Some of our contributors recently had an opportunity to see a pre-premier showing of "The Conspirator", a historically accurate movie about the trial of Mary Surratt as a co-conspirator in the assassination of President Lincoln. The move was produced by Omaha's own J. Joe Ricketts whose American Film Company plans on producing other historically accurate films in the future.The film was directed by Robert Redford and stars Robyn Wright, James McAvoy and Kevin Klein. It's a movie of the type we wish others in Hollywood would produce. Historically accurate. Enthralling. Entertaining. No sex scenes. No f-words. Just a great flick. From American Film Company, this is a description of the movie:
"A riveting thriller, THE CONSPIRATOR tells the powerful story of a woman who would do anything to protect her family, and the man who risked everything to save her.
In the wake of Abraham Lincoln's assassination, seven men and one woman are arrested and charged with conspiring to kill the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State. The lone woman charged, Mary Surratt (Wright) owns a boarding house where John Wilkes Booth (Toby Kebbell) and others met and planned the simultaneous attacks. Against the ominous back-drop of post-Civil War Washington, newly-minted lawyer, Frederick Aiken (McAvoy), a 28-year-old Union war-hero, reluctantly agrees to defend Surratt before a military tribunal. Aiken realizes his client may be innocent and that she is being used as bait and hostage in order to capture the only conspirator to have escaped a massive manhunt, her own son, John (Johnny Simmons). As the nation turns against her, Surratt is forced to rely on Aiken to uncover the truth and save her life."
The film will debut nationally on April 15th and if you like history and movies you should see this one. In the interim we suggest you follow the movie by going to the website: http://www.conspiratorthemovie.com/.
5 comments:
Mr. Ricketts deserves accolades for attempting to provide quality historial films to the American public. In restrospect, it's an incredibly daunting task to produce a film that's both accurate, positive, professionally done, and marketable. The latter is the key, because such films have been ignored by the public in recent years, and few have been attempted. Hopefully, Mr. Ricketts vision can began a new trend at this point in time, when so much trash is being generated out of the left coast!!!!!
^ Agreed! First The King's Speech, and now The Conspirator. Definitely shows a growing appetite for this type of film. Robert Redford is even diving into digital and hosting an insider's blog: http://www.conspiratorthemovie.com. A growing trend, indeed!
I lecture on the subject of military tribunals in US history. While the movie is accurate in most respects, it's aim of "proving" tribunals are unfair is not. In tribunals, the accused IS presumed innocent, CAN testify in their behalf, and CAN examine the evidence against them. The trial lasted 7 weeks, 371 witnesses testified, and all defendants were represented. Mary's conviction mandated execution; 5 of the 9 officers "recommended" it be REDUCED to life. The President refused (and suspended her writ). The REAL question is not why Mary was convicted. She WAS guilty. It is why her son was not convicted. Timing contributed to the decision to execute Mary, just as it influenced the fate of the Rosenbergs.
Anony: excellent analysis. The movie is accurate in many respects, especially minor details, such as the number of knots in the noose used to hang Mary, but the obvious political intent of illustrating that tribunals are unfair since she was unjustly convicted is not factual. I enjoyed the movie, but "Hollywood" versions are often modified to fit and serve a political motive.
In the grand scheme of things, this movie was NOT accurate.
The movie takes liberties to strecth and ommit facts all in an effort to turn Mary Surratt into a martyred saint. Gone are stronger pieces of evidence linking her to Booth, gone are her proven lies in court, gone is Atzerodt's final confession linking her in as guilty (as well as his long lost diary), among other things.
I would argue that this film is a disservice to history. The trial might have been unfair, but so is this movie.
Even her execution is a farce as she proudly and heroically faces the gallows to further the agenda of her noble qualities. In real life, she was like many people in that situation; afraid, nervous, complaining about her hands being bound to tight, and pleading 'don't let me fall.'
Post a Comment