That is an interesting question. I think there is a spectrum between two parallel and identical things at one end, and two things completely different but with the same name at the other. The former is like:
"I saw and conquered Gaul"
This is common and regular ellipsis; you leave out the common part in two parallel phrases, which is called syllepsis, "a taking-together", or zeugma, Greek for "yoke", because you use part of a phrase as a yoke to control two things. Sometimes these things are very different, but somehow both fit the yoke, resulting in an odd dissonance that is often used as a figure of speech.
Consider this sentence:
"I hit the roof with my head and Emma
with a bottle".
The verb "to hit" has two different meanings — to hit by accident versus to hit on purpose" —, both of which take an object, but each of the objects serves a different function. And both verbs take an instrument; but the instrument "with my head" is accidental, whereas "with a bottle" is on purpose. This twist of meaning results in a quaint effect, which can be decorative in some texts, but will be misleading or inappropriate in formal or legal texts, where rectitude and efficiency rule.
In your first example, the book and the film are not completely identical, but they are close enough not to surprise the reader, so I'd say your phrase is fine. In the second example, the meanings of the two names lie farther apart, which makes it more striking and playful. If you aim at a playful tone, use it; if a playful tone is not intended, your phrase goes too far. Italicising "Abraham Lincoln" would not be a good idea: then one half of the yoke would not fit any more. For you cannot italicise a person, while not italicising a book title is acceptable. Think of it as "the man Abraham Lincoln and the book Abraham Lincoln" versus "the man Abraham Lincoln and the book Abraham Lincoln".