How Accurate Lincoln Is: 5 True Story Changes – Armessa Movie News

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is regarded as a powerful historical drama, yet like many films based on a true story, Lincoln changed history to heighten the story’s drama. The film depicts President Lincoln during the Civil War and trying to ensure the 13th Amendment’s passage. While Lincoln is hailed for a gripping cinematic portrayal of U.S. history and a powerful performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, historians have argued about the accuracy of its details. For example, Lincoln’s involvement in slavery’s abolition may be significant, yet the film changed the true story that further dramatized Lincoln’s history.

Historical dramas are a difficult genre to accomplish. They must balance historical accuracy and tell a gripping, accessible story for audiences. Too many details can make for a laborious watch, and too few or incorrect details would be a disservice to the truth. Most of Steven Spielberg’s best movies in the past decade have been dedicated to historical dramas, such as The Post, Bridge of Spies, and Lincoln. His later work conveys tales of actual historical figures that still encase his signature dynamic blocking, snappy dialogue, swift camera movements, and lens flares. Spielberg’s cinematic flourishes make Lincoln a biographical classic, but here are five dramatic changes made to tell its story.

Gettysburg Address Not Memorized

In Lincoln’s stirring opening, a Union soldier recites the President’s Gettysburg Address to show the President that men were dying for their belief in abolishing slavery. Seeing how Lincoln’s speech inspires others is a poignant reminder of the historical stakes and the necessity to fight for one’s ideals. Yet the Gettysburg Address did not have the legacy or acclaim it does today, nor is it likely that anyone could memorize and recite the speech word-for-word back in the 1860s. Historians believe this scene to be contrived to establish Lincoln’s contemporary reverence. To begin the film with an embellished falsehood may be poetic, but it also makes historians apprehensive about further details.

They Made Lincoln’s Hat A Bigger Deal

At this point, Abraham Lincoln is synonymous with the image of his stovepipe hat. The past president’s accomplishments can be overshadowed by his caricature depiction of a tall man with a chin beard and a top hat. Lincoln portrays the person behind the iconic image. Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the best performances of the decade by showing the President’s subtle charm, grief, tactfulness, and gravitas with every word spoken. But the film made Lincoln’s hat more critical by showing the former president pulling speeches from his hat when there is no record of Lincoln doing this as president. This inaccuracy is a minor detail, but the hat became more mythical in a possible attempt to make Lincoln appear more folksy.

The Final Amendment Vote Tally Was More Dramatic For The Big Screen

Lincoln’s main enthralling scene is also one of its primary fabrications. From the film, the dramatic debates between congress members on the 13th Amendment were passionate and personal. Congressmen would trade insults with each other, sneer, scream, and based on the movie, Thaddeus Stevens even called a fellow representative a “fatuous nincompoop.” But Congress is not allowed to directly argue with one another when speaking in the House of Representatives, and instead, they must address the Speaker of the House. The Civil War was one of the most divided times in the U.S. government, and while Lincoln’s portrayal of these debates makes for great drama, it ignores a few critical rules about government.

When the final vote is held, the film shows congress members voting by state when they would vote alphabetically by last name, just as they do today. This alteration is likely because modern audiences may not know individual congress members who served 150 years ago, but they do know the states. Unfortunately, in the final vote tally, the movie also inaccurately portrays Connecticut congress members as voting no. This upset current Connecticut Representative Joe Courtney so much that he wrote to Spielberg requesting a change to the movie. Lincoln’s screenwriter Tony Kushner responded by explaining the film intended to convey the historical closeness of the vote, not the accuracy of how each person voted.

Mary Todd Lincoln Had A Smaller Role Within Politics

During the rousing congressional debate, the First Lady watches the vote tally in the House of Representatives. Contrary to the movie’s scene, however, Mary Todd Lincoln would have never witnessed this significant vote due to the historical treatment of women. While Mrs. Lincoln is regarded as politically savvy, the role of women was so restricted that being present to simply witness the vote in the House would have been criticized as “unladylike.” Even today, First Ladies attending the House of Representatives is rare and usually only seen during State of the Union addresses. By taking this liberty, the film conveys Mrs. Lincoln’s need to see the start of a change in America and for her family.

The Role Of African Americans

While Lincoln is understandably the focal point of Lincoln, the movie ignores the role of free African Americans in the fight to end slavery. The film focuses on the relationship between the President and Congress, but critics have argued that the lack of African-American representation in the story neglects the critical purpose of the 13th Amendment. For example, Frederick Douglass was a significant abolitionist who was a friend and critic of Lincoln that would speak candidly to him. Removing Douglass and Lincoln’s relationship and discussions from the film seems to be a missed opportunity for historical representation and dramatic storytelling.

In the 1860s, Washington, D.C., was a central fighting zone for free African Americans fighting to end slavery. Many historians believe African Americans’ contributions to the capital’s politics and economics profoundly influenced congressmen that voted to pass the 13th Amendment. Yet Lincoln’s opening scene is the most audiences see of speaking truth to power. While African Americans’ role in abolition was limited, their role was still crucial in their own liberation. Lincoln’s neglect to show this is not a mistake but an artistic choice that ultimately dulls the cinematic impact of this historic moment.

Why Historians And Filmgoers Still Love Lincoln

Many of Lincoln’s true story changes emphasize the President’s complex and formidable role in this crucial time of history. To this purpose, Lincoln succeeds in showing the person clothed with immense power. If inaccuracies were made, they were often minor to the film’s theme to unite a nation, heal it, and begin anew. Historians and film critics praised Lincoln’s ability to show the often and necessary pain that change creates for the country and the President himself. Because of the film’s accurate depiction of the President and his endless struggle, Lincoln is an exemplar of historical drama.