Lincoln as Symbol

Earlier this year I had a friend visit from New Orleans. Very liberal politically, she's also a southerner to the core and she - hates - Lincoln with a vehemence I found surprising and not a little a shocking. This all came out at the Lincoln Memorial and we sat on the steps in the pouring rain talking about who he was (she objects to the way he is seen as a liberator and claims it was all about economics and control and not about humanitarianism, which is something I found interesting in the Cahiers piece's discussion of the way in which that aspect of his historic-political dimension had to be suppressed in the film - and, when mentioned obliquely, was mentioned only in relation to economic issues - because Lincoln had to be presented as the unifier[505-6]) versus what he means culturally, as a symbol. When I pointed out that he is important as a symbol, she looked at me surprised and said "yes, of course" but whereas I was arguing that the symbolic meaning was maybe more important at this point, I couldn't get her to agree with me on that.

She would have absolutely hated Young Mr. Lincoln.

I can't stop thinking about this movie in light of that conversation. Following Sonora, I want to talk about the way Lincoln is used in this film to represent an ideology. This movie is not about who he was and it is about what he means. The Cahiers du Cinema piece makes this point again and again when they point out the ways in which it is assumed that the spectators will have knowledge of Lincoln's background, his "legend." The movie would lose most of its resonance if the audience didn't know who Lincoln would go on to be and what he would go on to do. Its meaning is contextua. Perhaps that is usually true. We share knowledge of film tropes and cultural mores (we are, after all, steeped in ideology) but I was especially struck by it in this film, even before I read about its political context. Lincoln is an icon here, very much representing morality as set up against corruption. The audience knows that the Civil War will happen and what his role in it will be and "the shelving of this dimension (the Civil War) which is directly responsible for the Lincolnian Legend thus allows a political use of this legend and at the same time by castrating Lincoln of his historico-political dimension reinforced the idealisation of they myth" (506). It is assumed that the audience will share this background knowledge, and not only that, it is assumed that the audience will share a certain opinion of Lincoln as a person or a symbol, that the audience's conception of him will be in tune with the way that the film presents him as a moral figure. Lincoln is not just a character here written by Ford and Trotti; he is already a shared character who belongs to an ideology the audience shares and so they bring that knowledge and those preconceptions to the film. He already means something powerful culturally, and the audience knows what that is without being told. To include his later background would be to limit it to one specfic interpretation. To imply it allows the audience to incorporate it how they will, in whichever way has the most meaning for them. (Within a positive reading of Lincoln as a moral figure, of course, I'm sure even the positive implications here would anger my abovementioned friend). As such, his most important political role is more resonant for being omitted.