The Conspirator
I don't like seeing historical movies as much as one might think. I am, after all, the director of a historical society and all. And yet... well, it's just tough. I've always taken the approach that you shouldn't go to movies expecting a history lesson. If you think the movie posits an interesting theory with regard to a historical event then, I would think, you should hit the books. Use the movie as an inspiration to learn more about a topic. I do think a movie should at least try to get the skeletal framework and some crucial details of the history being presented correct. I'm really not a fan of seeing glaringly obvious costume or prop problems. That said, I'm also not too picky; I don't head to movies to see what inaccuracies I can pick out. So, I suppose, if I do notice one, the filmmakers have royally screwed up. But generally, what fun is it to pick apart a movie while it unfolds on screen. It is only entertainment after all. I suppose the larger issue, and the thing that filmmakers need to keep in mind, though, is that not everyone thinks like I do. Some people actually do take what they see on the big screen as historical fact. And this can be extremely troubling, leading to a lot of difficulties for folks in professions like mine. I guess if I had a message to filmmakers who favored historical accounts/fiction, I'd just remind them to do their best and be careful with the story they are telling because others won't.
So all that leads me to the Conspirator, the courtroom... errr... military tribunal room drama revolving around the case of Mary Surratt, the woman who owned the boardinghouse where John Wilkes Booth and company convened to scheme the demise of President Abraham Lincoln. As far as I can tell.. and I'll admit to being a little out of my league here... the film's director- the legendary Robert Redford- didn't play particularly loosely with the basic history here. Well, let me clarify.. in terms of the basic facts, it doesn't appear that he played particularly loosely... in terms of bias? Well, that's a whole other can of worms, isn't it? The story basically follows Surratt's lawyer, former Union officer Fred Aiken and his quest to allow for Mary to be tried in civilian court, rather than the hasty military tribunal set up to try all the conspirators in the assassination plot. Aiken is no Southern sympathizer here, he just gradually becomes wedded to the idea of justice- appropriate justice- for all, and the idea of a military tribunal and the related biases of the judges who sit therein, is less than appealing to Aiken. After all, as the judge/generals already have their minds made up, doesn't that make the whole process a sham? Where is the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Certainly the idea declines to make an appearance in front of the tribunal.
Even casual students of history should know the rest. Despite Aiken's best (and in the case of the film, impassioned) efforts, Surratt's tribunal hearing holds, and the inevitable verdict- that she is guilty, and thus condemned to death- comes to fruition. If Redford has his way, however, what students of this particular movie don't know is whether justice had been served. Well, actually, to take it a step further, it is evident that Redford has come to the conclusion that justice was a long ways off from being served. And further, it's pretty evident that Redford wants you to really question whether Surratt deserved to have been arrested or implicated at all. Whether that's the result of his personal belief, sloppy handling of bias, or just plain bad film making is harder to ascertain. In the end, the way Redford directs it, it would be hard for an audience NOT to feel some degree of sympathy for Surratt. The problem is, however, from what I've read and been taught, this just wasn't that clear cut of a case. At least in terms of whether her role- whatever that was- called for her to be sentenced to death. If we're taking the approach of Major League Baseball or National History Day, then Surratt was clearly guilty- no questions asked- after all, judges (or umpires) decisions are final.
The more I think about though, the more I question whether Redford was consciously trying to make a judgement on Surratt's guilt in the conspiracy. The problem is that the end result- the finished movie- certainly tilts towards her being one hell of a lot less guilty than the tribunal thought. What I do think Redford was not-so-subtly trying show was that the her whole trial made a mockery of the justice system. And, because he did so much to show that her trial was a sham, he made it very difficult to see anything other than that the verdict was a sham. I think he was more of the mind to encourage audiences to question the verdict and Surratt's role in the conspiracy without making a specific judgement himself. But again, as I've said, his handling of the trial did this effort no favors. Nor did his handling of the characters... more on that later.
So, why would Robert Redford make a movie to show that a case handled 146 years ago was a sham? I find it hard to believe that the pretty-damn liberal Redford wasn't trying to make a comment on the current debate as to whether the government should hand terrorist cases over to military tribunals. In this case, it seems clear that he is arguing that tribunals do not equate to justice. I could be wrong, but it just seemed to have such a heavy message regarding what does amount to true justice that it's hard not to draw parallels. I really don't know Redford's stand on the issue for a fact though. I just find it hard to believe there isn't some farther reaching message being delivered here: we've been down this road before, and look where it took us. So as a propaganda piece? Eh, I'd rather not judge it on that criteria, particularly because I'm making an assumption here. Let me say this though: I'm not a huge fan of how biased the film was. Redford certainly portrayed the tribunal as only a few notches above medieval justice, adding heaps of nefarious overtones. Again, he wanted to leave no doubt as to what his message was: this was a mockery of the justice system, no question about it. Even if that is true, this level of subtly is usually left to the likes of Paul Haggis, and while I'm not saying Redford is some master tactician of screen messages, I would have hoped he would have avoided the use of a sledgehammer to get his point across. He didn't. Out came the mallet, off I turned. I always have felt that guiding your audience to your message- allowing them to discover it- while being a more risky endeavor, is the more rewarding. But, here, Redford leaves nothing to chance.
And that isn't the only problem with the movie. I'm not entirely sure whether it was Redford's directing, James Solomon's screen-writing, or Robin Wright's idea of how Surratt should be played, but the end result is Mary Surratt as messianic martyr. Everything Surratt says and does just comes out so heavy and significant- like she's some kind of royalty. It was just too much. Add to that that some of the dialog just seemed out of place in the movie... would they have really said some of what they said that way?... and that a couple of actors (Justin Long- forever known to me as the Mac dude from the Apple commercials- and Alexis Bledel) looked really out of place here and you have the beginnings of a messy, eye-roll inducing movie. A few instances of overly-dramatic-to-the-point-of-corny lighting occasions seal the deal: the movie just wasn't that great. That isn't to say there weren't great performances: James McAvoy was reliably good- desperate, insecure, cocky, righteous, emotional, in all the right places; Tom Wilkinson did what he always does- give a great, understated performance, and Kevin Kline disappeared into the role of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton... it's just too bad Redford made him such a bastard (why is it always so black and white? Stanton may have been a bastard, true, but why leave no doubt?).
The best I can say is that, at least for me, the movie wasn't particularly boring. Sloppy and boring would have been unforgivable. Sloppy and at least moderately entertaining? A disappointment, sure. But not a devastation.
Grade: C
No comments:
Post a Comment