Politically correct revisionist version of Lincoln's life.

Rating: 5/10 (21 January 2013)

It is clear that the majority of reviewers of this film either know nothing of Abraham Lincoln's real character, or they are simply "going along" with the politically correct crowd and kissing Spielberg's uh, feet.
Spielberg set a new low in 2001 by refusing to allow ABC television to show his film "Saving Private Ryan" unless they left in the "F" word. ABC stayed true to its policy of "as much as we can get away with" and caved in. Spielberg laughed all the way to the bank. We now "enjoy" the ripple effects of that landmark decision with a level of filth on television that was undreamed of only a few years ago. You can't open Pandora's Box "just a little."
The fact that the majority agreed with ABC is meaningless. The citizen "majority" threw the Christian's to the lions and pushed the Jews into the ovens. Observers of history will know that falling in step with the majority opinion on matters of morality and the value of human life often leads to self destruction as well as the destruction of others. Standing with the crowd can mean you're standing for nothing.
Spielberg has done it again by putting filth into the mouth of Abraham Lincoln. Letters written by Lincoln to some of his Generals, instructing them not to use foul language in front of their men, are matters of public record. Even so, Spielberg has his version of Mr. Lincoln saying things that simply were not a part of his character, personal morality, or vocabulary. So, if we accept Spielberg's version, we must believe that Mr. Lincoln was a hypocrite who condemned the use of vulgarity by his general's but freely practiced it himself. I think not.
As he did with Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg simply forcing his version of "reality" on the viewing public. People that have a clean vocabulary are mocked and ridiculed today as being "prudes" or worse. So, Spielberg has to bring Lincoln down to the P C level with the lie that he was "a regular guy" who used foul language to express himself. It's simply not true.
Spielberg is also good at promoting his personal point of view by omitting the truth. Lincoln was a devoutly religious man. No, he was not a churchgoer. But, he was a bone marrow deep believer in God. Again, his personal reading of the Bible, his prayer life, and his practicing and promoting Christian values are matters of record. His letters, his speeches, his government documents and even the Emancipation Proclamation itself contain open and easily recognizable references to Lincoln's personal belief in God. His faith was the foundation of his life and the guide for his actions; privately as well as in conducting his duties as President. Spielberg would have you believe otherwise; so he simply left that part out.
Lincoln writes in the third from the last paragraph in the Emancipation Proclamation: "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Hardly the words of the P C non-believer that Spielberg presents us with.
People that believe in God are not "politically correct" today. So, for the most part Lincoln's spiritual life is simply ignored. Spielberg gives us a false representation of Lincoln caused by the simple omission of truth.
Spielberg's movie making formula has become quite popular. He is not the only producer that follows this form. That is, to use a film to "propagandize" the viewers with the producers own politically correct version of an otherwise truthful subject.
After donating one million dollars to Obama, Spielberg shared a private showing of "Lincoln" with the President in the white house. Nothing more needs to be said about Mr. Spielberg's political agenda. This film serves that agenda.
So how does Hollywood "schmooze" the public into accepting their propaganda? (Spielberg is not alone in doing this.) They treat the making of a movie like the making of a pot of beef stew. That is, most of the ingredients are familiar and acceptable to all of us. Then the "chef" adds his or her own "secret spices" to give it the personalized flavor that they want us to swallow. With the film Lincoln, most of the ingredients are in fact good "beef and potatoes." That is, the main portions of the film are "true." But, truth serves only as a "base" to be personally "flavored" with Spielberg's P C point of view. When the news media does it that's called putting their "spin" on the subject. The recipe works well.
As the reviews here indicate, most movie goers have eaten a big bowl of Spielberg's stew with no notice at all of the "personal ingredients" he has flavored it with. Hence, all the high praise for his "great" movie making skills and the production of yet another Spielberg classic. You bet. Have another glass of Spielberg-Aid.
At the beginning of Richard Attenborough's great film "Gandhi" he says "No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record and try to find one's way to the heart of the man." Mr. Attenborough remained faithful to those ideals.
Spielberg has given us a good deal of seemingly accurate information about Mr. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation itself. But, he has not been "faithful in spirit to the record." This film is not even close to portraying "the heart of the man." Rather than seeing something of the real beauty in Lincoln's heart, we see a distortion warped by the politically correct agenda in Spielberg's heart.
Mr. Lincoln deserves better. So do we.