Experience means nothing when rules are made on the go.
Washington. 1965. The assassination of President Lincoln. A young lawyer, recently returned from the war, by chance defends a woman accused of conspiracy to murder. Her guests were criminals, including her son. But did she know what was going on inside her house?
The film is primarily about justice – will the scales of Themis keep the balance, if the government and the people are sentenced in advance? Can a lawyer who does not want to work in this case help the defendant? Can he convince the jury that justice is above revenge? Undoubtedly, the phrase “you will lose in both cases” is strong in this case, if Frederick loses the case, then he is a bad lawyer, if he wins, then he helped the enemies of the country, and nothing better than them. But for him, law and honor come first.
It's a beautiful, tense atmosphere. The picture really holds attention. Gloomy, exhilarating and distressing. Great acting. However, for me personally, it was strange to see James McAvoy (actually he is absolutely gorgeous), in a historical American film, after all, the association goes exactly to the British actor, and I had to sometimes remember that the action takes place in America.
What is to be attributed to the minuses is the light, the film is shown in dark colors, which is very convenient, but the falling highlights, lights, make the frames too cloudy, which is not very pleasant to the eye.
The movie is really worth it. It makes you think. Showing power over justice. And most importantly, true, you're watching a true story, not a movie made for profit.
The owner of a private boarding house is accused of organizing a conspiracy that resulted in the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Defend the lady in court should beginner lawyer Frederick Aiken, a former military officer who fought against the Confederation. The film’s tagline is “Someone Has to Account for the Assassination of President Lincoln.” The hero of McAvoy, and the lawyer is played by him, falls into a delicate position. On one side of the scale - friends, duty and civil position, on the other - the desire to achieve an objective investigation and the same sentence.
I can’t call myself a fan of these movies because of McAvoy. The result exceeded expectations. As for James McAvoy, everything is predictably great, surprised Robin Wright. Until yesterday, the actress was associated with two films: “Santa Barbara”, where she played bland Kelly, and sluggish snot called “Message in a Bottle”. What a surprise it was when it turned out that Wright can reproduce on the screen toughness, character and strength of spirit. No tears in handkerchiefs or sighs under the moon. The duet turned out to be wonderful, however, the secondary characters also did not disappoint. Tom Wilkinson, Justin Long and Colm Mini added bright colors.
No sagging plot, solid dynamism and emotions.
The evening of April 14, 1865, did not portend trouble. It was Friday, one of the days of Holy Week. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and his wife were watching a comedy production of Our American Cousin at the Ford Theatre. As soon as 10 hours struck, actor John Wilkes Booth (an ardent Southerner) went down to the box to the president and shot him in the back of the head. Seeing Lincoln fainted, Booth fought off Major Henry Rathbon, who tried to detain him. Injuring the major with a knife, the southerner crossed the fence of the lodge and from a three-meter height jumped onto the stage, injuring his leg. As he rose to his feet, he shouted the motto of the state of Virginia: “Sic semper tyrannis” (such is the fate of tyrants), and it was.
All of the above text can be equated with the first episode of the film (aka “introductory part”), in which viewers are introduced to the events that occurred 150 years ago in the United States, and changed the history of this country.
The second episode ("central action) is characterized by a trial in which the case of Mary Sarrat, suspected of harboring murder plotters (including Booth), was examined.
For his fiery inspiring speeches, the crowd fell in love with Lincoln (especially black people), and the news of his passing quickly spread throughout Washington. So it's no surprise that Mary Sarrat was hated by everyone from the average citizen to the top official. She was deprived of the right to appeal, to trial by jury, tried not by a civil, but by a military court; in addition, she came across a lawyer who fought on the side of the northerners and for obvious reasons did not trust her.
And in the third episode, there’s a denouement that shouldn’t be like that! Or should I?! Let the audience decide.
This film is rightfully historical, from the episode of the assassination of Lincoln to the last scene. The director and screenwriter recreated the characters, as well as the habits and manners of people of that time. The actors also did not disappoint: Robin Wright convincingly played the unfortunate defendant, defending her son from the attacks of the judicial system, and James McAvoy, who played Friederik Aiken - Mary's lawyer, showed the audience that whatever you harbor feelings for your client, you must be objective and defend his rights with all your might. Emotions are secondary. This thesis will be the leitmotif of this picture.
If she is convicted on the basis of such dubious evidence, we are all in danger.
Today, court dramas do not often look at the big screens, especially based on the real historical subtext of the events of the mid-nineteenth century. On closer inspection, Robert Redford’s new directorial work is replete with historical references and fairly accurately conveys information about the process available in open sources. The civil war here is limited to only one modest scene and most of the screen time is not associated with action scenes and takes place in only a few rooms. Such production modesty is justified when one begins to immerse oneself in the story of the tribunal over those accused of state conspiracy and the assassination of President Lincoln.
As for the atmosphere, we are not talking about a new interpretation of the immortal "Gone with the Wind" - "The Conspirator" has its own atmosphere. The scarcity of locations did not limit the degree of immersion in the historical era. The apartment house, the chamber in the fort, the meeting room – the key places really create the necessary level of immersion in 1865. The same applies not only to scenery, but costumes and musical accompaniment. Thus, a very chamber, modest in its scope story, successfully copes with the reliability, albeit pointy. Even the main actors themselves correspond to their historical prototypes and make an exceptionally pleasant impression, especially McAvoy and Wright.
As for the plot, we have an almost pure-blooded judicial drama, the story of which is built around an unprecedented military tribunal over civilians, in particular over a woman. The protagonist, a war veteran and lawyer, takes on the case with a hard heart, but during these days his attitude to the triumph of justice and the values of the state changes. The legal battles themselves cannot be called action-packed, but if you watch the film for the first time, with each scene you are more and more curious about the outcome and anticipate an optional immersion in the topic, already in history.
7.5 out of 10
Great movie. Absolutely chambered and unhurried, it shows America just after the end of the Civil War, a war that has kept the entire society in a clutch for four years and now it is very difficult to return to peaceful existence.
The theme of the war, which is already over, is very important for this film. No wonder the consultant on the set was Professor James McPherson, author of a magnificent monograph dedicated to the events of the Civil War in the United States.
The main characters continue to live in military conditions even after the surrender of General Lee. Frederic Akon is also at first belligerent, but soon realizes the need to distinguish between such concepts as participation in a conspiracy and trying to protect his son from the death penalty. He stands for a law that must be above prejudice and political conjuncture and that is his moral superiority over those who tried Mary Surrat.
Beautiful actors, a wonderful soundtrack, a thorough approach to historical realities make this film exceptionally worthy.
The film takes place in Washington in 1865. This is the story of a real woman, Mary Sarrett, accused of aiding a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln. The whole nation turned against her. Her only chance to survive and prove her innocence was a young lawyer who reluctantly took up the case. Mary Sarrett is complex, closed, contradictory, but very strong nature. Her lawyer Frederick Aiken, impulsive, open, at the same time honest and clean man, due to his young age, has not yet lost faith in ideals. It is their gradually changing attitude towards each other, literally the crumbs of emerging trust, that you first observe. All other events and characters only help in the disclosure of these relationships. Actors: Robin Wright and James McAvoy are just great!
This is a deep, real drama that you experience with the characters from the first frame. But this is not only a drama, but a historical tape that tells about real events, making you wonder: has something changed in 150 years? The very thought revealed in the film is shocking: for the sake of the interests of the nation, individual freedom, the judicial system, and the presumption of innocence can be easily disregarded. One man, his life is considered a possible sacrifice on the altar of public justice. Why "imaginary"? Because in fact it is much more important for society, and with it and for each individual, belief in the possibility of a fair trial.
It's a really good, quality film, and, as is often the case with really decent tapes, little known and clearly underrated. I recommend it.
You know, for me, this is huge proof that there is no democracy, another manipulation of human civic consciousness. This film, I think, should not be released beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States. But it is also a very bold movie, after all, the American nation is not only with a manipulative mind, but with a fully mature civilian. I really respect Redford for this deep historical film. One must have the determination to tell how politics is made, how subjective it is, and how it depends on the will and ambition of one man. And make it an interesting, rather philosophical and at the same time detective story.
And in terms of the cast, The Conspirator is a great movie. I never imagined for a second that Robin Wright could play historical characters. She's totally unaccustomed, unfamiliar. Bright work. Even more surprising from the acting work of James McAvoy. He's a young passionate, real, sincere kind of guy.
I was struck by the work of Robert Redford - it is an accurate follow-up to history, its choice is not a heroic process, but on the contrary, compromising the American nation.
Of course, I'm very impressed. If it weren’t for this, I would never have seen this movie.
9 out of 10
Why fight for a state that cannot guarantee your rights?
This dramatic film raises many questions for the viewer. This is an extraordinary picture. I was very afraid that “The Conspirator” would turn out to be an ordinary “hurrah-patriotic” film slag. Fortunately, my premonitions were not justified: the film was of high quality. And this is really a picture, because the director Robert Redford paints before us the tragedy of a person, and at the same time the tragedy of a whole state on the inexorable canvas of history.
I will not go into a detailed description of the plot twists and turns. I'll just mark the main one. The story is based on real events. In America, the Civil War is burning, the state is split into two camps - the South and the North. On April 14, 1865, an assassination attempt was made on President Abraham Lincoln at the Ford Theatre. On suspicion of organizing the murder of the leader of the North, eight people are arrested, among them the woman Mary Sarrett (Robin Wright). Lawyer Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy), a 27-year-old war hero, is tasked with defending her at a military tribunal. At first, the man considers the arrested guilty, but the further he goes into this case, the more he becomes convinced of the opposite.
The premiere of the tape was timed to the anniversary of the tragedy of September 11. I think that the creators of “The Conspirator” wanted to emphasize the importance of this picture – to awaken the mind, honor and conscience of their compatriots.
Exquisite camera work, open plans for reconstructed Washington in the 1860s, psychological sketches in revealing the essence of each of the historical characters of the events that shocked America. First-class performance of all actors, primarily James McAvoy and Robin Wright. And the very style of the film resembles a certain memory, or retouched photos of the past, on which the shadows of the dead suddenly came to life.
The main idea of the tape is whether the state has the right to exercise control over its citizens and, in fact, sacrifice them, even for the sake of relative “calm” in the state. Do officials have the right to control the lives of others, especially if they are innocent? Why fight for a state that cannot guarantee the rights of everyone? And many, many others.
These are the questions that the film poses to every viewer. And the answer to them all must give themselves, and above all for themselves. Only the answer must be honest, without lying to oneself.
“The Conspirator” is not just for the United States — although it is about one of the most dramatic events in the history of this state — it is made for everyone. It does not matter where you live, because all people on this earth are united by a sense of justice, honor, conscience, compassion and patriotism (just do not confuse this concept with “love” for those bureaucratic authorities who for some reason consider themselves “representatives” of the people, which is also one of the hidden theses of the film). Without these components, we cannot deserve the title of people and therefore we must defend our humanity and our rights.
We must remain human first and foremost.
The trial is never easy, someone inevitably loses (or even pays with life). And when it comes to the trial of the murderers of one of America’s most adored presidents, Abraham Lincoln, the jury delivers an unconditional verdict before the trial. For them, the main thing is to stop further unrest, to shed balm on the soul of an angry people, to give them the realization that the enemy is punished the way he deserves it, and it does not matter so much whether he is actually guilty or not, it is enough to treat the hanged corpses of the rebels.
A young lawyer, Freddie, who had gone through the war, had a personal experience of what it was like to hate and be hated, to fight for something ephemeral without getting anything in return. At the will of the senator, he gets involved in the most difficult case ever heard by an American court. And he suppresses this blind hatred in himself, faithfully defending Mary Surrat, the mother of one of the conspirators, who is being tried in place of her son, with no hard evidence. Freddie, seemingly poisoned by war, is free-thinking, and the viewer wonders with him: why wouldn't the court stop at the seven hanged conspirators? Why are they so obsessed with revenge? But no, they want violence in response to violence, thereby generating new offshoots.
No matter how recklessly he behaves, no matter how much he advocates for the equality of citizens before the law, his attempts are initially doomed to failure, and this is not his fault. It's just that up there, everything has been decided for him. And therefore, you are unlikely to read the surprise on the faces of those who will gather on a dewy emerald morning to watch the massacre. Their traits would be distorted by hatred, the subtle pleasure of those who used to hate would be the target.
Which is more important: revenge or the law and justice, the desire to find the guilty or to bring a conviction faster?
The essence of the film lies not in the answer to the question of whether the “chief conspirator” (Robin Wright) was guilty of the murder of Lincoln or not, but in whether there will be a precedent for the judicial history of the United States to put revenge above justice. This picture will answer all these questions.
It is no coincidence that the picture was published on September 11, 2010 (the day of remembrance of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack), and many critics correctly, in my opinion, saw a hint of the problem of how in the 20th century they fight terrorism, when a great democracy will not sacrifice anything for its own protection, no matter how terrible these paths may be.
Serious amazing movie. Great work by Robert Redford as a director, Robin Wright, Tom Wilkinson and James McAvoy as the main defender. Don’t look at the box office, watch the movie.
Actor, producer and director Robert Radford (but more of an actor) is unfortunately not a hero of my generation. But films with his participation are familiar to many modern, including young viewers. Now, as happens with all actors in old age, his appearance is lost among the early and relatively new films with his characters. In the directorial field, Radford found less fame, from which his new film, in the genre of historical detective “The Conspirator”, more interested history learners and fans of James McAvoy, but it is impossible to watch the film, knowing the author of its production and without delving into the personal attitude to this historical episode of the director.
The history of the assassination of President Lincoln, which is familiar to the Russian citizen only in very general terms, turns out to have an interesting conclusion, or rather its trial, which took place in the walls of a military court, a tribunal. The captured conspirators expected a harsh sentence, but apart from all sat a woman – the mother of the only escaped participant in the murder of the head of the country. She was condemned in the same way and in the same way as the others who took part, the only thing that kept her away from everyone was because she was the mother of the fugitive. But it is unlikely that another woman could have left her son to be torn apart, regardless of what part she took in the conspiracy and how guilty he was in reality and according to the verdict.
Mary Surrat is a mysterious character, not completely clear, although the answers to this question are: how much is she really to blame? On the one hand, the concealment of the truth was partly, but was, about the conspiracy, pieces, fragments, but she heard and could guess and even just understand what was happening; she could also stop, and if not all the murderers, then at least her son. On the other hand, no mother wishes her son death and evil, and as a respectable woman, she tries to stop her child, focusing not only on facts, but also on instinct, preventing trouble in advance, seeing where this or that case can lead the child, even though he is an adult. Popular hatred makes everyone and everyone see her as a traitor and a murderer, although in reality two people pulled the trigger: the president and the senator, and the killer of the president himself could not come to court - during detention, he was shot. Since Lincoln’s closest friend and associate, John Surrat, was never found, his mother took his place first for trial, and not out of good faith. So what sentence deserves the mother of the main ally of the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln.
In fact, the situation is interesting not only from the point of view of the psychology of secondary heroes, but also in general, the sensitivity of the judicial system and the subtlety of political views on history. Yes, for this you need the main character, not perfect, not standing from the very beginning on the side of the offended and oppressed, but rather the opposite. His boss, with a slight cunning in his eyes, gives the case to be Mary Surrat’s lawyer to him, and this, slightly fabulous step, really teaches the hero a lot and opens up the other side of justice. What to say about the viewer, in our eyes reflects the spark of despair to the system of the young lawyer Frederick, who heard, though not immediately, the truth from the fateful Mrs. Surrat, saw the voice of the government, creating only fertile ground for politics and people’s lives, the hatred of blind people, a mass crushed any contradiction, and much, much more, pulling the lawyer in different directions. Yes, he immediately refused to defend “this traitor!”, “This unworthy woman”, but was forced, so he was told, and a conscientious young man takes the side of the humiliated woman, only eventually starting to really fight for her. And that humanizes the whole film and the whole story, all the causes of all the unstable situations of all countries of all time. We often make mistakes, and we always see in justice, in justice, the chance for balance, the solution of any problem, and it doesn't fit in our head all this with the concept of justice, to take a step, to sacrifice for what this sacrifice is easy to get confused about.
That which loses all faith in honesty and truth. Well, it makes you look different...
And the president we did not really see, as if this historical character did not become the main one in his history, leaving us to understand what their sacred constitution did not learn.
But the story always has to end somewhere, at some point, and as it should be in historical films: the end will lie on the ellipsis with the postscript. It is banal to say that the film reflects the modern world and the situation of specific countries, but this small trial of a large and high-profile crime can serve as a good lesson. Alas, the talented film of the talented director (despite his acting talents) remained in the second row, or even in the third, lazily walking from the producing country only two years later presented itself to us, and to cause special interest in it as if no one wanted. And it's a pity and not a pity, a little earlier, a little louder, the film would have been very useful, I think. However, it is worth paying attention to this film. Encyclopedic, at the same time well-played and even modern drama about the imbalance of such relevant areas of our lives, will be a pleasant dish for gourmets and a tickling, controversial topic for everyone else.
For the relevance and quality of the picture: