Movie Review: The Conspirator is Redford’s Best Film In Decades

conspirator 3 rw Movie Review: The Conspirator is Redfords Best Film In DecadesAs an iconic actor, conscientious director and liberal political activist, Robert Redford loves history lessons. Everybody knew about white-collar crime in the White House during Watergate, but nobody knew anything about the two reporters who exposed the story until Mr. Redford and Dustin Hoffman played them in All the President’s Men, in the interests of the great profession of journalism. In The Conspirator, Robert Redford the director addresses another footnote to American history that’s left out of textbooks: the little-known story of Mary Surratt, an innocent woman caught up in the U.S. government witch hunt following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. It’s an exhaustively researched, brilliantly scripted, carefully made film that cautiously avoids preachy propaganda of yesteryear, while unavoidably reflecting the similar anxiety, tension and fear of a polarized nation today. What goes around, Mr. Redford seems to be saying, comes around.

It took screenwriter James Solomon 16 years to polish his script to perfection, and the hard work shows. We all know Lincoln was shot and killed at Ford’s Theatre in April 1865 by a single bullet to the head from the gun of assassin John Wilkes Booth. The Conspirator graphically re-creates the incident, but uses it only as a starting point to delve deeper into the vengeance and political chicanery that infected the country in the dark aftermath of the Civil War, leaving a nation divided and angry only two years after the surrender of General Robert E. Lee, with everyone distrusting everybody else and politicians screaming for justice in the interests of power and self-promotion. In the margins of history, there is a subchapter historians choose to forget or ignore, in which Mrs. Surratt (meticulously well played by a de-glammed Robin Wright, rough-hewn as a bar of Lava soap) was the only woman rounded up and charged as a co-conspirator in a plot to kill not only Abe Lincoln but Secretary of State William Seward and Vice President Andrew Johnson; she was subjected to a corrupt trial and hanged with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence (she appeared in the background of a photo depicting the accused rebels, taken in her boarding house).

The facts of her case are still murky, but this movie finds her guilty of nothing more serious than being a Confederate sympathizer and devoted mother who runs a boarding house in Washington, D.C., where the conspirators rented rooms and Booth often visited her cowardly son John, who could have cleared his mother but instead runs away and eludes a massive manhunt, leaving her to face the noose alone. (The film alleges he was shielded from the police by the Catholic Church.) Equally lethal to her cause: she is defended by Fredrick Aiken (James McAvoy), a reluctant and inexperienced 28-year-old Union lawyer torn between his hatred for the South and his duty to the law; and she is tried by a military tribunal, thus denied the civil trial by jury that is her right as an American citizen. It was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Not to mention the fact that Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Kevin Kline), one of Lincoln’s closest advisors, chooses nine of his Union supporters to be judges–including one of Lincoln’s personal pallbearers–and cruelly refuses Mary’s pleas for a public hearing. Even after the court finds her not guilty as charged, Stanton changes the verdict. The shameful result is an illegal and immoral attempt to appease a panicky populace demanding closure. Stanton wants the conspirators buried and forgotten, and that’s exactly what happens. No wonder Ms. Surratt is rarely mentioned in American History 101. Aiken is so disillusioned that he leaves the law and became the first editor of The Washington Post.

From the muddy streets and filthy Washington jail cells to the rooming-house wallpaper and stage settings of the play Lincoln watched the night of the assassination, the handsome period production details are just right. The Conspirator revels in meticulously channeling the kind of historic and geographical authenticity that is rare for an independent production on a shoestring budget. From Mr. Kline’s implacable and villainous secretary of war and Danny Huston’s treacherous, guileful prosecutor to Evan Rachel Wood’s turn as Anna Surratt, the tragic victim’s noble daughter, whose tearful attempts to tell the truth in court falls on deaf ears, the performances are uniformly sincere. Mr. McAvoy is especially significant as the conflicted attorney who, despite his Yankee sympathies, fights for a fair trial but fails to prevent a kangaroo court from making a mockery of the law. But it is Ms. Wright who staunchly holds the center ring. An enigma to this day, Mrs. Surratt remains unshaken in her faith and convictions, refusing to testify in her own defense, sealing her own fate as a scapegoat. Masterfully austere, without a smidge of rouge, Ms. Wright manages to be both stoic and vulnerable. As a director, Mr. Redford knows how to handle his actors, build suspense and construct a slice of U.S. history about loyalty and honor in the face of terror and pessimism. He has studiously and laboriously chronicled the events of 1865 into his best film since Quiz Show, but rest assured he has not overlooked the parallels between a young nation in crisis and the post-9/11 fragility of America today. We’re still living in a land of fear and confusion. Lincoln himself said, “A house divided cannot stand.” Now that so-called house is more divided than ever, endangering the lofty ideals on which America was based, and plunging us all in turmoil. No matter where your political leanings lie, the great thing about The Conspirator is that Mr. Redford is wise enough to let the audience decide what the parallels are. See it, enjoy a ripping good yarn and learn something.

rreed@observer.com

The Conspirator

Running time 122 minutes

Written by James D. Solomon

Directed by Robert Redford

Starring Robin Wright, James McEvoy, Kevin Kline

4/4

Comments

  1. Mary Maude Henry says:

    The war had been over about a week, not 2 years, Mary Surrat delivered weapons for John Wilkes Booth, she was enamoured of him and she denied knowing Lewis Powell when he came to the door, she was not a brave woman but wept constantly during her incarceration and her son John actually fled the country because he initially was in on a plot to kidnap Lincoln, not kill him.  She had to be held up as she was led to the gallows.  She did not fire the gun but she was a rabid southern sympathizer who was in over her head, have studied this for years, cannot get over the comparison to Guantanemo, just ahoot! Mary Maude Henry

  2. Bluetaelon says:

    i agree with mr.  rex reed!  the film has yet to get back
    not even half its 25 million dollar budget as it is finding
    the last few quaint arthouses willing to let it be on their
    schedule. we can only hope cable or PBS is quite kind!

  3. Bluetaelon says:

    andrew johnson almost pardonned two people. ms. surratt and the poor fool
    who was too drunk to jump him royally.   mr. redford could have then followed
    ‘the conspirator” with “restoration or reconstruction” had this film had at least
    75 million as take by now. the next noble  flic could have been about presidential
    pardons and a senate trial. robin wright did the role and the great debate justice.

  4. Bluetaelon says:

    the allusion to 1867 and the end of the presidential reconstruction is at the core of
    what rex reed was saying about the politics that went down at the military trial. until
    the four of them were hanged on 7/7/65 our 17th president had mulled over a pardon
    or two. i think rex reed was trying to say that the forces behind the senate trial of andrew
    johnson were abundantly there from april to july of 1865. he was trying not to sound like
    an undergrad paper on reconstruction 101. the movie begs a sequel equal to it’s insights…

  5. Brian Hartman says:

    Rex Reed got the history in this movie wrong — badly.  

    1)  There is little historical doubt that Mary Surratt knew about the conspiracy to kill Lincoln.  There is some doubt as to how much of a role she played.

    2)  In the film, Stanton doesn’t cause the verdict to be changed.  He causes the *sentence* to be changed.  

    To paint Surratt as a blameless victim, as Redford, and now Reed, have done, is pro-Confederate propaganda.  

  6. Aristides says:

    About the movie itself, not the accuracy of the story:  I soon found myself in the ‘been there-saw it before’ frame of mind as the movie moved along.  It must be so difficult to make ‘historical’ films with real humanity to them.  That is, have the actors appear to be real people.  Stereo-typical characterizations are always a consequence.  (Except in the singular and exception-to-the-rule case of James McAvoy who was just too much of a 21st Century young man.)  [Note:  ‘Gettysburg’ is noteworthy because of its formal structural dialogue; reading 19th Century literature as well as non-fiction, when compared to today’s common use of contractions, clues us as to how people from a distant era sound when they talk.  Having actors speak in the vernacular of their time is a help towards characterization.] Another consistent aesthetic mistake that happens in historical films is the pristine appearance of streets, buildings, costumes, hair and make-up, vehicles, what-have-you.  Why can’t an art department make a perfectly ‘new’ old thing and then ‘age it’? (One exception in ‘The Conspirator’ is that at least they did shoot scenes in buildings that had less-than-sparkling clean windows!)  ‘The Conspirator’ had a tough assignment facing it.  How to make Mrs. Suratt’s story involve us since we know before the movie starts that she in fact was executed.  The only way to do it would be through conceiving and achieving a movie where the emphasis would be on making the people involved as believable as possible.  ‘The Conspirator’ failed to do this.