Historical biopics or documentaries, or based on a true story, first concern the degree of conformity with historical facts (or story prototypes), and secondly the position and perspective of the screenwriter and director.
Under the premise of only scratching the surface of this history, I have seen: 1) the steadfastness of the beloved President Lincoln to promote the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, and thus cause himself to be assassinated; 2) the infection of President Lincoln The power, whether in formal occasions or temporarily exerted against a small number of people, is powerful; 3) In seeking the key 20 votes, President Lincoln and the chief of staff did use abnormal means, such as canvassing votes with promised positions; 4) Lincoln confessed why he wanted to get it passed, that is, if it didn't pass, the slaves he had freed using the prerogatives of the wartime president would no longer have a legal basis for freedom; 5) The chief of staff did not approve of putting the Thirteenth Amendment into practice 6) The Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who firmly advocated racial equality, temporarily put aside his differences with Lincoln, gave up his "stubbornness" on complete equality at the voting meeting, and expressed his approval only before the law. Equality, making effective "concessions" to win several swing votes in the Democratic Party; 7) Congressman George Yeaman, who is sympathetic to slaves and opposed to slavery in the Democratic Party, is worried that the amendment will lead to more "chaotic and terrible" discussions, such as black suffrage, Women's suffrage, world harmony, but in the end it was decided not to give up food because of choking; 8) Several Democratic congressmen sold their votes to seek positions. ) Confederate troops had come to ask for peace, but were deliberately held back by Lincoln, and were not able to sit at the negotiating table until after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, putting the Confederate troops at a complete moral disadvantage in the war, implying that Lincoln would soon be attacked. The reason for the assassination.
The Thirteenth Amendment has written the abolition of slavery into the Constitution, which is undoubtedly the progress of human civilization. But the "original intention" of this proposal is not simple. So, is the proposal an end or a means? In order to pass the proposal, how much is a normal procedure, and how much is a method that cannot be on the table? How many of those MPs who voted in favor of the bill and actually got it passed were purely for the abolition of slavery? ——Only the Republican Thaddeus Stevens and the Democrat George Yeaman in the film are purely against slavery, and even Lincoln is not purely. Then, if the purpose of promoting the proposal is not pure, but actually promotes the progress of human civilization, how should we evaluate the process of promoting the proposal? The progress of human civilization has been achieved, is there still a need to debate the motivation and process?
How would you rate Lincoln? The film is undoubtedly positive, and the image presented is brilliant. The film goes to great lengths to portray Lincoln's charisma, intelligence, and dedication to unifying the country, but it doesn't sanctify him. The film doesn't cut out the noise, still depicting Lincoln's support of using all means and tactics to persuade, and it doesn't deliberately weaken his efforts to prevent his son from joining the military, even using power to arrange relatively safe positions when he can't.
The reasons why the film is moving and winning may vary, but putting such a complex event into 150 minutes, without omitting key factors, without too much bias, try to show the history as it is, and give contemporary audiences and future generations a thought-provoking film. The film, which piqued their interest in further exploration of history, deserves an award.
View more about Lincoln reviews
