What Spielberg’s “Lincoln” conveniently leaves out

[JackRiddler]

37. This isn't a critique of "Lincoln" the movie at all.

A more accurate title would have been, "Washington DC: January 1865," because 90 percent of the film occurs in this window and the focus is entirely on the drive to win passage of the 13th Amendment and machinations to avoid an early peace with the Confederacy that might preserve slavery. Past events are evoked only as they come up in the story, and entirely through dialogue. There are no flashbacks. It's barely mythologized, there is ample reference to ambiguities and contradictions and conflicts unresolved by this one stage. Thaddeus Stevens plays a role almost as significant as Lincoln's. Almost no one is simply good or evil, or even right and wrong. This is in no way a standard biopic and by no means intended to tell the biography of Lincoln, the history of the Civil War, or the full politics of the time beyond the particular struggles shown.

Also, if you see it, it will be clear immediately that it is not simply Spielberg's film, or that Spielberg is clearly the competent executor of someone else's vision. Tony Kushner wrote the screenplay and all the action is in the dialogue.