Theyre really quite intelligent, very intelligent, but are trained in a way that theyve been trained differently from the way we have so that they are interested in, you know, the impact visually and what people hear. And the overarching story or theme or thesis they want to put forward. And so whenever they come to historians, its not as theyre writing the work. It is usually after theyve already worked out in their mind what the opening scene is going to look like and the rest of it. And the story holds together well for them, for what they like to portray in one way. And then on the other side of it is working with the producers to find out whether theyll finance so you have to take into consideration what the producers want to see in this film, too. So they kind of are very collaborative and were only one piece, a small piece of the collaboration because they do come in with this. And its interesting because i want to know whether or not Steve Mcqueen actually shot the opening sequence for 12 years a slave which i really found horrific, because there is nowhere in okay the woman is okay using solomon northrup to masturbate herself. That is totally in somebodys imagination. But i do know most opening sequences are not filmed by the there are companies that do only opening scenes for them and closing scenes for them. They used to just do the titles and credits, but now they actually do the opening sequence. And of course the director has to say okay, check that off or whatever and the producer too. I wonder if he himself shot that sequence because usually theyre no longer shot by the directors. Surely he would have to approve it, though, wouldnt he . Hed have to check it off you know but i wonder if that was something that he in terms of thinking how its going to open that he is going to open in this kind of way, or somebody who was in this who does sequences and sort of gets the audience, really draws the audience in says have you thought about putting a scene in like this . They have to get approval for doing it, but no longer have actually complete control over the opening sequence. Seems to me one advantage he had is he is drawing entirely on a single source. Right. Single narrative. Single voice, perspective narrative in e zhe lifts whole scenes. He does. The book. Its remarkable whereas spielberg and amistad and lincoln are drawing on so much more complex, multifaceted, multi dimensional issues and events where the input of historians, i wonder, would matter more either to spielberg or any film maker trying to do something. Well, i know Steve Mcqueen is visually driven so people think about his other films. They talk about him as a visual artist behind the camera and that is more important. I think spielberg is much more interested in accuracy than a lot of directors are, and that he is, in some ways, much more like a historian, i think, in the way in which he decides to depict something on screen than i think Steve Mcqueen is, who is really also just about the art of making a visually stunning film, roo, or mostly along with an important story. So recently spielberg was given an award by the lincoln and Soldiers Institute because his film is storytelling, his film is history. And the speaking and showing of amistad has been a lot of debate ive been involved in i point out that i remember taking my younger son to see amistad and the moment in the film where, which is certainly taken from the case. They throw them over board. The slaves are shackled and thrown overboard is one of the most visually powerful, arresting scenes. And when i went to the International Museum of slavery in liverpool, they had their own version of that. So it is something that we deal in words and powerfully in telling stories. But its something that we now in the 21st century back to media have to grapple with. Is it going to be streaming . Whos going to look at it . How is it going to feel . I think we have to bring our students and public to understand stories can be told in many different dimensions. And i think the power of some of these scenes, maybe we can deal with clips rather than the full film and deal with the powerful medium of historical film as something that can bring slavery to a modern audience. Well, that seems like an excellent place to conclude. Thank you all so much for coming and thank you very much to our panelists for their very thoughtful and incisive comment comments. This week, special prime time programming on the cspan network. Tonight, a debate over scottish independence. On thuz, issue spotlight on irs targeting of conservative groups. Wednesday, educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds, thursday, a hearing on profrty programs. And friday night, native American History. An cspan two this week, book tv in prime time. Tonight at 8 30 eastern, a discussion about school choice. Tuesday night at 8 00, writer john brie i cant on how the poor can saifl capitalism. An wednesday, a biography about kneel armstrong, thursday night, a tour of the headquarters of publisher simon and shoeser. And on friday, indepth with former congressman ron paul. On American History tv on cspan3, tonight, the reconstruction era and civil rights, tuesday, the ends of world war ii and the atomic bomb, wednesday night, the fall of the berlin wall, thursday, a look at how americas attitudes about world war i change, and on friday, a nasa documentary. Find our Television Schedule one week in advance at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 2026263400, fine find us on twitter. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Our next speaker is matt y. Pinsker the associate professor of history and holds the chair in American Civil War history at Dickinson College of course theg alma mater of both president buchanan and chief Justice Taney for what thats worth. Matt is the author of a number u of books and articles, including lincolns sanctuary, which is a history of the soldiers homed where lincoln would go during the summer and he is the authork of a forthcoming book which i think will radically force us tl think about lincoln in a new way. To its hard to imagine anything s that could force us to think about lincoln in a new way sincn there is so much on lincoln that what else is there to say . His new book will be called k at boss lincoln and he is actually going to look at lincoln as a party and president ial leader. Pins im going to turn the podium over to matt pinsker and also let him talk to us about mr. Spielberg and lincoln goes tow hollywood. Well, thank you very much. Its to paul and to don and to everyone here, it is an honor to be at a symposium like this. And to speak about spielbergs d lincoln is important for us to d do. No this is a movie that is now about a year and a half old and not just a biopic about abrahamc lincoln but a really fascinatint study of congress. For those of us who care about the history of congress, this is a welcome event for Popular Culture to celebrate congress. Although in the title of my tal i connected to mr. Smith goes to washington because i feel there is a dark connection there is a dark connection clas between them in the sense that both of these classics, a spielbergs lincoln is an instant american classic and mr. Smith is and instant classic. Both of them depict congress in a very dark way. On i think we should acknowledge that. In spielbergs case i want to explore it deeper. Rong it is a year and a half since the movie came out and the to historical reception from people in my profession was generally very positive. There were criticisms, important ones, but some of them were large as if the subject matter was wrong. Uch it was the wrong subject or the wrong people to feature in a movie about the abolition of slavery. F that is fair but such a big criticism it is hard for a filmmaker to address. Came f there were a lot of small ro potatoes criticisms some of which came from capitol hill itself over things like whether or not the congressman from tedr connecticut voted for or against the final amendment. You know, and those criticisms are fair but very precise. However now as a classroom becu teacher as i prepare to teach this movie, and i have to teach it because its such a vivid portrayal of the period, ive been compelled to think a littlm more deeply about the nature of the narrative itself. And in doing so, you know, i cant escape the conclusion tha at the end of the day in this movie about the passage of the 13th amendment, the abolition on amendment in congress in januarr of 65, at the heart of that it narrative there is a conclusion passedpassed with bribery. That not only was it passed wito bribery, but that it was passedd with bribery that abraham concl lincoln knew about and condoned. And i find that a very disturbing conclusion because t theres been a lot of scholarship on this question, and the scholarship addresses this question although its far, far more cautious about reachine the conclusions the movie ed it. Reaches. I dont think people have realized and i dont think the historians who commented on the movies release in the almo immediate months after it came t out really addressed this in great detail. I think thats because almost all of them, from what i can tell, watched the movie. Pt. They didnt read the script. Th the script wasnt readily available to Academy Award repag voters and it was hard to get ahold of it. Now that i am preparing to teach it and worked with the script is great detail i find examples of other connections to movies likt mr. Smith in that i see the fiction that is at the heart of this narrative. This is a work of historical fiction. I dont think anybody should be. Shocked by that and i dont mea it as an insult but i wanted tot talk about that today and sort of diagram it for you. Because the fictions in the ale movie are very sweeping. Even the spoiler alert. The amendment did pass and slavery was abolished. All of that is true. To get there from the opening oo the movie they had to arrange a lot of movies. Art im going to go through that hp now. D you should be aware it is part of my effort to help teach thisa movie and i think we should teach it and study it and use it. P ive created an unofficial guide, a teachers guide to thet movie thats part of something e we call Dickinson College the house divided project which i lead, the emancipation digital n classroom. So if you google the s emancipation digital classroom,n you will be able to see an unofficial teachers guide to lincoln that includes links to everything im about to talk about with primary sources and h images and even links to the script so you can explore this u issue for yourself. So let me remind you, if you cant remember, how the movie e begins. Li of course there is that great cinematic frame. Youve got the kind of seated lincoln in the Washington Navy yard and the black soldier and white soldier recite the gettysburg address to him. A this is part of the poetic framh of the movie, a cinematic one lincoln memorial. Seated lincoln with the the gettysburg address on one side d and at the end of the movie thee second inaugural. The heart of the movies narrative opens with him yo describing a dream to his wife. Y in that description of the dream you realize in early january ofs 1865 that he is preparing to shr push for an abolition amendment to the constitution during the d lame duck session of congress. And this is a shock. Mary lincoln opposes it. Youll waste your popularity, ps she warns him. When he explains to William Seward and congressman james ke. Ashley on capitol hill, theyre worried and shocked. This is a dramatic and sort of surprising move. Okay. That is all fiction. You know, the reintroduction ofe the amendment that had been nten defeated the previous spring is real. He but it was all telegraphed out e in the open. Electi this is not a surprise and y he something lincoln comes up with in a way that was shocking to people. Oasted in his annual message in december of 1864 after he won that sweeping reelection n aftr victory he telegraphed it to the public and boasted about it you might say. Im reading from the annual sa message the state of the Union Address they delivered back then when congress reassembled for ue its session after the election s in december, 64. He says to congress, the next congress will pass the measure if this does not. So then he says, it is only a s question of time as to when thet proposed amendment will go to the states. I read the next line almost as e taunt. You might read it differently. He says, may we not agree the t sooner the better . Lets get this done. Endment the telegraphing of this reintroduction of the amendmentl during the lame duck session was done earlier than the post election annual message. The vote in the house, the previous june in 1864, that hadt been a vote that was supported by all of the republican membere of congress. Ecause it failed because they requiredy the super majority and the super majority that they required eque meant that they needed democratd to vote for it. They and they didnt have enough democrats to vote for it. But in order to reintroduce th reassemble again measure later in the session, presumably after the election because they dont reassemble again until december, james ashley, the amendments sponsor, switched his vote at the last ln minute so that he voted no. The he is the only republican who voted against it in the house. In order that he could bring itl back up in january. Wn all and when he recalls, after the war, his strategy he makes it clear, right, that they had n known all along this would be e something that they were making a platform of the now union supi party in the election of 1864. They were supporting an roduce abolition amendment. They were going to fight for itn during the campaign, and that if they won a sweeping victory as they hoped to do they would reintroduce it in a lame duck session. He spent the next several months after the defeated measure in the house, and it already passed the senate, that they were going to pinpoint, target, wavering o democrats in the north, try to r persuade them to switch their votes, and then go after them iy december. This is what lincoln is telegraphing in his annual ancis message. It is now all out in the open. This is not the impression the movie gives. It gives the impression the ri republicans are bitterly divided over this and early on you get introduced to Montgomery Blair e and his father Francis Preston blair. Ns. Bitt you know, the blair family are opposed. Of none of thats true, right . There were conservative 1865 republicans and there were radical republicans. Arg they argue bitterly over a lot of stuff. But by january of 1865 they were not arguing necessarily over the abolition of slavery. There were differences in tactics. He i so one of the speakers of the e. Symposium is michael bornberg. F he is sitting right over there. His book the final freedom ys which came out a number of yearo ago offers great detail about ho the nuances of the debates overf how to abolish slavery and how the republicans came to it. E but by january of 65 the abolis Republican Party was essentially united in the idea slavery had to be abolished and they were more or less agreed it had to be abolished by constitutional or s amendment. t and even those who objected to the exact amendment or its language, they werent willing to vote against it. The only votes they were targeting were democratic votes, not conservative republicans. Ce the conservatives and radicals were arguing over ha reconstruction. P they were arguing over what happens next after the union has reconciled. Er rad those arguments were fierce and bitter and theyre real. Mi but when the movie portrays this tension between conservative and radical republicans with lincoln in the middle, its conflating two different issues that shoule be separated. Plays you know, this plays out in a host of different ways. I dont have time to go into all of it. But i do remember one scene, and i think if you saw the movie, youll remember it too. Classic scene, arguably the mosl teachable scene in the movie, at least for a college professor. So there is this meeting of the cabinet where Abraham Lincoln defends his emancipation policy and explains to some skeptical cabinet officers why they need to push for this abolition ci and it is like a cinematic fr version of the famous painting by francis carpenter which you see on the senate side of the capital on the cover of the book the team of rivals and this i teachable, Abraham Lincoln brahm bringing to life complicated constitutional arguments. Is. And ive seen historians thrilled in their reviews celebrating this. And we should. Okay . That scene, circa summer of in 1862, that has nothing to do with the politics of the moment in january of 1865. So what theyre talking about in the summer of 62 is about the threat of the Supreme Court which is still, at that point, controlled by roger taney and the votes they need arent clear. But by january of 65 taney is l dead. Simon chase is the next chief justice, the fugitive slaves lawyer. He this is a court they now have the votes to control. Ed they are still worried about the ultimate legality of the emancipation proclamation and ti the slaves there but the dynamic has shifted dramatically. Ca there is a lot thats changed. For example, in january of 65 o maryland has abolished slavery l by popular vote. Missouri is about to by constitutional convention. Es are the confederates are talking t e about offering limited emancipation for service in the army. Army things have changed. T this is not a debate they would have in the cabinet in the way that Steven Spielberg envision it and portray it. It is such a wonderful thing to see. Ou a film, you know, addressing is such complicated issues. A but the timing is all wrong. Theyve conflated everything. An now, the reason theyve done that from a dramatic perspective, from an artistic a license perspective, is totally understandable. Up tensi right . They need to create drama and tension and set up conflict. Act one. Screen writing 101. You set up tension a know then resolve it. Do ge i give them all the license they need to do that. Reonflict but in getting to the resolutioh of this conflict between the conservatives and the radicals, they have to introduce something that doesnt actually appear ine the book thats the basis for to the film. So so the film is supposedly builtm aro