The Conspirator

This month we are celebrating the 150th anniversary (1861) of the onset of the Civil War and 4 years later President Lincoln's assassination (4/15/1865).


I would imagine that many of us are unaware of the story Director Robert Redford is attempting to bring to the screen, including myself. It is a very important time in our history.


The film follows the trial of Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) who ran a boarding house in DC where John Wilkes Booth and others planned Lincoln's assassination. Shortly after the assassination Secretary of War (Kevin Kline) is hellbent on catching all involved, at any cost. Booth is shot dead, and the other 8 captured, and put on trial (including Surratt the only woman) as co-conspirators.


A Maryland Senator Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) strongly believes that until proven guilty Surratt is innocent. As her defense lawyer he convinces a reluctant Frederick Aiken (James McEvoy) to handle her case.


The trial unfolds as a Kangaroo Court under the bribing and corruptness of the politicians and the military tribunal (she was refused a jury trial). I don't believe the films message is so much about innocents or guilt, but about the rights of an individual and obstruction of justice.


The American Film Company as the production company has a history of being accurate in films. Much of the plot is suppose to be from the court transcripts.


Still, as much as I liked the film, it does carry some problems. It may be too smart for it's own good. It comes off a bit like a history lesson or something more adapted for the stage. It is definitely too slow for the average movie fan. Nevertheless, it offers a great bit of history, with exceptional acting.

B+
Jack

I'm aware that it's coming out but I expect to wait until it comes to cable. I'm unfamiliar with The American Film Company's record for accuracy but at least Ron Howard didn't make this. As much as I enjoy most of his work, he can piss me off by playing with the facts. I came to The Film Chamber now to post something about movies "based on actual events" and this thread caught my eye first. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but most of us are commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, not celebrating it .

More facts and information about the film



Robert Redford (director) doesn't know if Surratt (Robin Wright) was guilty or innocent, but he's smart enough to leave it up to the audience. After watching the film I felt his message was 1) mother's love and sacrifice for her son 2) Secretary of War Stanton (played by an excellent Kevin Kline) urgency to have a speedy trial, regardless of the circumstances. He is quoted: "the co-conspirators need to be buried and quickly forgotten"




**First woman executed in the US
**She was refused a jury civil trial
**Military tribunal
**There were no women involved in the verdict
**Women didn't have the right to vote
**Surratt had no right to testify in her behalf
**She was lead into the court with a bag on her head
**The evidence was circumstantial
**Many witnesses perjured themselves
**There was no appeal system
**The military tribunal...lead by a general (Colm Meaney)..... deliberated for only a few hours
**The trial and execution was more like a carnival and a kangaroo court



Spoiler Alert



Personally, I didn't feel Mary Surratt was guilty about or connected in the plot to kill President Lincoln. Women during that time just weren't part of history. Her only fault was running the boarding house. And having a son who knew John Wilkes Booth

Washington DC was under martial law. The Capital was under so much fear. The Civil War just ended.

At the conclusion of the film you will find-out what happen to her son. It's an amazing story in its self. You will find out about the lawyer who defended Surratt, too.
I don't recall if this was in the film, but as Surratt was about to be hanged, a soldier tied a piece of rope around her skirt, so they would not fly up when she dropped. She was given some dignity given at the end.


Jack

JWF wrote:
Women during that time just weren't part of history.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make but none the less that statement isn't true. Women were very much a part of history and The Civil War was no exception. Belle Boyd, Antonia Forc, Rose O'Neal Greenhow, Nancy Hart, Laura Ratcliffe and Loreta Janeta Velazquez, to name a few were Confederate spies just as Pauline Cushman, Sarah Emma Edmonds, Harriet Tubman spied for the North. Clara Barton provided an invaluable service for the sick and wounded. Just a minute list.

alan smithee wrote:

JWF wrote:
Women during that time just weren't part of history.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make but none the less that statement isn't true. Women were very much a part of history and The Civil War was no exception. Belle Boyd, Antonia Forc, Rose O'Neal Greenhow, Nancy Hart, Laura Ratcliffe and Loreta Janeta Velazquez, to name a few were Confederate spies just as Pauline Cushman, Sarah Emma Edmonds, Harriet Tubman spied for the North. Clara Barton provided an invaluable service for the sick and wounded. Just a minute list.

I respect your post, but the Civil War was accepted as a man's war. Of course, there are exceptions, and some great women had their time. My point (clarified) was that Mary Surrett ran a boarding house and not a spy ring, but the great great majority of the war participation was by men. At least, that's what I think, but who really knows.

Although records weren't the best kept, it's estimated that 620,000 men died for both sides. Some accounts go as high as 700,000. Many of the deaths were from disease. It's been written that some of the men were actually women in disguise, but only about 300 to 400 is quoted. The War Department had denied any women enlistment, but that seems to be a lie.

Granted, there have been a few films about women during the Civil War, but mostly from the home front, as nurses, lovers and spy's, etc. I doesn't appear that anyone has arrived at how many actual served. There are undoubtedly some in many different categories. The best estimate of women dying in the Civil War is 14,000 from all causes.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/civilwar/tp/aatpcivil_war1.htm

JWF wrote:
Robert Redford (director) doesn't know if Surratt (Robin Wright) was guilty or innocent, but he's smart enough to leave it up to the audience. ...

Personally, I didn't feel Mary Surratt was guilty about or connected in the plot to kill President Lincoln....

Of these points you made, I had some feelings about the events that went down while watching this movie.

Call it a zeitgeist moment, but one has to put oneself in the time and you had mentioned that here:

JWF wrote: Washington DC was under martial law. The Capital was under so much fear. The Civil War just ended.

This gets into a matter of feelings and prejudice, which had to be abatted. Hundreds of thousand ppl had just died over the past 4 years, so life was considered cheap. What would be one more life taken - and was anyone more or less 'innocent' than the civilians and combatants who died horrid deaths. Andersonville was fresh in the minds of most Northerners as a war atrocity. Even Aiken was hesitant to do his lawyerly duty and defend this Southern sympathizer. So on that charge alone, being a Southern sympathizer and supporting a system that had enslavement of others as a cornerstone, she was in the eyes of the union, guilty.

So, no one will ever know the extent of her involvement in the conspiracy to kill Lincoln or the others, but circumstantially, she was guilty of supporting such a plot and knew they were going to kidnap the president and was complicit with that, so like I say - 700,000 innocently killed ppl plus 1.

The movie was designed to put a human face on the woman and even elicit sympathy. I watched it impassionately, as would an attorney. My only response was realizing the so-called justice system was being circumvented in the name of martial law, expediency or national security. That was my real concern and the real fear (which is still playing out today with a different cast of characters). The fact that Mary Surratt was hanged with the other conspirators wasn't much of a tragedy in face of what horrors had just transpired for the whole nation. That was the context that I saw it in.

Shale,

Your comments are appreciated. One final bit of info I came across under obituary of Col. Frederick A. Aiken.




His obituary, published December 24, 1878 in the Washington Post: Here is parts

"The melancholy news of the sudden death of Col. Frederick A Aiken, city editor of the Post, reached this office yesterday after we had gone to press, and filled every heart with the shock which so unexpected and sad an event was likely to produce in circles where the deceased was so esteemed and beloved.


When that unfortunate victim of Republican fury, Mrs. Mary Surratt, was dragged from her bed at midnight by the brutal minions of Stanton, and hurried before a court-martial organized to convict. . . Aiken was one of the gallant few in the District that dared to lift his voice in behalf of justice and right at the imminent risk of his life nobly undertook to conduct her defense. His defense of Mrs. Surratt is one of the most praiseworthy efforts on record. (Frederick) Aiken’s memorable speech on that occasion will be long remembered as fulfilled prophesy, everyone now believing her to have been innocent.


Frederick A Aiken was buried on December 26, 1878 in Oak Hill Cemetery, Georgetown, District of Columbia. His grave is unmarked