Je n'ai pas tué Lincoln

Having jumped from THE TALL TARGET to PRINCE OF PLAYERS, you can now turn to this excellent film by John Ford. It's star Warner Baxter has had a very unfair posthumous reputation. He was the second actor to win the Academy Award for best actor for the role of the Cisco Kid in IN OLD ARIZONA (1928), and was overused in Hollywood for the next seven years. As a result, most of his movies were duds. This, and the fact that his Oscar was partly based on a fake-Mexican accent, downgraded a fine acting reputation. It should be remembered that he was the first actor (before Alan Ladd and Robert Redford) to portray Jay Gatsby on the screen. His credits include his tragic, war-weary French army officer in THE ROAD TO GLORY, Alan Breck Stewart in KIDNAPPED, and Dr. Mudd in this film. But most people recall him as Julian Marsh, the struggling, ill producer in FORTY-SECOND STREET, who tells Ruby Keeler, "YOU HAVE TO COME BACK A STAR!"

Historically Mudd's innocence is still up in the air - he had met Booth the previous fall and winter when Booth was going through southern Maryland, studying possible escape routes. But Mudd was a doctor, and (whether or not he knew Booth that April 1865 night)was bound by the Hippocratic Oath to treat him for his broken leg. It really was the image of a southern (and pro-Confederate) doctor treating the leg of the man who shot Lincoln that annoyed Northerners. It is that which convicted Mudd, unfair as it really is.

While Ford's direction, and the performances of Baxter and the cast hold the film well together, Ford does get the atmosphere of hate that permeated the trial of the Conspirators - look at the sequence of witnesses Arthur Byron produces against Mudd at the trial, and how Byron instructs the army officers (who are under him and Secretary of War Stanton) to ignore Baxter's sensible outburst ("Would John Wilkes Booth have intentionally broken his leg to see me?!"). John Carridine's performance is fine, but what is not mentioned is that his sadism against Mudd is based on his fanatical devotion to Abraham Lincoln. There is great subtlety there. Also, after Mudd beats the Yellow Fever epidemic, Carridine is the first soldier to sign a petition for Mudd's release.

It is not a great film, but it is a fine one for all that. Now, if only a modern John Ford can do the definitive movie about that other tragedy of the conspiracy trial: the judicial murder of Mary Surratt.

One of John Ford's more under-appreciated movies is this biopic of Dr Samuel Mudd, the doctor who set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Dr. Mudd (Warner Baxter) is convicted of being a part of the assassination and sent to a Union prison on the Dry Tortugas, a small group of islands off the coast of Florida. The prison island is surrounded by sharks, hence the movie's title. While there he endures brutal treatment and living conditions. When the prison is stricken with an outbreak of yellow fever, Dr. Mudd rises to the occasion and heroically saves lives.

It's solid entertainment directed by one of the greats with a script from Nunnally Johnson and starring a fine cast. In addition to Warner Baxter, who does an excellent job in the lead, the cast includes Gloria Stuart, Harry Carey, and Claude Gillingwater. Ernest Whitman is good as Mudd's friend (and his former slave!). John Carradine shines as an abusive Union guard ("Hiya, Judas!"). Ford's direction is superb, as one might expect, and he wrings every ounce of emotion out of each scene. While some parts of the movie are historically accurate (or at least close), it's inaccurate in many places. The primary example being the portrayal of Dr. Mudd as a complete innocent who knew nothing of Booth before the man showed up at his door with a broken leg. In reality, Mudd was a Confederate sympathizer who had met Booth on more than one occasion. It is true there is no concrete proof that Mudd knew about the assassination plot or knew that Lincoln was dead when Booth arrived at his house, but there is enough room for doubt that we still don't know the extent of his guilt or innocence to this day. But, as I always say with these biopics, I don't look to movies for history lessons but rather to be entertained. On that front, this is very successful.

I caught this one on American Movie Classics as part of its John Ford retrospective and found it to be an extremely well-done film that stand up very well for its 60-plus years. Lots of tension, and the action is extremely well-paced. Good acting all-around, especially from Claude Gillingwater as Mudd's feisty father-in-law.

Most history buffs will like this though they may disagree with the portrayal of Dr. Mudd as being complete innocent after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Historians say Mudd knew John Wilkes Booth from often seeing the famous actor on the stage. However, it doubtful if he knew Booth had just assassinated Lincoln and was in flight from pursuing soldiers after breaking his leg while leaping from the Ford Theatre balcony onto the stage. It is now believed by many that Dr. Mudd allowed Booth to remain in his home overnight due to the strain put upon the recently set leg. The next morning Mudd went into town to get a newspaper and then discovered that Booth was wanted for Lincoln's murder. He was thus placed in the uncomfortable position of unintentionally harboring a murderer and if he had notified the police at that time he would never have been implicated in the tragedy. He unwisely chose not to do so and instead returned home to tell Booth to leave. The pusuing troops discovered that Booth had been at the Mudd home and the doctor was arrested and later tried. The movie does give a good presentation of the trial which was a travesty conducted by the military with orders from the authorities to convict and hang all those charged. Booth did luck out a bit by escaping the death penalty. Many legal experts now believe that the trial was illegal since the civilian courts were still functioning. But vengeance was to be extracted and what did befall Dr. Mudd could have been far worse.

In general, Hollywood bio-pics of the 1930s bore me. So many of them stray so far from the real story or attempt to canonize the subjects that they just seem too fake and sickly to watch. This movie is a good exception to this rule of thumb. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie was NOT all treacle and it was easy to find myself engaged in the plot. Plus, the subject matter of the movie is an enigmatic person in that NO ONE alive knows for sure what, if any, role he had in Licoln's death. It really got me thinking and as a result I did some research--and ultimately learned that this debate will probably never be decided! But, based on excellent writing and acting, I strongly recommend it. Plus, as a history teacher, I am happy that, in general, the facts seem to be presented well. THAT'S a rarity for any biographical movie!