Steven Spielberg once again proves to his audiences his mastery and talent in the cinematic arts in his 2012 historical drama, Lincoln. Spielberg's directorial experience, accompanied by Daniel Day-Lewis' compelling portrayal of Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States, offers audiences a film filled with emotion, suspense and triumph. However, as with most films based on historical events and figures, Spielberg takes some liberties in his role as director to accommodate the accuracy of this story. These adjustments raise a series of questions that merit reflection. Even if a director like Spielberg or a screenwriter like Tony Kushner, the screenwriter of Lincoln, has the ability to make these changes, is it necessary? Will changing certain facts of a film make that film more entertaining for audiences, even if some of its authenticity is lost in the transition? A more important question would be whether these changes would distort the public's understanding of the story. As a result, these changes tell a different story for its viewers. Several inaccuracies in Lincoln include the Connecticut representatives and their role in the final vote, the exaggerated role of Lincoln's wife Mary Todd Lincoln, the use of the Gettysburg Address at the beginning of the film, and Lincoln's true intentions as as President by adopting the Thirteenth Amendment. A major difference between the film and the story concerns the vote on the amendment. If passed, the Thirteenth Amendment would call for an immediate end to slavery nationwide. In the film, as representatives voted for or against, two of the four Connecticut state representatives voted against the amendment. Ultimately ... middle of paper ...... it is true that some changes contribute to the film's message and overall audience enjoyment. But it's also important to consider the possible side effects of these seemingly minor changes. Sometimes the slightest change can cause the public to perceive a person in a profoundly different way, such as today's perception of Lincoln as a courageous pioneer rather than a president simply fulfilling his oath to serve, protect, and preserve as commander of the UNITED STATES. in chief. Despite these changes, Spielberg did not disappoint with this film. Lincoln, despite his flaws, effectively accomplished what he set out to do, which was to entertain the public and highlight the importance of slavery in American history and the historic impact of the Thirteenth Amendment on a country of the people, by the people. , and for the people.