The Conspirator, A Dull Bore Not Worthy of a Dead Traitor or A Thought-Provoking Historical Drama

What do you say about a depiction of an historical event that has no heros? No clear struggle between good and evil? No explosions or chases? And no clear moral winner?

Many reviewers didn't like it at all. USA Today said it had a "stiffness that keeps the story from packing a punch." Entertainment Weekly stuck with the theme and called it "stiff-jointed and dull" (hmmm is "stiffness" a theme or something?). NPR called it "A better history lesson than it is a drama." The Toulcan Times went for dark humor saying "even if she was guilty Mary Surratt deserves better than this maladroit film that's rife with life-threatening boredom."

Robert Redford's movie about the woman tried and hanged for conspiring to kill President Abraham Lincoln, The Conspirator, rated only 55% among professional critics, but got a higher 72% from audiences. Maybe it's true that the mainstream media is out of touch with Americans. Maybe we're more comfortable with complexity than we're given credit for.

Redford's interpretation of the Surratt case is a story of  people convinced they were choosing the lesser of two evils.

A glance at the history books shows that Redford took some liberties with the facts, but let's go with his story for sake of discussion.

We're presented with Mary Surratt, a southern widow who moved to DC during the last year of the Civil War to run a boarding house to support her son and daughter. She hosted some shady characters including known Lincoln assassin, John Wilkes Booth, a friend of her son. She admitted that she knew her son was conspiring to kidnap Lincoln and ransom him for Confederate soldiers in Union prisons, but insisted she knew nothing of the plot to kill the President. (felony murder?)

Mary's daughter, Anna had a school-girl-type crush on Booth. She said her brother warned her against him for her protection. Wouldn't he have protected his mother in the same way?

John Surratt, Mary's son, disappeared after the murder, but some knew where he was. The priest knew. Did his mother? Why did such a young man, a man clearly not landed or wealthy enough to benefit from slavery or the old power structure of the South, choose hatred and revenge over making a new life for himself? Why didn't John return to save his mother? Surely the Union would not execute a woman who, if anything, was on the edges of the crime? She'd be ok and he could save himself, wouldn't she?

Then, there's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton and his military leaders. They had their own troubles. The war was won, but the peace was shaky. Old hatreds still festered and would for the next century or so, if they ever healed.

When Booth was killed in a burning tobacco barn at the Garrett farm, it left the the War Department without their arch villan in the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Booth had no trial and the people got no Booth hanging. Secretary Stanton, felt he needed something to ensure the South would not attempt further insurrection and something to satisfy Northerners' need for justice (blood?). Stanton opted for swift and deadly, if not just, justice. So, he pushed through a military trial for a civilian. He traded away sure convictions for testimony and he even managed to quash the habeas corpus writ from a civilian court.

Attorney Frederick Aiken fought for the Union. He was considered a war hero for staying on the field of battle after being wounded and his horse had been shot out from under him. Thereafter, he flirted with a position at the War Department before choosing a legal career. He didn't want to represent Surratt and it was pretty much tricked into it. He was a reluctant defender even going before the military commission. Then, seeing witnesses turned and fair discovery denied, he chose to give the defense his all despite warnings that it would end his legal career.

That brings us back to Mary. She might have given up her son to the authorities, before or after Lincoln's murder. That was probably the legal thing for her to do and she surely would have been freed had she done so. But, she was a devoted mother of a headstrong son trying to prove his manhood in the face of his father's inglorious death and his side's defeat. She was also a loyal southerner who likely had little problem with the Presidents' death herself. That doesn't mean that she contributed to it in any meaningful way, and it doesn't mean that she didn't. She ran the boarding house where the murder and his henchmen frequently met and she was no dummy. She likely knew something, but did she know enough to have a duty to go to the authorities? Could she have had she wanted to or would she have been harmed either way? We'll never really know Mary Surratt's real story because she was never given a real trial.



Execution of Surratt and Others

 A year after Mary Surratt's execution, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that civilians could not be tried in military courts. So, why are we still asking the question today?

I disagree with the media critics, finding The Conspirator legally, morally and entertainingly interesting. Robin Wright's performance as Mary was haunting and James McAvoy did a good job of looking alternately confused and determined without looking like an idiot. Redford presented both sides of the story in one of the most balanced story-tellings I have ever seen. I give the movie 4 cat treats for that balance, it's careful handling of complex legal issues and soft-handed approach to the ultimate irony of the story.