The Conspirator Movie Analysis

INTRODUCTION The historical drama of “The Conspirator” (Redford) is using scenes to reveal the background of the Lincoln assassination in 1865, on Good Friday. The authors of the movie are attempting to reveal the plot behind the scenes, and the role of individuals in killing Lincoln, as well as their true intentions in doing so. The movie was an answer to some of the misconceptions about Lincoln’s final years, as well as the political forces that led to the events. The main focus of the movie is to reveal Mary Surratt’s involvement in the conspiracy. Entertainment and historical correctness, however, does not always walk hand in hand, therefore, it is important to review whether or not the account represented by the film is accurate, and

One of the books on the topic was written by Kate Larson, titled “The Assassin’s Accomplice: Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln”. Some of the questions asked by the author of the book are also investigated by the movie, as the film is mainly based on the book. The main argument of the lawyer is that Mary did not know about the conspiracy, and it was her son who invited Booth and his accomplices to her home. Just like Lutz, Larsen also highlights the fact that there is evidence for interaction between Mary and Booth, and she did take trips for him for money. This, alone makes her a co-conspirator. The book, however, relies too much on speculation and earlier documents of the trial. There is no clear evidence against Booth, and – as Aiken states in the movie – it is possible that the conspirators wanted to accuse the woman to lesser their crime and punishment. The argument of the lawyer is that Surratt had rifles and a plan, but Mary, his mother did not. As he says, there is insufficient evidence. He does not claim that Mary is innocent, but that there is not enough evidence to convict

The authors describe Mary Surratt as a close friend of Booth. The account above states that when Mary said she had no idea who Powell was she lied, and this led to her execution. The testimony of John M Lloyd, who managed the tavern owned by the woman had a crucial role in the trial. He stated that the assassins hid equipment and weapons in the property. Further, the testimony includes that “Mrs. Surratt had twice instructed Lloyd to ensure that the “shooting irons” were ready to be picked up” ( American Civil War Round Table of Australia, 24). A former boader of the house also testified about the close relationship between Booth and Mary. However, as the authors state, these testimonials can be viewed as unreliable. Therefore, the main, and strongest evidence against Mrs Surratt is the fact that she denied knowing