The Conspirator
As a director, Robert Redford has distinguished himself less for his style than for the intellectual complexity and depth he brings to each film. Whether it’s the family drama of “A River Runs Through It,” the healing romance of “The Horse Whisperer,” or the satirical bite of his 1994 game show drama “Quiz Show,” there’s always more brewing below the surface of his films.
His latest film, “The Conspirator,” is no different. Here, Redford and screenwriter James Solomon, who spent years researching the script, finds modern relevance in the trial of Mary Surratt, who in 1865 was tried and sentenced to death in a military tribunal for conspiracy in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Redford’s film does not turn into a “did she or didn’t she” courtroom drama but is a moving and thoughtful look at the difficulties that come with freedom. In that way it is an appropriate companion to his underrated 2007 film, “Lions for Lambs,” which took on tough questions of civil and political responsibility when it comes to defending our country and holding true to the rights we are granted in the Constitution.
When a tragedy occurs, are those who are to be held responsible for that tragedy allowed the same rights of a regular citizen, or are greater responsibilities to be served? This is the central quandary of the Surratt trial, and the question continues to haunt our country in the aftermath of 9/11, where we have been forced to make difficult choices and search for a fundamental moral truth to guide us when it comes to seeking justice against terrorists. Is the defense of our country more important than the ideals of freedom for which it has stood since our founding fathers fought for it, or should those freedoms be upheld even in times of war? Redford has shown us where he stands simply by making this film, but Redford does not want to preach; for him both sides of the issue deserve equal respect for such a complicated question– after all, Lincoln himself suspended a citizen’s right to a writ of habeus corpus (which provides against unlawful detention) during the Civil War as a way of defending the values of the Constitution during this most painful of times for our country. But with the war at an end, for all intents and purposes, should such actions prevail in the wake of a national tragedy like Lincoln’s assassination?
When he first takes on the case, Frederick Aiken, who was a Union soldier before returning to the law after General Lee’s surrender, has such reservations and questions. As a loyalist to the Union, he, too, demands justice at any cost for the assassination of the leader to whom he had just given four years of his life. But as the lawyer for the defense, such prejudices must be thrown out as he ensures Mary Surratt, whose son was John Wilkes Booth’s right hand, receives a fair trial, which is not easy to do when the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton (Kevin Kline in a superb dramatic turn) and the military commission put together to try the conspirators has unprecedented power to sway witness testimony and when Ms. Surratt is unable to speak on her own behalf; and even if she could speak on her own behalf, doing so would likely mean condemning her son. Right there, we see Ms. Surratt’s dilemma; Aiken’s dilemma, on the other hand, is in getting her a fair trial, even if he disagrees with her alleged actions.
In all honesty, the story Redford tells is more compelling than how it is told. The present day similarities are right there to be seen, and there is not a lot of mystery, even if you are not familiar with the story. That said, Redford still tells the story beautifully with rich and deep performances from James McAvoy (as Aiken), Robin Wright Penn (as Mary Surratt), Tom Wilkinson (as Aiken’s Senator friend and the one who assigns him to the case), Evan Rachel Wood (as Ms. Surratt’s daughter), and Danny Huston (as the government’s prosecutor in the case), all of whom are major players in this smart and profound political drama.
