Pertaining To The Conspirator

Zzzzzzz... What? I'm sorry. Fell asleep for a minute there.

Okay, something about a woman who is (perhaps) falsely accused of conspiring to kill President Lincoln. She stands trial in a closed military court with Union generals as the deciding body. A young man in the war department is her defense. He's reluctant at first, but then starts to believe the trial is unfair and she may be innocent. He's willing to risk his career to see her get a fair trial.

That about covers it. I've heard the movie is relentlessly accurate (historically, I mean). However, I doubt that very much. It seems a little too liberal to be accurate. The writing is so-so (what's with the contractions in the dialogue?). The acting is kept afloat by Robin Wright as Mary Surratt, the accused woman, and, to a certain extent, James McAvoy as Aiken, her defense lawyer. (Although I think he occasionally had trouble dropping his British accent.)

Aside from the sheer boredom, I also had a problem with the portrayal of the military court. Whether the generals were truly on a witch hunt or not is beside the point. What matters is what audiences bring away from this movie. Unfortunately, The Conspirator implies that military trials are necessarily biased. With the recent (and still unresolved) controversy over suspected terrorist trials, this seems like a thinly veiled condemnation of the military trials that many conservatives want to use. I have heard that this movie was in the works well before the War on Terror, so it seems that the man behind the movie did not intend it as a condemnation. However, I am perfectly willing to believe that director Robert Redford intended it as a condemnation.

Additionally, military trials are called "unconstitutional." Shortly after Surratt's trial, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens cannot be tried in military courts. I would agree. But this was an extraordinary period in the history of this country. Nearly all enemy combatants were citizens because it was a Civil War. The filmmakers also forgot to mention little details like: Abraham Lincoln himself suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Imagine that! The man that everyone includes in their top five best presidents list suspended something that the Supreme Court has recently (and perhaps wrongfully) given to non-citizens. Also, if Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights without a huge uproar, why would anyone at the time think it untoward that Surratt got a military trial?

Finally, the story seemed a little stilted. For most of the movie, it is implied that Surratt is innocent. Only at the beginning and the end does Aiken seem to doubt her innocence. In the beginning, he is convinced that she is guilty. In the end, he admits that he doesn't know; he just wants her to have a fair trial. In between, he seems to never doubt her innocence. The flimsiness of the evidence presented against her also seems to imply that she is innocent. In the mystery genre, it's a good thing to mislead audience by getting it caught up in the moment. In the historical genre, it's just bad storytelling.

In conclusion, this is a good movie to watch when you need to catch up on some sleep. Robin Wright was wonderful as Mary Surratt, and James McAvoy was pretty good as Aiken. But they were the only bright lights in an otherwise drab (and probably politically slanted) movie.

My Rating: T (mild language, violence (including stabbing), several people are hanged)


Reviews of similar books or movies:

• The Winslow Boy
• Bright Star