Do I Smell an Oscar in Spielberg's Future?

Rating: 8/10 (21 January 2013)

As the Civil War continues to rage, America's president (Daniel Day-Lewis) struggles with continuing carnage on the battlefield and as he fights with many inside his own cabinet on the decision to emancipate the slaves.
Focusing on the passage of the 13th Amendment rather than the Civil War or any other aspect of Lincoln's life, this is a powerful film that could be seen as the epilogue to Spielberg's "Amistad". An epilogue that surpasses the earlier tale, no less. No other film that I am aware of (and I admit I may be simply ignorant) has put the focus on the freedom of the American slave, an event of importance almost rivaling the revolution. (Also, a story that continued long after Lincoln -- the amendment was not enacted until December 1965, and Mississippi actually held out ratification until March 16, 1995!)
I think Spielberg deserves credit here for a strong direction, and I would be fully supportive of him taking the Academy Award for Best Director. His dedication to this production, from the script, to the casting, to making sure things like a watch and wallpaper were historically accurate... if the director's job is to steer the ship, I find it hard to believe anyone steered any ship better than Spielberg did here.
Daniel Day-Lewis is also walking away with the Academy Award for Best Actor. Do I know what the real Lincoln's mannerisms and voice were like? Of course not. But I do know that Day-Lewis puts himself 100% into all his projects, and he certainly did that here. From "My Left Foot" to "Gangs of New York" to "There Will Be Blood", Day-Lewis has proved himself to be the greatest actor of his generation. Anyone who is competing with him... well, they picked the wrong year. Denzel Washington or Joaquin Phoenix could walk away with an award if they were not up against Abraham Lincoln himself. This portrayal is the best since Henry Fonda's take on the man in 1939.
The other acting nominations are more questionable. Although I would rather see Sally Field win than give the award to Helen Hunt or Anne Hathaway, to say she was 2012's best supporting actress is questionable. The same for Tommy Lee Jones. He was probably better than Alan Arkin and certainly better than Robert DeNiro, but better than Christoph Waltz? I doubt this -- he seemed to be playing himself with a wig. He stuck out like a sore thumb in the 1800s... which is too bad.
This brings me to Best Picture, and I am torn on this. Spielberg, as I said, put a great deal of work into this picture and I doubt any other film required as much preparation. However, I did have some issues with it that I did not have with the other contenders. While we all know that Lincoln was assassinated, I feel like it should not have been in the film. This broke up the narrative arc, and had they cut off the story just before, as Lincoln walks away triumphant, I think that would have left a stronger mark on audiences. The last ten minutes of the film are extraneous.
There is also some question as to the historical accuracy. Spielberg's Abraham Lincoln is a man who lives to end slavery, who avoids a peace offering in order to free the slaves, and who is passionate about the Thirteenth Amendment. Of course, Lincoln did push for the amendment and he did sign it and the end of slavery is his legacy. But he also supported the Fugitive Slave Act, proposed the idea of deporting all freed slaves to Haiti, and said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." He was a complicated man.
Perhaps historian Joshua Zeitz sums it up best: "Lincoln is not a perfect film, but it is an important film."