Steven Spielberg: He wants to shoot 'Abraham Lincoln' in 2009

Steven Spielberg's long-rumored Abraham Lincoln biopic will go into production in 2009. It may be the director's next project after "Tintin," which is expected to go into production in September.

"I want to start 'Lincoln' in early 2009, because it's Lincoln's 200th anniversary," Spielberg told German magazine Focus while doing advance press for "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." (Editor's note: German-to-English translation via Google translator.)

Marvin Levy, Spielberg's spokesman, confirmed the director's production plans to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday morning.

Liam Neeson, who was in talks to play the 16th U.S. president based on an adaptation of "Team of Rivals: The Genius of Abraham Lincoln," a biography by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, is still associated with the project, Levy confirmed.

It was expected that Spielberg's next project would be "Chicago Seven," about protesters at the historic 1968 Democratic National Convention, but the script was not ready and production had to be postponed.

While Spielberg's shingle DreamWorks is currently home to the "Lincoln" and "Tintin" projects, it remains to be seen whether the production company will retain its ties with distributor Paramount.

-- Sheigh Crabtree

Comments

[john smythe]

I think Lincoln uner Spielberg would be excellent entertainment. I think that Liam Neeson might be guessing a little as to how to play the 16th President, however. I can't think of any tall, intelligent leads other than James Cromwell, so Casting Directors may have to swim a little deeper in the talent pool to find a Lincoln other than Neeson.

[hg kagan]

Please, please, PLEASE reintroduce Lincoln to us; we so very badly need him and yet all we seem to come up with is someone to help sell a sleep aid (teamed with a beaver no less)and mattress discounts on his birthday. Can anything speak louder of our need for a taste of him more than the current poser-in-chief? Can anyone do better than Spielberg is likely too? Please Steven; give us Abe.

[Kip Ward]

ummm....

i don't think he meant it that way; re the headline for the story .. . .

-kw

[Kip Ward]

ummm....

i don't think he meant it that way; re the headline for the story .. . .

-kw

[Kip Ward]

re; Steven Spielberg: He wants to shoot 'Abraham Lincoln' in 2009

then again, look at that picture . ..

crazy SOB is building a time machine .. . .

(come on; that's funny as hell)

[Mislav]

Everyone knows Steven Spielberg is a very violent man.

[Ponderer]

I assume Spielberg will portray Lincoln as a modern-day liberal like himself, when he would actually be quite conservative by today's standards. I wonder if SS will be kind to the old slave-owning, reactionary Democrats?

[Enthusiast]

I think Daniel Day Lewis would be an excellent choice for Lincoln, when it comes to tall leading men.

[sandbothe]

If you take a look at the Republican Party platform the year that Lincoln became president, you would think that they were today's liberal Democratic party. It still exists in print, and you can find it out there to read. Lincoln's party was anti-corporate, pro worker, and progressive. He was relatively secular as was most of the country not a radical Christian "conservative". He did read the Bible himself, and had his own personal faith formed in critical thought and study, and cetainly not a fundamentalist.
He was a lawyer and state legislator from Illinois. Sounds like Barack Obama!
Anyway I'm sure if it is based on that biography, it is going to be very close to reality. A unifying statesman that put solutions above partisanship, much different than the hyperpartisan Bush administration. He felt deep regret for the dead Americans and his role in waging war. The current administration appears to feel no regret, no guilt, and no responsibility. Bush is like the sociopath-in-chief.
Abraham Lincoln was the original supporter of reperations for African Americans. Do you know anyone that is not a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Democrat today that would even give that a thoughtful consideration? Forty acres and a Mule. That was Lincoln. God Bless his open wide mind.

[sandbothe]

If you take a look at the Republican Party platform the year that Lincoln became president, you would think that they were today's liberal Democratic party. It still exists in print, and you can find it out there to read. Lincoln's party was anti-corporate, pro worker, and progressive. He was relatively secular as was most of the country not a radical Christian "conservative". He did read the Bible himself, and had his own personal faith formed in critical thought and study, and cetainly not a fundamentalist.
He was a lawyer and state legislator from Illinois. Sounds like Barack Obama!
Anyway I'm sure if it is based on that biography, it is going to be very close to reality. A unifying statesman that put solutions above partisanship, much different than the hyperpartisan Bush administration. He felt deep regret for the dead Americans and his role in waging war. The current administration appears to feel no regret, no guilt, and no responsibility. Bush is like the sociopath-in-chief.
Abraham Lincoln was the original supporter of reperations for African Americans. Do you know anyone that is not a Liberal, a Progressive, or a Democrat today that would even give that a thoughtful consideration? Forty acres and a Mule. That was Lincoln. God Bless his open wide mind.

[MCW]

www.dearmrspielberg.com

[Richard]

It is a very interesting comparison: Bush vs. Lincoln. I don't think a lot of people know that before being assasinated Lincoln was very unpopular and the War was hated by most Americans. It was commonly called Lincoln's War because it did not have great popular support. Many people do not know about the draft riots in New York City, they were the worst riots this country ever experienced due to War. Also, while there was great sympathy for slaves, many people had the same view that people have today about instituting democracy Iraq, it not worth fighting a war over and losing the lives of hundreds of thousands of men. The Civil War remains by far the war in which more Americans were killed and maimed than any other war and Lincoln was held responsible for it. I'm not a historian, but my recollection is that before becoming President, he was not much of a religious person, but afterwards, he often read and quoted the Bible.

[Junio Hayworth]

What about the actor who plays Lincoln in that sleeping pill commercial with the talking beaver?..He seems like Oscar material. (The Lincoln guy, I mean. Not the beaver.)

[Kaley]

Too bad we will see this based from Doris Kearns Goodwin, a mainstream liberal but unfortunately a Lincoln cultist. The state and establishment historians have really white washed Lincoln as a great man.

He was not popular nor was his war. He was not anti-corporate. He was a corporate lawyer and the industrial interests help put in power. These northern industrialists wanted a high protective tariff on the south, which would have hurt them. That tariff was to go from 10% or so as high as 45% to subsidize their public works projects— railroads. Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery in the south and was not going to end it if they stayed in the Union. He needed the south to remain in the Union to pass his tax.

Lincoln ruled like a tryrant during his war too. He shut down newspapers, shot and jailed war protestors as well as journalists and congressmen opposed to his war. If I recall, there were around 13, 000 jailed political prisoners. He suspended habeas corpus and when Justice Taney wrote an opinion on this, Lincoln put out an arrest warrant for him too. Only congress can suspend habeas corpus. Historian DiLorenzo researched this in his books like "Lincoln Unmasked" and found that warrant. His books drive Lincoln cultists crazy like the Claremont Institute.

Many people at the time considered the Union voluntary as did many journalists. You can find old newspapers showing these articles. The Framers of our Constitution rejected a provision in the Virginia Plan that sought to use of force if a state seceded. It was rejected...so it was voluntary per the notes on the Constitution. Judge Napolitano mentions this in his book Constitutional Chaos too.

The south seceded peacefully and offered to pay the Union for all forts and property in their jurisdiction. Lincoln went to Ft Sumter to provoke them and his own words showed that was his intent.

Lincoln fought to preserve the Union. He only wrote the Emancipation Proclamation to keep England out of the war who was going to intervene on behalf of the south. It was a military maneuver. Even before the war ended he tried one more time to get the south to come back and showed how he would not end slavery in their states if they did. The south still refused.

The sad thing is that so many Americans think we had to slaughter one another to free the slaves when every other country ended slavery with the stroke of a pen around that time including England and Spain. It was often done via Compensated Emancipation — paying the slaveowners for their property and releasing them. Slavery was dying out and was not an efficient system. It started because there was hardly any labor in America in the early colonial days.

Lincoln's war was unecessary. But he was not anti-corporate at all. He represented corporate interests. BTW one reason the plains indians were done away with after the war was to put the railroads in for industrialists too. These were subsidized endeavors.

Lincoln's presidency is one of the most whitewashed in US history...but because the North won we get that point of view with many other facts swept under the rug. There is a whole cult of Lincoln supporters out there....and Doris Kearns Goodwin is one of them. Her books are widely displayed, promoted and sold in Springfield at Lincoln's home.

Lincoln preserved the Union geographically but he destroyed it philosophically as state's right rights on up to secession ( per the Dec of Indep) was a powerful check and balance for when the federal govt gets too big for its britches...which it did under the Radical Republicans and Lincoln's administration.

This movie will just be more state propaganda unfortunately.

[diamond]

shillburg could never come up with an original idea.has to do zionist fluff!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XrRyqses5U&feature=related

[James Mitchell]

I cannot think of anyone better to direct a movie about one of the greatest Americans in all of history, and i certainly cant think of an actor more suited to the role than Liam Neeson. Maybe on a higher level, a look back at Lincoln will be good for the nation as a whole? After all, one of the best ways to move forward is to study the past...

Mitch UK

[Joyce Cavanaugh]

I can hardly wait for Spielberg to start working on production of the movie based on TEAM OF RIVALS. Liam Neeson seems like a good choice to play Lincoln and Sally Field to play Mary Lincoln. I sure hope he chooses Dustin Hoffman to play William Seward as he comes pretty close to appearing like Seward. Seward was 5 ft. 4 and weighed about 120 lbs. and had a large nose. I believe it is time for an accurate movie protrayal of Lincoln and his Cabinet to come out. Go for it Steven!

Joyce

[Maggy Dumas]

I've been waiting for this movie since Doris Kearns Goodwin was writing the book Team of Rivals. That was in about 2001 and when I heard that Neeson would play Lincoln and Spielberg would direct I was even more excited. Year after year passed; I read Goodwin's book; more years passed, still no movie. Then, as a Lincoln buff, I thought for sure the movie would come out in the year of Lincoln's 200th birthday, 2009. But wait, Spielberg had to film something called Tintin first, delaying the Lincoln movie until 2011--what a letdown for the Bicentennial celebration! I'm beginning to think it will never be a movie, but have to agree with an earlier comment on this message board that Daniel Day Lewis would also make a GREAT Lincoln--maybe even better than Neeson, who by this time must be really tired of waiting!

[Bill Anderson]

Kaley, you are too lenient. Lincoln was a sociopathic Machiavellian imperialist, as well as the original Marxist-Pragmatist who censored the entire history of the Founding of the United States so that he could claim national authority over them where none existed.
Now, everyone believes that the USA is a single nation, when it ISN'T-- and never was. Each STATE is a nation unto itself, and cooperation is strictly VOLUNTARY among them just like with the UN or NAFTA or NATO.

Lincoln was not only just like Hitler or Hussein in his policy of conquering nations by claiming sovereign domestic policy over them, he was actually their INSPIRATION, since Hitler clearly wrote in "Mein Kampf" that Lincoln was right to claim that the USA states could not have any soveereignty of their own-- and that the same went for the Germanic states of Austria and Netherlands as well.

As for slavery, this was simply a Marxist-Proletarian FRONT; slaves were simply Lincoln's poster-child, whom he cared about no more than Stalin cared about Russian peasants.

If Spielberg thinks that this drivel about Lincoln is true, then he must thinkIndiana Jones is real.