Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner Are Not Historians

Historians are stakeholders in anything that attempts to tell a story about or represent the past.  The vast majority of these stories pass us by innocently enough, but when the most popular Hollywood director makes a movie about Lincoln we watch and listen closely.  We don’t just watch, we also feel a strong need to educate the general public and point out interpretive shortcomings in popular films.  Spielberg’s Lincoln has certainly opened up the floodgates for Lincoln scholars and Civil War historians.  Over the past few days I’ve read numerous reviews by professional historians, both in print and in my circle of social media friends.  All of them are informative even if they tend to reflect individual research agendas much more than the movie itself.

I’ve already linked to a few reviews, but for this short post I am going to refrain from doing so because my point is not to put anyone on the spot or even to suggest that criticism of a Hollywood movie as historical interpretation is not welcome.  Over the years I have done it myself both on this blog and in print.  When there are gross oversights and distortions it is absolutely essential, but at what point do such reviews come down to nothing more than historians once again talking to one another?

[click to continue…]

Spielberg’s Union Soldiers Not So Hokey

Thanks to all of you for the thoughtful comments in response to my posts about Spielberg’s Lincoln [and here] movie.  I love to be able to use the blog to share my thoughts, but often your comments are much more interesting.  Like some of you I blew off that opening scene in which Lincoln talks with a couple of white and black Union soldiers following the battle scene.  After reading Bjorn Skaptason’s comment I now see that as premature.  There is much to consider in that scene.  Here is his comment:

I have seen the film just once, like you. I might have taken more away from that opening scene, though. I think the battle scene is clearly the U.S.C.T. soldier describing his experience as part of the 2nd Kansas (Colored) in the battle of Jenkins Ferry, Arkansas. Ken is right that there was a hand-to-hand fight there for a couple of guns during a driving rainstorm in a muddy, plowed field. The Second Kansas took no prisoners in that engagement. The soldier then goes on to describe a reasonable transfer scenario wherein he joined the 116th USCT in Kentucky, and now he is standing in front of the commander-in-chief at a wharf in Washington, D.C.

Further, the infantryman is in company with a cavalryman who identifies himself as part of a Connecticut Volunteer regiment (the 5th?). That individual is much more aggressive in challenging Lincoln on the failures of his administration. The infantryman is visibly annoyed by this. There is rich subtext here for historians. The infantryman is a Kansas freedman, escaped from bondage in Missouri, and fighting to destroy slavery. He is thrilled to meet the Great Emancipator. The cavalryman is probably a free born New Englander, obviously well-educated, and committed to a mission of equality that Lincoln is distinctly failing at. He will not let Lincoln get away with empty promises and half measures.

The unspoken conflict between these two soldiers, played out in annoyed sideways glances, foreshadows the conflict of the movie – a conflict between overthrowing slavery on one hand and establishing equal rights on the other. They aren’t the same thing, they weren’t perceived as such at that time, and the movie sets up that nuanced view of the situation in the first scene.

Then the white kids come in, and they are a little goofy, but they give us a chance to see Lincoln pre-visioning his own deification, and not liking it very much. Then everybody leaves to get on their transports that carry them off to their date with Fort Fisher. During a later scene we get to see Lincoln’s reaction to casualty reports from that battle, and we catch a glimpse of people reading long casualty lists in the newspaper. Our proud freedman, caustic cavalrymen, and goofy kids might well be on that list.

It’s a good scene in a good movie, I think.

There is much more to think about here, than in the typical costume balls that serve as Civil War movies.

Spielberg’s Battle Scene

When I first heard that Spielberg was planning on making a moving about Lincoln one of the first things I imagined was an opening battle scene that approached the realism of Saving Private Ryan.  I had never before scene anything like it on the big screen.  Well, we got an opening battle scene, but it did not approach the scale or length of his re-creation of the landing at Omaha Beach on D-Day.

We have to imagine Spielberg considering such famous battles as Gettysburg, Antietam, and Shiloh.  I have no doubt that he could have pulled off such a large-scale battle.  Instead, Spielberg throws his viewer into the middle of a nameless close-quarter fight.  No wide shots of carefully formed units waiting for orders to march into battle and no close-ups of famous commanders behind the lines.  It would have been easy to do, but it would also have been a distraction.  Ultimately, it doesn’t matter.

What Spielberg wanted his audience to see was the brutality and hatred that defines any bloody civil war.  There are no battle lines in this scene.  At times the national identities of the men are indistinguishable from one another, except for the African Americans, assuming you already knew that they fought for the United States.  The mud functions as a metaphor for the ugliness of war and perhaps even a war that has lost any sense of meaning for the two parties.  The United States flag may have been prominent in this scene, but the viewer is left wondering what it’s all about.

Some Thoughts About Spielberg’s Lincoln

We go to the movies to be entertained and transported to a different time and place.  That certainly happened for me while watching Steven Spielberg’s movie about Lincoln and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. That’s not such an easy thing to do when you’ve spend the better part of the last 15 years reading and writing about the period.  Historians look for complexity and and a certain attention to detail that reflects a careful consideration of the past.  I certainly did, but at the same time we would do well to remember that these kinds of questions rarely arise when watching films about other subjects.

The film fits neatly into the Civil War sesquicentennial with its emphasis on emancipation as the central problem that must be solved as opposed to the preservation of the Union.  Daniel Day-Lewis gives us a sympathetic portrayal of Lincoln as the central actor in this drama and one that certainly deserves an Oscar nomination.  He somehow manages to make Lincoln appealing and even worthy of his place in our collective memory without mythologizing him.  Indeed, one of the movie’s strengths is that it depicts Lincoln as one player (albeit an important one) in that not-so-well-oiled machine that is the legislative process.  Lincoln does his best to help to steer the amendment through Congress with the help of Thadeus Stevens, portrayed persuasively by Tommie Lee Jones.  We see the messiness of it all, but we also get a sense of Lincoln’s and Stevens’s sincere interest in ending slavery once and for all.

[click to continue…]

Happy Thanksgiving

Hope all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving today.  Enjoy the time with family and do yourself a favor and hold off on the shopping until tomorrow and please be safe if you are on the roads this weekend. Looks like the Virginia Historical Society is trying to reassert itself as hosting the first Thanksgiving.  I will run this by Myles Standish later today to see what he thinks.  Nice try Virginia, but second place is still respectable.

I finally saw Spielberg’s Lincoln movie yesterday and plan on sharing some thoughts in the next few days.  I thoroughly enjoyed Daniel Day Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln and the movie’s emphasis on the messiness of politics.  Now that I’ve read a few reviews of the movie I am convinced that historians might be the worst people to evaluate a historical movie.  More later.

No Confederate Battle Flag at Castle Pinckney

Now before some of you get up in arms, read the story.  I had no idea that the Sons of Confederate Veterans purchased Castle Pinckney last year from the State Port Authority.  What they plan to do with it is unknown, but for now they will erect a couple of poles on which will fly period flags.  The one flag that will not be flown will be the Confederate battle flag.  Why?  According to Philip Middleton, commander of the SCV’s Fort Sumter Camp:

“We’re not going to put anything up [battle flag] that’s going to be a stick in anybody’s eye. We’re going to be putting up flags that were historically correct…. We’ve pretty much ruled that out for the time being.  The only reason we’d be doing that would be to make a statement, and I don’t think we need to be doing that.”

You mean they are not going to use the opportunity to erect one of those big-ass Confederate flags?  Sounds to me like the Virginia Flaggers need to make a trip to Charleston to preserve the honor or whatever it is they do.

In the meantime, it’s nice to hear that not everyone in the SCV suffers from an unhealthy obsession with the Confederate flag.

Toward a New Synthesis of Civil War Memory

David Blight’s Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory has dominated the historiography of Civil War memory studies since its publication in 2001.  Beyond academic circles, Blight’s emphasis on the triumph of reconciliation over an “emancipationst narrative” can be found in documentaries, news articles, and even historical tours.  Rarely do historical interpretations enjoy such popularity.    In recent years, historians have chipped away at various aspects of Blight’s view.  Two books that stand out in this regard are John Neff’s Honoring the Civil War Dead: Commemoration and the Problem of Reconciliation and Barbara Gannon’s recent study, The Won Cause: Black and White Comradeship in the Grand Army of the Republic.

While both books are important contributions to the field they do not approach the scope of Blight’s study, both in terms of the time frame and topics covered.  These and other studies, along with an even larger number of scholarly articles, have shown that reconciliation did not always triumph, bitterness remained among veterans, and memory of slavery and emancipation may have been more vibrant throughout the postwar period than we thought.  At the same time we do need to explain why our memory of the war since the 1960s has emphasized reconciliationist themes that go back to the turn of the twentieth century.  In other words, we don’t want to err by minimizing the pull of reconciliation.

Caroline Janney’s forthcoming book, Remembering the Civil War: Reunion and the Limits of Reconciliation promises to be the first broad study of Civil War memory since Race and Reunion.  She’s been chipping away at various topics, including the Appomattox Peace Monument, the Heyward Shepherd Memorial, and the establishment of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.

For a taste of what you can expect in this book check out Carrie’s recent talk from the 2012 Civil War Institute.

Students Preserve a Piece of Milwaukee’s Civil War Heritage

I’ve met some incredible history teachers over the years through this blog.  A few of them have taught me as much as I hope this blog has helped their own classroom practices – none more so than Chris Lese, who teaches history at Marquette University High School.    Chris is a passionate and talented teacher.  Like me, he has the luxury of teaching a course on the Civil War.  In fact, earlier this year I Skyped with his class.  Later this morning we are going to connect online once again.

This year Chris’s class is hoping to do a little Civil War preservation in their local community.  The class will create a tin plated QR Code memorial to be placed next to a forgotten bronze plaque in the woods of a Milwaukee public park. The memorial is dedicated to to Col. Jerome A. Watrous, who served in the Iron Brigade.

The first phase of the project is to focus on the memory of Civil War both during the early 20th century (this bronze plaque was dedicated in 1939) and today.  Here are a few of the questions the students sent along.

  • What are some reasons people in the early 20th century dedicated monuments, plaques and memorials to Civil War soldiers?
  • What sort of issues were veterans facing during the early 20th century?
  • Did Civil War soldiers experience wide spread support across society? Who put up these memorials?
  • Why do you think it is important for younger generations to know about/remember Civil War history?
  • In this techno-crazy society that looks to get more and more digital, will memorials have to be digital
    to persuade future people to care? Will stone and bronze monuments still have a major place remembering history?
  • What role does technology have in historical memory?

The next phase includes researching the life of Watrous and the monument itself and attempt to determine why it was apparently forgotten. The class is also consulting with local Iron Brigade historian Lance Herdegen and the Kenosha Civil War Museum.  Herdegen just published a new book on the Iron brigade titled, THE IRON BRIGADE IN CIVIL WAR AND MEMORY: The Black Hats from Bull Run to Appomattox and Thereafter.

This is a great way to get kids not only interested in history, but in historical memory, and historical preservation.  It warms my heart. 🙂