lament or rejoice? you decide ~

[lookingland]

where to begin?

i have decided to spare you all what could otherwise be the longest film-related blogpost in the history of movie reviewing by restraining myself to nine points on three levels of assessment regarding Robert Redford's The Conspirator (which opened today, and for which i left work early to view).

so this is what i have to say for now:

The Good

• honest performances by Robin Wright and Tom Wilkinson. Wright especially didn't embarrass herself despite one or two totally overwrought and absurd moments.
• some attention to some detail some of the time (at least the gallows were well built).
• what appears to be an attempt by the screenwriter, et al., to capture, at minimum, the spirit of what's at the heart of any serious study of the conspiracy trial. this is worth something, at least.

The Bad

• pretty bad performances by everyone aside from Wright and Wilkinson, particularly McAvoy. and even Kevin Kline! wow.
• a terrible failure to depict filthy malarial Washington DC in 1865 with any degree of accuracy, including very hit-and-miss costuming (why is Aiken dressed as a soldier when he's not one? why aren't the Catholic priests wearing Roman collars? is that a windsor knot in his tie?), some weird casting choices (i love me some Colm Meany, but did they even bother trying to make him look like David Hunter? etc. etc. etc.), and an almost complete disregard for the weather/season/etc. (where's the rain and the heat and the sludge, people? why is everything so clean? nobody smokes in this movie. um, no). i will say : some of this looked so low budget, however, that i am willing to make concessions, which is why this is listed under "bad" instead of "ugly".
• no inclusion of Paine's gallows testament that Mrs. Surratt was innocent? or the public's sentiment about her execution? really? very odd choices.

The Terribly Ugly

• perpetuating idiotic myths about Mary Surratt in chains and handcuffs and being treated so awful. shame on everyone involved in the production. and shame on them giving Anna's thank you to Aiken out of her brother's mouth. grrrrrrr. this one really gets me.
• Aiken: Union do-goody hero. oh dear.
• last minute reprieve due to Aiken's do-goody heroism??? no, not really: off to the gallows she goes! oh please!  what's even worse is that the way this is depicted in the film robs the truth of the events of their actual drama. why why why rewrite something that was actually pretty dang dramatic (i.e. Anna Surratt begging at Johnson's door, Hancock dashing to the courthouse after Judge Wiley, etc.). oh fer shame.

and now i promised i would stop. there's so much wrong with this movie, it is perhaps not worth getting too wound up about. however dreadful it is, i think its heart was in the right time-zone, at least, and it's leaps and bounds above the dreadful efforts of the past (The Trial of Dr. Mudd and other such abominations).

i want people to see this film because it can generate interest and conversation about important stuff people ought to think about (both past and present). but i know people who do see it will wander away with some of the same confusions and misinformation that has been proliferated for the past 150 (nearly) years. boo on that.

but in many ways, perhaps i ought to be grateful.  the truth remains untold. still. which leaves me a chance yet to tell it.

: D