mfcorey1 (3,527 posts)
What Spielberg’s “Lincoln†conveniently leaves out
blah-blah-blah
But there’s a side of Lincoln that no Hollywood film shows clearly: He was extremely close to the railway barons, the most powerful corporate titans of the era.
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/25/what_spielberg’s_“lincolnâ€_conveniently_leaves_out/
What the critic conveniently leaves out is that while Lincoln was cozy with the rail barons -- and that supposedly makes him a bad judge of character --
Obama looks to Lincoln as the inspiration as to why he should build Joe Biden a new choo-choo train.
Of course, that is woefully inaccurate but that never stopped Obama from opening his ignorant pie hole.
And then there's this:
randome (8,423 posts)
1. I really think Spielberg is over-rated.
Lincoln is basically his version of a documentary. It's easy to do because the plot is already written. So was Titanic. Most of his other movies have been so overly sappy, they're painful to watch.
I don't give much credit to filmmakers who don't come up with their own ideas.
dsc (37,697 posts)
2. titanic wasn't his movie
randome (8,423 posts)
4. Whoops. Substitute 'Saving Private Ryan', then.
Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:50 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
I didn't like it because war movies are 'easy' to make. The chaos and danger too often substitute and detract from character development.
Vinnie From Indy (8,262 posts)
5. And your expertise in the area of filmmaking is what?
Calling Private Ryan an "easy" movie to make is nonsense. In fact, Private Ryan was a groundbreaking film that in many respects redefined the genre.
randome (8,423 posts)
50. It's RELATIVELY easy, I should have specified.
When the canvas on which you make a movie is already provided for you, I think it's much easier to paint upon that canvas. War movies and magic already provide the parameters so you don't have to go to the trouble of defining your own.
Just my opinion.
"I don't like him because of movie X."
"He didn't make movie X."
"I meant movie Y. It's too easy to make movie Y."
"Movie Y was a masterpiece."
"I meant it was relatively easy."
WolverineDG (21,619 posts)
28. well, he only spent the first 20 minutes re-creating the landing at Omaha Beach
easy-peasy
randome (8,423 posts)
52. Exactly. He RE-created it. He didn't create the parameters on his own.
Just my opinion.
And painting and sculpting too.
You don't have to create a human form, you just have to copy the ones that already exist to emotionally evocative.
Davinci was a slacker.
AnotherMcIntosh (4,206 posts)
24. "D-Day vets said it was ... like being there". And we know this how? Astroturfing.
wow!
A bigger dick than randome.
randome (8,423 posts)
71. My daughters are finally old enough that we watched Pulp Fiction together a couple days ago.
In that film, Tarantino created the characters, the plot and the style. It was a much greater creative effort than what Spielberg usually does. I think of Spielberg the same way as George Lucas -taking the easy way out.
Again, everyone, just my opinion.
I idolize Tarantino.
But I recognize Spielberg's technical mastery.
You're still an idiot.
jehop61 (171 posts)
3. So it's wrong to be successful?
Lincoln was a poor boy who worked hard, got an education under extreme hardship and had a flourishing business. My idea of a good American. Big corporations of the time were the only places where money could be made. How else could he have run for President? Please don't judge history by the times we live in.
jwirr (20,386 posts)
13. It is not about being successful but how you become successful. We have used the idea of
manifest destiny to justify our assault on people of color for a thousand years all across the world. If they were to do this to us we would call it theft.
history FAIL
aletier_v (1,769 posts)
22. A thousand years?!
Why not make it two thousand and blame Jesus, too?
Manifest Destiny is a "19th century concept", a thousand years is a bit of stretch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
jwirr (20,386 posts)
58. I was thinking about the use of this method by Rome/England in the expansion of their Empires.
1000 years?
Rome?
Already gone.
England?
Not yet born.
You still fail.
BTW -- from wiki link provided by the DUmbass, above:
Mid-19th-century Democrats would use it to explain the need for expansion beyond the Louisiana Territory.
graham4anything (2,128 posts)
31. the OP article in Salon shows everything that is wrong with those who are never satisfied
and who project one and only one wedge issue into every single thing and are greedy and don' look at the big picture
...
Have you met leveymg?
leveymg (24,337 posts)
33. Speilberg is, himself, a plutocrat. You can't expect him to make a class-based critique. Period.
Last edited Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:26 PM USA/ET - Edit history (4)
As a plutocrat, he is, of course, several cuts above most of the rest. But, any meeting of the minds between Lincoln and Karl Marx aren't likely to make the final cut. Not in the American release, anyway...
Egalitarian Thug (4,333 posts)
35. Until we change our form of governance, the best that America can hope for is
some good to be done alongside the march of the plutocracy.
Yes, because we need a new form of government to get the right kind of entertainment.
It'll be a "Cultural Revolution."
bluestateguy (39,463 posts)
55. This is not a secret
Typically Republican politicians of the mid 19th century were very buddy-buddy with the railroads. Republicans favored government subsidy for the railroads and internal improvement projects (what we call infrastructure today) that would necessitate a broader railroad network.
And the democrats just wanted to own people and violently overthrow a duly elected government in order to do so.
Same as it ever was.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021879720
