The Conspirator

Aside from the very stilted and antique filmmaking style last seen during the silent era, Redford is spreading more or less a ton of lies. I know of no reputable historians who seriously have any doubts about Mary Surratt's guilt. Since it's obvious that Redford only cares about the story as a vehicle for pushing his political views, he would be at least, historically, not the moron that this film shows him to be if he overcame his political correctness and selected the proper vehicle : our filmmaking dim light missed the 5 ton elephant sitting right on his desk : the Civil War, certainly by far the most unjustifiable military action the Federal government ever engaged in. One can easily pin the blame almost entirely upon Abe Lincoln and the anti-slavery crew in New England. Redford shows me two things in this film of his : he doesn't know squat about history, nor much about unjustifiable wars either, which makes him totally unqualified to make this film. But simply viewing the film shows me that- the film is simply not very good - looks and feels like Law and Order, Ante Bellum style.

Robert Redford's The Conspirator dramatizes the military trial of Mary Suratt, a boarding house owner accused of harboring conspirators and being involved in the plot to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln. It is a strong, if somewhat obvious, drama that depicts the mood of hysteria that followed the assassination, and suggests its relevance to today's politics. Written by James Solomon who spent fourteen years researching the story, the film opens with a brief introduction showing the agony of combat troops in the Civil War, then focuses on the assassination of the President on April 14, 1865 by actor John Wilkes Booth (Toby Kebbell), a Southern partisan and his companions Lewis Payne (Norman Reedus), David Herold (Marcus Hester), and Samuel Arnold (Jeremy Tuttle) at the Ford Theatre in Washington, D.C.. Stealthily entering the President's box, Booth shoots Lincoln in the head, then leaps onto the stage shouting "sic semper tyrannis" (thus always to tyrants), and escapes on horseback. The assassination results in an outpouring of grief all over the country, and prompts the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline) to vow revenge against the conspirators. After a two week search, Booth is found hiding in a nearby barn and shot to death, while seven suspected co-conspirators are arrested including Mary Suratt. Suratt is tried by a military tribunal where the rules state that only a majority vote is required for a guilty verdict and a two-thirds vote is needed to sentence a defendant to death. It is a court where a defendant is prohibited from testifying in their own defense. Senator Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) from Virginia and a former U. S. Attorney General agrees to defend Suratt on the grounds that she is innocent until proved guilty. The Senator, however, withdraws because he fears that being a Southerner might prejudice his case, and asks Frederick Aiken (James McEvoy), a northern attorney to defend her. Initially reluctant and dubious about her story, Aiken resolves to prove her innocence after seeing that the defendant was up against an overbearing prosecutor (Danny Huston), a biased head of the tribunal (Colm Meany), and the behind-the-scenes antagonism of Secretary Stanton. At great cost to his personal life, Aiken tries to prove that Ms. Suratt knew the boarders who lived in her house, but was not involved in their conspiracy. As the case progresses, it becomes apparent that only her son John (Johnny Simmons), a known conspirator who fled to Canada, can save his mother by surrendering. While there is limited dimension to the characters, The Conspirator is true to the historical record and the film presents its message in a clear and powerful way. Redford, long a champion of civil liberties, implicitly reminds us that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law" and provides no exception for war. It is not only an important message for those unfamiliar with our nation's history, but is strikingly relevant to the present day in which hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo still languish in prison without trial, where a U.S. citizen, suspected of terrorist activities, is targeted for an assassination attempt without having been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, and where the ideal of due process and the presumption of innocence is slowly being replaced by unlimited violence, the repudiation of legality, and the undermining of democracy.

Saw the film today, I was very impressed. Yes somethings looked wrong (mostly uniform items) but on the whole a job well done. Great film locations and acting. James MacAvoy follows his outstanding performance in Last King of Scotland with a tour de force. Robin Wright plays her role just right. Kevin Kline's performance might be my favorite of his ever. Outstanding period feel with great on site shooting at homes in Savannah, GA. Got the impression that at least the film company made a serious effort to get the look right. The Q and A after the screen I attended really highlighted the efforts they put into the film to get it right. Noted historian James McPherson was a consultant strongly recommended film when it comes out on April 15th.

Robert Redford has assembled an impressively strong cast to bring to the screen a very important and poignant story. Watching this film a couple of weeks ago, I did not know what to expect. What I got was a great film about the trials of the people that were involved behind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Robin Wright delivers one of the best performances of her career, in a role that seemed tailor-made for her. Redford follows up a politically charged film (Lions for Lambs) with a historically charged film, that definitely is not light on the politics. However, he does succeed at presenting the unknown story of a loving mother and clearly stating the events that followed Lincoln's assassination. The film transported me back in time. Beautifully shot, supported by amazing art direction and costumes, and driven by James McAvoy strong performance, "The Conspirator" stands as a movie for the times, that will definitely be revisited for years to come.

source: The Conspirator

I cannot argue with the broad history of the events depicted here. It is well known that the politics of Washington, D.C. in the 1860s was a mix of the mundane, the great, and the shameful. I guess that applied elsewhere, too, as it is little discussed but nonetheless true that the British Parliament tried twice to enter the American Civil War on the side of the slave-holding Southern States, because the rich Lords and merchants of the UK in those days sought Southern cotton, and the slave labor to harvest it, as a means to get even richer. Enough said, the point is that schemes and skulduggery were in plentiful supply in the world then. The problem with this film is hard to pin down. There were a few bright spots, to be sure. But the flaws were significant, and systemic. Deep flaws. What were they exactly? Yeesh- I can't say, but will discuss a few things to give the flavor. There were moments, especially among the scenes depicting Aiken (the starring defense attorney) and his chums, that frankly stunk. It was like "the college play" in terms of stilted and two-dimensional dialogue. The grubbiness and hubbub of the national capital seemed real enough though. The buildings in the scenes were authentic, in a way, as they are locations from the era, in Savannah, Georgia. The costumes seemed authentic, but I wasn't there so can't say for sure. There- I have made my point. Whatever was wrong with the movie is beyond my meager abilities to identify. So just hear my words, and take them or leave them- this feels like 3/4 of a movie, and the missing 1/4 was a critical omission - the film simply does not work as it is. And what's with all the Brits in this movie? Check the credits- it seems as if every second actor is from the UK. Fine actors, to be sure, but one must ask--- why? It felt like a stunt, which is another reason to mistrust the movie. The best one could say is that it seemed like a decent documentary segment one sees these days on The History Channel. As "homework," or a "visual aid" to an academic lecture it was fine. As a meaningful work of art, not so much.

Unfortunately, I missed the first ten minutes, so I can't speak for that. But as an amateur Lincoln Assassination historian, I knew that I couldn't miss "The Conspirator". I assumed that there would be historical inaccuracies and the whole question of whether or not Mary Surratt was involved would be a matter of debate, as it has been for the past 146 years. But I didn't expect so many. Any movie (or book, for that matter) about the Lincoln assassination which does not draw information from Michael Kaufman and/or Laurie Verge should be considered lacking. Mrs. Surratt was told of her execution the night prior to it (July 17, 1865), and had clerical counsel the night through. She very rarely lifted her veil in the courtroom, mostly just to be identified, and during the trial was moved to a better cell just off of the courtroom. There is no record of her having to wear either the manacles or the ball & chain shown. As for the others, Fredrick Aiken is a composite of two attorneys under Reverdy Johnson. Lewis Powell/Paine/Payne was considered almost a giant; tall, muscular, and Booth's "killing machine", not the wimpy guy shown in the movie. And the prisoners pounding their chains during the one scene? They knew that could have gotten them shot right then and there - it simply didn't happen (and yet the audience cheered at the theater - how sad). The acting was superb, despite the script, and the use of locations really helped people understand what Washington DC looked like at the time of the Civil War. If someone is looking for a movie concerning the Civil War, and doesn't really care about what really happened, this is their movie. One doesn't have to know a lot about the assassination to know that too many scenes are just inaccurate. But yes, the acting deserves a few stars.

THE RETURN OF FRANK JAMES, starring Hank Fonda, was directed by Fritz Lang and released by 20th Century-Fox in 1940. Robert Redford is definitely using THE CONSPIRATOR as a political platform (he's the director). Of course, like any historical event, the Civil War fosters many varying opinions (none of us were there, and must rely on whatever evidence exists and has been discovered) but it was hardly the most unjustifiable military action ever taken by the Federal government. That is pure reactionary nonsense and ignores any pertinent fact about the conflict. Nearly EVERY military action taken by the U.S. government from Viet Nam to the present day could be considered unjustifiable (especially when the "reasons" for launching a war were completely fabricated to begin with). One need not argue the case for Abraham Lincoln here. Before you perform brain surgery, make sure that you attend medical school, and at least SEE a film before passing judgment on it. (This writer has two degrees in U.S. History, a degree in Film, and has specialized in "Film as History" for the past 30 years--including writing and editing more than 40 books--so I have the necessary credentials.) No number of films like THE CONSPIRATOR will ever level the cinematic playing field for past pro-Confederate hogwash like THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) and GONE WITH THE WIND (1939), STILL hailed as two of the greatest films ever made. By the way, where in the name of Mudd is DR. MUDD in Redford's film?

Great Entertainment. Visuals great, actors and dialogue great. But Mary Surratt was guilty. She was not unjustly convicted. Another technically great movie that rewrites history. Comparable to 1950's cowboy movies glorifying criminals as sympathetic antiheroes {Think Henry Fonda as Frank James). Kudos to Redford for the effort. Criticisms for his inaccurate rewrite. It's just another use of an entertainment vehicle to use current opinions (females as victims of the patriarchy) to entertain the masses. Unfortunately, the masses will be leaving the theater with their belief system supported, and another group of chumps will use movies as history. Want entertainment? See it. Want to know if Mary Surratt was guilty? Read.

I was reluctant to see "The Conspirator" because it has racked up a critical consensus of a kind I dislike: the film is said to be cold-hearted, and to make political points with a heavy hand. Neither of these, happily, turns out to be true. The film is utterly impassioned, and its interest for today is nicely noted without being too underlined. Nearly every element one wants in a great film is there: visual beauty, strong acting, fine pacing, stirring and well-made music. But there is a flaw. The creators have taken their creation too seriously. There's not a shaft of levity or humor anywhere. A requirement for great art is thereby missed. It doesn't matter how somber the subject is supposed to be. King Lear has his fool; even Wagner's ultra-dark Ring cycle has its powerful currents of humor. It's got to be there; otherwise, the whole organism suffers. I think this is the weakness to which reviewers have responded, even if none of them has precisely named it. On that ground, the film falls short of greatness; but in every other respect it approaches or achieves greatness. "The Conspirator" is hugely recommendable and I will certainly see it again.