Star Trek movie rankings

For the 25th anniversary of STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT, my personal ranking of best Trek movies.

Top Tier Classics:

* Wrath of Khan

* First Contact

Really Good: 

* The Voyage Home

* The Undiscovered Country

Reasonably Entertaining:

* The Search for Spock

* Generations

* Nemesis (I realize I'm on the short list of people who would even rank it this high.)

* 2009 reboot

What fresh hell is this?

* The Final Frontier

* The Motion Picture

* Into Darkness

Nope

* Insurrection

* Beyond

Three thoughts about NOMADLAND

 Three thoughts about NOMADLAND....

* This would be a great double bill with WILD, the Reese Witherspoon movie from a few years back. That featured a young woman moving through the wilderness, dealing with her demons and encountering similar adventurous souls. This movie features an older woman moving through America's vistas, doing much the same. 

* I'm trying to think of another recent movie that deals so much with the act of work. Frances McDormand's character, Fern, holds a series of seasonal jobs -- Amazon warehouse worker, camp host, Wall Drug cook, beet harvester -- portrayed in nonjudgmental fashion. (Controversially so, in the case of Amazon.) In so much of popular entertainment, work is the setting for other adventures, not the story itself. SUPERSTORE might've been a recent exception. Fern does this because she has to -- early retirement won't provide the benefits she needs to live -- but also, it's clear, because she wants to. She literally cleans up shit, but you're never under the impression that the work is beneath her or that she's degraded by it. It says something about the cliches of storytelling that I kept expecting an evil boss moment, but never got one.

* But mostly, this movie sits with death, or the prospect of it. The people we meet in this movie are mostly "nomads," living in their vehicles and moving from job to job, place to place. They live with the cycles of life more intimately than those of us living in the suburbs and cities, receiving the Amazon packages that Fern and her friends pack up. Fern is living with the memory of her dead husband. Another character dies, but not dramatically or unexpectedly: It's just part of having lived a long life. We're here and then we aren't. In that sense, we're all nomads.

* Bonus thought: It's fitting that this movie sits alongside SOUND OF METAL during this awards season. Both flicks move through something that looks a lot more like the real world than what most big-budget cinema, neither has any real villains to speak of, and both feature affecting, naturalistic performances by supporting characters. They are movies made for adults.

'Exterminate All The Brutes'

 We sat down as a family to watch the new Raoul Peck documentary about colonialism. Made it 24 minutes in before my 12-year-old son burst into tears. Deservedly. 

Watching: PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (1995)

Some quick thoughts about PRIDE AND PREJUDICE:

* I have never read the novel nor seen any of the adaptations before. This was delightful.

* The British class system is pretty fucked, but there's a reason it provides the basis for so much art: There's *so much subtext* in every conversation, every glance. Only rarely are people saying what they mean to say. (This gives writers and actors so much to play with, to convey in ways other than dialogue what they mean to convey.) The characters who obviously see the absurdity in all of this are the ones we modern folk are most likely to empathize with. Still, it's kind of fun to spend six hours with a romance in which the only kiss comes in the final freeze frame shot.

* That said, she was kissing his chin in that shot.

* Also, I don't get all the hubub about Colin Firth in a wet shirt, but to each his own.

* Maybe I *should* read some Jane Austen.

Movie Night: THE SECRET GARDEN (1949)

 You can find the synopsis of THE SECRET GARDEN right here.

No movie is the same as the book that inspired it, of course. I like some of what this movie does that's different than the book -- it leans into a haunted house vibe more heavily (it feels a bit like Alfred Hitchcock's REBECCA), which is aided by the appearance of Elsa Manchester (THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN) laughing endlessly just a little too much. But: It makes villains out of characters who were anything but villainous in the book, and it more strongly hints at a love connection between Dickon and Mary. (Given that the actor playing Dickon was nearly 20 when the movie was made, it's good they didn't take it further.)

There is some first-rate child tantruming in this movie. But the real star is, of course, Margaret O'Brien as Mary. She has a charismatic presence, and it's easy to see how she became a (child) star during this era. Overall this movie is a pleasant enough way to spend an afternoon, but it's not essential.

THE SECRET GARDEN is currently streaming at Criterion Channel.

Movie Night: LENNY

 

This is a story about an artist who comes up in the industry starting out at strip clubs, is abusive to women, and does a lot of drugs. Bob Fosse went on to make ALL THAT JAZZ, which is considered his autobiographical film, but if he hadn't made that, LENNY would probably suffice. Yeah, it's about Lenny Bruce. But if you're familiar with Fosse's biography, you know that this movie isn't just about Lenny Bruce.

Valerie Perrine won an award at Cannes for her role here, and I've got to say that this is a great performance from her as Bruce's stripper wife, Honey. Dustin Hoffman buries himself in the role. But something feels like it's missing from this movie -- a sense, perhaps, of why Bruce might've been compelling beyond mere shock value. Or maybe that's all there was.

LENNY is playing now on the Criterion Channel.

I don't think THE GODFATHER PART III is so terrible

Vulture says G3 is getting a rerelease in theaters: " In honor of the film’s 30th anniversary, this edit of The Godfather Part III will feature some exciting new punctuation and will be called Mario Puzo’s THE GODFATHER, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, according to a press release from Paramount Pictures."

I love the Godfather pictures -- I'm a middle-aged white guy, and I've only recently come to realize how much that makes me a cliche -- and my dirty secret is I don't think Part III is actually that bad.

Don't get me wrong: Pacino is way over the top in this movie. I would love to know how the silent Michael Corleone of the 1950s became the shouty guy of the late 1970s, but I suspect that's more a Pacino thing than a story thing.

That said, it has all the elements of a potentially great Part III:

* A young up-and-comer who wants to carry on the family legacy, even though...

* The king, who turned to a life of crime to protect his family, wants to get out of crime...

* ...and ends up sacrificing his family, the people he loves, because of the choices he made throughout his life.

It's a tragedy, man. And the end -- Corleone's death, set to Cavlleria Rusticana -- is wonderful. No assassination. Just death, coming for the king as it comes for us all:

It's beautiful. And imperfect. The new edit probably can't salvage Pacino's performance -- but maybe it can find the better movie I know is lurking within.

Movie Night: MOONSTRUCK

 

With the exception of some '80s period details, this movie feels like it could've been made during (say) the 1930s. Those early talkies were often plays that were remade into films. That's not the history of MOONSTRUCK, but this is a dialogue-driven film that could easily be performed on the stage.

Opera sits at the core of this film, and that's appropriate, because this is a romantic comedy that is ... operatic. Over the top in its dialogue and emotions, and yet utterly charming even so. Cher is radiant, Nic Cage is Nic Cage, and Olympia Dukakis deserves every bit of the Oscar she got for this movie. A pleasure.

Movie Night: ONCE UPON A TIME ... IN HOLLYWOOD

Some thoughts about ONCE UPON A TIME ... IN HOLLYWOOD, after the trailer:

 I don’t know how to feel about this movie.

For much of its running time, ONCE UPON A TIME … IN HOLLYWOOD is a quiet, even moving meditation on aging and ephemerality. The movie is littered — like so much of Quentin Tarantino’s output — with references to other movies, but this time you don’t really have to be a film buff to get them: There are movie posters and marquees galore, on walls and signs and everywhere, filled with movies and TV shows that all but the hardiest film buffs (again, probably QT) have forgotten. I watch a reasonable number of classic movies, and I was unfamiliar with many of the titles on display. All the money and effort and ego goes into producing creations that mostly have a short shelf life. Look upon my movies, ye mighty, and despair!

Leonardo DiCaprio’s arc as Rick Dalton, a semi-washed up former TV star, is compelling in the same way: He was famous and now he is less so, called upon to give a lift to rising stars instead of rising himself. (Leo, the babyfaced former child star who used to be in Tiger Beat-style magazines, is 45 now. I had no idea.) This is middle age for many of us, realizing that our accomplishments will never be as great as we hoped, that perhaps our best work is done and yet … we still have a life to live. How can we make the most of it?

Also: Margot Robie is fascinating and fantastic as Sharon Tate watching herself on screen, delighting in the audience’s reaction to her, alive with being famous.

On the other hand: There’s all the violence.

(Spoiler) In the end, Leo and Brad Pitt kill the Manson murderers who — in real life — actually killed Tate and her friends. Tarantino has done this “film revenge for real crimes” thing before, notably in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. It was clever then. Less so now. But mostly it feels A) like a separate movie from what’s come before and B) the violence that Leo and Brad commit is so over-the-top, so horrifyingly explicit. I’m not a prude. Or maybe I am. But the gleeful violence against the bad guys feels like an invitation to feel the same thrill that the real murderers had when committing the real murders.

I don’t believe for one second that watching this makes me more violent. I am smart enough — humans are smart enough, usually — to distinguish between fact and fiction.

But I don’t feel good about having seen this movie. I would give you a different opinion if it had ended, somehow, 15 or 20 minutes earlier than it did. 

The movie that rocketed QT to real fame — PULP FICTION — was renowned for its violence, but it ended with our anti-heroes choosing not to commit an act of violence. And not in a “he’s not worth it” way, but in a way that signaled some hope for the redemption of everybody involved. QT isn’t obligated to stick to that message, of course, to satisfy my latent Mennonite sensibilities. But when you consider the real-life context and facts of Manson family murders against what we see here on screen, the result doesn’t feel like vengeance, even of the fantasy style. It just feels nihilistic.

Movie Night: Ann Sheridan in KINGS ROW

A dozen thoughts about Ann Sheridan in KINGS ROW, coming up after the trailer:

 

1. Ann Sheridan is awesome.

2. The first movie I remember seeing her in is ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES, which is one of my favorites. She’s the female lead, having to play off Jimmy Cagney’s swaggering gangster. She is tough as nails and gives better than she gets. She is awesome.

3. Tonight, I saw her in KINGS ROW.

4. KINGS ROW is remembered — to the extent that it’s remembered — as a star-making turn for Ronald Reagan. And deservedly so! His line upon discovering that his legs have been amputated — “Where’s the rest of me?” — has been quoted quite a bit over the years. But when the moment comes, it’s full of panic and pathos. It’s genuinely moving.

5. But Ann Sheridan is the rock of this movie.

6. It’s a weird little movie. What is it exactly? Small-town coming of age story? Family drama? Tragic romance? Gothic horror? All of the above? Well. All of the above. I can’t even really sum up the plot line really all that well. Check out the Wikipedia description, but that doesn’t do it justice really. Maybe it’s TWIN PEAKS set around 1900?

7. Sheridan’s character is the only one that never really loses her head in the movie. 

8. Oh, sure, she sheds a few tears. These are the least-believable Ann Sheridan moments.

9. The most-believable: When she steels herself for whatever needs to be done in the moment. She’s nobody’s sidekick — though she tries to play one. “I’m just a woman” she says, pretending not to steer Reagan’s character to a good decision, even though she’s … steering Reagan’s character to a good decision. The audience is not fooled. She’s in control and we know it.

10. There are some good non-Ann Sheridan moments in this movie. One is an implied sex scene early on, in which the lights are turned out and we see the two lovers moving toward each other through the dark only when the room is briefly light by flashes of lightning. Splendid.

11. But Ann Sheridan is the sturdy pillar that makes the movie possible. Without her and her character, Randy, KINGS ROW becomes a bit batshit.

12. Ann Sheridan is awesome.

Movie Night: THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS

 Three thoughts about THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, coming up after the trailer...

* This is Orson Welles' follow-up to CITIZEN KANE, and it shares much with its predecessor: The use of shadows, light, and deep-focus shots on the technical front, as well as an obsession with the decline and fall of wealth -- of a single man, in the case of KANE, of a whole family in AMBERSONS. It is beautiful to look at, and I'll want to revisit it again sometime in the near future.

* Welles' narration of this movie reminded me very much of the narration in Martin Scorcese's THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, and in a way that makes a whole lot of sense: The source novels for both movies appeared two years apart, and they both document the fine details of wealth -- both the physical setting, as well as the social customs -- in an era just before modernity struck.

* The studio famously stuck a kind-of happy ending onto this otherwise dark picture, and hoo boy, it shows. Everything is depressing until the last 30 seconds. Agnes Moorehead's character, who has been in  a state of near-hysteria for much of the film, ends the story with a smile on her face. It's weird. But there's so much to enjoy in the rest of the movie, and it's not like pretty good movies aren't stuck with bad endings all the time, even now. Still worth another view.

THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is currently on Criterion Channel.

Movie Night: 13 thoughts abut Gene Hackman in THE FIRM

13 thoughts about Gene Hackman in THE FIRM (spoilers!) coming up after the trailer.

1. THE FIRM is a pretty decent bit of early 1990s suspense thriller filmmaking — something studios used to do a fair bit of before everything became either a low-budget indie or a massive blockbuster. The cast of this movie is filled with ringers: Gary Busey makes what amounts to a cameo, Holly Hunter is the second female lead, Ed Harris does Ed Harris things and Wilford Brimley is evil. But even among all these stellar actors and movie stars: Gene Hackman stands apart.

2. Gene Hackman plays a character named “Avery Tolar.” This is because John Grisham is terrible at making up character names. See also: F. Denton Voyles, Roy Foltrigg, Clint Von Hooser, Wally Boxx, Gavin Vereek, and Fletcher Coal — names from THE FIRM, THE CLIENT, and THE PELICAN BRIEF, respectively.

3. Tolar has a lot of great lines in THE FIRM. Like this exchange:

Mitch McDeere : What led you to law school?

Avery Tolar : It's so far back I don't think I can remember.

Mitch McDeere : Sure you can, Counsellor.

Avery Tolar : I used to caddy for lawyers and their wives on summer weekends. I looked at those long tan legs and just knew I had to be a lawyer. The wives had long tan legs, too.

He has so many good lines that I told my wife: “Man, they gave Hackman a lot of good lines.” And then I realized the same writers wrote all the characters in the movie. They didn’t necessarily give Hackman good lines. He made them good lines.

4. There is a scene early in the movie where Tolar, having won a small but important victory with a client, does a grinning victory dance on the hotel balcony. Wife and I responded at the same time: “Hackman,” chuckling ruefully.

5. In this movie, Tolar is corrupt. 

6. In this movie, Tolar is skeezy.

7. In this movie, Tolar is sad.

8. In this movie, Tolar has an abandoned underlying decency. This decency is not written all that well, honestly, but it needs an appearance to make the movie work and give it some additional stakes, so here we are.

9. Gene Hackman takes all these varying traits and makes them into a person. And in so doing, we decide to give the writers a pass on the unlikeliness of his decency.

10. That he can do so, with wit and occasional charm, is what makes him an actor and a star.

11. Also: Gene Hackman is a middle-aged man in 1993, and this movie lets him look it: His skin is a bit mottled, and age spots are starting to appear. Today, those imperfections would probably be botoxed and digitally buffed into oblivion. Which is too bad, because they make his character seem more real.

12. It says something that Tom Cruise is the star of this movie, but Hackman, a supporting character, is the one who makes us feel like any of the people we’re watching might have souls.

13. But when he dies, the death — violent — occurs offscreen. The moviemakers didn’t want to bum us out too much.

Movie Night: LUST FOR LIFE

 Three thoughts about LUST FOR LIFE, coming up:

* I love Kirk Douglas. But I went into this movie unsure if he was the right man to play Vincent van Gogh. Douglas is fierce and proud and righteous in movies like SPARTACUS and PATHS OF GLORY, and van Gogh ... isn't those things, and least not in the same way. So give Douglas credit here: He wasn't playing Kirk Douglas with red hair dye. The character is scary and violent at times, heedless of others, self-involved -- and, yes, mentally ill. My favorite scene is when he greets Paul Gaugin, played by Anthony Quinn, and becomes a pure puppy dog -- hunched over (instead of upright) in submission to Gaugin, his face full of joy. The performance isn't subtle, exactly, but it works.

* Vincent's brother Theo is played by John Donald, and the movie makes the unusual decision to have Theo narrate Vincent's letters instead of using Douglas' voice. One thing this does is let us view Vincent through the eyes of somebody who loves him, who is willing to persist with him when others have given up -- and the audience might be ready to do the same.

* Seems appropriate that this movie was directed by Vincent Minnelli, whose own work in Technicolor filmmaking in the 1950s -- AMERICAN IN PARIS, BRIGADOON -- feature a love of color and visuals that please the eye. Minnelli was an artist, and a sympathy for the artist's struggle is deeply felt here.

Movie Night: WEREWOLF OF LONDON

Ow-OOOOOOOOOH:

* This is a movie from 1935, when Hollywood was still getting used to making "talkies," and the influence of silent moviemaking is apparent here -- in the exaggerated physicality of some of the acting, in the closeups of the wolfman's face. One of the real fun parts of old movies like this is looking at the IMDB pages of the actors and realizing some of them were born around the time of the Civil War. Those folks witnessed a lot of change in their lives.

* It's funny how ancient some of our tropes are. Does the promiscuous young woman get killed by the werewolf after seducing a young security guard into infidelity? Damn straight.

* That said, this is one of Universal's early monster movies, and while it's enjoyable enough, it lacks some of the artistry you find in, say, James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN movies, or even THE WOLF MAN. Sometimes you have the touch. Sometimes you don't.

Movie Night: A DRY WHITE SEASON

Some thoughts about A DRY WHITE SEASON, a Grishamesque legal thriller with a powerful conscience. Spoilers ahead:

* This movie came out in the late 1980s, as the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa neared its climax. The opening credits show a white child and a Black child playing together, joyfully. Before 15 minutes have passed, the Black child will be dead. This is not a movie that shies away from that violence -- the camera lingers on the faces of dead children, massacred for the crime of protesting. This is not a movie that will let you feel comfortable. Not even at the end. 

* The protagonist is played by Donald Sutherland - we'll talk more about that in a bit - a schoolteacher who comes to realize his own complicity in apartheid, the death, cruelties and injustice inflicted in its name that he has let himself ignore for the sake of living a comfortable life. "They must have had a reason," he says when his gardener's son is arrested. The costs of coming to terms with the that reality is not greeted warmly -- the authorities, his coworkers and even his wife and daughter variously warn and rage against his effort to seek justice. Being true to the cause of truth, this movie suggests, can cost you everything. Everything.

* One passage was startling to me in the echoes I hear in the current backlash against Black Lives Matter.

Ben du Toit: Jesus, Susan, this is not just about Gordon! This is about all of us!

Susan du Toit: No. It's about all of *them*. And I will be damned if I let them destroy my family. I don't want Gordon's ghost in my house! I don't want the one with the dark glasses, any of these kaffirs here ever again! I just want to go back to the way it was!

Ben du Toit: If you had come with me... if you had seen what was happening in that court, you would know that we can never go back to the way it was.

Susan du Toit: I *was* in the court.

Ben du Toit: What?

Susan du Toit: Listen to me, Ben. I heard what the police did, and I'm not saying it was right. But you think the blacks wouldn't do the same thing to us, and worse, if they had half the chance? Do you think they'll let us go on living our nice, quiet, peaceful lives if they win? They'll swallow us up! It's our country, Ben, we made every inch of it! Look at the rest of Africa, it's a mess... It's like in war. You have to choose sides. You are not one of them and they don't want you to be!

"You have to choose your own people," Susan concludes, "or you have no people."

"You have to choose truth," Ben responds.

Preach it, Ben.

* Given that Donald Sutherland is the protagonist and the marquee names -- Marlon Brando (who received an Oscar nomination for his performance), Jurgen Prochnow, Susan Surandon, Michael Gambon -- it would be easy to pass over this movie as a white savior flick. But it's important to note that this was the first Hollywood movie directed by a black woman, Euzhan Palcy, and the story of how she shepherded this movie into being -- and why she disappeared from Hollywood to France -- is fascinating.

* You can find this movie on Criterion Channel until the end of the month.

Movie Night: PALM SPRINGS

Three thoughts about PALM SPRINGS, coming up:

* This movie has been compared with GROUNDHOG DAY a lot, and that's fair as far as it goes. But whereas the earlier movie is all about self-improvement, PALM SPRINGS is more about surrender, about finding peace -- and maybe happiness -- in the mundane grind that is this life. That sounds like messages that are at odds with each other, but I don't think they have to be. I'll have to sit with it.

* Cristin Milioti is the soul of this movie, playing so many layers of emotion as she explores her reactions to the time loop. The camera focuses on the eyes of its lead characters a lot, and Milioti's eyes are so big and expressive. She's been around for awhile, but this movie should make her into a bona fide star. I'm not sure how the pandemic affects the star-making machinery these days, though.

* I owned Genesis's INVISIBLE TOUCH cassette when I was a kid, so I cannot tell you how excited I was to hear "The Brazilian" during PALM SPRINGS. Loved that track.

The big business of conspiracy mongering

Oliver Stone is still trying to find JFK's real killer:

The NYT heavily annotates its interview with Stone to point out that his grasp and interpretation of facts can, uh, depart from mainstream understandings of the matter. But it struck me to read this interview on the same day President Trump retweeted this bonkers bit* of conspiracy mongering:

Back to Stone: His movie, JFK, which was all about evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president in order to really go to town on the Vietnam War, reportedly made more than $200 million worldwide during its run in 1992. I saw it in the theater myself! The film received eight Oscar nominations, including for Best Picture.

I mention all this by way of making what is perhaps an obvious point: Conspiracy mongering in the United States is often, well, a profit-driven enterprise. A studio invested its money into creating an alternative version of the JFK assassination, and it reaped benefits. A substantial portion of moviegoers ended up believing that alternative version as a result.

I don't doubt Stone believes everything he says. (I think -- contra his theory -- the evidence suggests JFK was stumbling into Vietnam on his own anyway.) But it took a whole system to bring his belief to mainstream culture. We didn't get here by accident.

* "Bonkers bit of conspiracy mongering" is redundant, I know.

MOVIE NIGHT: AD ASTRA

Three thoughts about AD ASTRA:

* TOMMY LEE JONES' EYEBROWS ... IN ... SPAAAAAAACE!

* "Hey guys, let's try to make a movie like 2001, but with fewer acid trips and more daddy issues!"

* And that's it. Feels like there should be more there there with this movie. It's well-crafted, but seems empty. Oh well.

Movie Night: THE CLIENT

There were many John Grisham movie adaptations made during the early 1990s. This is one of them.

Three thoughts about THE CLIENT, coming up....

* My favorite thing about John Grisham movies/novels is all the ridiculous names. Reggie Love. Roy Foltrigg. Thomas Fink. Avery Tolar. Gavin Vereek. Sometimes Grisham went the Dickensian route, matching names to the characteristics of his characters. And sometimes, I swear, a cat walked across the keyboard.

* That said, this is pretty powerhouse cast: Tommy Lee Jones and Susan Sarandon, obviously, but also Mary-Louise Parker, JT Walsh, Bradley Whitford, William H. Macy, Will Patton, Anthony Lapaglia, and Ossie Davis, just to name a few. This is a by-the-numbers 1990s legal thriller, but all the good actors in it -- even in minor roles -- make it just a little better than it should be. 

* Two things really embarrassed me about this movie, though. Parker's character is a single Southern mom living in a trailer park, and my God, she plays it to the absolute max of what you think that character is. Not her fault. It's the work she was given. But hoo boy.

Also: Anthony LaPaglia's wardrobe:

Spielberg, Lincoln and Frederick Douglass

Finally saw Spielberg's LINCOLN this week, and I loved it, but one thing bothered me: A story about the end of black slavery in America largely pushes Black people to the margins. That's somewhat understandable -- the country was run exclusively by white men, so depicting the political machinations of the age is going to be very heavily focused on white men. But it's a movie about the fate of Black Americans in which Black Americans have very little screen time.

I thought of the movie today when reading Frederick Douglass's "What tot he Slave Is the Fourth of July?" speech. Particularly this part:

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. — There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

In other words: It's absurd that human beings should find their very existence and dignity as human beings debated by other humans. The existence of the debate itself, even when there are people on the right side of it, is belittling and dehumanizing.

And that kind of debate is pretty much the entirety of LINCOLN.

I'm not throwing away the baby with the bathwater here, so let me elaborate. There's a scene in LINCOLN when Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones, decides to profess a desired state of black equality that is short of what he really believes. He does this because he believes that without that rhetorical hedging, he won't get the 13th Amendment at all -- he wants the whole loaf, but he has to talk about getting half a loaf in order to get any part of the loaf at all. He compromises his ideals in order to achieve his ideals. (It's played with relative subtlety, but I'm glad the movie depicted that.)

Similarly, it was both absurd and insulting to debate the rights and freedom of Black Americans and also absolutely necessary to have that debate so that those rights and freedoms would begin to become manifest.  

I'm not sure there's a way out of that conundrum, then or now, or even what to do with this tension -- except, perhaps, to acknowledge it. Maybe wiser folk than I can offer some insight.