil war or emancipation?
Even if you hadn't I don't know why that would matter...as that's all covered in the film.
I don't think every film has to give everyone a history lesson before the opening credits. I've watched plenty of films (domestic and foreign) where I wasn't aware of the story before hand. Admittedly, perhaps that means I get a bit lost or confused at times, but if it's an entertaining film, I'm all for it and if anything, I hit up Wikipedia when I come home from watching it.
reply
share