Abraham Lincoln

watch

Moviecut—Abraham Lincoln

A rather suggestive thing. With good performances all over. Hot lovescenes for the time. And joyful at the whole.

Abraham Lincoln (1930) ** 1/2 (out of 4) D.W. Griffith's film about Abraham Lincoln (Walter Huston) who we see from his early days through the hearbreak of Ann Rutledge (Una Merkel) and his rise to be the President of the United States. It's surprising to watch ABRAHAM LINCOLN today and know that back in the day most of the major critics called it a great film with many of them including it as one of the year's best films. It was hailed by critics as Griffith's major comeback but it didn't result in box office numbers and the legendary director would only make one more film. It's interesting to note that some of the Lincoln story-line was used in the director's THE BIRTH OF A NATION and that film was re-released in a sound version the same year this here was released. You have to wonder if more people went to that over this new film. The biggest problem that I had with this film was the story itself and the way it was told. I'm not going to bash the fake parts of the story too much as these bio films are often full of re-written history. The problem with me is that the narrative was all over the place and there really wasn't a good flow to any of it. It seems like bits and pieces were just picked from the story, filmed and then thrown together without Griffith trying to make a complete story or any type of flow to the material. It's really too bad that the story is all over the place because we do get some nice performances including Huston in the lead role. It's funny and rather uncanny how much he looks like Lincoln here and for the most part I thought he did a respectable job in the role. Another problem with the film is the fact that Griffith certainly didn't update his "style" from what you'd see from his early days. He certainly didn't want to go with the times and the film really looks and feel like something from the 1910s and not from 1930. With that said, ABRAHAM LINCOLN does work as a minor film. The performances are good enough to save it and the ending with the assassination is quite good even if it falls well short of what we saw in THE BIRTH OF A NATION.

This is the story Of President Abraham Lincoln from his birth to his assassination. We see him grow up and become a wild character and we see him fall in love only to lose her to death and then struggle for a long time trying to get over her. We see him fall for another woman and how she helped him get to become one of the greatest presidents of our time. We get to see the civil war start and him stand his ground to preserve the union and make this country one country truly united and to free slavery. We see how one angry actor who stood against Linclons views took his life and destroyed a good man, but his legacy and the things he stood for as president lived on. I knew some of the basics about Abe from school, but here the way he was presented I gained much more respect for the man. The guy playing him did such a wonderful job. I must admit all of the actors here were so amazing. This is an old movie but it was just a beautiful thing to set through. D.W. Griffith is one of the great directors of our time, In 1930 there was maybe only 1 other person that could compare and that was Fritz Lang. Griffiths work here is ace. I loved the shots, I loved the way they were set up and shot and his editor did a fine job as well. The sound was bad, but it was old and I have a cheap DVD version of it so it is possible a better version is available. So from a great story, to the beautiful direction and great acting and even the aging of Lincoln, I must say this was a great film... If you like movies about history, or are a fan of films from the early days of cinema, then this is for you. I liked it and give it 4/10 stars. Thats pretty good coming from me, Im the hardest movie critic to please.

It refuses to fly. The whole thing constitutes 90 minutes of parasitic drag. General MacLellan might have directed this. It has "a case of the slows." It begins with Abraham Lincoln's birth. There are extensive scenes of Lincoln (Walter Huston) tentatively courting Ann Rutledge (Una Merkel). They both move and speak slowly. The flirtation drags along. Merkel gets sick and dies with Huston by her side. She has long slow last words -- many long slow last words. Nine years later, John Ford zipped through all this in a few minutes. We didn't even see Ann Rutledge die, just a half frozen river accompanied by a few tragic chords in Al Newman's score. I understand that D. W. Griffith practically invented the grammar of the moving picture -- the cross-cutting, the invisible editing, the close up -- but he couldn't do a thing with this Steven Vincent Benet script, nor with the images we see on the screen. The close ups are an embarrassment. The actors are made up so emphatically that their lips and eyes might be seen from the most distant row of the balcony. One wonders whether Griffith really believed that Abraham Lincoln was such a great president. After all, from the director's point of view, Lincoln was on the wrong side of the Civil War. But maybe Griffith did admire Lincoln. Maybe he thought, "Well, at least Lincoln gave us Thanksgiving." But nothing can excuse a film that seems to have been shot in a vast tank of molasses. There's something to be said for quitting while you're ahead.

Griffith's vision was unrealized. The editor botched it. A knowledgeable viewer can see the potential greatness, and only suffer the anguish of knowing that greatness was prevented by miserable editing. Was it personal spite? Studio machinations? To this day, rumors to that effect linger. I don't know, and will study more of the history to try to learn why. Still, I can see the Griffith touch, and he was indeed the master and I know what could have been. Walter Houston is a good Lincoln; Ian Keith was a believably hammy John Wilkes Booth; the elegant Hobart Bosworth was an elegant Robert E. Lee. An interesting bit of casting had Henry B. Walthall as "Colonel Marshall." Walthall made history with his portrayal as "the Little Colonel" in Griffith's "Birth of a Nation." Griffith's father had been a Confederate war hero, leading a charge, after being wounded, from the driver's seat of a wagon. D.W. Griffith, though being Southern oriented, presented his Lincoln as the heroic and gentle man that American mythology so loves. (I recommend the balancing historical works by author Thomas DiLorenzo, who portrays Lincoln in a totally different light.) It's hard to find, but I urge anyone who loves Hollywood history to watch this movie, and join me in regretting that Griffith made so few talking pictures. Added 1 Aug 2015: There is now a version at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FfcCWonACo I hope you will give it a look.

D.W. Griffith's most famous talking film is an embarrassment - directed as if Griffith had never heard actors speak normally. It is painfully slow, and the absence of background music makes it seem even slower. Walter Huston, normally a brilliant actor who has given many excellent performances, is terrible- reduced to being a declaiming, posturing figure. His worst moment comes when he sits brooding over the Civil War, and announces in an overemphatic, declamatory style: "I've got it Mary! I've found the man to win this war! His name is Grant!" His performance is at times unintentionally funny,as is a lot of this film,and the blame for the acting must clearly be laid at the feet of the director,since most of the lead actors were far better in all their other films.

Walter Huston gets an A for effort, his performance is certainly far too melodramatic, but he clearly put a lot of heart and soul into it. Besides, the melodrama is more the fault of director D.W. Griffith, who seems to have lost his touch with his talkie films. Very patriotic,not particularly well produced. It falls among those films that were in the transition from silent to sound and have that awkwardness about them. The art direction is rather peculiarly phony looking, and that last shot of the Lincoln Memorial, it seems it would have been cheaper and easier just to get actual footage of the monument itself, rather than to make that phony looking model

As the above quote by Mary Lincoln illustrates, this film is full of accurate Lincoln history (he was offered a federal job in the Oregon Territory after losing his seat in Congress, but declined it.) While director D.W. Griffith is often portrayed as a racist due to his earlier BIRTH OF A NATION, one must remember that he was a product of his time and of his southern roots. His scene of General Lee nearly overcome with fatigue in his tent near the end of the war after saving the life of a Union spy indicates that he wanted to show the humanity of the Confederacy's leader was no less than that of Lincoln. But he merely uses this to show that the Confederate struggle had its good points, which takes nothing away from the Lincoln story. It's clear that Griffith must have greatly admired Lincoln and he does a masterful job in bringing him to life. His images of Lincoln, Lee and other historical figures are perfectly crafted,by his use of makeup and finding actors to play those parts. His casting of Walter Huston in the title role was a stroke of brilliance, and his First Lady on screen was played equally well. It's not Griffith's best work by a long shot, but he proved he could have been a capable director of talking pictures if he'd been given the chance. Sadly, he only made one more film after this. While he probably deserves more acclaim for his pioneering work in the film industry, this film is well written by Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Vincent Benet and directed by one of the true giants of the silver screen. As a historical writer, I heartily recommend it as a fine way to learn more about our 16th President while enjoying the work of a true master filmmaker. Dale Roloff