Get Adobe Flash player

Lincoln: Spielberg comes up short by exploiting southern stereotypes

 

lincoln

By David R. Altman,

Progress contributor

So, after all the fanfare and the anticipation, the movie Lincoln turned out to be short of extraordinary. Believe what you have read about the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis: it was unforgettable.

     As you think aboutcertain public  figures, you can't help but associate them with the actors who 'became' them. Clearly, you will no longer be able to look at a picture of Lincoln (and I have one hanging above this keyboard) without thinking of the extraordinary portrayal by Day-Lewis.  

This movie appears to have everything going for it, including being directed by Steven Spielberg whose films have generated more than $8 billion dollars and won him two Academy Awards. It has an extraordinary cast, which includes Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Fields.

They also had a subject matter that was taken from a best-selling book by Pulitzer Prize winner Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Not a bad line-up.

The movie itself dealt with a small section of that book that focused on Lincoln's obsession with passage of the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. The entire film took place during the final four months of his presidency.  While the movie was incredibly well-done, it lapsed into what we so often see as somewhat predictable, interpretative story-telling and it gave in to the all-too-easy portrayal of the South as not only unlikeable, but downright evil.

According to Kearns-Goodwin, Spielberg told her well before she started the book that he wanted to buy the film rights once it was published. He was anxious to tell the story of the fight over the 13th amendment.  And this is what he did. While this film was about Lincoln, it will be remembered by some for Spielberg's decision to (predictably and unfortunately) use his film to portray negative Southern character stereotyping that we have almost come to expect from so many films (the Banjo Boy in Deliverance and the 'Captain' in Cool Hand Luke come to mind). But instead of giving us the magic (and balance) of Ken Burn's masterpiece The Civil War or the human complexities of Gone With the Wind, we instead get the same, sad (and simplistic) characterization of bad Southerners opposing good Northerners.  

If you see the film, it's easy to see who the 'heroes' are: everyone surrounding Lincoln. Beginning with the abolitionist congressmen (and they were all white men at the time, since women not only couldn't run, they couldn't even vote back then) to the members of Lincoln's cabinet - all were the heroes in the film.  

The 'Southern' contingent was portrayed,  at Spielberg's interpretation, only as hate mongers and racists (the character of Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who was a Congressman from Georgia and later its governor, was portrayed by Jackie Earle Haley (a.k.a. Freddie Kruger) in what most will remember as an extraordinarily evil man representing what Spielberg stereotypically portrays as an extraordinarily evil South. 

Blacks in this film are poignantly (and understandably) portrayed by Spielberg as both social victims and military heroes. No one doubts the accuracy of that interpretation. Thematically, slavery is the low-hanging fruit of the Civil War (most scholars acknowledge this and movies love to exploit it). A defense lawyer might call this leading the witness, but it's really more about leading the audience, in this case down the politically correct road.

It's not as if this is anything new.  According to a article which appeared on CNN.com, Southern stereotypes "are very longstanding," says David Davis, a literature and Southern studies professor at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.  Davis says it's always predictable - particularly in film as well as in many aspects of American life. "African-American caricature has become less acceptable and white Southern caricature has taken its place," Davis said.

No one is denying Spielberg's editorial and, frankly, political license to focus on this aspect of Lincoln's life. In fact, the passing of the 13th Amendment was a crowning achievement for a man who was arguably our greatest president.

But there was no effort made to show the complexities of both sides of this war or even of the debate around the 13th amendment. While I would stop short of calling the film 'revisionist history’ - what a disappointment it was that the greatest film director of our age took the easy (and politically correct) way out; that is, good vs. evil, black vs. white, Republicans vs. Democrats, liberal vs. conservative, victims vs. victimizers. Sound familiar? 

While you certainly don't expect slave owners to be portrayed as heroes, you would hope that a man of Spielberg's stature and accomplishment would not give-in to political correctness and take the predictable path of reinforcing the stereotyping of the American South.  In doing so, he has not only misses an opportunity to enlighten his audience with the tragedy and complexity of the Civil War, but he further risks playing on the unmistakable (but rarely discussed) fear of a nation already coping with racial tension and political division.  

I would have expected more from the man who gave us Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. While Spielberg may yet win his third Academy Award for Lincoln, the Oscar will have lost some of its shiny luster; not so much for what the film was but for what it could have been. 

 

David R. Altman is a contributing writer to the Pickens County Progress.

 

 

Comments   

Guest
-3 #1 Guest 2012-11-21 14:37
I am not surprised that the characters are portrayed in this way. After all, it was made by a liberal, rich, Hollywood producer. Years down the road I can see a picture being produced about Obama, and he will be portrayed as a great president, a hero, as well as all of the czars he has working from him. He has brought our country to her knees. He does not have one redeeming quality. He has repeatedly lied and covered up the many mistakes (some are not even mistakes, just evil deeds)he has made. The liberal media are his lapdogs and are as guilty as he is for aiding and abetting him in his corrupt presidency. I fear for our country, my children, and my grandchildren. He has four more years to destroy America, which I believe is his intent. He wants "revenge", and he will do what it takes to make that happen!
Quote
Guest
0 #2 Guest 2012-11-21 19:42
David, if you don't want to perpetuate the southern stereotype, don't make it worse by adding the letter "s" to words that don't need it. Southerners are bad about doing this. For example it is Kroger, not Krogers. You made a similar mistate with the actress Sally Field. Her name is Field, not Sally Fields.
Quote
Guest
+1 #3 Guest 2012-11-21 19:51
Do you guys at the paper not have spell check? The word is stereotypes not sterotypes which is the way you spelled it in your title. That's 2 errors in this article, which makes people laugh at it instead of taking it seriously. (Editor's note: we got it now. Thanks. What is other error?)
Quote
Guest
0 #4 Guest 2012-11-22 03:54
Spielberg continues to deliver 'on board' predictive
programming and PC mora alibis ---for himself.

Remember, Speilberg's Hollywood has not only
'perception managed' the yet unfolding RED China
'EUGENICS friendly' Halocaust.

Spielberg's Hollywood has ---'overlooked' -----decades upon decades of anniversaries for the awesomely relevant,
RED China, Globalism and EUGENICS 'unfriendly'
--------------------------KOREAN WAR-----------------------.

Remember, Spielberg released his guilt-trippy
PC revisionist ode to China 'Empire of the Sun'
during the height of Globalist handover to RED China
-----and on the eve of the Tiennamen Massacre.

---------------------------------------------REMEMBER!
Quote
Guest
0 #5 Guest 2012-11-24 11:17
"If the south would have won we'd a had it made...."

- - Bocephus
Quote
Guest
-1 #6 Guest 2012-11-27 22:10
Nothing about Spielberg's characterizatio n of Alexander Stephens was inaccurate. It was, indeed, remarkably accurate as to both appearance and the demands made by the confederacy's "peace commission." The movie was primarily ABOUT the passage of the 13th Amendment. If you have seen it, you'll notice that apart from a few confederate soldiers added as scenery near Norfolk, Virginia, Stephens is the only "southern" character in the entire film. And his is a lesser part, as he only shows up in the brief "peace commission scenes."

Your comments, therefore, seem to be a bitter complaint that the movie Mr. Spielberg made did not make time for southern-fetish ist revisionist history, or to glorify the cause for which the south seceded -- SLAVERY -- just that and nothing more.

Get a life, you six-fingered inbreds.
Quote

Add comment


Security code
Refresh