Reel History 11: Abraham Lincoln In The Movies

Abraham Lincoln was, and this is hardly debatable, the greatest president in the history of the United States. Some polls say Reagan, but those polls, and those who voted for Reagan on them, are wrong. Lincoln exists in Americana as the anti-Richard Nixon: he was a virtuous, honest, wonderful man and is celebrated for it, whereas Nixon was a mean, spiteful liar who was out for one man and one man only- Richard Nixon. These two presidents have been depicted on film more than any others, but the stories told about them couldn't be more different (more on Nixon later).

Abraham Lincoln, born February 12, 1809, was a self-educated country lawyer at a time when law was a profession that accepted self-made men. He became a Illinois state legislator in the 1830s, then a one-time member of the House of Representatives, but was denied the trifecta by rival Stephen Douglas, who defeated him in the 1858 run for the Senate; Lincoln did, however, win over the heart of the object of Douglas' affection, Mary Todd, so really, Lincoln got his (ok, ok, they were married all the way back in 1842, so maybe Douglas was the one exacting revenge). He did eventually win the highest office in the country, so who needs the Senate, really? But upon Lincoln's election in 1860, slave-holding states started seceding one after another in quick succession, fearing the president would free their property and violate their 'state rights' (used as an excuse to glorify the South even to this day, sadly). This divided the nation and laid the groundwork for the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861 and the beginning of the Civil War. Lincoln wouldn't get to see the reformation of the union he worked so hard to achieve; he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth on April 15, 1865, six days after Robert E. Lee and the Confederate army surrendered, and 25 days before the war formally ended.

Lincoln's story is this- virtue, hard work, and honesty, in office and out, will get you ahead; and while slyness and cruelty will also get you ahead, the former gets you hagiographies and enduring love, not demonization and hate. But hey, Nixon gambled and lost. History will see to that.

D.W. Griffith's Abraham Lincoln (1930) is one of the earliest movies about President Lincoln (but not the earliest; the first was made all the way back in 1909), and it tries to leave no stone unturned telling the story. The history of slavery, the Civil War, Lincoln's love life- everything is covered in a series of thinly connected scenes, some of which are in sound, some silent. It's odd for Griffith to cover Lincoln in such a sympathetic manner, considering he's the man who directed Birth of a Nation, a movie that glorified the Ku Klux Klan, but he does it. It's not a movie that holds up all that well, however, and is mostly boring and relatively plotless. Note that Lincoln is played by Walter Huston, who was also Mr. Scratch (a.k.a the Devil) in The Devil and Daniel Webster.



John Ford fared better in his 1939 movie Young Mr.

Lincoln, which starred the gangly Henry Fonda as Lincoln. As the title suggests, the movie follows Abe during his formative years as a lawyer, mostly in a fictional context. Lincoln in this movie isn't just virtuous, he's the best darn Illinoisan the state ever spit out- he's judging a pie eating contest, winning a rail splitting competition, and cracking up a jury with his hilarious antics. The movie surrounds a fictitious court case involving a fight and murder, with justice winning in the end. One thing that all four movies I watched make a point of including (to various degrees of success) is Lincoln's easy-going and joke-telling nature. He loved to make people laugh and tell stories, and that's partly why he was beloved by the citizens. The rather grim visage you see in pictures is often the result of both the Civil War and his family life wearing him down, but by all accounts he was a rather light-hearted and friendly person.


The movie (also Abraham Lincoln) includes the dubious detail of Ann Rutledge, Lincoln's supposed first love and his motivation for going into law. It's fierce debate whether or not she and Lincoln had a thing, but apparently it was first revealed after the assassination in 1865 by Lincoln's law partner William Herndon. Herndon hated Mary Todd Lincoln, and told the story much to her dismay, so it's possible it's fake, or at least embellished.

Steven Spielberg's appropriately named film Lincoln covers at least some of the part not covered by Ford. It's also probably the definitive Lincoln movie, one that, however you feel about biopics, manages to convey his true character and the problems he faced dealing with the Civil War and at home. The movie is about the last four months of both the Civil War and his life, as he tried to pass the 13th Amendment through the House before his second term was to begin and the country was to eventually be reunited (with the slave states back in the Union). This amendment would formally abolish slavery, as the Emancipation Proclamation two years earlier was not law but a wartime measure and could easily be overturned by the court once the war was over. The movie is loosely based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, so Lincoln's genius is first and foremost in this movie. I may have denigrated Nixon's craftiness up there, but Lincoln had his fair share of it. The difference is Lincoln used it to free the slaves before time ran out and it became a fruitless pursuit; Nixon used it to maintain an iron fist over the White House, get re-elected, and bomb Cambodia.

With Lincoln, Spielberg may have directed the best movie about the man ever, and Daniel Day-Lewis the best performance. I know it's not saying much considering, but it's a wonderful, interesting biopic in a mostly maligned genre.

2012 truly was the year of super accurate Lincoln biopics, continuing with the supremely stupid Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Benjamin Walker is the Lincoln here, looking more like a young Liam Neeson than the sixteenth president, and he uses his rail splitting powers (under the most BS of pretenses) to hunt... vampires. Turns out, the Confederates were using slaves as a source for blood! And there's a Linkin Park song played over the credits. That should tell you everything you need to know about this movie. Seriously, it's infuriating how much this movie sucks.

Covered in tons of crappy CGI blood, this telling of Lincoln is clearly trying to be some kind of pulpy, stupid action movie, but there's too much weird self-importance that comes with taking such a beloved individual and hewing very close to the events of his real life while at the same time having him fight vampires. There's something incredibly off about having the Gettysburg Address recited over Union soldiers killing vampires at the Battle of Gettysburg. But what's even worse is using the death of his son Willie, and the grief he and Mary suffered, as some cheap emotional moment. Mary Todd's mental breakdown after the death of Willie was real; the vampire that killed him was not.

And that's why I hope they stop taking real history and trying to make it 'awesome'. Lincoln's life is already awesome enough, full of pathos, meaning, and moving stories- what good does it do to try and turn him into a superhero? It's completely unnecessary and at times, down right disrespectful.

There are tons more Lincoln-y things: he's been played by Robert V. Barron in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure,  Gregory Peck in a 1982 TV movie called The Blue and the Grey, and by Sam Waterston in not one, but TWO different TV shows. He's been portrayed in Bioshock Infinite and Late Night with Conan O'Brien and Doctor Who. He's pretty much everywhere, and that's because he's the virtuous president.

If you stripped all partisan politics out of the question, Lincoln would hands down be polled the greatest American president, and no poll saying otherwise will ever take away his status in politics or culture. Can you imagine Reagan traveling with Bill and Ted?

NEXT TIME: Looking at the Civil War a little more closely with Glory and Ride with the Devil.

Reel History 10: Gangs of New York

When gangsters dressed like Batman villains

Imagine you're new to the United States- you've just arrived and settled in and everything is straight-up bonkers: all the currency looks the same! What, gallons instead of liters? It's the 21st Century and this country is still not using the metric system? Why are there so many ads for medications on TV? Where can I get a maple log? etc., etc. I am assuming most of the people reading this are from Canada, so it's safe to say the culture shock would be less than monumental. 

Now imagine you've arrived back to the 1850s. As an immigrant, you might be German- 5 million arrived between 1850 and 1930- or an Irish Catholic looking to escape famine- 4.5 million Irish arrived between 1820-1930. You'd head to a large urban center, like New York, looking for a job in the emerging industry of the northern Unites States. As you arrive at the port, perhaps you're greeted by an opportunistic politician who sees you as nothing more than a walking vote; maybe an angry hordes is shouting at you to go back to your home. Maybe you walk right into a conscription line to join the Union Army, like the 144,000 other Irish or 177,000 other Germans. Or maybe, given your temperament, you take up with another army, one that would defend your right to live in New York.

Gangs of New York concerns itself with the last group, telling the story of those who chose to brawl it out in the streets for protection and influence, political or otherwise. Martin Scorsese's movie deals with warfare at Manhattan's Five Points district, the convergence of five streets that happened to be one of the city's most notorious slums, an area dominated by a number of large gangs. While most of the characters are fictional, the gangs of Gangs are not- the Bowery Boys, lead by Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (played by Daniel Day-Lewis, the best performance of the movie) and the Dead Rabbits of our protagonist Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), were very real, and just two of many different gangs representing many different interests.

Even Charles Dickens was less than impressed with the scenery- here he describes the Five Points in his American Notes for Circulation:

"What place is this, to which the squalid street conducts us? A kind of square of leprous houses, some of which are attainable only by crazy wooden stairs without. What lies behind this tottering flight of steps? Let us go on again, and plunge into the Five Points."

"This is the place; these narrow ways diverging to the right and left, and reeking everywhere with dirt and filth. Such lives as are led here, bear the same fruit as elsewhere. The coarse and bloated faces at the doors have counterparts at home and all the world over."

"Debauchery has made the very houses prematurely old. See how the rotten beams are tumbling down, and how the patched and broken windows seem to scowl dimly, like eyes that have been hurt in drunken forays. Many of these pigs live here. Do they ever wonder why their masters walk upright instead of going on all fours, and why they talk instead of grunting?"

It was also packed with newly arrived immigrants, a sizable African-American community, and very, very territorial 'natives'. And from this convergence of poverty-stricken groups is where we get the movie's tension. It begins with a fight between the Dead Rabbits, a gang of immigrants lead by a priest played by Liam Neeson, and the Bowery Boys, lead by Bill the Butcher, 15 years before the Civil War. Neeson is killed, the Dead Rabbits are broken up and declared illegal by Bill's tyrannical street rule, and Neeson's son escapes the clutches of an orphanage. The story resets in 1862 with the son, now a fully grown Leonardo DiCaprio, working his way up the gangland hierarchy to get his revenge on Bill, which involves, in classic gangster fashion, getting close to his most hated enemy.

There's so much history in Gangs it's amazing- the history of the Five Points, sure, but there's the Civil War, PT Barnum, Boss Tweed and his gang at Tammany Hall, American nativism and its reaction to Irish immigration, the draft riots of 1863 against lopsided conscription, and so much more. America's early history is soaked in blood, and it reminds us that while the Fathers may have crafted one of the best republics on paper, the sailing was never smooth.

I like Gangs of New York a lot, but it's certainly one of Scorsese's more Hollywood offerings, which I think makes it a lesser movie in his oeuvre. He's a master at telling the stories of the personal lives of low level criminals, with movies like Mean Streets and Goodfellas being bona fide classics; and while he's certainly concentrating on the criminal element here, there's a scope that's far outside just the small time crooks. I was far more interested in learning more about the history of the movie than the actual plot, because while in Daniel Day-Lewis we get one of Scorsese's great villains with his performance as Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting, in Leonardo DiCaprio's Amsterdam Vallon we get one of his more boring protagonists. The Departed does essentially what Gangs does, but in a much more claustrophobic, tense, and ultimately entertaining manner. Gangs also suffers from a rather anti-climatic final act, with Bill and Amsterdam fighting in a cloud of smoke while the city riots around them; Bill is struck by the gunfire and is ultimately finished off by Amsterdam. The ending is pretty beautiful, though.

One thing that Scorsese makes clear is that this sense of 'otherness' created by nativists like Bill the Butcher still included black people. Despite New York's inclusion in the Union, it still wasn't safe to be a free black person in a large city, and the draft riots of 1863 quickly turned into race riots. In the movie, Amsterdam's friend Jimmy Spoils is easily spotted and killed by rioters; in real life, it's estimated that 100 black people were killed in the three days of rioting, and many abolitionists and black homes were targeted.

So while Gangs of New York shows a pretty bad side of New York, the reality probably was worse than any movie can convey. Herbert Asbury, the author of the book that Gangs was based on (yes, it was based on a book!), says that in 1862, more than 82 thousand New Yorkers, 10 percent of the population, were arrested by police. In 1862 alone!

Kinda makes you wonder what other great movies could be made about this same era.

NEXT TIME: Abraham Lincoln- one great citizen.