Lou Lumenick at the NY Post has posted a reaction from an anonymous audience member that attended a recent test-screening of Steven Spielberg's Lincoln in New Jersey. The unnamed source of which Lumenick refers to as a "nonprofessional" says the "performances of Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, and Hal Holbrook were great" while at the same time saying Sally Field was "miscast", "Joseph Gordon Levitt as Lincoln's eldest son was OK but he really didn't add anything to the story" and then the final verdict, "the film as a whole [was] boring" and "felt claustrophobic."
The immediate reaction from Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere is to recognize we are now observing an opinion from someone of which we have absolutely no information on. Who is this person? To ask Sasha Stone from Awards Daily we're reading into the opinion of "anonymous jackasses".
To go by IMDb's comment boards the screening took place in Paramus, NJ and if we're to take the above comment into consideration how about jamest155 who wrote on IMDb:
Great film. Watching the film and watching Daniel Day lewis you really thought you were watching Abraham Lincoln. Much different than any Steven Speilberg film I have ever seen. Highly recommended especially if you enjoy movies about history.
Of course, the funniest thing about this whole process is the following aggregation of the current opinion by an IMDb user going by the name SMarie1975 who writes:
NOw to tally the score, James on this board liked it alot. A girl on twitter who supposedly saw it recently liked it quite a bit. A guy (who may or may not have seen it) on the MOvie Awards page said he really like it. And another twitter guy said it was good, the whole cast was great especially Tommy Lee Jones..
I can see the next trailer now, "Like it alot (sic) - James" and "Liked it quite a bit - A girl on twitter who supposedly saw it recently" and "Really liked it - A guy (who may or may not have seen it) on the MOvie Awards page." Yes folks, the reviews are flying in.
So if I'm so condescending toward these opinions why post them at all right? Well, because while these opinions may not affect what we think of the film or our anticipation, it's these kinds of reactions and this kind of chatter that can shape the final product we see in theaters.
Lumenick himself notes, "Spielberg has seven weeks to try and fix things like, say, the pacing." This is to suggest there is actually something wrong with the film. Does Lincoln need fixing? A "nonprofessional" believes it's boring so it needs to be fixed?
The film is said to center "on the vote for the 13th amendment, ending slavery and the Civil War," which matches up with what I've heard, insinuating a lot of it takes place in court rooms. Hearing the film is "boring" suggests to me the fascination will be within what is said in the story and the shaping of American history rather than massive set pieces and battlefields.
Lumenick's sources says, "[Y]ou'd think Spielberg would have made a more exciting, riveting film. So much of the story takes place in small, smoky dark rooms with Lincoln talking to one or two people, that my mind began to wander. It felt claustrophobic." Really, would you "think" that?
Spielberg is noted as opposing test screenings and I can only imagine his reaction upon receiving a comment card that says, "Why is it so boring? Where are the explosions and what's with all the talking?"
While Lumenick insists Spielberg has seven weeks to "fix" the film before its world premiere at the AFI Fest on November 8, one day before Lincoln rolls into limited theaters, that's actually not true based on what I've heard. I've heard screenings for critics may begin as soon as 7-10 days from now. I have a hard time believing Spielberg will be doing much tinkering before then and to be quite honest, I hope he doesn't. I'd rather see a director's vision than one affected by what test audiences want. After all, I don't think there were any Transformers back then.
'Before Midnight' (2013) Movie Review
'All is Lost' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Only God Forgives' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Fast & Furious 6' and 'Hangover 3' Target Biggest Box-Office Weekend in History
Cannes 2013: Tonight I'm Seeing 'Michael Kohlhaas' Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Here's a Sneak Peek
Cannes Podcast #3: Reviewing 'Only God Forgives' and 'All is Lost'
'Nebraska' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
Weinstein Dates 'Butler' for August 16 Release
First 'August: Osage County' Trailer with Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts
Oscar Rule Changes Mean Nothing Until There is Full Transparency
2014 Golden Globe Dates Set and Seth MacFarlane Back for 2014 Oscars?
Is 'Oblivion' Our First Major 2014 Oscar Sound Contender?
Lumenick's just tryin' to get those clicks! Seriously, who isn't going to click on a link that says "Reaction to Lincoln Screening"? It's ridiculous journalism, but again... the clicks.
Just look at Brad's title... "Test Screening of Lincoln Results"?? Pretty misleading if you ask me considering all he talked about was the anonymous comments. Obviously Brad also did it for the clicks
There's a little more than that... The title is right on... "Test Screening of Lincoln Results in Blog Post and Score..." If he used what you said, it would've been VERY misleading, but it didn't.
Hey, you're using my old avatar, lol.
Everyone is doing it for the clicks, even Brad. He without sin cast the first stone.
I guess 'fixing' could be a matter of perception. But if the film is potentially going to be dialogue focused with less action then that would perhaps turn off a segment of the younger audience.
Though I'm wondering if they were ever likely to be part of the target.
And I'm not sure what the international audience for a film about Lincoln is. Even with Spielberg helming I'd guess this is more a domestic targeted film really. But the budget wasn't extreme.
I get the feeling that the Claustrophobic feeling is entirely intentional. I am very intrigued.
And now some "nonprofessional" or simply hater became critic?
Like someone wrote: it is cool to hate Spielberg nowadays.
A steam powered transformer added into Lincoln? Thank you test screeners.
Over/under: 5 minutes before AS arrives to the conversation extremely giddy
The social network proved you can make a talky movie exciting and engaging.
War Horse didn't.
War Horse was not bad, don't get why there is so much bitching about that film. I got nominated for best pic and had a 82% ratings by top critics
I'm pretty sure The Social Network wasn't the first film to do that....
It's recent, though. That matters to some people more than it should.
jeff wale, oh wells. you know this hater troll?
You know why he hate Spielebrg. once he asked autograph, but Spielberg refused.
now brad i think you're jumping to conclusions i mean after it is her opinions and i don't think that just because she said it was boring dosen't mean she wanted more exposions
I'm beginning to get a feeling that this may not live up to it's early expectations. Hope I'm wrong, but the trailer isn't selling me.
The actual headline on the blog post was "Spielberg's 'Lincoln' Test Screens in New Jersey.'' The first half of the post, which most commenters are ignoring, was about how Spielberg is on the record as being vehemently opposed to test screenings. Yet this one was screened, and that seemed kind of newsworthy. I've never, ever published comments from test screenings, but this post seemed incomplete without quotes from the person who alerted me to this screening. And their opinion is mixed, hardly "scorn.'' Can it be fixed? Sure. Should it be fixed? I have no idea; I haven't seen the thing. Am I a Spielberg hater? Hardly. I wrote a rave review for TIN TIN and there's a pull quote from me on the box for the upcoming Blu-ray release of E.T.
But Jeff Whale, oh Wells is 100 % hater.
Meanwhile, is trailer became the most watched and discussed trailer of all time? Have someone statistics?
I wish writers would ignore the reactions to "test" or "early" screenings." Most people are idiots who don't know anything about what makes a good film good, or bad, for that matter. They're always extremely hyperbolic, whether they're trashing it or praising it, and they only offer up the most vapid and inarticulate reasonings for their opinions. People are dumb, stop listening to what they have to say because it means nothing.
Just like AS said above me, the people who go to these test screenings are literally, I hate to sound pretentious and a jackass, but really fucking dim. I know because I go to these test screenings and what people like astounds me. (Extremely Loud, Another Earth, Lawless, Pitch Perfect, ETC) And what they don't astounds me even more, (Drive, Shame, Young Adult, ETC) It's very hyperbolic in those theaters. There was an applause multiple times for Pitch Perfect throughout the movie. In conclusion, these test screening comments mean nothing. I'll wait till AFI fest to start listening for reviews.
Your's and AS's comments, however, get to the point. These are the people turning in comment cards and changes to the movies we end up seeing are sometimes made as a result. AS says he wishes writers would ignore the results, but when someone else suggests changes can still be made as a result of concerns made by one of these commenters I do think it is worth bringing to the table for discussion.
Hi Brad,
I am the IMDB poster you were making fun of...I feel so violated. In all seriousness, I realize my tally of vague and baseless opinions was somewhat pointless. I only tallied them to show the reactions that were not as negative as the NY Post one. But I am perfectly aware that many if not all of these reactions could be complete bull... The NY Post opinion actually made me what to make the movie more BTW. I like dialogue, I like political procedurals. I like DDL and TLJ giving great performances..I hope Spielberg doesn't take a word of dialogue out....
Who was it said 'Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one'?
Correction from previous post...I meant to say " The NY Post opinion actually made me want to see the film more.." BTW, cut a lowly poster on IMDB some slack for misspelling 'a lot'. I have been reading LIncoln speeches/letters lately..the man misspelled words all the time and he was brilliant. His speeches would have been littered with "sic"s...
Question--is it possible that Spielberg screened the film so he could get an idea on how to promote the film from this point on. That trailer probably misrepresented the film and reactions to the screening that indicate people's expections for an epic Civil war film were the result. Could we possibly receive a more appropriate, performance-heavy second trailer? One can hope.
First off, thanks for taking my ribbing with good humor. Secondly, you may actually be on to something in your comment, perhaps it was merely an attempt to get a good idea on how to market it and set up proper expectations.
I think it's a little bit odd to complain about another reviewers opinion, especially at this level of an attack about a movie you have yet to see, Brad.
I just wonder how you'll feel about this article after you've actually seen the movie.
Actually, Brad, I have to take a bit of an objection to the tone of the article. It seems a bit ridiculous that yourself and Sasha Stone have just heeped contempt on a few people at a Lincoln test screening for daring to vent their opinion on it.
Then again, Stone really left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth with the whole "IndieWire's list of critics aren't critics" thing from a few years back. Because there's like a set of qualifications people need to have before they can open their mouths in public about the quality of a film.
You make the point that these opinions are going to be used to shape the film, which seems to imply you believe that studios should have (a.) not done the test screening at all, or (b.) consulted some more knowledgeable bastion of film criticism than a bunch of random folk in a dark room.
I agree with (a.), if only because I think a director's vision deserves to be honoured. The result might be terrible, but it's more likely to be unique, and I'll admire a noble failure over a modest success any day. After all, Spielberg's last screen-tested film was Hook, and we know how that turned out.
But then, I didn't put up $50m in financing for Lincoln, and I won't get burned if the movie doesn't turn a profit. I think that a test screening is about as useful as staring at the entrails of some barnyard animal, but if it makes them feel better - well, that's their business. Surprised Spielberg's contract doesn't have a "no test screenings" clause.
However, in that case, hate the game, not the players. These people were asked to do something and they did it. If there's a villain here, it's the studio holding the screenings, not the people giving honest responses, as much as we may want to disagree with those responses. (Having not seen the film in question.)
However, I think there's something quite mocking in the tone you and Sasha adopt, as in "hey, look at these idiots who are going to shape Lincoln!" That would imply (b.), that you imagine there are more qualified sources to consult for the purposes of the test screening. I think it's safe to assume you mean critics, given the reliance on words like "anonymous" and "unprofessional."
I think this misunderstands the purpose of the test screening. The argument might make sense if the purpose of the test screening were to make a "better" film, without getting into a debate on subjectivity. However, the goal of the screening is to produce a film more likely to make more money. Again, don't hate the players.
While I don't think a test screening is the way to do that, I think it is far more effective than asking a bunch of people who hated Transformers 2. Because critics have a great nose for profits. Again, I don't think this makes a better film, but that's where it's coming from. And, given the money put into the film, it's hard to complain.
So it seems a bit harsh to pick on the people charing their opinions, and it seems like the tone of the article is "people who aren't critics talking about a movie that critics haven't seen - blasphemy!"
That said, none of the comments grab me, or give me too much thought, but I haven't seen the film yet, so it's a bit hypocritical for me to really dismiss them out of hand or engage with them. I think most sane readers would do the same, which makes this vitriol seem a little bit much. Nothing written here grabs me, but that happens with quite a few "professional" writers as well.
Anyway, sorry about the ramble. Reading back over it, it seems a bit harsh. I don't mean to come across as all angry-rant-y on the subject, it's just that this sort of thing really gets me. So what if a bunch of people on IMDb saw the film? And why is the problem with them, not with the people organising the screening? And, even then, doesn't it seem fair for them to protect their investment?
Personally, I hate focus groups and that sort of nonsense. But I'm also selfish and would like every movie to made to cater to me. But I realise I'm not going to single-handedly recoup a film's box office, so that demand is a little unreasonable. So, while I don't love the brainless mass produced box-office-smashing trash out there, I can understand why it gets made, and it doesn't upset me. Despite the ranting, I'm actually kinda "zen."
I swear.
By the way, sorry to sound like a grump. It seems like I only comment to whine or complain about something or other. Ah, the internet! Love the redesign, and you know I'm a fan of the site. I didn't mean to sound so impassioned. Just I tend to love the idea of film as one art form that is incredibly accessible, and which welcomes debate and discussion of all shapes and classes. I love that broadness and think it's worth celebrating. I also love that it's nearly impossible to have a "wrong" opinion on film. Sure, there's those that differ. You and I may differ in our opinion of a given film, but that doesn't mean either of us is objectively wrong. The moment we start dismissing opinions because of the source, I think we lose something.
Sorry, this was another mini ramble.
That's amazing post,thanks for the information.