"LINCOLN" (1988) Review

 

"LINCOLN" (1988) Review

Can anyone recall the number of Abraham Lincoln biopics seen in movie theaters or on television? I certainly cannot. In fact, I do not know how many Lincoln biopics I have seen. Perhaps this is not surprising. Hollywood has created more productions (both movie and television) about the 16th President of the United States than any other who has occupied the White House. One of those productions was the 1988 two-part miniseries, "LINCOLN".

Based on Gore Vidal's 1984 novel, "Lincoln: A Novel", "LINCOLN" followed Abraham Lincoln's years in the White House, during the U.S. Civil War. Actually, both the novel and the miniseries began with President-elect Lincoln arrival in Washington D.C. in late February 1861, at least a week before his inauguration. Although the limited series covered his complete four years in office, the majority of the production only covered his first years in the nation's capital. During those years, Lincoln not only faced his struggles in conducting a civil war against those Southern states that had succeeded, but also his political enemies (from both parties) and the mental condition of his wife, First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln.

Without a doubt, I believe "LINCOLN" is one of the better Hollywood productions made about the 16th president. I would place it up there with Steven Spielberg's 2012 movie of the same title and the 1974-1976 limited series, which starred Hal Holbrook. In regard to the 1988 miniseries, director One aspect of this series that struck me as innovative was the cynical tone that seemed to surround Lincoln's portrayal and the miniseries' narrative. Past productions have touched on Lincoln's political oratory skills, sense of humor and ability to maintain a balanced control of the men who served on his cabinet, the country's military leadership and Congress. Yet, these productions also tried to portray the 16th president as some ideal statesman, in which compassion, wisdom and an alleged "lack of ambition" dominated his personality. Which explained why I always had trouble regarding Lincoln as an interesting character in these productions.

This did not seemed to be the case in both Gore Vidal's novel and the 1988 miniseries. I tried to recall any moment in which Ernest Kinoy's screenplay and Gore Vidal's novel had dipped into some kind of sentimental idealism toward Lincoln, his Administration and even his family. The closest to any kind of idealism I could find proved to be two scenes. One included a conversation in which the First Lady revealed her abolitionist views to the biracial modiste, Elizabeth Keckley. Another also featured Mrs. Lincoln's militant response to Confederate troops attacking Union installations on the outskirts of Washington D.C. Instead of the noble and ideal statesman forced to guide the country through a civil war and a social revolution, Vidal's Lincoln seemed to be an astute and at times, cynical man who seemed to be a bit possessive about his presidential power. Part One featured one marvelous scene in which Lincoln smartly nipped in the bud, his Secretary of State William Seward's attempt to transform him into a powerless head of state. And there were those moments in Part Two that featured Lincoln's clashes with the Army of the Potomac's commander, George McClellan.

Lincoln's pragmatic nature seemed to permeate his dealings regarding emancipation and with his family. Many are now aware of the president's initial support of the American Colonization Society, an organization formed to encourage free African-Americans to immigrate to and form colonies in West Africa. His support had continued during the early years of the Civil War and the miniseries featured this issue in an interesting and emotionally complex scene that involved Lincoln's White House meeting with a delegation of African-American leaders during the summer of 1862. What made this scene even more fascinating was Lincoln's disappointed response to the delegates' refusal to convince many Blacks as possible to resettle in Chiriquí province of Panama. Lincoln's interactions with his immediate family proved to be more emotional, especially with his wife and younger sons. Yet, even in some scenes with the First Lady, the President could be cool, sardonic and sometimes dismissive. I find it even more interesting that the next major production about the President - namely the 2012 Spielberg movie - seemed to have adopted some of the miniseries' ambiguous portrayal of him.

One of the major issues I have with "LINCOLN" is its production values. I found them to be a mixed affair. I certainly had no problems with R. Lynn Smartt's Emmy nominated set decorations. They struck me as a strong recreation of mid-19th century interior decor. However, William Wages had received an Emmy nomination for his cinematography. I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss at this nomination. I never found his photography particularly mind-blowing. Not even the photography featured in various montages featuring well-known Civil War battles. And I disliked his use of natural lighting in many night time shots - both interior and exterior. Both Joseph G. Aulisi and George L. Little had received Emmy nominations for the miniseries' costume designs. I believe both had deserved the nominations, namely for those beautiful costumes worn by the female characters. Aulisi and Little did excellent jobs in re-creating the fashions worn by high-ranking women during the early and mid-1860s. As for those costumes worn by male characters . . . I was not that impressed. The men's costumes looked as if they had arrived directly from a costume warehouse for second-rate stage productions.

I thought the casting director did a pretty decent job in finding the right actors and actresses for the roles. Mind you, I noticed that a good number of the cast bore little or no similarity to the historical characters they had portrayed. This seemed to be the case for the likes of Deborah Adair (Kate Chase), John McMartin (Salmon P. Chase), Richard Mulligan (William H. Seward), Ruby Dee (Elizabeth Keckley), James Gammon (Ulysses S. Grant), and especially Mary Tyler Moore (Mary Todd Lincoln). But . . . I cannot deny that all of them either gave solid or excellent performances. I was especially impressed by Adair, Mulligan and Moore. The miniseries also featured first-rate performances from the likes of Stephen Culp as one of Lincoln's secretaries, John Hay; Gregory Cooke as the Lincolns' oldest son Robert; Jeffrey DeMunn as William Herdon, Lincoln's former law partner; Robin Gammell as Stephen Douglas; Cleavon Little as Frederick Douglass; and John Houseman as Winfield Scott.

I had a problem with two particular performance. I had a problem with Thomas Gibson's portrayal of Kate Chase's future husband, William Sprague IV during Part One. I thought Gibson gave an exaggerated performance that was further marred by a questionable New England accent. And although Ruby Dee had received an Emmy nomination for her portrayal of Elizabeth Keckley, I could not find anything particularly outstanding about her performance. Do not get me wrong. I believe the actress gave a very solid performance as Keckley. But the miniseries gave Dee little opportunity to truly display her skills as an actress. Because of this, I found myself more impressed by Gloria Reuben's portrayal of the modiste in 2012's "LINCOLN".

Mary Tyler Moore had also received an Emmy nomination for her portrayal of First Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. And I can honestly say that she had more than deserved it. Moore did an excellent job of conveying the First Lady's volatile personality, sharp wit and political astuteness. And while I had a small issue with the transcript's portrayal of Mrs. Lincoln, a part of me wishes that Moore had won that Emmy. I was astounded that Sam Waterston did not receive an Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. Astounded and disappointed. Perhaps the competition for the Emmy's Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series category had been too heavy for Waterston to garner a nomination. You know what? I still believe the actor had deserved that nomination. I believe Waterston gave one of the best on-screen interpretations of the 16th president I have ever seen on film. And his portrayal of Lincoln had fortunately avoided the usual sentimental idealism that have dangerously come close to making Lincoln a one-note saint. Waterston's performance sharply reminded me of Lincoln's real skills as a politician.

Aside from two performances, I have few other issues with "LINCOLN". What film stock was this miniseries shot on? Because visually, it did not age very well. I already had a problem with Wages' use of natural lighting. But the miniseries looked as if it had aged a good deal over the past thirty-six years in compared to other television productions filmed during the same decade. Over the years I have learned to tolerate historical inaccuracies in dramas like "LINCOLN". But there were three inaccuracies that did not sit well with me. One of them featured black activist/abolitionist Frederick Douglass at the August 1862 White House meeting between Lincoln and five leading members of Washington's black community regarding colonization. One, Douglass did not live in Washington during the war years. And two, he was never at that meeting.

The other two inaccuracies involved former law clerk-turned-Union officer and close friend of the Lincolns, Elmer E. Ellsworth. Following his death at the hands of a Virginia tavern owner, the miniseries had the First Lady having an emotional fit during his funeral. I believe this scene was supposed to indicate Mrs. Lincoln's mental instability. The thing is . . . this never happened, especially since Ellsworth was closer to the President than the First Lady. And it was Lincoln who had emotional difficulty accepting the officer's death, not his wife. The miniseries also indicated that following Ellsworth funeral, Mrs. Lincoln had passed out and remained unconscious for three days, waking up during the outbreak of the First Battle of Bull Run. I have already pointed out that the First Lady had never been traumatized by Ellsworth's death. I would also like to point out that Ellsworth had been killed in May 1861. The First Battle of Bull Run had occurred on July 21, 1861. So, Mrs. Lincoln had remained unconscious . . . for two months? Seriously? One more thing, why did most of the miniseries' narrative occurred during the twelve months between February 1861 and February 1862? By the time the miniseries had moved beyond this time period, one-half of Part Two had played out. By the time the narrative had reached 1863, only 45 minutes had remained of the production. And the next two years were practically rushed. I believe this problem had stemmed from the 1984 novel, in which the majority of it had only covered those twelve months.

As I had just pointed out, "LINCOLN" was not a perfect production about the 16th president. The miniseries had its flaws. But I cannot deny that I believe it was one of the better ones ever produced by Hollywood. Based on Gore Vidal's novel, "LINCOLN" gave a deep and lively account of Abraham Lincoln's four years in the White House. And one can credit Ernest Kinoy's transcript, Lamont Johnson's Emmy winning direction and excellent performances from a cast led by Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore.

"LINCOLN" (1988) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "LINCOLN", the 1988 television adaptation of Gore Vidal's 1984 novel, "Lincoln: A Novel". Directed by Emmy winner Lamont Johnson, the two-part miniseries starred Sam Waterston and Emmy nominee Mary Tyler Moore as Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln:




"LINCOLN" (1988) Photo Gallery

"THIRTEEN DAYS" (2000) Review

"THIRTEEN DAYS" (2000) Review

In 1991, Kevin Costner starred in "J.F.K.", Oliver Stone's Oscar nominated film that explored the death of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Nine years later, Kevin Costner returned to the land of this country's own "Camelot", in this docudrama about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 from the viewpoint of President Kennedy and the men who served his Administration. 

"THIRTEEN DAYS" got its title from Robert F. Kennedy's 1969 posthumous memoirs about the incident. Yet, David Self's screenplay is actually based upon Philip D. Zelikow's 1997 book, "The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis". "THIRTEEN DAYS" began in early October 1962, when the Kennedy Administration receive U-2 surveillance photos revealing nuclear missiles in Cuba that were placed by the Soviet Union. Because these missiles have the capability to wipe out most of the Eastern and Southern United States if operational, President John F. Kennedy and his advisers are forced to find a way to prevent their operational status. Also, Kennedy's authority is challenged by top civilian and military advisers like Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who wanted the President to display more obvious signs of military strength in order to scare the Soviets in to removing the missiles. Most of the interactions between Kennedy and his men are witnessed by Kenneth O'Donnell, a presidential adviser and close school friend of Attorney General Robert Kennedy.

There have been complaints that "THIRTEEN DAYS" is not a completely accurate portrayal of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And that the Kenny O"Donnell character, portrayed by star Kevin Costner, was unnecessarily prominent in this film. I do not know if the last complaint is relevant. After all, O'Donnell was one of Kennedy's advisers during the crisis. But since Costner was the star of the movie and one of the producers, perhaps there is some minor cause for complaint. As for any historical inaccuracy . . . this is a movie adaptation of history. People should realize that complete historical accuracy is extremely rare in fictional adaptations - not only in Hollywood movies and television, but also in productions outside of the country, novels, plays and even paintings.

Were there any aspects of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that I found . . . uh, annoying or off putting? Well, Kevin Costner's attempt at a Boston accent was pretty terrible. And if I must be frank, there was nothing exceptional about Roger Donaldson's direction. I am not stating that he did a poor job directing the film. On the contrary, he did a solid job. But there were moments when I felt I was watching a TV movie-of-the-week, instead of a major motion picture - especially in one of the final shots that revealed the President's advisers discussing policy in Vietnam, while Kennedy prepared to compose a letter to the relatives of a downed U-2 pilot.

Other than Costner's Boston accent and Donaldson's less than spectacular direction, I have no real complaints about the movie. In fact, I enjoyed it very much when I first saw it, twelve years ago. And I still enjoyed it very much when I recently viewed my DVD copy of it. "THIRTEEN DAYS" is a solid, yet tense and fascinating look into the Missile Crisis from the viewpoints of President Kennedy and his advisers. Before I first saw this film, I had no idea that Kennedy faced so much trouble from the military elite and the more conservative advisers of his administration. I was especially surprised by the latter, considering that the President himself was not only a borderline conservative, but also harbored hawkish views against Communism.

Although I would never view Donaldson as one of the finest directors around, I must admit that I was more than impressed by his ability to energized a story that could have easily been bogged down by a series of scenes featuring nothing but discussions and meetings. Instead, both Donaldson and Self energized "THIRTEEN DAYS" with a good number of scenes that featured tension between characters, emotional confrontations and two action sequences that featured military flights over Cuba. Among my favorite scenes are Kennedy's confrontation with Curtis Le May, his angry outburst over Le May's decision to engage in nuclear testing as a scare tactic against the Soviets; the flight of two U.S. Navy pilots over Cuban airspace; Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's confrontation with U.S. Navy Admiral George Anderson; and especially U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson's confrontation with the Soviet U.N. Ambassador Valerian Zorin.

However, Donaldson's direction and Self's script were not the only aspects of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that prevented the movie from becoming a dull history lesson. The cast, led by Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp, provided some superb performances that helped keep the story alive. I am not going to deny that I found Costner's Boston accent cringe worthy. One would have to be deaf not to notice. But a bad accent does not mean a bad performance. And Costner proved to be a very lively and intense Kenny O'Donnell, whose close relationship and loyalty to the Kennedys allowed him to be brutally frank to them, when others could not get away with such frankness. Steven Culp was equally intense as Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who seemed to inject energy into every scene in which he appeared. But the one performance that really impressed me came from Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of the 35th President of the United States. Instead of portraying Kennedy as some one-note political icon or womanizing bad boy, Greenwood portrayed Kennedy as a intelligent, multi-faceted politician struggling to prevent the outbreak of a third world war, while keeping his high-ranking military officers in check. Personally, I feel that Greenwood may have given the best portrayal of Kennedy I have yet to see on either the movie or television screen. The movie also featured some first-rate and memorable supporting performances from the likes of Dylan Baker (as Robert McNamara), Michael Fairman (as Adlai Stevenson), Lucinda Jenney (as Helen O'Donnell), Kevin Conway (as Curtis LeMay), Madison Mason (as Admiral Anderson), Len Cariou (as Dean Acheson), Bill Smitrovich (as General Maxwell Taylor), and especially Karen Ludwig and Christopher Lawson as the sharp-tongued White House operator Margaret and the sardonic U.S. Navy pilot Commander William Ecker.

I want to say something about the film's production designs and setting. If there is one aspect of "THIRTEEN DAYS" that I truly appreciated how J. Dennis Washington's production designs re-created the year 1962. And he did so without any over-the-top attempt at early 1960s style. Unlike some productions set during this period, "THIRTEEN DAYS" did not scream "THIS IS THE SIXTIES!". Washington's production designs, along with Denise Pizzini's set decorations and Isis Mussenden's costume designs presented the early 1960s with an elegance and accuracy I found very satisfying. Their work was ably assisted by Andrzej Bartkowiak's photography. Bartkowiak's work also supported Conrad Buff IV's excellent editing, which prevented the film from becoming a dull period piece.

I do not know what else I could say about "THIRTEEN DAYS". I do not claim that it is a perfect film. I found Roger Donaldson's direction excellent, but not particularly dazzling or outstanding. And yes, Kevin Costner's otherwise first-rate performance was marred by a bad Boston accent. But he, along with an excellent Steven Culp, a superb Bruce Greenwood, a solid cast and a satisfying script by David Self made "THIRTEEN DAYS" an interesting and well made account of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

"THIRTEEN DAYS" (2000) Photo Gallery

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the historical event known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis". Below are images from "THIRTEEN DAYS", the 2000 movie depicting the event. Directed by Roger Donaldson, the movie starred Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp: 


"THIRTEEN DAYS" (2000) Photo Gallery