The Conspirator

The Conspirator

                I am a big fan of Robert Redford as a director.  He has produced such classics as the visually beautiful  ‘A River Runs Through It’, the thoughtful ‘Ordinary People’, the intriguing ‘Quiz Show’, and even the low key ‘The Horse Whisper’.  As Robert Redford has entered his twilight years, his movies have become decidingly more political in nature.  I don’t mind this in general as there have been many great political movies in recent years (Frost/Nixon) and past (All The President’s Men), but I don’t enjoy being hit over the head or lectured by a movie.

                The Conspirator takes a great and little explored subject matter, the story of the men and women accused of killing Abraham Lincoln, and turns it into 2 hours of lecturing on the evils of Military Tribunals.  I can’t imagine Redford is trying to draw any analogies to modern day (yes; that is sarcasm in case it’s not coming across).  Let me say, I’m not even against movies that have a political view point.  The Tim Robbins/Sean Penn movie ‘Dead Man Walking’ is a perfect example of how a movie can have a political view point, yet still explore both sides of the argument rationally without vilifying opposing opinions.  The Conspirator portrays the accused, Mary Surrat (Robin Wright) as almost saintly despite her resentments and everyone else trying to prosecute her as dastardly villains.

                I’m jumping ahead of myself, though.  The Conspirator follows the trial of Mary Surrat directly after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  Mary Surrat was the woman who ran the boarding house where John Wilkes Booth and his conspirators (including Mary’s son) plotted to kill Lincoln.  Mary was an unrepentant Southerner who claimed that she thought her son was only plotting to kidnap the President (that makes her less culpable?).  The Southern attorney and Senator, Reverdy Johnson (played inadequately by the usually fantastic Tom Wilkenson) decides that Mary has no chance with a southerner representing her, so he appoints a young northern Yankee war hero, Frederick Aiken (played by another Brit, James McAvoy doing a much better job than Wilkenson with the period accent).  Aiken is dead set against taking on the job of defense attorney as he has deep seated resentments against the South and is as angry as everyone else over the assassination of Lincoln.  Reverdy convinces Aiken that the military tribunal being assembled to try the conspirators is unconstitutional and has dire consequences for the soul of the nation if enacted against citizens.  Kevin Kline plays Secretary Stanton as the villainous man who sole purpose is to convict Mary and the conspirators as fast as possible in order to calm the nation and return to healing the North/South divide.  Due process to Stanton is an inconvenience as he has already decided their guilt in his mind.

                I will say it was interesting to see how the court process worked back then and the physical landscape of 19^th century Washington was interesting as well.  However, what followed was a historical ‘Law & Order’ episode (and like ‘Law & Order, it should have lasted only an hour).  The movie provided no surprises nor disputed history.  The conspirators were the ones who killed Lincoln.  The only question was the degree of Mary Surrat’s guilt.  The movie tried to portray her as a pious mother trying to protect her son, but somehow Mary never gains the sympathy of the audience (speaking for myself and those around me).  The movie’s sole purpose was to outrage us over the lack of constitutional rights and the tragedy of human rights that would follow.  I agree with the theme in principal, but perhaps a subject matter with less guilty people would have inflamed my indignation more.  The film made its’ political point early on, yet kept pounding us over the head with the message ad nauseum.  We get it; “Military Tribunals on citizens are un-American”. 

                I do admire the historical detail and the effort for authenticity.  I also admire that they did not choose to portray Mary Surrat as an entirely sympathetic figure.  Redford seemed to not want to overly focus on Mary (she was the human face to the message), rather the broader issue of how if one person is not afforded the rights provided in the constitution, then we are all in jeopardy.  I get and respect that viewpoint, but I view movies as a source of entertainment and art.  Something that touches us emotionally and illicits an aesthetic reaction (whether positive or negative).  This movie failed to do that on both counts with me. It did not outrage me nor provoke thought that I had not already considered.  It just fell flat with all the charm and engagement of a 2 hour Civics lesson.

I rate this movie *1/2 stars ( I added the half star out of respect for the authenticity of the period).