‘Yeah, we lied…it’s a widely accepted standard…to clarify the historical reality…?’

Only a Hollywood screenwriter could make such an assertion with a straight face.

The movie “Lincoln” portrays that president’s struggle to abolish slavery. And, in order to more accurately clarify the 13th amendment passing ‘by a very narrow margin’, the screenwriter decided he had to LIE about how many in Congress voted against it.

Got that? Accurately Clarifying historical reality justifies…lying about historical reality…!

Anyone who reads this linked Washington Times article would do well to pay special attention to the 10th and 11th words in the first sentence: The screenwriter “…conceded taking some liberties in…portrayal of a 19th century vote on slavery…”

Then ask yourself…some liberties? Could Mr. Spielberg’s screenwriter…clarify…?

Or is that just asking for more of his version of what constitutes… Historical Reality…?

Is he serious…or simply channeling Michael Moore…?

(Or, does he mean ‘hysterical reality’…? Too cynical? Consider this…)

Americans are being bombarded daily with accusations of racism and inequality. What purpose does screenwriter Kushner then serve, lying to make 1865-era Connecticut politicians seem more racist, when historical fact proves they were LESS so?

(Full Disclosure – BlueCollar admits choosing not to view this particular movie. We’re inclined to be suspicious of agenda-driven subtleties when Liberal agents of Hollywood come together to bring ‘historical’ dramas to the big screen, and especially when such a respected figure as Republican Abraham Lincoln is the subject. This article justifies our skepticism, revealing once more the lengths some will go to push their views.)

And it’s not a question of seeing the movie before passing judgment. As soon as you’ve bought the ticket, a Liberal bent on ‘taking some liberties’ could care less about your opinion…because he already has your money, and YOU CAN’T GET IT BACK!

(You can take a book back to the store, but try getting a refund on a just-viewed movie.)

Would it have been too much to ask that the ‘liberties’ taken be reserved for imaginary smoke-filled, back-room machinations, rather than lying about actual vote counts?

And, of course, there’s every possibility Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Kushner made great effort and ‘took some liberties’ in strongly emphasizing the fact that a newly-formed Republican Party came into being in that era for the express purpose of abolishing slavery!

But we doubt it.

Some ‘liberties’ just always seem to be a higher priority…for Hollywood types.

We would be thrilled to know we’re wrong…did this ‘historical drama’ make special efforts (‘take some liberties’, if you will) to glorify the Republican Party’s efforts to abolish slavery…are we in fact doing an injustice to Messrs Spielberg and Kushner?

Or were the movie’s special liberties reserved for emotional hysterics, stoking the embers of long-smoldering resentments, anger, inequality, and racism…?

Just asking…in the name of civility…

…anyone…anyone…?