Lincoln

Recently I made a rare appearance at a movie theater, the first time in about three years. I am largely anti modern movie because, for me, the films lack substance and target the adolescent audience. At last look in the mirror it still showed I am not an adolescent. But apart from that, the film I saw was 'Lincoln', one I have viewed and read about in the mediums and have heard anecdotally from people here who have seen it as being worth giving it time. It promised to be a "grown-up" film in that it was historical and not a Hollywood-ized version of history. It was that.

I have always been enamored with American history and knew the characters in the film. As far as I know they were portrayed realistically. Having read a couple of biographies of Abraham Lincoln I also found his characterization in the film to be true to life. Anyway, a review of the film's content itself is not why I write about this. Instead, I wanted to comment on the audience which saw it that day and on the difference between politicians then (the film is set in the year 1865) and today's politicians.

The audience numbered only about 30 people. It was a weekday matinee, so the bulk of the film-going crowd (kids) were in school. I doubt if many children or teens would have watched this film as it is a serious film that requires attention and is a highly verbal film. Other than the wardrobe there was little that was visually attractive. Many movie-goers today say they attend films to see special effects, violence, sex or fantasy. This one would leave that group unsatisfied. Most of the 30 or so who attended looked to be over 65 years of age, with only two people who appeared to be under thirty-five years old. Yet 'Lincoln' has been in the top 5 of box office sales in its first two weeks of release. I wonder if older movie-goers have been going to see it because of this film, or if it is because more older viewers are returning to film theaters. I think the former is the case.

The difference in politics in the U.S. then (1865) and now is portrayed strikingly in the movie. The politicians of Lincoln's day were just as corrupt as our current ones, but in a more positive way. In times of real emergency, they worked to compromise and sold their votes more for the good of the nation than for personal gain. Today it's all about self and political party, with lying being the modus operandi. Compromise is seen as a negative today.

Another difference between the politicians of yesterday and those of today is the way in which they used language, as to the proficiency. Today's leaders are representative of the population at large in that they are far less literate than their predecessors. Our use of the language has degraded, probably because of technology including mass communication devices that have informalized all language we use. In Lincoln's day one had to listen to the speaker because he or she spoke with little use of slang, tended to use a broader vocabulary and followed the constructs of proper grammar and usage. Uh, if you said "lol" at that remark you probably understand my remark.

Anyway, if you care for a film that challenges rather than merely entertains vicariously, 'Lincoln' might the the one to see.