"The Founding Fathers had it right: the greatest threat to liberty is a meddlesome government. This is especially true when many persons look to the government to solve problems caused by human vices. Such problems have never, will never, and can never be solved by governments."
~Ruth Pakaluk, in a 1993 letter to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Printed in The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God: The Story of Ruth Pakaluk, Convert, Mother, Pro-Life Activist, edited by Michael Pakaluk.
Showing posts with label non-fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-fiction. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
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:
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:
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Concerning Unplanned
(Written by Abby Johnson, with Cindy Lambert.) Abby Johnson grew up in a pro-life, Christian family. While in college, she was recruited to be a volunteer at a nearby Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was there to help women, she was told, and as a worker there she would be making a difference in the lives of women who were in need of her help. Abortion was not the primary goal of Planned Parenthood; in fact, one of Planned Parenthood's primary goals was to reduce the number of abortions. Abby rose in the ranks and finally became director of a clinic. Then something happened to change her mind and her heart.
In my humble experience and opinion, there are only three types of people in favor of legalized abortion. 1) Evil people who are perfectly aware that abortion is murder but think that some things are more important than the lives of unborn children. 2) People who have been deceived, either by others or by themselves, into thinking that abortion is just the "termination of a pregnancy" or the cleaning out of a "cluster of cells." 3) People who are ignorant and don't know/care much about abortion either way. Abby Johnson's story shows that, at least in Texas, many of the people working in Planned Parenthood clinics fall into the second category. They were deceived by others at the start, and have been deceiving themselves ever since.
This is a good lesson that should be taken to heart by pro-lifers. It's easy to hate on people involved in something as appalling as abortion. But sometimes people who are aligned with something evil are not really evil themselves; as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plus, the pro-life movement is not just about the sanctity of life; it is about the dignity of every person, no matter how small. People who work for abortion clinics deserve to be treated with dignity because they are human persons as well.
I don't really want to say too much more because I think the impacts of stories like this one are greater when fewer details are known going into the stories. The only other thing I want to say is that this book is very fair and even-handed. Abby genuinely liked/likes pro-abortion people she worked for or with. This is not a cathartic rant about the evils of the clinic and those who participated in abortions; this is a simple story about a young woman discovering the truth.
Note: Abby's website can be found at abbyjohnson.org.
My Rating: T (mentions of abortions, thematic elements; no graphic descriptions)
In my humble experience and opinion, there are only three types of people in favor of legalized abortion. 1) Evil people who are perfectly aware that abortion is murder but think that some things are more important than the lives of unborn children. 2) People who have been deceived, either by others or by themselves, into thinking that abortion is just the "termination of a pregnancy" or the cleaning out of a "cluster of cells." 3) People who are ignorant and don't know/care much about abortion either way. Abby Johnson's story shows that, at least in Texas, many of the people working in Planned Parenthood clinics fall into the second category. They were deceived by others at the start, and have been deceiving themselves ever since.
This is a good lesson that should be taken to heart by pro-lifers. It's easy to hate on people involved in something as appalling as abortion. But sometimes people who are aligned with something evil are not really evil themselves; as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Plus, the pro-life movement is not just about the sanctity of life; it is about the dignity of every person, no matter how small. People who work for abortion clinics deserve to be treated with dignity because they are human persons as well.
I don't really want to say too much more because I think the impacts of stories like this one are greater when fewer details are known going into the stories. The only other thing I want to say is that this book is very fair and even-handed. Abby genuinely liked/likes pro-abortion people she worked for or with. This is not a cathartic rant about the evils of the clinic and those who participated in abortions; this is a simple story about a young woman discovering the truth.
Note: Abby's website can be found at abbyjohnson.org.
My Rating: T (mentions of abortions, thematic elements; no graphic descriptions)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)