Lincoln (2012)

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Halbrook, Tommy Lee Jones

Director: Steven Spielberg

Genre: Biography, Drama, Historical

Rating: A

"Do you think we choose the times into which we are born? Or do we fit the times we are born into?"

This movie is going to win Oscars.  That's my prediction.  It's really kind of obvious that it was going to get nominations - this is the type of film that is made for the purpose of winning awards.  Usually I'm a bit iffy about that type of film and find them to be a bit hit or miss, assuming I even go to see them.  But the trailers for Lincoln caught my attention, as did the cast, so I decided to give it a chance and went in expecting good things.  I'm so glad I did, because Lincoln met and exceeded every expectation I had.  This movie was great.  Absolutely amazing.

Lincoln is based on the biography Team of Rivals: The Politicial Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin and follows the life of Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) during the final months of his life as he pushes the Thirteenth Amendment forward.  This is a heavy issue and Lincoln faces opposition from within his own party, the Republicans, and his opposition, the Democrats.  Lincoln shows just how much Lincoln had to push in order to make this work and how he struggled to make the amendment happen.  Hanging over it all is the ongoing American Civil War and the fact that Lincoln is being pushed in many ways regarding that; the founder of the Republican Party, Francis Preston Blair (Halbrook), is pushing Lincoln to meet with representatives from the Confederate States and negotiate a peace, the Radical Republicans, lead by Thaddeus Stevens (Jones) want more and fear Lincoln will turn his back on emancipation, his eldest son Robert (Gordon-Levitt) is anxious to be allowed to enlist, while his wife Mary (Field), who isn't exactly mentally stable, is strongly opposed to Robert being allowed to enlist.  Aiding him is his somewhat reluctant Secretary of State, William H. Seward (Straitharn) and the morally questionably operative William N. Bilbo (Spader) - whose name made me think of The Hobbit everytime it was said.

The one thing I disliked about this movie was the way that it inconsistently made note of people, dates, and places.  Despite being really interested in history, the American Civil War is a period that I've never really studied - I'm not an American, and thus never really studied American history in school.  Consequently, I was really unaware on a lot of the specifics about dates, locations, and names - I knew the gist of it going in, but not a lot.  I really appreciated the little titles pointing out who different people were, or were they were, or what date it was - I thought each thing was really important to the story and added some clarification for viewers who don't know the history.  What I disliked, however, was that it was very inconsistent.  The film repeatedly tells you who the three Confederate negotiators are, but doesn't really provide as much information, if any, regarding the Republicans and Democrats who play a far greater role in the story.  I actually had to look online to find the names of the some of the characters, notably Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), who really serves as the primary antagonist in the film.

Asides from that inconsistency, however, I really thought this film was damn near perfect.  The pacing was great, the dialogue as great, the monologues were even better.  Even though I knew how the whole thing ended I was still anxious and worried about whether or not Lincoln would manage to pull through.  Possibly because it's telling a story that the audience is assumed to already know Lincoln is as much a character movie as it is about the history at play here.  Lincoln, obviously, is the main focus here and the insight that Lincoln provides into this man is just awesome.  I absolutely loved his monologues and the ways in which his stories revealed a lot about him.  Other characters that really shined here are that of Thaddeus Stevens - who got in a few good monologues as well - Mary Todd Lincoln, and Robert Todd Lincoln.  You really got to see the problems within the Lincoln family, and the struggles that they each face as the result of the position that Abraham Lincoln achieved.  In a way the title Lincoln can be seen as referring not just to Abraham, but also his wife and two surviving sons - Lincoln's youngest son, Tad (Gulliver McGrath), is also portrayed and while you get to see a lot less of who he is you really get to see the relationship between father-and-son here, and the stark contrast between that father-son relationship and the relationship that Lincoln had with Robert.

The other thing that I really liked about this film was the way it started and ended.  The start has has Lincoln listening to two soldiers recite him the Gettysburg Address in a way that is both awesome and funny at the same time.  The ending is a flashback to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  I really liked the way that these two speeches really bookended each other and the contrast in how they were done - one is one of the most famous speeches Lincoln ever gave and is told to him, and the viewer, by two nameless soldiers.  The other is one that at least in my understanding is less famous but is told by him and really nicely wraps up the film.  This one is definitely worth seeing.

Argo (2012)

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

Director: Ben Affleck

Genre: Biography, Drama, Thriller

Rating: A-

"The whole country is watching you, they just don't know it."

I'm just going to start this by stating that I'm not an American.  I do not now live in the States, nor have I ever lived there.  As such I really don't buy into the whole "rah, rah, yay America!" act that a lot of movies do.  I am, however, a historian, and as such I love historical films because in my opinion history is always an interesting story and has so much drama to it... in a story like the one of the Canadian Capers, you don't need to add fictional elements - the story is already there.

Argo is the story of the Canadian Capers, although to my disappointment it does do a lot of fiction weaving within the story.  During the 1979 Iranian Revolution the U.S. embassy in Tehran is taken over by Islamic militants, with the bulk of the American employees being taken as hostages.  Six of them, however, managed to escape and take cover in the home of the Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (played by actual Canadian Victor Garber).  Enter the CIA: specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck) is brought to help come up with a way to get the Americans out of Iran, and he comes up with the idea of posing as a film crew in Iran scouting locations for a science fiction movie.  With the help of Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers (Goodman) and film producer Lester Siegel (Arkin) Tony creates an elaborate plot, goes in to Iran, and sets out to save the Americans.

In regards to the necessary components of a good film, Argo really does have it all.  There's suspense and action, and it really makes your heart race.  Even going into the movie with a basic knowledge of what happened and the end results, I was sitting on the edge of my seats anxious to see whether the Capers would make it out, and if so just how. There's a lot of humour to it too, some of it appropriate and some of it less so, but all of it good.  One of my favourite lines was when one of the Capers said that they were a Canadian, then tossed in the obligatory "eh."  Somehow I think the laugh in the Canadian theatre that I was in was somewhat different from the one that was intended to get from that.  There were a lot of laughs like that, one liners that you really weren't expecting but had everyone in the theatre laughing.  Some were lines that you saw in the trailer, but in the actual film it was somehow funnier.

That being said... as both a historian and a Canadian, I do have problems with this movie.  It was really enjoyable, I'll give you that, and I can even understand why it's getting Oscar buzz.  However, there are huge liberties taken with the history of this film (and the portrayal of the characters within it, Affleck's getting a fair bit of flack for choosing to portray the Latino Mendez).  The story itself is changed in order to create some sort of suspense and an action sequence, particularly in the latter third of the film.  I really can't see how this is necessary, and as someone who's read a bit about this incident and who is interested in history, it bothers me that filmmakers (in general, not just Affleck) feel the need to do this.  The story is already there, they don't need to change it in order to make it better.  The reason why the Canadian Caper is such a great story is not because Affleck was able to introduce a good chase scene, it's a great story because it's about people coming together to do what many would think to be impossible.  When you couple it with the postscript that initially accompanied the film (which I haven't read itself, but reports of it say that it essentially indicated that the CIA let Taylor take credit for the incident, implying that he doesn't really deserve the accolades he (and the Canadian government) received because this incident), it becomes a bit of an insult and a piece of pro-American propaganda.  That in itself was a disappointment.  While the postscript was changed, the film itself still keeps much of that tone.