Robert Redford’s latest film, “The Conspirator,” is as plain as its title. It’s a morally earnest but artistically thin look at the trial that followed the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. John Wilkes Booth, the trigger man, was killed trying to avoid capture, but a half-dozen or so other young men were taken into custody and tried as co-conspirators.
In a fact of history that I had actually not known, the mother of one of the conspirators was tried as well. It was alleged that she aided and abetted the plot by, among other things, allowing her boarding house to be used as command central. The Washington establishment, the film suggests, set up what was essentially a mock trial, preventing lawyers from mounting a legitimate defense. The female defendant, Mary Surratt (played well by Robin Wright), especially appears to have been railroaded.
It’s hard to understand what Redford found so compelling about this material. The film serves as a reminder about the need to protect the civil rights of the accused even during times of national crisis. But is that it? Redford essentially gives Surratt her day in court 150 years after the fact. I’m sure her descendants appreciate the homage to her and what she suffered. But it doesn’t exactly make for riveting drama. Redford keeps his focus strictly on the trial and the legal issues such that none of the characters emerges as a complex person. It’s not so much a work of art as a civics lesson.
“The Conspirator” holds one’s interest. It’s not a bad film. It’s noble and well acted. The script is just too simple and one-dimensional.
2 comments:
You think Robert Redford is washed up?
Unfortunately, I'd have to say yes. It's really hard to sustain creativity across decades. In fact it almost never happens, it seems to me.
I just reviewed Terrence Malick's new film, where I said that Malick seems to be running out of ideas. I'd have to say the same about Redford.
Post a Comment