The Conspirator: A Review for History Nerds

The Conspirator:  Finally, a more thorough follow-up.

Here was my original mini review for normal human beings and/or the average movie watcher:  2010 historical drama about the trial of Mary Surratt after the Lincoln assassination; directed by Robert Redford and starring James McAvoy, Rachel Wood, Robin Wright, and Kevin Kline.  It’s great.  It’s very well done, the acting is excellent for the most part, and the cinematography is beautiful.  See it if you like historical dramas or are as rabid a McAvoy fan as I am.

But I couldn’t quite leave the review at that.  What follows is a little bit more about the three main historical gaffes that bothered me.  In doing research for this post I came across this article, which goes into every tiny little historical imperfection of the movie.  If you really want to nerd out, read that as well.  I don’t have the patience to recount all the minor complaints I had.  Plus that guy already did it for me.

Issue #1:  Washington D.C. was too clean.  When Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 the Civil War had gone on for four years.  Troops had been stationed all around Washington, the city had many permanent and temporary hospitals that treated more than 20,000 men over the course of the war, and it had been the staging area for campaigns like Manassas.  It was kind of a mess, you guys.  There was a serious overpopulation issue between the residents, the soldiers, and the freed slaves pouring in from the South.  There were unpaved streets that turned into giant muddy canals after a hard rain, there was a weak sanitation system and the mosquitos reached near plague-like proportions.

Yet in Redford’s D.C. the streets sparkle and glisten, the uniforms of soldiers are rakish instead of ragged.  Even the Old Capitol Prison where Mary Surratt is held is merely shabby chic.  The piles of hay on the floor of her cell are clean and golden, with tiny wisps of dust and chaff glittering in the air, lit by the sun streaming in.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME.  Would it not have been better to use the talents of cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel (who also worked on Drive) to beautifully light the surroundings but keep them dingy?  As they should be?  It was a desperate time for our country, an uncertain time!  Why is everything so GD clean?  Metaphors!

Issue #2:  Who the heck is that dude playing John Wilkes Booth?  Booth was like the Brad Pitt of the 1860s – except, you know, totally bonkers.  He was charming, talented, smart, and very very very handsome.  SO handsome.  Like Swarthy Disney Prince handsome.  Because Booth is barely in the movie at all, for so short a time that the acting didn’t really have to be outstanding, then maybe Redford should have focused on finding an actor who actually looked like Booth.  And could deliver a single line competently.  Shouldn’t have been hard.

            Toby Kebbell is a handsome guy.  But in this getup he looks like Borat.  None of the fine yet strong features of Booth.  Maybe the chin.  I don’t know.  It’s really hard to tell from the pictures I was able to find but when I watched the movie I was immediately put off by how un-Booth Kebell was.  OK also, the crowd in the theater didn’t start screaming until AFTER Booth jumped to the stage and yelled Sic semper tyrannis.  Not immediately after Booth shot Lincoln.  Duh.

Issue #3:  The glorification of Frederick Aiken.  In the movie Aiken (played ably by James McAvoy) is a bright young thing on the rise in Washington.  He’s a Union veteran who was wholly devoted to The Cause, a man saddled with the unenviable task of defending one of the most hated persons in U. S. history.  He’s eager, honest, he grapples with being shunned by his friends and would-be girlfriend and worries that his career will be marred forever but dammit he just has to do it it’s his duty he’s a PATRIOT! 

Uh, yeah.  Except the real Frederick Aiken offered his services to Jefferson Davis at the start of the war, before joining the Union Army.  If he even joined voluntarily, it’s not clear if he was drafted or not.  He also supported the candidacy of Vice President John C. Breckinridge, who later became a general in the Confederate Army.

I’ll concede that the details of Aiken’s life are sketchy at best, especially before the trial.  But when all the other characters in the movie are so clearly Right and Wrong, wouldn’t it have made for a more interesting movie if Redford had played up some of those ambiguities?  Made the audience wonder at his motives?

But all in all I still maintain that it’s a decent movie, and worth giving a shot if you like historical dramas.