The Conspirator is a 2010 film that documents the broader conspiracy around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. I want to preface my review with a statement. Mary Surratt committed treason against the United States. Regarding this fact, there is no doubt. The retelling of this story glosses over evidence against Surratt that was overwhelming.
This film takes on several issues. In addition to Surratt's guilt or innocence, the film examines military tribunals, Surratt's death sentence and corruption within the legal proceedings. The story was written by James Solomon and ties closely enough to the actual events surrounding Lincoln's assassination that it would appear to be factual. However, Solomon plays loose with the facts, shading the actual events in a light that casts doubt on Surratt's involvement in the conspiracy. That is simply dishonest. If you are going to make a historical film, make a historical film. If you don't agree with the military tribunals or the sentence, then make the film about that. Changing and omitting the facts around Surratt's conviction and fabricating corruption among the military tribunals (and even the Secretary of War) is simply intellectual dishonesty.
Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) owned the Washington DC boarding house where the plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln was hatched. Her son John (Johnny Simmons) has fallen in with John Wilkes Booth (Toby Kebbell) and the other conspirators, who meet regularly at the boarding house. Following the assassination, Secretary of War Stanton (Kevin Kline) takes charge of the investigation and rounds up the conspirators. Surratt is arrested along with seven others. Her son John is never captured.
A Maryland Senator, Reverdy Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) takes Surratt's case and asks a young lawyer, Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) to be his second chair. Johnson then distances himself from the case, leaving the untested lawyer (and war hero) to defend Surratt on his own. As the trial progresses, Aiken comes to see the charges against Surratt as a penalty for her son's absence and builds his case around that theory. In the end, Surratt is convicted and executed.
Fact Checking. For me, one of the important aspects of a historical film is accuracy. People will accept a film version as the actual version of events without ever visiting the source material. That is sad, but it's also true. The Conspirator, therefore, is a revisionist telling of the story. Changing a few elements to enhance the dramatic elements is acceptable, but changing the truth is not. Aside from numerous omissions, this film also changes actual facts to sway the opinion of the audience behind the conspirator, Mary Surratt.
Long before Mary Suratt moved to Washington DC, her other property (in Surrattsville) was a safe-house for Confederate spies. She often hosted sympathizers. Her son John was a courier for the Confederacy and lost his job as Post Master for their town as a result. When Mary moved to 541 H street, it may have been because of her husband's debts. But historians have challenged that fact on several points. Most damning is a letter that her son John sent to Weichmann indicating in a cryptic message that the move had been undertaken in response to certain events having turned up. The other points historians have examined are the cost of the move and the fact that more money could be made by renting the entire boarding house rather than moving. Mary Surratt was also very protective of her children. This move placed them in a much less desirable locale than the one they were currently living in. Incidentally, John Surratt transferred all of his property into his mother's name, a move that indicates his own involvement. She had to know his reasoning for transferring her his property.
Enough on the background. Mary Surratt personally invited Booth to her boarding house on several occasions. She also hand-delivered the field glasses to the tavern where her son had previously stashed weapons. Weichmann indicated that Surratt engaged in a lengthy conversation with the tavern owner. Surratt claimed she went out to collect a debt, but the majority of her time was spent with Lloyd, the tavern proprietor. Booth personally gave Surratt the package to deliver. Does it matter if Surrat knew what was in the package? She knew about the conspiracy (the concealment of which was a crime in and of itself). The delivery of the package is known as an "overt act." This joins her in the conspiracy with no uncertainty.
During the search of the boarding house, Solomon would have us believe that Surratt's daughter kept a picture of John Wilkes Booth behind a picture frame. The picture was discovered in Mary Surratt's bedroom, not her daughters. What else was found with Booth's picture? The film forgets to tell us about the pistol, the ammunition making gear and percussion caps. During questioning, Surratt lied about her son's location (Canada). When one of the conspirators arrived at her door unexpectedly, she denied knowing him. The conspirator had roomed at her boarding house. The defense claimed she had poor eyesight. You can buy that nonsense if you want, I choose not to be that stupid. Based on the totality of the evidence, Surratt's several lies during questioning and her own furtherance of the conspiracy, there is no doubt in my mind that she was guilty of the charges levied against her.
Having said all that, did Surratt deserve the death penalty? That is not for me to say. The mid-Nineteenth Century at the close of a horrible war is a tough place to make that call. However, several of the members of the military tribunal appealed directly to President Johnson to commute Surratt's sentence to life in prison. In the film, these facts are twisted into a scene where the Secretary of War engages in political pressure to change a verdict. There is no doubt in my mind that this did not happen. There is no way a group of military officers would change their verdict at the behest of the Secretary of War and then commit career suicide by appealing directly to the President. Jumping the chain of command to make their point would be worse than simply sticking to their original verdict. The film does this several times, changing the facts to cast a sense of wrong-doing on the tribunal process. There is no evidence to back those charges up.
The Conspirator, as a film, was superbly executed. The attention to cinematic detail seemed flawless to my untrained eye. The re-creation of Washington DC to appear as it did a century and a half ago was amazing. The costumes were excellent, the dialogue was sharp, the sets were complex. The illusion was fully delivered.
The acting was also excellent, although Aiken's friend Baker (Justin Long) kept me wondering if he was a Mac or a PC (reference to that old annoying commercial). That was a little bit distracting. Wood and McAvoy carried the film with strong performances. There was one scene, in prison, where their dialogue seemed a bit stilted, but the pair worked well together. The rest of the cast was filled with veterans like Wilkinson and Kline. The strong cast enhanced my enjoyment of the film.
The Conspirators takes an exciting and often overlooked page from history and retells it. It is unfortunate that this film has chosen to tell a lie. Casting doubt on the clear evidence against Surratt by withholding much of the damning evidence against her changed the story. It also changes history, which I am always concerned about. It is a tactic that happens all too often in film. It is Orwellian, and it irritates me to no end. So I am left with having to rate this film on two elements....quality and accuracy. On quality, I would have given this film a very high rating. But the historical inaccuracies were more than just details, they completely rewrite history, which affects my rating. It was an interesting film about an important period of history, which makes it hard for me to decide. I am going to give this film 6/10 with a mild recommendation and an admonition to read the truth and decide for yourself.
Trailer and images subject to copyright.
