Paraphrase Practice

Excerpt

The question facing Lincoln is stark: Should he abolish slavery, once and for all, even if it means prolonging the war? The full weight and scale of this dilemma are the central lesson "Lincoln" asks up to grasp. The film places slavery at the center of the story, emphatically countering the revisionist tendency to see some other, more abstract thing -- states' rights, Southern culture, industrial capitalism -- as the real cause of the Civil War. Though most of the characters are white (two notable and vital exceptions are Stephen Henderson and Gloria Reuben, as the Lincolns' household servants), this is finally a movie about how difficult and costly it has been for the United States to recognize the full and equal humanity of black people.

A.O. Scott, The New York Times, "A President Engaged in a Great Civil War"

Paraphrase

From the article published in the New York Times, critic A. O. Scott informs the reader of the distinct question facing Lincoln: Is it worth it to end slavery, now and forever, despite continuing the war? He wrote that this problem in it's total capacity, mass and size, is the main idea that the movie Lincoln poses for the viewer to understand. Spielberg places slavery in the middle of the story which clearly opposes the supporter of modification's habit of seeing something more notional -- rights to independent states, the Southern lifestyle, or the factory based economic and political system in which private owners are able to control and profit from trade and industry within a country -- as the main source of the Civil War. Although many of the figures are white (two distinct and important anomalies include Stephen Henderson and Gloria Reuben, who play the roles of Lincoln's house staff), Scott reports that this film ultimately conveys the difficulty and expense to which the United States paid to accept the entire humanity and retain balance of the colored race.

A. O.  Scott, The New York Times, "A President Engaged in a Great Civil War"

Revised Paraphrase

From the article published in the New York Times, critic A. O. Scott informs the reader of the distinct question facing Lincoln: Is it worth it to end slavery, now and forever, despite continuing the war? He wrote that this problem in it's total capacity, mass and size, is the main idea that the movie Lincoln poses for the viewer to understand. Spielberg places slavery in the middle of the story which clearly opposes the act of people attempting to rewrite history, of what the real fight of the Civil War was really about, to something more comfortable -- rights to independent states, the Southern lifestyle, or the factory based economic and political system in which private owners are able to control and profit from trade and industry within a country -- as the main source of the Civil War. Although many of the figures are white (two distinct and important anomalies include Stephen Henderson and Gloria Reuben, who play the roles of Lincoln's house staff), Scott reports that this film ultimately conveys the difficulty in which the United States has with recognizing that black people are their equals.

A. O.  Scott, The New York Times, "A President Engaged in a Great Civil War"