The Conspirator

The Conspiritor uses an event that happened 150 years ago to tell a story which is all too familiar in our time. The backdrop off a shocking, sad event and the following massive public outcry pushes the powers to be to extreme measures, which they stand by because they feel to be forced to do or because they really believe it to be the only right thing.

Robert Redford has been well known for his political views and has displayed them already in the somewhat uneven Lions for Lambs. I like filmmakers who speak out. I can maybe not always agree, but I wholeheartedly admire that in this time of mindless action drivel like Transformers, Drive Angry and The Mechanic there is still hope for without trying to be arrogant: meaningful films. Redford uses the assassination of Lincoln to portray a nation in mourning and sadness. The Civil War was all but over and the policymakers were already planning the next step: the forming of a real Union. The assassination of Lincoln endangered the entire Union. The people wanted revenge and Edwin Stanton (an excellent Kevin Kline) serves it cold. Since her son is nowhere to be found anywhere, he settles for the next thing: his mother Mary Surrat. 'I don't care which one it is, as long as one of them pays the price'. Young Frederick Alken (James McAvoy) has the ungrateful task of defending her.

I don't know much about the Civil War and the period after that, so I can't say how accurate this film is. But what I can say is that it's a masterpiece in creating a period not so distant from our current world. If you replace the assassination of Lincoln with the 9/11-attacks, you have a film that stands firm. It asks relevant questions and holds a mirror right up to our faces. Are seeing clearly? In the sadness and outrage of such a shocking event, do we still see clearly what's going on? Do we still, as a people, have perspective enough to define friend from foe from guilty to innocent? Do our leaders have the capability, strength and courage to make us see or tell us 'no' when we are wrong? Or do policies, political views or elections hold them back and make them just give the public what they want? Mary Surrat, Lincoln, Osama Bin Laden, Afghanistan, Bush, Edward Stanton, Abu Grahib, post Civil War Washington, Guantanomo Bay. History repeats itself over and over again. When will we learn? Guilty or innocent. Is it important? Do we care? I give this film 8 out of 10.

With the release of The Conspirator director Robert Redford hopes to be making more films like this which he says are historically accurate. At least by Redford's interpretation of historical events and the one he picked is still being picked over by many historians of the Civil War and Reconstruction period.

This film focuses on the trial and aftermath of the Lincoln assassination and most particularly on Mary Surratt at whose boardinghouse in Washington, DC, John Wilkes Booth and his curious band of conspirators met and plotted. One of those was Mary's son John who was the only one to escape apprehension.

The villain in the film is Secretary Of War Edwin M. Stanton played by Kevin Kline. It was not hard for him to do what he did, he certainly had public approval. The assassinated president Abe Lincoln had suspended the right of habeas corpus during the war, so this trial by military tribunal was not an unforeseeable step that Stanton would take. It is important to remember that at the time we actually were at war with Confederate Armies still in the field. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox five days before the assassination, but Joe Johnston was in the field and when it is announced that the last Confederate Armies have surrendered the day of the hanging, they are referring to Richard Taylor's troops in Texas.

James McAvoy is a young army veteran and lawyer who becomes Mary Surratt's lawyer. In the end he believes in her innocence, but the forces of vengeance are too much for him to overcome. And while Surratt might not have been as innocent as the film makes out, no case beyond reasonable doubt was proved at least by the rules of any civil trial that should have taken place.

The film really belongs to Robin Wright as the implacable and fatalistic Mary Surratt. She definitely merits some Oscar consideration next year. Up there on the screen she becomes everyone's mother and one wonders about Johnnie Simmons as John Surratt seen in flashback as to why he isn't coming to the plate on this.

Perhaps because even Stanton was afraid of public opinion if two Surratt women were in custody on trial for their lives daughter Anna Surratt played by Evan Rachel Wood was never charged. She must have had some knowledge of what was going on. One aspect of the story I think Redford missed and I'm surprised as he's an actor and matinée idol back in the day himself. John Wilkes Booth though his southern sympathies were well known though his plotting a secret, was the great matinée idol of his day. And he certainly attracted his fair share of what would be called groupies back in the day. I think he probably favored Anna Surratt and certainly John Surratt was glad to be included in his entourage. Put in those terms the relationship becomes clearer.

Still Redford has crafted a justly well received film and it will no doubt lead to talk about the rights of the accused of the worst kind of crimes.

Once again, the young actor JAMES McAVOY gives an earnest and altogether convincing portrait of a man assigned to be the defense lawyer for Mary Surratt, accused as one of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Since the whole story is told from his point of view, it emerges as a realistic depiction of how events might have unfolded, taking no firm stand on the innocence or guilt of the accused. As the nation mourns the sudden death of its leader taken from them just as the Civil War ended, we are told that justice must be swift to heal the wounds of the public and satisfy a thirst for revenge. It's that viewpoint that makes this film relevant today, in view of other controversial historical events, but first and foremost the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

One glaring quibble: Apparently, to fully immerse the viewer in this time of history and to suit the flavor of the grim tale, Redford has chosen to use very muted color photography so that this is almost a sepia tone experience. But do we have to be reminded so flagrantly that this was the candlelit era? Scenes outside of the courtroom could have used flashes of real color, as could the social circle interiors of other scenes instead of keeping the low-key lighting so constant. It became a distraction for me. He may as well have used glorious B&W.

Other technical aspects are fine and the background score is effective without becoming overwhelming. ROBIN WRIGHT PENN plays Mary Surratt with quiet dignity and strength. KEVIN KLINE is almost unrecognizable as the stubbornly determined EDWIN STANTON seeking quick justice, EVAN RACHEL WOOD is effective as the distraught daughter Anna Surratt, and JOHNNY SIMMONS is sobering as the accused woman's son who manages to escape imprisonment for his role in the John Wilkes Booth caper. His character, unfortunately, isn't fleshed out at all.

Biggest supporting role goes to TOM WILKINSON as the man who urges McAvoy to take the defense case against his wishes. He and McAvoy share most of the running time on screen and do magnificent jobs.

History buffs will no doubt find this more interesting than the average movie fan looking for a more adventurous look at the past, but despite flaws, it is competently made and does recreate the actual events in a satisfying manner by use of flashbacks and an intelligent script. But did it have to be so dark?

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.

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.