Spielberg’s Lincoln a “bloated $50-million history lesson”

We Southerners know that history is on our side. Defenders of the Empire who try to cherry-pick historical facts usually end up looking rather silly. Yes, we say to apologists of empire, let’s debate history. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is the latest attempt to justify the president who mounted a counter-revolution to the Revolution of 1776, thus re-establishing the supremacy of the government over the people.

But the reaction of fans and critics hasn’t exactly been what Spielberg expected. For starters, Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln fails to create a believable, sympathetic character. One fan echoed the reaction of many others: “Is it me or does Abe Lincoln sound a lot like Mr Burns?”

Rex Reed’s review, entitled, Arid Abe: Lincoln Is as Wooden as Washington’s Teeth, not only rips Spielberg’s clumsy propaganda, but goes on to present facts about Lincoln and the real purpose of his crusade formerly seen only in pro-Southern circles.

The movie, says Reed, is a “colossal bore.” He finds it “so pedantic, slow-moving, sanitized and sentimental that I kept pinching myself to stay awake—which, like the film itself, didn’t always work.” Ouch.

And in response to the film’s heavy-handed Lincoln worship, which is really empire-worship, Reed observes:

In reality, Lincoln believed in equality under the law, but not racial equality; he had no use for blacks and maintained a strong personal belief that whites were a superior race. In his efforts to get his amendment passed, Honest Abe was not so honest either. He and his cabinet of rivals were not above bribery, lies, suspending habeas corpus or bending the Constitution to break the South’s economic infrastructure.

What’s that? Lincoln’s war was NOT about freeing the slaves, but just another war for power and treasure? Do tell.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

12 thoughts on “Spielberg’s Lincoln a “bloated $50-million history lesson”

  1. Pingback: Movies Capital Review

  2. Weaver

    I’ve noticed the Lincoln-cult dying down lately. It’s much weaker than 10 yrs ago.

    I think Southerners just need to stubbornly maintain their arguments, and they’ll win out against the soft lies. Few care about that war anymore: Now, it’s all about WWII if any war is mentioned.

    I like to think of the Revolution as against Divine Right of Kings and inherited aristocracy and in favour of Jefferson’s natural aristocracy. That’s what democracy is intended to do: Choose the best leaders, the, again, “natural aristocracy”.

  3. Weaver

    I suppose globalists don’t have a problem with changing their story from “anti-racist North vs. racist South” to “racist North vs. racist South”.

  4. Weaver

    We used to hear how America was founded on individual rights. Increasingly we hear: “America was racist”.

    I suppose it’s no longer necessary to manipulate white voters, so the story changes. At least we get our Founders back from the globalists.

  5. Kirt Higdon

    Comment test – apparently I’m blocked from any further comments on Texas secession. I’m not sure why; this seems to happen from time to time. This is to test if I’m blocked from other topics.

  6. thaddeus

    I made this point elsewhere. The Lincoln film offers us a great opportunity to do some myth-debunking about Lincoln anywhere and everywhere this film is reviewed and discussed.

    Take the arguments against Lincoln and put them out there for all to see, not just at “establishment” Republican sites (there too), but at pop-culture sites (IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.).

    This is a great opportunity to burst the Lincoln bubble. Most times, the general public won’t pay attention to arguments against Lincoln. But by critiquing the film, general readers will be exposed to some facts and points of view they’ve never considered before.

  7. Matt Weber

    On the other hand, it has a metacritic score of 87 with a slew of big namers giving it perfect scores. Roger Ebert titles his review “A saintly wheeler-dealer”. The verdict is that whatever bad stuff Lincoln did, it was all justified.

  8. Pingback: The Incivility of Lincoln’s War | Conservative Heritage Times

  9. IT UP

    —-This 12th? –13th? Lincoln?

    ——-AGAIN with Sally Field?

    ———in 2013, with a foreigner in the title role?

    —–with a script that entirely —–OMITS—– any
    mention of the REAL Lincoln’s quite possibly –FATAL–
    diss of the Global bank syndicate over USURY finance
    of the war?

    —UT —UH. . .

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>