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

Comments

[lanyn]

Hm! I was looking for a movie to go see, as I haven't been to the theater in ages now. Maybe I ought to go see this one? I didn't even know it was coming out, I'm so behind on what's going on in the movie world. It's so frustrating when they just can't get it right, though.

[lookingland]

yeah ~ given all the available information and figuring that the audience who would want to see this would appreciate something like accuracy, i am baffled by many of the lame hollywood choices that were made here.

but, like i said above, it's good conversation-starter material. people who don't know much about the events would probably find it an interesting and decently cobbled film. possibly. hard to say.

[tranquilmayhem]

last minute reprieve due to Aiken's do-goody heroism???

I normally don't resort to using memes, but...

[lookingland]

you might blow a gasket if you go see this ~ there's really some mind-blowing fuckery throughout.

i practiced deep-breathing and tried to appreciate it on some other meta-level rather than assessing all the 10,000 details that are just patently wrong.

: o p

[tranquilmayhem]

I ended up going to see it today... Morbid curiosity, you know how it is. ;)

I enjoyed some aspects of it, but more in a superficial manner, I guess? I tried to not let stuff annoy me too badly, didn't want to waste my $9.00.

A lot of the casting bothered me as well, with both looks and acting. The actor who played JWB reminded me more of Borat than the real JWB. Lewis Powell was rather unattractive. John Surratt looked way too young and innocent. Among other things, of course.

I didn't know much about him before, but I just Googled Robert Redford... And now I feel like Stanton was trying to serve as a nineteenth century Donald Rumsfeld for him. I'm all for people being politically active, but I don't want it to appear too strongly in my historical movies. -Sigh.-

[lookingland]

yeah, the choice for Booth was kinda weird, i thought. doesn't seem like filmmakers "get it" that trying to match Booth's look isn't going to get them anywhere ~ they need someone who can pull off his charisma.

i actually thought the casting for Powell was pretty okay (and the hat was dead on, though it was stupid that they made him wear to the gallows). John Surratt was too cherubic, i agree ~ and even the character was treated kinda like a child. Surratt was so much more savvy and conniving that that.

as for Rumsfeld, I read somewhere Redford saying he wanted to present a balanced story blah blah blah. this was anything but, i thought. and Stanton had no nuance at all, which was a real shame. as much as i think he was an evil pig, i think some context here was warranted and ignored.

sigh indeed. somebody's going to get it right some day. that continues to be my hope.

: o p

[lookingland]

just some absurd 11th hour hollywoodizing of the writ of habeas corpus. which of course gets rescinded by johnson after everyone is congratulating each other. no really ~ in the jail they are all laughing and crying and then Hartranft walks in and delivers the bad news. just sort of randomly, like that. ughhhhh.

ahhhh Looey. he's cast okay (pretty face, daft expression), but not much is made of him ~ so that's another disappointment. where he could have contributed richly to the drama of Mary Surratt's case, they just sort of tack him on as a way of implicating John. nothing terribly exciting here. boo-yawn.

: o p

[faynudibranch]

I'm just so excited he got in ANY FILM EVER AT ALL. He always gets left out....haha.....uhm, yeah.

Look, historians are talking! Except not really.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202487558070&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Thanks for the review, it makes me feel more prepped going in! If I had done more work on the trial / ever read much of anything on Aiken, I think it would be more scarring. When they're ready to make another movie set before the assassination I'll be all guns ready :). That said, the Mary Surratt victim monologue is getting boring.

[lookingland]

yeah, it doesn't help that aiken was a married man and they portray him as sorta engaged to some drama-queen debutante, and that they say he became the editor of the Post after leaving the law profession (which he did ~ but then promptly died). so yeah, just brace yourself and try to find the small things to enjoy.

and it's definitely good that the film is generating dialogue that will discuss the facts.

: D

[notoriousaq]

NOBODY SMOKES??? Oh hell no. unconscionable and inexcusable.

Thanks for your comments. I agree re: "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."

[lookingland]

yeah ~ there's this bizarre scene where Aiken goes to drown his sorrows in a bar and not a cigar in the joint (nor in the Kirkwood Hotel, nor in the "club" where everyone is hanging out. no smoke, no grease, no mud, no trash or offal in the streets, and everyone has perfectly pressed trousers.

beh.

HI!

[jecn_stories]

I've got to do a better job of keeping up with your journals/blogs, here and elsewhere! I really miss reading them. I'm almost never on LJ anymore...instead have been sucked into the timesuck of Facebook, and trying to establish and maintain a blog on Blogspot (an interface I really like, although it is less social than here...but maybe that's one of the things I like about it.) Anyway, I'm getting ready to put a 'redirect' message on jecn_stories, but you can find me at http://myblankblogjennes.blogspot.com/ or as Jennifer Chandler Nesbitt on Facebook if you are interested in either. I hope everything is going well!! I must catch up! But for now I will read your movie review.... :)

Re: HI!

[lookingland]

hello! it's lovely to see you ~ ! alas, i do not do facebook, but i will definitely bookmark your blog and stop by to check in (i've missed your genealogy stories and all your lovely pictures!).

super-glad to know you are still knocking around the web!

: D