Skip to comments.Lincoln - Christian Movie Review
Posted on 11/28/2012 2:03:03 PM PST by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
And that was well over a hundred years ago and the union is what we live in now. We are not living in the 1860s. Rant and rave all you want but that is the reality and you benefit from it each and every day
No one suggested that the civil war was a walk in the park or a gentle affair. Your descriptions contain some hyperbole. The truth is both sides fought a long and hard war. Do not make the mistake of evaluating past wars by todays standards. War has always been a bloody business. If you think otherwise you are very confused.
This particular war was over long ago and continuing to try and fight it in an intellectual effort to keep it alive makes no sense. It is a kin to the Germans complaining about how cruel the Allies were for fire bombing Dresden
Did they have black helicopters back then?
Lincoln sitting on the porch and yelling at one of his slaves:
“Stop that G-Dam tap dancing and give me back my hat.’
Let’s get real here. The North was not fighting to end slavery. The South was fighting to preserve it. If they weren’t, then why did the Southern politicians always insist on extending it to the new states? And why did they not abolish it? It would have been a strategic master stroke. It would have removed the political barriers to Britain intervening.
Instead, Lincoln was able to outmaneuver them with the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed not a single slave.
“Spielberg is a hack. Always has been, always will be.”
As opposed to what other filmmaker? He’s clearly a genius of the medium.
What films do you base that on? Schindler’s List? Saving Private Ryan?
Genius of the medium?
He is a great craftman and coordinator — one of the best movie hacks ever.
But genius or creativity?
His best movie was Raiders of the Lost Ark.
There aren’t many good film makers around. Plenty aren’t hacks, but that doesn’t mean their movies are good.
What Spielberg film is compelling in any way?
Raiders was a work for hire with nothing of Spielberg really. It’s more of a Lucas film. Jaws, CE, E.T., Schindler’s List, A.I. Are all masterworks.
I have a low opinion of Steven Spielberg and you do not. That’s fair. We disagree, but I won’t be watching his movie anytime soon. Glad you liked it.
“Raiders was a work for hire with nothing of Spielberg really.”
Exactly my point. Lucas had vision and creativity.
I disagree about all the movies you mention being anything of value.
They are sizzle, no steak.
His movies can seem to be more substantial than they are due to the subject matter, e.g. Schindler’s List. But it was a piece of junk. He even diminishes a subject such as the Holocaust by putting in anti-second hand smoke messages in it.
In only 30 minutes, Nuit et Brouillard made decades before by Alain Resnais does more than Schindler’s List even comes close to.
Don’t take me wrong, I am interested in your opinion because I don’t understand the respect for Speilberg (other than he did make a lot of money in his films).
I am interested in what you think is compelling about them
Based on what films?
Those films were driven by his justifiable jewish hate of Nazis.
Bottom line though is he is a low life leftist enabler who is helping the demise of this country by his contribution to liberals and their agenda.
This guy is the enemy as far as I am concerned.
...and by the way, I don’t really give a flip if a performer supports liberal politicans. It’s when they take this sh__ to the activist level (i.e Spielberg, Streisand, Springsteen) that I get ticked.
Lol...second hand smoke? That’s an irrelevant detail. SL gave us more of the economic undergirding of the Shoah than any dramatic film. There is a wealth of little details in it. Lucas made a fortune by peddling comic book boy’s adventures. ET is a great film about child psychology to put beside the early Disney feature films. Night and Fog is not a drama and is not in the same category.
Spielberg helped to change it: what people praise in him now isn't what they praised in Bergman or Antonioni.
“The movie industry has changed a lot since the glory days of art films and film criticism.
Spielberg helped to change it: what people praise in him now isn’t what they praised in Bergman or Antonioni.”
I agree and I think that is one reason to disdain him.
He brought film down (one of the contributors). He was an efficient TV movie maker of cheesy horror thrillers.
Making B movies in to well crafted technically excellent products that use technical expedience as a substitute for art or creativity or even entertainment did us no favors.
Going back to my original opinion that he’s a hack, I will compare to the two you mentioned, Bergman or Antonioni. I might think Antonionis films are a bunch of garbage, but he wasn’t a hack.
Let me ask you a question about “genius of the medium”?
What other genius of the medium made a movie as terrible as 1941 or Hook?
The idea that Spielberg brought down the quality of mainstream Hollywood product is a myth. It’s belied by the fact that the most popular films of the early 1970s were cheesy disaster films like ‘The Poseidon Adventure’ and Mel Brooks films. Jaws was miles above that stuff. Close Encounters and E.T. were quite artful and display an independent vision. Ray Bradbury called C.E. the best Science Fiction film ever made. As for who made worse films than the two you mentioned, I don’t regard 1941 as a bad film...in its uncut version its an exhilarating cinematic vaudeville with a great sense of constant motion. And even the very best filmmakers have made duds, Hawks, Ford, Bergman, Hitchcock. If Hook stands out its because there was more attention paid to it.
Also, I don’t know why you think coming out of TV is some sort of dishonorable tattoo. A lot of post war American filmmakers started there. It’s not any different than starting in the theater or working your way up from the mail room as earlier studio directors did.
He’s not on the activist level like those other two. Does he even publicly endorse candidates?
I'm not sure I buy the argument. Nothing lasts forever in Hollywood. And the dramatic and sensationalist innovators weren't really opposing camps: someone like Coppola or Scorsese could bridge the gap between artistic and popular film. Maybe, in his own way, Spielberg could as well. But the argument can't simply be dismissed or ignored.
Spielberg killed off the disaster film. The fact is that the industry was going bankrupt in the 1970s and as the studios were being sold to multinational corporations and run by people who had no background in film, it became a bottom line business. It would have happened with or without Spielberg who made better films than most of his contemporaries. Close Encounters certainly wasn’t pandering to any particular market. It was pretty daring. Even E.T. was financial risk...in 1981 films about children had been regarded as box office poison for almost 20 years.
These proceedings are closed.
Sorry, I thought you were serious.
Magaret Mitchell got ir right.
Are you joking? I usually don't like cut/paste wiki, but his page even has a section on his political activity, as I have referenced some below:
Spielberg usually supports U.S. Democratic Party candidates. He has donated over $800,000 to the Democratic party and its nominees. He has been a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and worked with the President for the USA Millennium celebrations. He directed an 18-minute film for the project, scored by John Williams and entitled The American Journey. It was shown at America's Millennium Gala on December 31, 1999, in the National Mall at the Reflecting Pool at the base of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
Spielberg resigned as a member of the national advisory board of the Boy Scouts of America in 2001 because of his disapproval of the organization's anti-homosexuality stance.
On February 20, 2007, Spielberg, Katzenberg, and David Geffen invited Democrats to a fundraiser for Barack Obama.
However, on June 14, 2007, Spielberg endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) for President. While Geffen and Katzenberg supported Obama, Spielberg was always a supporter of Hillary Clinton. However Spielberg directed a video for Obama at the DNC in August 2008 and attended Obama's inauguration.
In September 2008, Spielberg and his wife offered their support to same-sex marriage, by issuing a statement following their donation of $100,000 to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign fund, a figure equal to the amount of money Brad Pitt donated to the same campaign less than a week prior.
Oh I knew that stuff. I meant speechifying in non-political contexts like Streisand does and Michael Moore at the Oscars (and every opportunity).
Which was a nice starter. Furthermore, he has expounded his leftist views in many additonal films besides Lincoln. He may not be speechifying, but he is forcing his views to the populus in a much more stronger almost subliminal form.
Regret having paid to see this movie. Felt like a barrage of subliminal propaganda. May as well have made a movie about the passage of the ACA.
What was it propagandizing?
“What was it propagandizing?”
I got the impression that the movie was a subliminal hit against “conservatives” who oppose the current president’s “progressive” agenda. Something about it rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was the presence of Sally Field who annoys the hell out of me.
She was horrible and the worst thing about it.
Almost on cue, Rahm Emanuel yesterday liked Obama with Lincoln.
I bet he likes Casablanca and The Godfather as well. In any case many American films, and political themed ones like ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’, have the ‘Lone Crusader’ theme.
“Lincoln stayed at my ancestors plantation and gave my ancestor a special dispensation to use use slaves in Illinois, rented from Kentucky slave owners, for the purpose of mining salt to provide the Union Army.”
Lincoln and my ancestors lived in Spencer County Indiana, when they from childhood to early adulthood.
My ancestor (g,g,g g uncle) later wrote that Abe wasn’t that good a shot.
Wrote it in “The Journal of Priddy Meeks” 1795 - 1886
The Lincoln movie was excellent.
That is what the movie is really all about.
Spielberg used century-and-a-half-old events as a coded analogue for current events. Most here are fooled by his unfavorable treatment of Democrats. The viewer is lead to look through that feint to equate Obama with Lincoln.
The implication is that Obama, like Lincoln, should be given authority to take draconian action to save the Union through expanded Federal state powers, such as ObamaCare.
Far from seeing Spielberg's intent for what it was, numerous FR threads come alive with the customary litany of Southern grievances and Dixiecrat discussions. Meanwhile, Spielberg has communicated the subliminal message to the low-information citizen, like Obama's middle finger to his temple, and cognitive biases close the door to further discussion.
My current technique is to throw in a grenade to re-start their neurons. In this case it is: "Did you know that Martin Luther King was a Republican?" Then we discuss Jim Crow legislation, Robert Byrd, etc.