[Ammi]

The Oscar nominated film wrongly depicts Connecticut congressmen as voting against the 13th Amendment to outlaw slavery, when, in reality all four of the state’s representatives voted in favour of the abolition in January 1865.

The mistake was spotted by current Connecticut congressmen Joe Courtney as he watched the film over the weekend.

Courtney reported hearing fellow audience members' surprise at the revelation about their state. “I obviously had the same reaction", said Courtney. “It was really bugging me.” The politician then contacted the Congressional Research Service, who confirmed his suspicions.

Although Courtney praised the film’s acting and cinematography, he said artistic license did not permit it to put Connecticut on the wrong side of history, particularly on an issue as powerful as slavery.

The issue prompted the 59 year-old congressman to write a letter directly to Spielberg, asking the director: “How could congressmen from Connecticut - a state that supported President Lincoln and lost thousands of her sons fighting against slavery on the Union side of the Civil War - have been on the wrong side of history?”

Courtney has asked that the mistake be corrected before the ‘Lincoln’s’ DVD release. Dreamworks, the studio behind the film, are yet to issue a response

[King Gizzard]

travesty

[AnnieK]

You would think they would check the historical facts though....

[Shaun]

but it wouldn't make a good film!!!

[Ammi]

..well, I guess all publicity is good publicity as they say...

[Niamh.]

Probably wouldn't have been as exciting for the film but I could see why they'd be annoyed though

[Vanessa]

It's a movie. They don't have to be historically accurate. They can change things if it fits the story better.

[Ammi]

..LOL, not if it's an historical movie meant to be based on facts Vanessa...not in certain things anyway...

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..LOL, not if it's an historical movie meant to be based on facts Vanessa...not in certain things anyway...

I know, but it's still a movie. They change some facts for dramatic effect sometimes.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..LOL, not if it's an historical movie meant to be based on facts Vanessa...not in certain things anyway...

I agree with that, i would be annoyed about it if I were from Connecticut

[Ammi]

..yeah, I understand what you're saying Vanessa but when it depicts an important vote like that and you only have two options..for/against..then it's quite important that you translate the correct one, otherwise you will cause offence and it's also very inaccurate...

..to me it's like saying Queen Victoria had two suiters..Albert and Reggie...and the movie showing that she married Reggie, not Albert....I mean, if you are going to do an 'alternative' movie of what could have been then that's ok....but this isn't supposed to be what this movie is about....

..having siad that, I'm sure it will create publicity and maybe bring in more money....

[Vanessa]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah, I understand what you're saying Vanessa but when it depicts an important vote like that and you only have two options..for/against..then it's quite important that you translate the correct one, otherwise you will cause offence and it's also very inaccurate...

..to me it's like saying Queen Victoria had two suiters..Albert and Reggie...and the movie showing that she married Reggie, not Albert....I mean, if you are going to do an 'alternative' movie of what could have been then that's ok....but this isn't supposed to be what this movie is about....

..having siad that, I'm sure it will create publicity and maybe bring in more money....

Maybe that's why they did it!