I love when my interests collide

Of course I saw The Conspirator. A movie about the Lincoln assassination starring James McAvoy? Yes, please! I quite enjoyed it. I thought it did a great job portraying the events of the night of the assassination accurately. (Except for one major piece: For some reason, they had Booth shoot Lincoln during Harry Hawk's line. This makes no sense; many people know that he shot during the laughs that ensued. The confusion created by this was an important part of the plan.) I learned after seeing it that the American Film Company, who produced it, is all about historical accuracy. I know less about Frederick Aiken, the lawyer who represented Mary Surratt in her trial, and I spent chunks of the movie wondering how much of the script was actually taken from the transcripts of the Surratt trial.

The thing that's gotten me in the reviews of the movie are the comments of its overt politicalness. The choice of the movie--the desire to tell this story at this moment in time--is definitely political. The decision to try the conspirators in a military tribunal, not a civilian court; the use of the war to take away civil liberties--yes, Robert Redford and the AFC knew what they were doing. The subject matter speaks for itself.

But I've read numerous reviews that mention certain details in the movie as being political, like showing the fact that the conspirators were held in jail while wearing hoods makes the movie political. No, it makes the movie accurate. If anything, the movie didn't include enough of how rough the prisoners had it. They wore those hoods almost 24 hours a day. They were only allowed outside when Lewis Powell (I think--it maybe was someone else) tried to kill himself and a doctor basically said, "Hey, you need to let these people out a little." So the prisoners got an hour a day in the yard. Yay?

The movie certainly did its job in making me think. It never takes a firm stand on whether Surratt is guilty or not; the theme of the movie is really, "They should've gotten civilian trials." I will say that it's pretty sympathetic toward her. Now, volunteering at Ford's Theatre, there are certain questions you get a lot, and the relative guilt of Mary Surratt is one of them. My general thought has always been, "Well, she took those guns out to the tavern the day of the assassination; she probably knew about it, and therefore should've said something." (Would she deserve to die for that? Even if we knew 100% that she knew? Another debate.)

But now...I don't know. The arguments about the testimony in the trial resonated with me. I don't know how good those arguments actually are; Aiken, the guy making the arguments, is the movie's hero, so obviously they come off well. Naturally, I need to read more about this to clarify my thoughts.

Overall, the movie is definitely worth your time, even if it's just to stare at dreamy James McAvoy for 2 hours.

Related, I actually attended the premiere for this movie. It was at Ford's and I was lucky enough to asked to usher. So yes, I came into close contact with James McAvoy and Robert Redford and Robin Wright. AND I managed to avoid looking like an idiot. Triumph! I only wish I could've gotten closer to Kevin Kline. Ah well.

Also, I realized that this is the one time that it makes sense to applaud at the end of a movie. The credits rolled, we clapped...and the actors were there! They heard! It made sense to clap! Huzzah!