|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 19, 2011 11:38:26 GMT -5
I really enjoyed this new Robert Redford directed film on the trial of Mary Suratt. Anyone else catch it yet?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 19, 2011 20:48:52 GMT -5
Have to drive over to Champaign to see it-so we are going tomorrow.
|
|
jerry
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jerry on Apr 20, 2011 15:27:53 GMT -5
I saw it on Saturday, and enjoyed it. It is a movie - not a documentary. So we have to live with Kevin Kline as Secretary of War Stanton. Kline did a good job, but his beard looks nothing like Stanton's and he is much too tall and thin unlike the portly Stanton. The actor who portrayed Lewis Paine (real name Powell) was not surly enough, in my opinion. Otherwise, it is a good historically-themed movie.
If anyone is interested in the Lincoln assassination, check out the Surratt Society. I have been a member for almost thirty years and highly recommend it. The top historians and researchers in the field are members and contribute articles to the Society's monthlt newsletter.
Jerry
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 20, 2011 20:59:37 GMT -5
I enjoyed it. A few things here and there, and I will agree about Stanton...and Mary S. is a lot more in control on her walk to the gallows as reported...but over-all very good. Agree about the Surratt Society, and the production company work with those folks on lot in the prep work for the film... Fort Pulaski looked nice on film...perhaps a little to remote than the actual site in Washington (which did not have a moat or shell damage). But these are little things in comparison with the over all film.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 20, 2011 23:44:15 GMT -5
I plan on seeing The Conspirator soon. As always, I appreciate the ASF members who have offered their opinions on the movie in general and its accuracy.
I consider myself far removed from being an expert on the subject of the Lincoln assassination, but in what reading I have done (which was years ago), I reached the conclusion that Mary Suratt was intimately involved in the planning of the assassination and had full knowledge of what was to have transpired before as well as after. Her activities in Surrattsville particularly point towards an active involvement.
As to whether or not she should have been hanged, or as five of the six members of the Military Commission recommended, should have been spared due to her sex and age, I will leave that discussion for another time.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 21, 2011 7:27:06 GMT -5
Having done some work in this area of study, I can only say that if there were two folks there could be some doubt about total involvment it is Mary Surratt and Samuel Mudd.
One additional comment on The Conspirator is that for the sake of film time, things tend to get compressed but one thing did suddenly jump out at me last night-where the heck was Winfield Scott Handcock?
Still, well done historical film and enjoyable to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2011 7:58:59 GMT -5
Read "Manhunt" and/or "American Brutus" and then decide on Surratt's and Mudd's guilt or innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2011 14:52:49 GMT -5
Saw the film today; very well made and well acted. It's an excellent film, but I'm not sure it's good history. The appearances didn't bother me at all; it's irrelevant. How many actors in historical films look like the people they're playing? Take Wayne's "Alamo" (please!) for example.
I recommend the film, but also recommend reading up on this stuff before drawing any conclusions.
|
|
jerry
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by jerry on Apr 21, 2011 15:47:42 GMT -5
Allen is correct about "American Brutus" and "Manhunt." Both are excellent. I also recommend three books by Edward Steers, Jr. - one of the best Lincoln Assassination scholars: "Blood on the Moon," "The Lincoln Assassination Encyclopedia," and "His Name Is Still Mudd." Elizabeth Trindal's biography of Mary Surratt - "Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy" - is also good.
Jerry
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 21, 2011 16:20:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 21, 2011 17:14:30 GMT -5
I don't agree with the reviewer from The Washington Post. I found the film to be pretty evenly balanced.
I think Redford's ambiguity extended to both sides. I didn't see Surratt as a sympathetic character (she was obviously completely unapologetic and unrepentant in her confederate sympathies), and I didn't think the government was overly demonized. And, while I have little doubt that these accused conspirators were guilty, they certainly weren't given the presumption of innocence. As for their being kept hooded, that wasn't so much an allusion to Abu Ghraib as it was historical accuracy. Sometimes history repeats itself, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
I should mention that while I don't believe our rights as citizens should be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, I'm not a southern sympathizer. At all. Sometimes there's a fine line to be walked in protecting our rights while still preserving and honoring them. I thought the film did a good job in illustrating that.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 25, 2011 10:48:13 GMT -5
Apparently a few factors in Fredrick Aiken's life were left out-like his work in the Demoncratic Party, supporting John C. Breckenridge in the 1860 election, and John C. Fremont in the 1864 election.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 25, 2011 11:28:56 GMT -5
I suspect that most of you know that Surratt's Tavern is still standing in Clinton, Maryland. I suspect most also know that the boarding house is still their in D.C. What most may not know is the site of the Garrett Farm can still be found, but it is a little challenging.
I had the opportunity to visit the site in 1963. At that time US 301 was a double lane highway. In 63 the foundations were still there. Since then US 301 has been divided and it consist of two southbound and two northbound lanes. The site is in the first line of hills just south of Port Royal, VA in the island between the roadways. It is very hard to spot, and when I was last there there was a marker but no real safe way to pull of the roadway. The marker is in the right spot though, unlike many that mark other Civil War period sites in Virginia and elsewhere.
I have never looked at the 1:24,000 scale USGS Maps so I do not know what the latest editions show. I would suspect that they would show something on pre 1965 editions. I do know that the 1:50,000 scale Army maps of Fort (then Camp) A.P. Hill Military Reservation show the spot very clearly on those editions made before 1965.
As a side note, Fort A P Hill is full of Jackson's Corps entrenchments from the winter of 1862, all still clearly definable.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 25, 2011 11:50:41 GMT -5
Michael Kauffman, author of American Brutus, did an excellent "General's Tour" of the Booth escape route for Blue & Grey Magazine a few years ago, which gives you excellent directions to all of the various sites. Everyone agrees, the Garrett farm site is the most difficult one to get to thanks to the highways.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 25, 2011 12:01:54 GMT -5
I'm finishing up the book "The Assassin's Accomplice" by Kate Clifford Larson, which is being sold in a new paperback edition tied to the movie (with movie photo on cover). Very good read and a different take than we see in the film. This and other sources show Aiken to have not only been totally green (1 year of law practice), but completely incompetent and a great asset to the prosecution.
I think the film was more about the justification of trying civilians in a military court, rather than Surratt's guilt or innocence, although (IMO) Surratt came off as a more sympathetic figure in the film than she does in history. At the time, murdering a president was not a federal crime and, technically, should have been treated as a local murder by local authorities (like that was going to happen). Also, although the defendants would have gotten somewhat better treatment in a civil court, it would not have been that different; many protections extended to defendants today did not exist at the time, including the right to council. I'm not sure the film really captured the state of panic and fear that followed the Lincoln assassination, which was akin to the scene immediately after 9/11 (how many are there? are they still out there? where will the next attack come?, etc.).
Chuck - my next "history trip" downtown will include new visits to Ford's, the Peterson House and the Surratt boarding house (which I've never visited, for some strange reason). I've been out near the tavern many times, but never visited that either, so that's on the list. Funny how you can ignore the history right on your doorstep, but travel thousands of miles to see sites elsewhere!
Allen
|
|