Share

Spielberg, Goodwin, and Day-Lewis on 60 Minutes: “Bringing Lincoln to Life”

60 Minutes tonight explores the depth of detail that Spielberg and his collaborators put into recreating Lincoln’s world of 1864. Here’s the complete 12-minute segment featuring extended interviews with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Daniel Day-Lewis and Spielberg himself. Want more? Check out the 3 “web extras” after the cut.

20 Comments on this Post

  1. Joao Mattos

    Call me nuts, but: a) I still think that “Lincoln” will win BP a the Oscar and a minimum of 6 Oscars; DDL, Lee Jones and Kushner among them. b) “Argo” will win only two Oscars, and maybe just one.

    And I’m afraid when the video of “60 Minutes” is available online, I can’t watch from my country.

  2. Whaddya know, Lincoln’s joined the campaign circuit.

  3. Joao, and other readers overseas,
    I hope the videos play with no problem. Here’s the official CBS page as another option

  4. Bryce Forestieri

    I wish Kathleen Kennedy had time to grant private audiences to every AMPAS member, guild member, journalist, and blogger as some are doing. She must have a thousand things on her plate at once tho and must work her ass off like I have no idea.

  5. Nice feature. Wonder if it’ll help at all.

  6. I saw this and the earlier Spielberg 60 Minutes feature back in October. I have to say this one contributed nothing new, and the focus of the Lincoln campaign still seems to be on the importance of Lincoln, of bringing him to life, and the importance of the film in recreating history. This has been, and continues to be, the wrong position to take with the film. Voters do not want to hear the importance of Lincoln, this DOES NOT inspire votes. Where was the Kathleen Kennedy connection??? 8-time nominated producer, 0 wins. Where was that something that will spark votes, bump the film up a few spots on a voter’s preferential ballot?

    This same position has been drummed to death with the Bill Clinton stump, the overpackaged screener, the Oprah special, etc. etc. Don’t really think this was necessary at all, a bit overkill if anything. I know the Hollywood Reporter reported back in January that Lincoln was given a second 60 Minutes spot over Zero Dark Thirty. There’s a film that could’ve used another forum for conversation as in many places it has been misrepresented.

  7. rufussondheim

    Yeah, whenever I hear anyone say Lincoln deserves to win and then goes on to say how important passing the 13th Amendment is to American History, or that Honest Abe is such a true icon and blah, blah, blah. We know. But that doesn’t make it a great film.

    I could make a film of all 70 or so people signing the declaration of independance and then all of them walking out to the courtyard and reading it to a crowd of 100 assembled white men and call it a great film because it docusments the most crucial moment in our nation’s history, but that doesn’t make it a great film.

  8. Well, I mean it’s the focus CBS took on their story. It’s not like team Lincoln has final cut or anything. Obviously they were as interested in Lincoln the man as the movie. *srug*

  9. JM, are u dtunk, fella? :)

    Humm, I guess, for one day, 60 minutes turned 60 hours…
    Kkkkkk!!!!!

  10. I finally saw the complete movie a week ago and it certainly is the best of the recent Lincoln movies, though that is not saying much. Abraham Lincoln is a towering American icon and the fascination with him does not seem to fade because he played such a pivotal role, so well, in this vital part of US and world history. Americans would believe that they know the story well but I am concerned about the censorship of certain aspects of Abraham Lincoln’s life and death
    I wonder why it is that no one has heard of the man who was the 16th President’s best friend, according to what Robert Todd Lincoln, his oldest son, stated in 1885. No one has heard of this friend of Lincoln today although he had world-wide fame and influence, although his obituary appeared on the front page of the New York Times, and in such papers as the Washington Post, Times of London, the Sydney Morning Herald, to name a few. The news of him reaching his eightieth birthday was front page news for the Chicago Tribune, yet today the Tribune pretends he never existed. No one knows of this man and his own investigation into his friend’s assassination and his stunning conclusion regarding the involvement of a powerful religious organization in the murder. I investigated what this man said about the Lincoln assassination over more than two decades and found that strong evidence backed up what he alleged. His name was Charles Chiniquy and he inspired me to write a book. I have also found that the mainstream media essentially is not the slightest bit interested in this man and his allegations. Is this the nation that Lincoln fought and died for? A nation that censors its history? If so one could ask, why celebrate what Lincoln achieved? Isn’t it really ultimately for nothing?

  11. Is this the nation that Lincoln fought and died for? A nation that censors its history? If so one could ask, why celebrate what Lincoln achieved? Isn’t it really ultimately for nothing?

    let’s see. A nation full of slaves that censors its history vs a nation not full of slaves that censors its history.

    notice the difference? I hope your book isn’t as dumb as your question.

  12. Charles Chiniquy? Lincoln’s “best friend”? I’ve read 75 books about Lincoln and his times and, while I may possibly have seen a passing reference to someone by that name, he was by no means Lincoln’s “best friend.” The list of names of those claiming to have been Lincoln’s “best friend” is long. The only person who had a legitimate claim to such an honor was Joshua Speed, a confidant from his youth. After that, one could cite Lincoln’s good (but not best) friends, such as Billy Herndon, David Davis, Leonard Swett, Ward Hill Lamon, Noah Brooks, and Lincoln’s two main secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay. After that, the friendship claims become more and more dubious.

    Anyway, the movie was about Lincoln’s life, not his death, so I don’t see the relevance of bringing up assassination theories right now.

  13. Well, it is silly, but I am just glad Lincoln made filmcomment’s cover and apparently (haven’t read it yet) its year’s best list. Now I can die happy. :)

    http://filmcomment.com/current-issue

  14. The sad irony of this season. If Game Change or Homeland were motion pictures, Julianne Moore or Claire Danes would win an Oscar. If Lincoln were a TV-movie, it would have swept the Emmys.

  15. I’m sorry, why on Earth was Lincoln snubbed for MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING?? Hitchcock, anyone? Lincoln would have been my winner.

    Bruce McGill is a dead ringer for his character.

  16. Re Ryan Adams’ comment, I didn’t see them until very recently, as I have been busy with other things, but would like to respond anyway.
    Let’s see, “A nation full of slaves”. How “full” was it? Was there room to move? Correct me if I am wrong but in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, there were eighteen free states, where there was no slavery and fifteen slave states. Which is a larger number, eighteen or fifteen? The answer is eighteen, (thanks to math class), so most states had no slavery. The mostly non-slave north was much greater in population than the slave south. Most of the states, holding a significantly bigger population therefore, had no slaves. How was the US a nation then “full of slaves”? Did you “notice the difference” between what you said and the historical facts? Isn’t that therefore kind of a “dumb” comment to make?
    Freedom of the slaves isn’t the only freedom in the United States. My point was that a vitally important freedom is freedom of speech, which is crucially important in any democracy, the most important freedom in any democratic system, I believe. I also was not saying that during the Civil War, the United States was censoring its history, so that is another thing you say without justification.

  17. Re Liz Rosenthal’s comments, I also didn’t see them until very recently but would like to respond.
    Other than your own opinion, what would you cite as your sources that Chiniquy “was by no means” the 16th President’s “best friend.”? You state, “The list of names of those claiming to have been Lincoln’s ‘best friend’ is long”. I never said Chiniquy claimed to be Lincoln’s best friend, that came from someone else. I would be very interested to have you quote anyone, claiming to be Lincoln’s best friend, and cite the source. I doubt you could. I also doubt you know much about Charles Chiniquy, so it is very foolish to make statements about someone you really don’t know about. You also state, “The only person who had a legitimate claim to such an honor was Joshua Speed, a confidant from his youth. After that, one could cite Lincoln’s good (but not best) friends, such as Billy Herndon, David Davis, Leonard Swett, Ward Hill Lamon, Noah Brooks, and Lincoln’s two main secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay. After that, the friendship claims become more and more dubious.” You say all this on the authority of your having read 75 books on Lincoln? You are a mere 16,925 short of reading the whole list of imprints on Lincoln, last time I checked, so you better get cracking, you haven’t read one half of one percent of them. Have you written any books on Lincoln? Any that are held by the Lincoln Presidential Library? Any that have been reviewed favorably by the personnel at Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site and sold there? I have. Would you say that it is wrong that is was widely alleged during the 1860 election that Lincoln was a Catholic? Have you heard of this? Would you say that is wrong that it was discussed in 1865, in newspapers in Minnesota, that hours before Lincoln’s murder and the attempt on Secretary of State William Seward’s life, that their murders were reported as news in Minnesota? If you said these things were untrue, you would be wrong. Just because you don’t know something, that doesn’t make it wrong, it just means that you are ignorant of it. Charles Chiniquy achieved world-wide fame and influence and yet you knew essentially nothing about him and may or may not have read a passing reference to him. As I stated, just because you don’t know historical information, that doesn’t mean that history doesn’t exist.

Leave a Comment