Article first published as KILLING LINCOLN Review at Seat42F.
Grade: 78%
Overall, KILLING LINCOLN could be
better, but it could be worse. If you are curious about the
assassination, it’s not a bad piece to check out. But for those who know
the story well, it comes across as hokey, exaggerated, and a little
off, so the history buffs may want to skip it.
Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter.
Grade: 78%
The National Geographic Channel has a
new docudrama entitled KILLING LINCOLN, airing tonight. It is based on
the book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, and revolves around the
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, looking at what motivates
John Wilkes Booth to do the deed, and the immediate aftermath of the
act.
The screen version of KILLING LINCOLN
unfolds much like a History Channel special. There is narration by Tom
Hanks, whom we see from time to time as he speaks, and events are
re-enacted. There is some degree of repetition, though not as much as
you’d expect from something like this, and suspense is built somewhat
artificially, even though just watching things unfold would provide
excitement enough.
The difference between KILLING LINCOLN
and other history specials is the level of acting presented. While this
special does still contain some hammy exaggeration, this is accomplished
by well respected performers in their fields, whom have resumes of
other television and movie work. As such, it feels a little more
authentic and of slightly higher quality than most of its peers.
Billy Campbell (The Killing) plays
Lincoln himself. Campbell takes a softer tact, and his version of the
POTUS is a kind and gentle man, friend to cabinet members and former
slaves alike. He comes across as almost saintly. Similarly, Mary Todd
Lincoln (Geraldine Hughes, Gran Torino) is whitewashed into a charming
and loving wife and mother, with barely a trace of the mental
instability that she is so famous for.
I admit, I am disappointed to see
Lincoln so affectionate towards Secretary of State Seward (Ted Johnson,
Lincoln), laid up in bed from a carriage accident. If one has studied
these two men at all, the animosity between them is infamous. Yes, they
get along by the end of Lincoln’s life, but the sort of relationship we
see between them here is not at all complicated or reminiscent of their
past feuding. Again, like much of KILLING LINCOLN, we are viewing this
through biased, rose-colored glasses.
Booth, on the other hand, played by
Jesse Johnson (Redline), is the polar opposite of this Lincoln, loud and
dramatic. An actor by trade, this may make sense for the character, who
has a huge ego and much affection for the South and its way of life. He
is dastardly, a criminal mastermind and leader of the hit squad,
drawing all focus whenever he is on screen, and seen as the person
behind it all.
This makes for a relatively entertaining
piece. Yes, the good and evil sides are taken to extremes in such a way
that it’s hard to believe it can realistic. But it does an adequate job
of outlining what happened, and the narration does admit to being a
little unclear about some of the details, such as quotes said or not
said. In the end, the story gets told, and though the focus is on Booth,
those who don’t realize the killing was supposed to be part of a triple
attack will learn something.
The pacing is a little slow, especially
after the murder. Not a lot happens as Booth flees, and yet, this is a
significant chunk of the running time. Other reviewers have accused
KILLING LINCOLN of being boring, and I wouldn’t go that far. But it
certainly doesn’t feel like something that would have run in theaters,
or even broadcast television.
There are definitely scenes that are
likely fictional, added just to prove a point. One such moment is when
Lincoln stops to speak to an elderly African American while touring the
conquered Southern capital. Something similar may have actually
happened, but the way that it plays out in this special leaves little
doubt that it’s a parable, meant to teach a lesson about Lincoln, rather
than repeating exact dialogue from those involved.
As for historical accuracy, well, that
leaves a little something to be desired. The source material which
KILLING LINCOLN is based on has been criticized quite severely because
of the numerous untruths contained within, and while O’Reilly calls it
non-fiction, others consider it a novel. The missteps are mostly
details, such as a scene set in the Oval Office that couldn’t have
happened since the Oval Office hadn’t been built yet, and Ford’s theater
did not have the portrait of Washington on the front of the box. But
it’s enough to make one question how much research and care actually
went into the book.
In the film, some of the disputed
details are present and some aren’t. This worries me, as many will
likely see KILLING LINCOLN as fact, given Hanks’ involvement and the
cast, even as some will dismiss this because of O’Reilly’s famously
conservative bend. Again, it’s more details that are wrong, rather than
the broad arc of the actions themselves. But it’s these minor things
that could have been corrected that would have made it a more reliable
and important work.
Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.