Here is NYT Film Review. Here is a positive review from LA Times Review
Read "The Conspirator: Film and Truth"
Read "A Historian's Review of the Conspirator"
MUST READ --After Guantanamo, Another Injustice This article may provide excellent ideas to blog about.
All students from period 2 should post a few thoughtful sentences about the film Conspirator. How historically accurate was the film? Was the Surratt Trial a violation of the Constitution? Did Surratt deserve a trial by her peers? Was the film a possible commentary on the federal government's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or the military tribunals during the Bush Era? How did the film depict Secretary of War Stanton? Who was your favorite character? What was the most powerful five-minute clip? What are some criticisms of the film? You may also want to respond to the historians' points from the articles. Recently, we had the privilege of having the screenwriter, James Solomon, come to our class and discuss the eighteen-year journey it took to make The Conspirator; please post a short reaction to this unique experience.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the conspirators. It was entertaining yet informative by giving a more in depth feature of the experiences of Mary Surrat1t. She was unjustly convicted for an accusation of participating in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln. She was not given a fair trial and then convicted without sufficient evidence. A great quote from the film was "In times of war the law falls silent and nobody is safe". Surratt was a victim to the law. The law is supposed to protect the people. The president should not be able to deny someone a fair hearing to which they are entitled to. I think this film makes a great commentary on the flaws of our legal system possible referring to the Bush administration's treatment of Islamic militant prisoners. What happened to Mary Surratt is wrong and where's the justice in Surratt being executed while her son, an active participant in the conspiracy is set free.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Triantafillou(pd.3)- Just from the one line in the trailer when they mention a military tribunal it seems that Surrat's rights were violated. My question is however, Were the northern figures of power demonized in this film or did it take a more unbiased stance?
DeleteEda -- I thought the film was worth watching, even if only to explain more about the conspiracy to kill not only Lincoln, but also Seward and Johnson, something that many people simply do not know/forget about. However, the movie was strangely compassionate for the Southern side by making Atkin seem like the only one who cared about justice -- "[that the law] was [made] to rally the defense of those being wronged" as Atkins put it, a sentiment that didn't seem to be shared by those in the government. Stanton (Secretary of War) in particular seemed to be set on moving the country forward and together through the deaths of the conspirators, as well as revenge. The movie did well in making me highly sympathetic to Mary Surratt, but I felt most strongly at the end, where her son John Surratt was caught and in jail. Although the movie implies that Mary Surratt was completely innocent and removed from the conspiracy, whether or not that was true, the fact that John Surratt (Mary's own son, who could have possibly saved her from hanging) refused to give himself up annoyed me. In addition, the fact that John Surratt was later on released from prison and set free, when there seemed to be much more evidence of his collaboration with Booth to kill Lincoln and others, seems to highlight the fact that no true justice was given to anyone truly involved in the conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteAngela - The Conspirator was worthwhile as it brought forth details of the assassination of Lincoln that I did not know (such as that others such as Secretary of State Seward and Vice President Johnson were also killed) and focused on events that followed the assassination, specifically the trial of Mary Surratt, instead of on John Wilkes Booth and the assassination itself. The story of Mary Surratt was particularly interesting. She found herself in a time of national turmoil, in which people such as Stanton placed stability of the nation over justice. I truly believe that Mary Surratt would have been found innocent in a more stable time as even her son was found innocent in a trial a year later. In addition, Stanton is quite similar to Dick Cheney since he is willing to do anything to protect the stability of the nation, which in this case, is the death of Mary Surratt. Similar to Eda, I also think the film is oddly sympathetic toward the South, with the North’s representation being stoic soldiers in uniform and biased men swayed by revenge. It is also particularly compelling to see how Aiken evolves over the course of the film, from someone who does not want to take Mary Surratt's case to someone who alienates his friends, devoting himself to making sure Mary Surratt receives a fair trial. He establishes that what matters is not whether Mary Surratt is guilty or innocent, but that there is a fair method of determining so. However, one of the most despicable characters of the film has to be John Surratt who is portrayed as being quite cowardly. Despite Aiken's pleas, he is not willing to come forth to save his mother's life, even though her mother is willing to sacrifice hers for him. By the end of the film, Aiken appears to take John Surratt’s place as Mary Surratt’s “son.”
ReplyDeleteJohnson's assassin lost his nerve and Seward was severely injured but not killed
DeleteJohnson's assassin lost his nerve and Seward was severely injured but not killed
DeleteI found the movie worth watching. I agree with the movie in how it argues that people deserve a fair trial. Mary Surratt may or may not have been guilty but her trial definitely wasn't fair. Had she had a dealt trial of her piers rather than a military tribunal the results may have been different. But with the whole argument for a trial by one's piers John Surratt's freedom seems to argue against it. John Surratt was involved in Lincoln's assassination, much more than Mary was, but he was set free. Had he been tried by the military tribunal Mary was he would easily have been punished.Though this wouldn't have been just any more than it was for Mary, him being set free wasn't just either. Because his jury was made up of both Southerners and Northerners he was let free by Southerners still bitter about their loss in the war.
ReplyDeleteEddie - Mary Surrat deserved a civil trial by her peers, and the trial she received was a terrible injustice. Like A.O. Scott wrote, The Conspirator was a powerful subscriber to this assertion, and throughout the film the audience was presented with the dichotomy of Aiken's idealism and the gritty sinisterness of the federal government. Surrat was clearly innocent, and she did not deserve to be hanged for running a boarding house and keeping her eyes and ears open while doing so. Ultimately, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was my favorite character, as I feel he enacted a distilled representation of the film's message. We, the audience, were meant to react against his cold, clinical darkness and blatant violation of our rights as Americans and apply the lessons learned from the Surrat injustice to our current situation in Guantanamo Bay or with the trials of Islamic militants. I liked Stanton for this reason - he put a face on the film's message, and made it much easier to empathize with the idealistic lawyer Aiken. We are struck seeing the young veteran's disappointment upon dealing with the reality of what was his idol Stanton. All in all, the movie was very worthwhile.
ReplyDeleteVictor Cai- This film was worth watching in my opinion, because it drew me in, i was very interested in the events surrounding Lincolns Assassination, because the textbook only included was that he was shot at a theater by John Wilkes Booth. This movie explained that there was a whole conspiracy to kidnap Lincoln and it was not only 1 man that planned and killed Lincoln, but a whole group of people. The film was generally historically accurate, Akin defended Surratt in vain and the photographer at the end seems to be taking the famous photo of the hangings. In my opinion Surratt should have been given a civil trial of her peers, not of a military tribunal, this violates the constitution and may endanger the rights of every citizen. She was convicted without much evidence except from eyewitnesses who would have lied if they needed to. This film strongly represents the military tribunals during the Bush era because of the limited evidence and the jury was biased because they wanted revenge for 9/11 just like the military jury wanted revenge for Lincoln’s assassination. Revenge impairs judgment and it was not fair the trial Surratt was given. Stanton was depicted as a cold-heartless man who was set on trying to ‘stabilize’ the country. He showed no mercy to Surratt even when Akin pleaded with him. My favorite character was Ana Surratt because she kept pleading her mother was innocent and showed profound emotion during the film. The most powerful 5 minute clip was in the beginning of the film when they showed the conspirators carry out their plan, it was very dramatic to see all the events unfolding. The film doesn’t resolve things, for example what about the tension between Akin and his wife? What about his life deteriorating and him being ostracized because of his supporting Surratt? What happens to Johnson, the original defense attorney?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think would've happened if the trial happened today? Or during the time of another national crisis such as 911?
DeleteKatherine Wei (Period 3) - I agree that Lincoln's assasination is only concluded by John Wilkes Booth(most of the time), so this movie was like a breath of fresh air. The movie trailer seems intense, especially when the woman (Stanton) pleads, "i am not guilty". This trailer wanted me to aquire how this movie ended.
DeleteHan- The film was definitely worth watching. It successful recreates the scene of 19th century 'merica and I found the parties that Aiken attended were fairly interesting. We didn't go over the social life of people in the 19th century during class that much. The film depicted Stanton as a overzealous person, determined to keep the country together no matter what. It seems as if he was willing to do anything to restore peace and order, ironically through the misuse of justice himself. As a result, Stanton is portrayed as a misguided manipulator, who manipulates the court proceedings from behind the scenes. For example, even though the generals have reached a consensus, Stanton tells them to reconsider because he does not like the result. My favorite character in this film was Stanton. Although I also believed that the trial was unfair (generals were too biased, like how they accepted the objections against Aiken), Stanton was a true nationalist trying to preserve his country. Although his means might go against the country that he is trying to preserve, we should look at his dedication and will and judge him by that instead.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Wennendy - The film was worth it, and I would recommend it to people. The trial of Mary Surratt was definitely not justice
ReplyDeleteand a violation of the constitution. What she was given was a military tribunal,and not a jury by her peers. The fact I
find most interesting about this film, is how Stanton's ideas of preserving the Union come to clash with the Constitution.
Another character I found interesting is Andrew Johnson, although not shown. What I found interesting is that he vetoed the writ
assigned by Judge Wiley.
Teresa: The Conspirator was an extremely riveting story that that certainly piqued my interest in the story of Mary Surratt, and has inspired another snippet of interesting discussion to share with friends and family. Just like Fred Aiken, I experienced a drastic change of perspective regarding Mary Surratt as the story progressed, starting as a vehement supporter of the public's belief, to really sympathizing with her, even though it isn't clear whether she is guilty or not. To me, Mary Surratt becomes the true heroine or protagonist of the movie, and I can understand her role as a mother trying to protect her son. One powerful line that I particularly remember is when she asks Aiken whether he has ever fought for something greater than himself, and then responds by implying that she is willing to sacrifice herself in order to save her son. Furthermore, I think that the full force of her character hits us all at the hour of Surratt's death, along with the injustice of her treatment under the law, when we see through the crowd staring as the white sack slowly descends upon her. In addition to this, The Conspirator does a good job leaving me with many unanswered questions: How much did Mary Surratt actually know? If her son had actually surrendered, would that have saved her? And finally, was it even possible, given the public opinion, for Mary Surratt to have received a fair trial in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI think that your questions are really interesting! DO you think Mary Surratt would have been able to receive a fair trial, even if her son confessed? After all, although I didn't watch it, a man in the trailer says, "Someone must be held accountable. People want that." Hence, is it possible that even with enough evidence of her innocence, Americans will still use her as a sort of...Easy scapegoat?
DeleteAlyson Liang (Period 3):
DeleteI agree with all the questions that both Angela and Teresa have brought up. I want to focus on Angela's comment on how the general public wanted someone, anyone to be held accountable. That part of the trailer also struck me as very odd. Why does the general public accept Mary Surratt as a conspirator instead of looking more deeply for the truth? More broadly, why does the public prioritize finding a culprit over finding the answer and the reason?
Udita Tonnee (period 3)
DeleteI think what everyone has brought up is really interesting. But in answer to Alyson, I think they were willing to accept her as a conspirator because they have to make sense of this event. Let's look at it from back then, No one had ever killed a sitting president before! Sure, they had presidents die in office and have the VP take over, but to actually have him murdered? They needed something to hold on to, and Mary Surratt (and the other conspirators) were that something. I guess this also relates to Angela's comment of how America needed a scapegoat, so they won't look too closely.
Terrance Liang (Period 3)
DeleteFunny how I actually had the same exact questions and then here I find a mini discussion on it. In the trailer there was a line (from someone I cant identify) that said "someone must be held accountable. People want that." How influential was public opinion in the movie? I'm also curious about the role of the Secretary of War, Stanton. Mr. Sandler mentioned how aggressive Stanton was portrayed in this movie, in contrast with the portrayal of him in Lincoln. From the many reviews that I read, Stanton seemed to have an adamant position against Mary Surratt, hoping to find someone responsible to stabilize the Union. Was holding someone accountable the best way to "stabilize the Union"? Like Alyson said, why is there a lack of desire to find the actual truth? Had this trial taken place in our era, would there be a similar result?
Stephanie Lin (pd3) - To take her as an"easy scapegoat"(as Angela said), it just seemed completely unfair to me. It was interesting to see a trial about a woman, actually. In the other movies, women don't seem to play as prominent a role compared to Surratt in this movie. However, isn't it understandable? A mother would do anything for her children. Why did they pick the "easy scapegoat" when it was so understandable that she would sacrifice anything for her children? Did any other women speak out against her trial, specifically, any mothers?
DeleteChris Kim- I definitely enjoyed watching the film, and I think that next year's APUSH classes and so forth will all have the opportunity to watch it as well. Throughout the film, I was intrigued by the developing relationship between Mary Surratt and Frederick Aiken. From not wanting to have anything to do with Surratt, to passionately fighting for her justice, Aiken goes through a roller coaster of emotions and struggles just for Surratt. By the end of the movie, one can argue that Aiken was far more of a son to Mary Surratt than John Surratt ever was. Through Aiken's stand for the justice of Mary Surratt, we are able to see a true display of heroism. Unfortunately, unlike the other heroes, Aiken does not get the girl he once loved by the end of the film.
ReplyDeleteRebecca - In my opinion, I thought the movie was amazing. The actors played their respective parts extremely well, and really showed a lot of emotion because I found myself loving Aiken and hoping for Mary's innocence, even close to tears at the end when she was to be executed. My favorite thing about the film must have been the immense character development for Aiken, because he goes from despising her and treating her as a tedious duty that he must fulfill for his job to greatly respecting and trusting her and going out of his way to find clues to help her case. He gets so invested in the case and devotes so much effort into making sure that the law is not neglected and that Mary receives a fair trial. In my opinion, I also agree with Aiken in that the trial was unconstitutional, and like Stanton said, it was truly done to appease the people and give them someone to blame for Lincoln's death. As a result, Secretary of War Stanton backs up the guilty verdict as well as the death sentence, favoring order and closure in the United States in such tremulous times, rather than freedom and justice. After doing some more research, I found out that the trial was actually immensely more in depth, with 9 witnesses from the prosecution and 31 for the defense. In addition, the trial took much longer -- almost two months, as compared to a two-hour movie. Of course, there were limitations and the director could not possibly make it as true to life as possible. Despite this, I think he and the screenwriter did an amazing job at condensing the trial into a much shorter version. However, I also found it odd that in reality the defense's argument mainly centered around proving that the prosecution's witnesses were untrustworthy and stressing Surratt's bad eyesight, unlike how in the movie Aiken eventually focused his efforts on shifting the blame to her son. Because this movie depicts how Mary's rights were thus neglected during this tough period in history, I agree that it could have been a possible commentary on unfair trials that were going on at the same time. However, I feel as if it is almost inevitable to have a perfect trial, especially for war crimes. For example, Mr. Sandler brought up in class the possibility of bin Laden coming to the US for a trial instead of being shot. If that had happened, how would the trial have gone? Would we be just as biased as we were for Mary? What if bin Laden actually was not the one behind the terrorists attacks but we all just refused to believe the truth and trust our instincts that craved for revenge? I feel like no matter what era it is or how much history we know, it is extremely difficult for us to have a fair trial for a person who is accused of such serious crimes because we are inherently flawed as humans to want revenge. As a result, this is a serious flaw in our trial system, but is there really a way to fix it? Emotions are a significant part of what makes up a person, and it is precisely showed in the film by how the military tribunal used their love for Lincoln and lust for revenge to neglect the laws.
ReplyDeleteAlicia Chen (pd 6): You mentioned how Secretary of War Stanton favored order and closure over justice during a time of war. You also voiced that it is impossible to achieve a completely fair trial in our judicial court system right now and possibly for as long as we keep a trial system instituted. However, do you think that Americans should value justice over order? The role of our Constitution to establish order contradicts the values of freedom and morals that the Constitution stands by. Does preserving the Union become less important than upholding common American values? Also, if Mary did have a fair trial, then the blame would still be put on the other conspirators, but do you think this would still lead to a public eruption against Mary and the government?
DeleteI especially loved the acting and the constant tension in the movie, which makes the viewer a lot more involved with the story. But what was most interesting to me was the way the film caused me to have conflicting emotions throughout the story and change my opinions on the characters and on the trial constantly. It wasn't just another case in which one side was completely evil, and ill-intentionned, while the other side is completely innocent and pure-hearted. Rather, it was kept very realistic, in which both sides believed they were doing the right thing, and each made convincing arguments. Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty or cruel and unusual punishment under any circumstances (even murdering the president), but I can see why it was so important for Stanton to have Surratt hanged, and at the same time why Aiken wanted her justice so badly.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to believe that the movie was portrayed perfectly and both sides were represented equally, but based on Elizabeth D. Leonard's review, the movie was rather inaccurate. Leonard states that the movie presents Surrat as knowing of her son's crimes, would you agree with that statement? In fact, also mentions how we will never know if Surrat truly knew of her son's actions. How would you compare her treatment to that of the prisoner in Guantonomo?
DeleteAlexander Oltarsh - In general, I disliked the movie because I felt that the script added little to the story and I feel our time could have been better spent by watching a documentary about the assassination. Overall, I was not impressed by the acting of James McAvoy (Aiken) and Tom Wilkinson (Sen. Johnson) who I have thought to be reliably good actor. I disagree with the comparison to the current treatment of suspected terrorists for multiple reasons. The biggest in my opinion is the fact that the suspected terrorists are largely not citizens and therefore do not have the right to a civilian trial in my opinion. On the other hand, the conspirators definitely deserved a trial by jury and the fact that they did not receive one is unjust.
ReplyDeleteShahruz Ghaemi -- I enjoyed the film. I thought it was a worthy addition to the dialogue thatAmericans have been having forever--the balance between justice and security. Yes, Redford was heavy-handed in coming down on the side of justice, but this was balanced out by the views of War Secretary Stanton. He wanted to protect the nation from further chaos, and I completely understood why. After 4 years of war, 600,000 dead, and the attempted assassination of the nation's leaders, Americans wanted stability. They were not about to welcome any more strife, and Stanton had to provide that. I would have liked to see more of the ordinary people of Washington though, say, at a rally held for Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteJulian Kalogerakis –
DeleteDefinitely an interesting point. Sealing up the wounds after gutting the country with Civil War was a difficult process for both sides, felt by both the government attempting to restore the nation to its full power and by the common people suffering personal loss or from radically reconstructive change. Certainly Stanton and Wilkes Booth should remain at the center of focus, but the enormity of their actions would have been appreciated in full if the plot followed the trending public sentiment at the time. Lincoln's passing left the United States with unresolved problems, yet continuing onward. Effectively – using terminology from a scene in the film, Lincoln, in which he dreams of an ominous voyage across dark seas – his death left the battered raft(the US) sailing forth through murky waters, towards faraway shores(realizing 14th, 15th Amendment ideals), under dark skies(socioeconomic frustrations), without a captain to guide itself.
Armani Khan-
ReplyDeleteI really loved the movie and the story behind. I feel that though the acting could have been better, the story was what really made it compelling. We rejoiced when Aiken rejoiced and saddened when Aiken saddened. Aiken was a new lawyer whose boss had the job of defending Mary Surratt. However when Senator Johnson starts defending her, the Commission starts accusing him of disloyalty to the Union and orders him to sign an Oath of Loyalty. I found that highly disturbing especially since we learn that the Oath of Loyalty was issued by Congress, the very Congress that Senator Johnson was part of. Senator Johnson is from the South and thus always a little under suspicion because of the brutal war with the South. Thus, Johnson orders Aiken to defend Mary Surratt because Aiken is a Northerner and and also fought it in the war. His loyalty for the Union cannot be doubted. Aiken is being pulled in two between his Civil War soldier feelings and his job as a lawyer which states that a lawyer must be neutral. Aiken seemed very passionate in his lines but not when he was acting. The passion from the lines didn’t carry over. I really sympathized with Aiken. As one of his friends said, he loses either way and is in a difficult position. Should he win his case, he will be branded as a traitor. Should he fail to prove her innocent, he will forever have a black mark on his record. In the end, I have to say that I agree with Stanton. Justice must be served to start healing the nation’s wounds. Without these few people being blamed, others might have started taking revenge on other Southerners. The others hanged with Surratt were undoubtedly guilty and Mary Surratt was blamed for what her son had actually done. Mary Surratt was sacrificed for the greater good. Mary Surratt would have been happy. She accomplished her goal. John Surratt was safe and not killed. She had basically given her life in exchange for John’s.
I agree with you and many others who have said that public needed someone to put the blame on. However, do you think it is right to punish someone who is actually not guilty for the convicted crime? Doesn't punishment exist for people who actually committed crimes, not the ones who are willing to be blamed for to conceal the real criminals?
DeleteSanam - In my opinion, the movie was pretty fantastic. It dealt with how Americans responded to the Civil War in its aftermath and how a group of people decided to act on their anger by attempting to kill the president, secretary of state, and vice president. The government then had to decide how to effectively deal with these people and any one that could possibly be involved, like Mary Surratt. Surratt is put on trial in a court with a "jury" made up of completely biased U.S. military officials and is defended by a Union captain, Frederick Aiken. Even though at first, Aiken had made up his mind that Surratt was guilty and held extreme prejudices against the woman, he soon realized the court - with a "jury" made up of military generals - was developing the woman's guilt through often fabricated or twisted evidence. He directly observes that the U.S. government, especially the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, is seeking revenge and not justice. Surratt is sentenced for death even though her guilt isn't throughly established, nor does the aforementioned "jury" rule in favor of it. When Aiken obtains a writ of habeaus corpus to appeal the decision before a civilian court, president Johnson overturns the decision, demonstrating "inter arma enim silent leges," a major theme in the movie. It poses the question of whether people even thought to be involved in horrible crimes should be given fair trials to determine their involvement, an issue that still affects America today. Because the film gives a direct look into Mary Surratt and how she chose to bear the consequences of her son's actions, I developed sympathy for her. I was genuinely sad when she was sentenced to death and dreaded hearing that Aiken's attempts were all unsuccessful. However, I realized that if a war criminal today was put on trial, many would turn a blind eye to any court actions that hinder true justice, which is why Stanton probably thought it'd be best to get the trials of the conspirators' over quickly to put the American public at ease and demonstrate to them that swift and decisive action was taken against the treachery they had thought ended with the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteRyan Kim-After watching this film, I was challenged in my views of Mary Surratt as being guilty. The film did a good job in portraying Surratt as undeserving in being hanged, and portrayed her as a loving mother who was wronged. The movie certainly appealed to this perspective, one that is different and less supported, and did a good job in making the viewer question their opinions with this new view. However, it should always be noted that there is always a flip side, and that there was a complete bias in the story. I am certain that there is evidence pointing to her guilt.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful part of this film was when Surratt was being hanged. To be honest, I am completely against the death penalty, even for conspirators against the country. No man or woman I feel should be executed, for as seen here, it brings much sorrow to their families. When Surratt was being hanged, I was without words, and just could not bear watch it. The injustice being done on her was unfair, and completely wrong. There was really no way that she was getting a fair trial, because of the pre-hatred that everyone had toward anyone accused of being guilty in killing Lincoln.
Was Surratt guilty? To be honest, I really don't know. But what I do know is that she deserved a better, fairer trial. In this case, justice was not served, something that is held high in our Constitution, and our country. Doing what's right vs. what's most beneficial: that's something we face.
Jackie Wang- This film definitely caught me off guard, I didn't expect a court case to be so suspenseful and keep my attention. The film was really realistic and captured how Americans would actually react. They could not capture the actual criminal and instead tried to pin it on someone else to satisfy the public. I especially liked Fred's character and how he evolves throughout the story from not wanting to take the case to trying to defend Marry Surratt against all odds. In a way, I had the same development. At first I felt nothing for Mary Surratt knowing the outcome. By the end i really sympathized with her and actually believed she was innocent. The themes in this movie are still reverent, such as that we shouldn’t be blinded by revenge and ignore justice.
ReplyDeleteLauren Sobota
ReplyDeleteI thought this film was very engaging and interesting. When Lincoln was shot, I felt that the people responsible should be caught and hanged as soon as possible but at the end my view was completely different. Seeing the men cry and shake while they were prepared to be hanged was definitely an emotional moment and after the platform came out from under all of the men, in addition to Mary Surrat, I was definitely moved.
One aspect of the film that I found very interesting was Frederick Aiken and Mary Surrat's relationship. When Aiken was first told that he was to represent Surrat he was very against it and made it clear to her how he felt. The first time they meet inside her jail cell, he's cold and almost nasty. But as the trial progresses, he gets more invested in the matter at hand and in Surrat herself. When president Johnson suspends his writ, you can see he is frustrated but also deeply upset. Over a year later, when Aiken goes to see Mary Surrat's son, the real conspirator, in his jail cell John Surrat thanks Aiken for the kindness he showed his mother. This final scene was by far my favorite and was very uplifting. Aiken is portrayed heroically and he should be.
After watching this film, I'm still unsure as to whether Mary Surrat is innocent or guilty. But I do believe that she deserved a civil trial with a jury of her peers, not military generals. This film is definitely worth watching.
Yug Brahmbhatt- In general, I thought the film did a good job of portraying the tensions present after the Civil War. In the film, Mary Surratt is proven guilty, however throughout the film Surratt was constantly presented as a moralistic Christian women who acted out of motherly instincts. Whether or not Surratt was actually guilty is unknown to the viewer, what is known is that Surratt is not subjected to a jury of her peers and instead must fair in a military tribunal. Personally, I believe that this movie topic was an excellent topic to make a movie on. However, I feel that the movie kind of fell short in terms of greatness. I felt like the perspective in the movie was rather limited. For example, most of the information about Mary Surratt is learned through vague flashbacks, conversations in the jail cell and the military tribunal. I feel that it would have been better for the viewer to see action, such as the actual event of the shooting in a more emphasized manner. For me this would have made the movie a lot better; the liveliest scene in the movie was when I got to see John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. The rest of the scenes were rather dull in comparison. Also I feel as if the movie would have been better if we got to hear Lincoln's dialogues before his death. Such a scene would make the movie more enjoyable because viewers would get to see the legendary Lincoln which would entice their attention to the movie. Also, I felt that some of the acting in the story was bland. The main character Frederick Aiken should have used more emotion in his role. Frederick Aiken was too austere and serious and I couldn't really get a feel of Aiken as a person. I also found it interesting how Stanton was portrayed as a dark antagonist, his belief that in the 'times of war, law falls silent' is the harsh reality of the traumatic post-Civil War. As for Surratt, personally I believe that she should have been hanged in order to preserve peace in the nation. Even if she was not found guilty, she would have probably been stoned to death and would have had to face constant humiliation by the public and could never assume a normal life ever again. This humiliation is foreshadowed in the scene when rocks are thrown at the Surratt establishment. Therefore, I think that Stanton was sort-of justified in his decision.
ReplyDeleteIvy Wong - I think the movie was worth watching. I liked the assassination and execution scenes the most, especially the scene in which the officers carried Lincoln out of the theater and had to wade through the crowd of spectators. It really emphasized how, in one moment, a great president was no more. I felt that the movie portrayed America in the 1860s very well, and gives a great picture into how life was like back then. I thought that the execution scene was shot well, and it emphasized how unfair Surratt's trial was. Along that note, I found Mary Surratt's trial interesting, but also very frustrating. Senator Johnson pushed his case onto Aiken, who was inexperienced and rash at times, and didn't even want to defend Mary, Mary and her daughter refused to cooperate for a long time, instead protecting John Surratt (who doesn't even show up to prevent his mother's execution), and the trial was depicted as very unfair - the prosecutor, Joseph Holt, and Edwin Stanton are depicted as immoral, with ulterior motives. Although the film seemed to be overemphasizing the unfairness of the trial and unsympathetic to the North, I do agree that the Surratt Trial was unconstitutional. The witnesses were untrustworthy, the judges were clearly biased, and no one seemed to be willing to look for John Surratt despite evidence supporting his involvement in the assassination plot.
ReplyDeleteSungwoo - This film was definitely worth watching, providing an alternate perspective that no one had actually paid a lot of attention. What most people remember is the fact that President Lincoln was assassinated by the conspirators and they were sentenced to death for their attempt. However, not many people know that Mary Surratt was tried in the war tribunal, not in a civil court. I think the film does a good job dramatizing this unrecognized, or somewhat forgotten, perspective, by making Aiken who is depicted as a hero-like figure as he defended Mary Surratt.
ReplyDeleteSharon Kang - I really liked the film (honestly I thought it was going to be a documentary). Before watching, I never knew that members of Lincoln's cabinet were attacked the same night of his assassination. The movie has the major facts accurate, but some other things, such as Powell saying that Mary was innocent while at the gallows and the illness she had while being held in jail, weren’t in the film.
ReplyDeleteI thought the most powerful part of the film was when the soldiers told Mary Surratt that she was going to hang after Aiken told her that she was going to get a trial in civilian court and took her to the gallows. It really shows how much the government (and country) needed a scapegoat, even if it might have been innocent. Surratt's change in demeanor was incredible as she learned of her death sentence after she had the hope of a fair trial dangle in front of her. Robin Wright did a good job putting on a brave face as she was led away.
I agree with the historian that the movie portrayed Surratt in a noble maternal light. Through this point of view, the audience is sympathetic to her as we view her as a mother who would give up herself to save her son. We can’t really tell if she is actually guilty of conspiring to kill Lincoln or if she was guilty to giving birth to her son. Also the historian writes about how Joseph Holt is depicted as a villain “even more unsavory than John Wilkes Booth” and I can see that. Danny Huston had a lot of moments where he had creepy smiles.
Annie Lin (Pd 3)-
DeleteI agree that Mary Surratt seemed to be a scapegoat in this case. The reason behind it could be the same reason unjust things are always done, the situation demanded it. Thinking about it, the nation had just come out of the Civil War not even a week ago and suddenly President Abraham Lincoln, the one who led the war and reunified the Union is assassinated. The government needed someone to blame she became the scapegoat. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if her son did agree to come back or if she was tried at a different time?
Annique Wong-
ReplyDeleteI felt that The Conspirator was an engaging and worthwhile movie to watch, but did not accurately represent all perspectives of people during this time period. Probably my favorite scene was in the beginning, when soldiers carry Lincoln down the streets of Washington- I was able to feel the chaos and distress of the people (as well as what it was like to not have ambulances yet.)As Sungwoo said, I don't think that the general public knows that Lincoln wasn't the only man targeted nor do they know who Mary Surratt was or that she was given the death penalty for conspiracy; so the film gets props for talking about an unknown part of history. However, I don't believe a single colored person was shown or featured in the movie nor did the issue of slavery ever come up. How can a movie depicting times right after the Civil War and the murder of The "Great Emancipator" not discuss slavery or how it affected free and bound Blacks?
What was also interesting was the Church's role in hiding John Surratt. I'm not sure if that action is morally correct for a reverend.
Mohammad Chhipa- I think that this film was exceptionally film developed. I would highly recommend it to other APUSH students because it provides a different environment surrounding the events that take place after Lincoln's death. Prior to watching the film, we already know that Mary will be sentenced to death. However, seeing the judgement on screen is different than reading it from a book. The film helps us to sympathize with Mary as we see her beyond just an individual who who charged with being a conspirator to Lincoln's assassination. We are able to see the situation from a mother's perspective and begin to realize just how controversial the judge's decision was. Also, the character development of Mary's lawyer left a profound impact on me because it displayed him as a dynamic character. He went from being a man who was confident that she was responsible that she conspired to hurt Lincoln, to being a man who constantly put his honor and respect as a lawyer on the line for the justice of the case. Thus he followed true to Lincoln's belief that the Constitution should be firmly followed.
ReplyDeleteEric Kolbusz- I really enjoyed all the moral conflicts that were present in the movie. Of course, there was the main conflict of the trial: whether or not a person's rights were more important than keeping the order of the nation. Others, such as Mary's role as a mother versus her role as a law-abiding citizen who should turn her son in, and Aiken's internal conflict between his Yankee ties and his oath as a lawyer, add to the story to make it more emotionally appealing and realistic. Watching this sort of movie really makes the history come alive. Instead of thinking of Mary Surratt as a conspirator who was hung for helping with the plot to kill Lincoln/Johnson/Seward, as a name on a slide that I copied in my notes, as a dead person who did something, I now think of her as a real person thanks to this movie. History is much easier to remember and enjoy when you realize that you are discussing real people who faced real problems.
ReplyDeleteDo you think, then, that the film was sympathetic towards Mary as a Southern patriot, as some seem to believe, or as a loyal mother?
DeleteSam Tran- I thought that the film was worth watching, but I felt that there could of been some better acted parts. For example, when Anna Surratt testifies that John Surratt was a conspirator and Mary Surratt to have no involvement, we see Mary Surratt pleading to Aikens to stop. I was surprised that Mary Surratt didn't continue pleading, because I thought she was a mother who would do anything to protect her son. However, I like how Aikens was portrayed as a dedicated lawyer who only wants justice in the world. I was amazed that Aikens was so determined to get Mary Sarratt the proper trial and I even remember one of the guys saying, "Why do you go so far for her?" I am astounded by Aikens stubbornness and sheer willpower and wonder if lawyers like him still exist in this world today.
ReplyDeleteI found it scary that Edwin Stanton had such a firm grasp on the trial outcome. He managed to manipulate the trial so that all of Aiken's witnesses would either not testify or sell him out. It is unbelievable that he such control of the trial and it shows that people with high positions having great influences on the outcome.
I was overcome with grief when I saw the hanging of Mary Sarratt because I expected some sort of Hollywood action coming in and saving the day. But,sadly that was not what happened and instead she dies. However because of the trial citizens would be entitled to a trial by jury, even in times of war. i believe that in a way Mary Sarratt did protect her son.
Farzana Haque- The goal of the American Film company when making The Conspirators was to make a compelling and historically accurate film. But despite being a movie set immediately after the civil, it completely ignores the slavery issue. It paints the Southern cause in a very heroic light without ever concretely explaining what the cause is. The focus on whether justice or law mattered more, especially during war times was interesting. But I felt like the argument was very lopsided and the filmmakers pushed the audience to choose law over 'justice', since justice didn't have as emotionally satisfying argument. The movie as a whole had its moments but often fell flat.
ReplyDeleteStanley
ReplyDeleteI believe that the film was worth watching because Mary Surratt's story is usually untold. I believe that Surratt deserved a civilian court and that her trial was unconstitutional. However, this would not be the last time that the United States Government scapegoats certain people in extreme times in order to maintain a somewhat sense of stability in turbulent times. During World War 2, Japanese American Citizens were sent to relocation camps on the premise they were spying on Americans. This clearly violated the civil rights of Japanese Americans but no one was against it until much later. More recently, we have the Bush military tribunal trials, Guantanamo, and Patriot Act. When the Patriot Act passed, it was in terms of national security. However, a lot more people now view the act as a violation of our privacy.
An event like this is extremely unfortunate but will continue to keep occuring because it is the easy way out of a difficult solution.
-Konrad Krasucki
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I found this film near perfect. It's accurate portrayal of Washington in the 1860's is majestic, even though the film did have a $25 million budget. The themes present in the movies affect the viewer much more than the actual actors, and the main theme of despair, felt by Aiken and the female Surratt's, is one that affects the viewer the most. Another element of the film that I really enjoyed was the panic that set in during Lincoln's assassination. The viewer really had an idea as if they were there on that horrible day, and that is what few films, of any genre, have accomplished lately.
Tony Fung
ReplyDeleteThe film was an interesting insight into a military tribunal. The film really portrayed well the powerlessness of Mary Surratt. Although there were comments by classmates after the movie that there was poor acting, they did it just fine in my opinion. It was perfectly reasonable for Anna Surratt to have a breakdown after learning of her mother's fate. It was also justifiable for John Surratt to not return to "save" his mother. Who knows if he would've saved her, or if they both would've been tried and hanged. It was fortunate that Mary Surratt's sacrifice was not in vain, as John Surratt is released when he's captured 18 months later. Mary Surratt's trial was a special case - it set a precedent. One could say, Mary Surratt set the stage for John's freedom. The military judges were willing to take either one, and it's better that the mother took the fall rather than the son. Mary Surratt even wanted that, for her to take the blame rather than for her son to. It's really just motherly affection.
Mr. Sandler-In today's class we read aloud Angela Sun's post comparing VP Cheney to Sec.of War Stanton. It inspired a great discussion comparing the Bush administration's policies to scenes of the military tribunals in the film. We also examined why President Obama, a Harvard Constitutional Law Professor, has still not closed Guantanamo Bay Prison. This then led to a heated debated over the legitimacy of drone strikes, and the NSA wiretapping's program.
ReplyDeleteThe Conspirator might have been just a movie but it also has a much more deeper meaning to it than just unjust court ruling or the sentencing of unfair jail time and or executions. Having no real evidence, or little to none, persecuting based off assumptions and biased is never ok. This was sort of thing doesn't happen only in movies, but more in real life. The Guantanamo Bay article was not an ok story and it got me thinking and angry. How many other unjust trials and sentences were there in the history of the United States. Something start back in the day with the 19th Century, more likely to be more far back, impartiality was always lacking in some aspects throughout our country. Racism, unfair court rulings, oppression, there was also one act of unjust discrimination against some race or ethnicity because they were the easiest targets and scapegoats around them. In my opinion Conspirator seems like not only a great movie to watch, but a must-see film. It not only lets you relate with the film and the time period that it's held in, but everyday life today. It may be hard to believe, not things like this don't easily go away, and saying sorry is just too hard.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Mr. Heo, and oftentimes in our history these unjust actions are specifically based on revenge, which brings up another question. Can we ignore the justice system for special cases such as redemption?
DeleteAkira Taniguchi (Period 3) - In the film how was the son of Mary Surratt portrayed in the film? Was he portrayed so that the viewers will hate him or portrayed in a way where the viewers' anger was directed toward the government?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great question Mr. Taniguchi. For me, at least, I had no hatred towards anyone in the movie, because they all genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. Mary's son did eventually return to show his mother was innocent, but he did so too late. Whether it was intentional or not was not clear. Regardless, although his mother's death was ultimately his fault, the film did not attempt to show him as an evil person, but rather as a despaired man who regretted his actions.
DeleteAnya Hargil (period 3) - Why do you think Redford decided not to include slavery as part of the story or mention it at all? How do you think the story would be different if he had? Also, I found this interesting website ( http://thecivilwarproject.com/book-and-movie-reviews-2/the-conspirator-vs-facts/ ) about the story that The Conspirator presented versus the actual facts. Had The Conspirator followed the facts more how do you think it would have changed the movie?
ReplyDeleteBettina Zou (period 3) - I actually have the same question as Anya. The main issue at the time was slavery, so why wasn't it even mentioned in the movie? Also, from what I've read from the reviews, the movie tells a compelling story, but that's it - the film makes Stanton and Holt evil. In Lincoln, Stanton wasn't a terribly important figure, but in this movie, he's almost over villified?
DeleteAnni Bangiev (period 3) - I've watched this movie on my own before and I greatly enjoyed it. However, I think that it overplayed Frederick Aiken and Reverdy Johnson's greatness, thereby making Stanton seem incredibly evil and vicious. Do you guys think that the character portrayals are historically accurate or is it just a Hollywood thing?
ReplyDeleteJessica Ma (period 6) - When I initially watched the trailer for The Conspirator, I thought that it would approach things from an interesting perspective. I, too, wanted to learn about Mary Surratt's involvement in the famous assassination of Lincoln. Was she part of the conspiracy or was she merely a victim of it? Based on previous comments, it seems like we will never be able to truly find out. I also noticed that in the beginning, the trailer indicated that The Conspirator was a true story, and I don't doubt that. However, when I read the numerous reviews, many of them mentioned that several details were twisted. These include the fact that Mary was "isolated" from the other 7 conspirators in the courtroom and the overly-villainous portrayals of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt. Is this perhaps because of the influence of Hollywood and the film-making industry? Why did the film's directors and producers antagonize the northerners and victimize the southerners? I understand why they would want to depict Mary in an innocent light. At the same time though, I feel that their emphasis of Stanton's and Holt's malevolence made the film less genuine. In addition, I'd like to note that Surratt's situation is remarkably similar to poor Nabil's case. Both of them weren't able to testify their innocence.
ReplyDeleteSunny Zhang (pd6)- I've never seen this movie and am quite confused as to how it is possible to not mention slavery at all. Doesn't the motive for killing Lincoln come up? Reading the Guantanamo article about how the U.S imprisoned people for years despite how little actual evidence there was makes me wonder whether this was also the case for Mary Surratt. 9/11 and also Stanley's comment about Japanese Americans in WWII shows that this trial is more than just a passing event in history. I think that if I was a common citizen living at that time I would want Mary Surratt dead as soon as possible, just as I find it hard to feel any sympathy toward those associated with the planning of 9/11. All in all, this seems like a fascinating film and I will definitely try to watch it when I get the chance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChristina Lai Pd 6
ReplyDeleteAs I read the reviews and articles, the a major issue that popped up was whether or not the director should have mentioned slavery more. This is supposed to be a movie about the trials after the assassination of Lincoln; was it necessary to mention slavery? This also calls into question what exactly the assassins were tried for.
Also, do you think it was fair to focus only on the woman in the story? Focusing on a woman evokes pity but the fact remains that some of the men tried DID participate in the assassination. During the assassinations the defendants were tried as a group. Should the defendants been tried separately instead of as a group in real life? Do you think the injustices against Mary Surratt represented the group as a whole?
This movie is more sympathetic towards the south. Did you feel more sympathetic after watching the movie?
Jack Ye (Pd 3)- After reading some of my peer's thoughts, I felt that a common question in the film was whether Surratt's trial was fair or not, and if she was innocent or not. Regarding the trial, as well as the issue in the Guantanamo Bay article, I understand that none of it sounds fair, but in both cases, the harsh trials were done in order to show America's strength and to protect America. I wonder how America would be viewed had these trials been more just and less harsh?
ReplyDeleteYihua Wu (Period 3) - The LA times movie review says that the company that produced this movie, The American Film Co., was founded to produce "historically accurate" movies. After watching the trailer, I noticed that there are many parts of this movie that appear to be very dramatic, even though it says it is based on a true story. Which parts of this film, if any, are not accurate?
ReplyDeleteAlso, a common theme in the reviews are that Stanton is deliberately portrayed as a villain in this film. In Period 3, we watched Lincoln, but didn't see much of Stanton in our film. However, in the one scene that he did appear in, he seemed rather scary as well. Is Stanton really a villain, or is he simply doing what he believes to be the right thing to do?
Terry Zhao (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteThe Conspirator seems to be a movie that's in between Lincoln and Glory in terms of pace and action. The trailer makes it very appealing and easily persuaded me to watch a few scenes online. I don't agree with the historian's review of the movie. His criticisms are on very minute and not so important details. I think portraying Mary Surrat as an innocent, motherly representative of the poor, vanquished Confederacy was a good choice by the director and it makes the plot more interesting.
Tina Zhu, Period 3
ReplyDeleteConspirators was actually my favored choice for this film festival. It struck me as a film with a balance of action and politics. It would fit in between the politics-centered Lincoln film and the increasingly action-centered Glory film. I would definitely be driven to watch it because it seems to continue from where Lincoln left off.
I haven't seen this movie, but from what I'm reading from above comments and from the trailer, it seems that the NYT critic is being seriously "nit picky" when panning the film for not mentioning slavery/African-Americans, even though he denies it; this isn't a film about the Civil War and slavery, but rather about the failure of the American justice system to live up to what it promises.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if the movie really did promote a Southern "Lost Cause" view like the NYC review said it did? And if it did, was this just merely a consequence of having the main character a Southerner?
Razwan Miah (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the trailer and reading many comments this movie seems very interesting. I have a question, "Which side would you have taken if you were in the jury at that time?
Mr. Sandler posted the Guantanamo Bay article knowing that it related specifically to some of the themes in this film, but are they what you got out of it when you watched it in the first place? Do you think a thematic relationship with Guantanamo is what the director/writer had in mind with creating this movie?
ReplyDeleteUdita Tonne (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a really awesome movie and a sequel to Lincoln, so I really want to watch it.
I don't think I've seen any mention of this, so I was wondering there any indication that the fact that Mary was a woman changed how her trial was seen? I know there's her being a mother and taking place of her son, but besides familial connections, is her gender a factor in this at all? Did it make her seem less credible to jury?
Nashia Choudhury (Pd 3) - I really want to see this movie after watching the trailer. However, the reviews make me wonder how the different characters and the north and south were portrayed, because some of the reviews mentioned that the movie seems to bring up the idea of the "lost cause" of the south
ReplyDeleteCole Reschke (period 6) - After watching the trailer of the Conspirator, it seems that it would be a good follow up movie to Lincoln. After seeing the constitution being brought up in the trailer and how the defense believes that it is being violated, I wonder how the constitution is used in the film and whether or not there is a lot of controversy, especially because of the turmoil in the country after the Lincoln assassination.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I wanted to watch the Conspirator, but after I watched Lincoln I changed my mind... The one clip I have though is the fact that Lincoln's assassination wasn't explicitly shown in my film. How was Lincoln's assassination portrayed in The Conspirator and how did the people around him act after his death? I'm curious.
ReplyDeleteBrian Lui (period 6)
ReplyDeleteI think it is a little odd that the film seems to glorify the South and their lost cause when the subject matter is the assassination of Lincoln. I think this was a bad choice to promote the lost cause because murder is never seen as a good thing. Although Mary Surratt's actions to protect her son was, in her views, noble, and supports the South, the fact that a group of southerners killed Lincoln for being a successful president hurts their lost cause argument. I also can see that this film take a more revisionist view on history because it presents the idea that Mary Surratt was wrongly tried and that the trial system was unfair toward her.
Jiyoon (pd 6)- To what extent are the events surrounding Mary Surratt's trial true and accurate? Why was the film mainly focused on Mary Surratt, instead of Lewis Payne, who was directly involved with the attempted assassination of Seward, or even John Surratt, who seemed as equally( if not more) suspicious as Mary Surratt? In fact, one of the reviews mentions that it was unclear from the movie if Mary Surratt was actually involved with the assassinations. One reason for her trial was for the government to find more incriminating evidence against her son. Why not show it from the point of view of someone who was more connected to the assassination plot and knew exactly what happened during that night of the murder?
ReplyDeleteEva I – The Conspirator seems to be a fast-paced film I would want to see. Like Justin, I am curious about whether the movie showed the reactions of Lincoln’s wife and sons after his assassination.
ReplyDeleteIan Chi (pd 3)
ReplyDeleteJust seeing the trailer intrigues me to watch the film because of the fact that I never knew of a group of people plotting to kill Lincoln. In school, we're only really taught about John Wilkes Booth so that aspect of the movie is pretty cool. Also, why is she put up against a military trial and not a civilian trial?
Really seems interesting, seeing history through the eyes of a bad guy, learning his reasons, maybe even sympathizing with him. It would kind of be like watching a Batman film through the eyes of the Joker.
ReplyDeleteRyan Tu (Period 6) - Was it appropriate for Aiken to be portrayed as a son figure for Surratt as was mentioned in the LA Times review? While it might have helped the audience feel more emotional about the whole trial and the result of the trial, was it necessary to do so? From the viewpoint of someone who has not watched this movie, it sounds unnecessary and only seems to highlight the fact that Surratt is a female facing a military tribune which was already apparent in real life and would have been made more apparent had the other seven conspirators stood with her during the trial. On the note of the other conspirators, was it okay for the filmmakers to make the trial appear as if Surratt was judged separately from the other conspirators? While she might not have had evidence that made it obvious that she was part of the assassination plot, if the movie showed that she was tried with others, the amount of evidence that might have been against the group might have made it more reasonable in the audience's eyes as to why they were executed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, is it accurate to say that there was any Lost Cause sentiment in this movie? While it can be argued that the assassination in general was a plot to do what was right for the nation in the eyes of a radical group of pro-Confederates, the main focus seems to be on Mary Surratt and her life story. This seems different from the clip of Gone With the Wind that was shown in class where a Southern belle's life was destroyed by an evil invading Union army because the antagonists are not seeking to intentionally harm Southerners. The antagonists, Stanton and Holt, appear to be focused on getting over a hurdle and dealing with a crisis by convicting people who appear to be connected to the assassination plot rather than harming the South. In addition, based on the movie's focus on Surratt, it appears as if the major factor that is resonated throughout the movie is that she is a woman that could possibly face a death penalty rather than a Southerner who supports the Confederacy. When considering all of this, can it be accurate to say that the movie has a Lost Cause view like some of the previous posts and the NY Times review have mentioned? Were these just overstating something minor that within the movie (the NY Times review mentions its simply a scene) or have there been events that took place within the movie that the trailer and some of the reviews neglect to mention that suggest otherwise?
Tomin (period 3) - Does anyone who has seen this film feel like the assertion made in Elizabeth Leonard's Historian's Review, that the trial, as it actually unfolded, mostly consisted of evidence brought against the entire group as opposed to any sort of specificity regarding Surrat's involvement, detracts at all from the power of the film or that the focus on Surratt's story, if partially inaccurate, is an appropriate window into the issue of security and justice (even into the modern day)? Does anyone feel both ways?
ReplyDeleteDavid Bang (Period 3):
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I am the only one that thought this, but for some reason I was reminded of the Nuremberg Trials. Though the trials depicted in the trailer and the Nuremberg Trials were very different, there were also some apparent similarities too such as the severity of the crime committed, the harsh prisoner treatment, the military trial with hard punishments, and the common population being completely against the suspects. It seems that Americans really take any attack to their national security very seriously. The military officers treated Mary Surratt and other suspects as if they were terrorists. The jury was completely unfair especially considering that Lincoln was such as respectable man and seen as a hero to many. The prisoners were not seen as innocent until guilty, they were seen as guilty until innocent. We saw the dark side of the government as they did evil back door dealings and threatening to make Surratt confess to a crime that she herself believed herself to be innocent from as she was only the "nest for the conspirators." I found it interesting that Surratt was set apart from the 7 other male suspects, and casts her in light morally. I wonder why the film was purposefully made Surratt courageous and noble, when we don't have concrete evidence how involved Surratt really was?
Wendy [Pd. 6]- From reading the posts from the people that watched the movie, I want to watch the movie myself. It sounds extremely interesting since it focuses on the trial on Mary Surratt (who was tried in a military trial). However, since I've never seen the film before, I kind of wonder exactly how historically accurate this film is. Are there parts that were just added in just to build more suspense since it's a movie? And as many people have already mentioned, the movie seemed sympathetic towards the south. I wonder why the director chose to do that.
ReplyDeleteI really liked a lot of the dialouge in the trailer! I loved the line that went: "Have you ever cared about something greater than yourself". For one line, it conveys and carries a great deal of weight: it hints at a greater good (perhaps the Lost Cause!)
ReplyDeleteand it shows a lot about Surratt! In fact, it paints the Southerners in a nice light (if they're as deeply feeling and caring Surratt), while depicting the North as injust oppressors! Maybe it's good to get both perspectives, to see a film such as
"Glory" (which I reallyreally recommend), where the blacks that enlist to fight are all extremely valiant and self-sacraficing, and a film that deems the Northerners the enemy such as "the Conspirator".
What do you think the manner of these trials and the Guantanamo Bay imprisonments say about America as a nation? Are we quick to forget or overlook founding principles when confronted with unease?
ReplyDeleteCourtney Velez (Pd. 3)
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw the trailer for "The Conspirator," I was enthralled by it and wished to see it. However, the NYT Film Review puts down the movie, and makes it seem as if it is a bore. Did you find it to be engaging or were you often wishing for it to hurry up and end? What did you think of the jury being composed of those from the military rather than civilians? Was it suitable for these conspirators to be judged by a "military tribunal", or did they deserve the right to a civilian jury? Finally, what do you think about the word "slavery" never being used in the movie? What was the purpose in doing so?
Wendy Huang (period 3)- The assassination is depicted in the most predictable way possible, with John Wilkes Booth slowly taking a gun out and shooting Lincoln in the head. In this movie, I would have to say that this is definitely more fitting while in Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” seeing Lincoln’s assassination through the eyes of his son had a bigger emotional impact. Based on the trailer, the movie seems to focus mainly on Mary Surratt rather than on Booth. According to the NYT Film Review, Surratt’s story is told from the viewpoint of her attorney Frederick Aiken, who was a Union war hero. Since he was a Union war hero, did the movie lean towards the North’s perspective or did it give a fair portrayal of both sides?
ReplyDeleteAccording to what people have said above, the movie is somewhat the opposite of Lincoln as the acting is not very good but has more action. I actually wanted to watch Conspirators at first since it seemed interesting. I think it's good for the movie to have a sympathetic-towards-the-South perspective and seemed interesting to watch. In addition, the fact that the word "slavery" was never mentioned in this Civil War movie sounds really intriguing. I think the reason why it was never mentioned was simply because it's was more sympathetic towards the South, and it was supposed to simply emphasize the LOST cause, and not the cause itself.
ReplyDeleteAaron L. (Period 6)
ReplyDeleteAlthough reading the comments sheds some light into how students generally reacted to the movie, it doesn't change the fact that my first impression of it was rather lackluster, and downright disappointing. The trailer seemed to portray the film not in a legitimately exciting and enthralling story of a court case that possibly went wrong, but rather as a horrifyingly melodramatic and clichéd soap opera. Phrases like "for the survival of this nation, I will do anything", and "who's side are you on?" are reminiscent of the soap operas my grandma used to watch before the evening news. Although I may be overly harsh by judging the vibe the trailer gave off (I could very well be pleasantly surprised when I watch the film - all the more reason to do so), it does make me wonder - did the film seem artificially dramatic, and did this detract from the film's plot and the underlying historical message?
Eyrna (Period 6)- I have not seen the movie, but after reading the NYT review and the HNN article I find it very strange that a movie taking place right after the Civil War would completely omit the topic of slavery. Even though the movie focuses on the illegality of Mary Surratt's trial, not the Civil War directly, by not mentioning slavery it seems like the filmmakers are doing the people watching a disservice. I don't think it's possible to accurately depict this period by glossing over the reason the country is so divided, and why stabilizing the Union is so important. Could the filmmakers have left the topic slavery out to make Surratt more likeable? By telling the story through the eyes of Aiken, who is convinced of her innocence, did you feel like your opinion of her was biased, or would you have felt just as much sympathy for her if the story was told from Stanton's perspective? If it had been told from Stanton's point of view do you think you would be more likely to concur with the breach of Surratt's right to due process?
ReplyDeleteSabrina Bari (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the reviews it seems as if the movie was more based upon Mary Surratt's case in the film rather than all 8 conspirators together. Why was this gender biased? How would this movie be different if it were to be based on one of the male conspirators instead?
Danny Qiu (Period 6) - In watching the trailer, the most powerful line that stuck out was the final sentence: "Do not permit this injustice out of revenge". What I am getting from this movie is that it is largely focused on the trials succeeding the assassination of Lincoln and the wrongly accused Mary Surratt. Even though Mary was housing the conspirators as well as having a son who was close with John Wilkes Booth, I feel that is innocent because a mother cannot always know what is going on. He innocence is continued to be fought for by the Aiken, but out of revenge, the trial is unfair. Northerners want to see the south brought to their knees and Mary to be convicted because the president was dead. This film seems to be like John Adams because the lawyers are both fighting for justice in these films while the public and everyone else is against them because they are on the opposing side.
ReplyDeleteA few questions I have are: Why does the NY times say that the judge is just as good as a "talking snake"? Does it mean that the judge in this trial is incompetent? Also, seeing that the film is about the trial of a Confederate by the Union, is this film pro- or anti- Confederate, or unbiased?
The trailer made the movie seem very dramatic, while also very cliche. The trailer also seems to portray the movie as biased to the South, which is rather strange because this is about the assassination of Lincoln. Although I do not know much about the history of Mary Surratt, it seems that she was charged because she was housing the people that planned the murder. Some themes that I extrapolated from the trailer were revenge, and portraying the North as cruel and unrelenting. A few questions I have are: To what extent is the content of the movie true? Did Mary Surratt know of the plot that was carried out?
ReplyDeleteGrace Lu (period 6) - I have not seen this movie, and it definitely seems very interesting and entertaining, but after reading some of the reviews, I feel discouraged to see the film. How can a movie set in this time period not even mention slavery while claiming to be created for the purposes of historical accuracy? The trailer seemed quite dramatic to me, especially with the somewhat annoying dark flashes of scenes. Also, while reading some of the reviews, the character Mary Surratt drew parallels to Mahala Doyle, the mother and husband of the men whom John Brown murdered in Kansas. If you read Doyle's pitiful and emotional letter, it seems as if she is an innocent victim to a psychopath's rage. But, by looking at the whole picture, she and her family were still guilty of slavery by being slave catchers. Surratt, like Doyle, is guilty of being a southern woman who benefited from slavery and no doubt disliked Lincoln, but this film seems to ignore this and portray her as an innocent and protective mother.
ReplyDeleteLise Ho (pd 6) From the reviews of this movie, the criticisms of 'The Conspirator' generally revolve around the bias in the movie. First, as many have mentioned, slavery is not mentioned in this Civil War-era movie. It is fact that Mary Surratt was part of a slave-holding family and that she was probably a opponent of abolition, yet slavery was never brought up (apparently) as a major issue. In addition, the film incredibly villainizes the Stanton and Holt (according to the reviews).
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is rather biased for this movie to leave out such important facts and to defame the Northern leaders, was it the right decision to leave out these facts? The ultimate goal of the filmmakers was probably to persuade their audience that Marry Surratt's "kangaroo court" trial was unjust. However if they included the fact that she was from an anti-abolitionist family and depicted the Northerners differently, would the audience be able to see the injustice behind the trial of Mary Surratt? Would we be able to compare the trial's result to the Nabil's unjustified and brutal detainment by the US military in Guantanamo?
Ivy - I thought Mr. Solomon's visit was a great experience. It was interesting to learn about the origins of the Conspirator script, and I was surprised to learn that it took 18 years for the script to make it onto the big screen. I enjoyed his talk about looking at stories from different perspectives and point of views, as I've been writing more lately, and that is certainly something I should consider when I'm trying to tell a story. I can't imagine what the film would have been like if it had been following Stanton's POV, or Mary Surratt's. It would have been very different.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Solomon: Why do you use screenplays to tell stories instead of other mediums, like novels? How different are they to write?
Anya Hargil (period 3) - Mr. Solomon's visit was extremely interesting and enlightening. It was very cool to hear about the creation of a movie like The Conspirator where you have a limited number of primary documents and transcripts, and you have to adapt them in certain ways to create a successful movie while trying to stay as true to the facts as possible. I also thought it was very interesting when he spoke about the point of view of the characters and how important it is to write a story in the point of view of a character or figure that you can relate to.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for Mr. Solomon: What kept you going during the 18 years that you were working on this project? Did you ever feel like giving up?
Also, thank you so much for coming in today.
Victor Cai- i thought listening to James Solomon speak was a great experience, not only did he tell us the process of creating the movie, but also taught us life lessons of persistence and passion for something. It still blows my mind that he worked on the film for 18 years, he certainly has patience. It made me wonder what thing will keep me awake and how i will develop it. A question i have for him is: What made it take 18 years,was it the script or getting actors to play the roles?
ReplyDeleteArmani(pd. 2)
ReplyDeleteMr. Solomon's visit was very nice. It was very interesting to see how and why a screenwriter chose to wrote about something. I had wondered why the movie was from Aiken's point of view so Mr. Solomon's explanation cleared things up. After all storytellers usually do identify with one character. I only found his story about Holder at the film premiere interesting. One question I have is: Does Mr. Solomon have any more passion projects?
Nashia Choudhury (pd. 3)- I really enjoyed hearing Mr. Solomon speak. Knowing how much work and thought is put into each and every detail of the movie, makes me appreciate it even more. It was fascinating to hear about how he spent 18 years working on this film and it must have been a wonderful moment when he saw his hard work come to life through The Conspirator. I also thought it was interesting to see the importance of a point of view and how this p.o.v reaches out to the audience, and how vital it is to the writer himself. It was also really interesting to see how a small idea grows and develops into a film.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Velez (Period 3) - Having Mr. Solomon detail to us his process in creating "The Conspirator" was a fantastic experience for me. I never would have thought making a movie required so much time and effort! His passion in making the movie recount the historical events that occurred during the conspirators' trial and his extended amount of time to create the movie is quite admirable. Hearing how he figured out the dialogue and actions in the movie helped give me some insight as to how movies are eventually created.
ReplyDeleteI just have one question for Mr. Solomon: Are there any other historical events you are as interested in and as willing to spend 18 years on to make a movie for?
Angela [Pd 2] - It was especially intriguing to be able to hear about the film from the screenwriter, an experience I have never had before. Mr Solomon's talk was very interesting. I found it especially compelling when he said that Aiken was, in a way, a reflection of himself and that he might have written it from the point of Mrs. Surratt or Stanton had he been older. It also caught my attention when Mr Solomon mentioned that one of the stories of the film was that of a mother's and a son's which some may overlook when viewing the "bigger picture" which is the trial.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr Solomon: Would you have portrayed Aiken's character differently had you used Mrs. Surratt's or Stanton's point of views?
Teresa Chen: Hi Mr. Solomon! Thank you so much for taking the time to visit us today, and for offering more insight into the development of The Conspirator. I found it really interesting to see your perspective on the creation of the script of this film: the fact that this movie not only portrayed a little-known historical trial, but took 18 years to develop, AND included so much of your own personal identity was surprising, in a good way. It is certainly interesting to wonder how the movie would differ had you written the film a couple years later, inspired by Mary Surratt, or by Stanton. I connect to the personality aspect of writing, and I definitely understand where you're coming from. As a writer and journalist myself, I find that the pieces and features that I write often reflect my own character and values, creating a label defining my own unique written voice. However, looking at the film now, what are your favorite scenes? Are there any changes that you'd like to make to the film?
ReplyDeleteAnthony Varshavskiy
ReplyDeleteHaving Mr. Solomon visit our school and give us a lesson about his passionate journey to writing this spectacular movie was probably a once-in-a-lifetime experience for me. Honestly, how often do screenwriters come to you to talk about their film, its origin, and the amount of time that it took him or her to accomplish. Moreover, I was really shocked when Mr. Solomon pointed out that it had taken him 18 years to write the script, which is more than the life I'm living right now. It's quite astounding how much effort was put into the movie, solely inspired by the transcript of the trails of the Lincoln assassins. Lastly, Mr. Solomon gave us some great tips for the future if we ever do become screenwriters or in general, for our future life. For example, doing something that keeps you awake is great piece of advice from Mr. Solomon, especially when Stuyvesant students suffer from many sleep-related issues.
Bettina Zou (period 3):
ReplyDeleteMr. Solomon's visit was as a great experience! Although my period watched Lincoln, I ended up watching The Conspirator over the weekend, so I was able to sort of understand the time (18 years wow), effort, and passion that Mr. Solomon invested in the film. I loved how his focus was the mother-son relationship between Mary Surratt and Aiken, even though it was about a trial of assassins. Overall, I thought his description of the developing process was extremely fascinating.
To Mr. Solomon, thank you so much for visiting and speaking about it! Has the experience of writing this film influenced you in any of your other projects? What were your favorite scenes?/ Which scenes were most meaningful to you?
Tony Fung (pd.2)
ReplyDeleteMr. Soloman's visit was interesting. This is the first time I've had a screenwriter come in as a guest. What he said about storytelling being important in any aspect of most lives is definitely true. Being able to weave good stories together is just an important life skill. What struck out to me is when Mr. Solomon first submitted his script, and the guy (forgive me) had three points that were key in his eyes, and one was: he referred to his characters by name. Names are important, and most people like the sound of their names. It could be their favorite sound in the world. Another interesting point was that Mr. Solomon said: "Do things that keep you awake." That's important too. I won't waste my time with things that don't.
Christopher Kim (Period 2):
ReplyDeleteHearing Mr. Solomon's many words of wisdom was an extremely cool and rewarding experience. Although I knew that writing up a script does take a lot of work and requires a lot of time, I now see how long it takes to create a meaningful script. I've learned about focusing a bit more on the different point of views in a film, the advantages of being able to connect with others, and how story telling is not only prevalent in a theater, but is evident throughout our society.
Thank you Mr. Sandler for organizing all of this, and thank you Mr. Solomon so much for sharing your experiences and advice!
David Bang (Period 3):
ReplyDeleteIt was a great learning experience, to have Mr. Solomon visit our class to talk about his experiences on making "The Conspirator." First off, I would like to mention that I am extremely impressed that he was able to spend 18 dedicated years on creating this powerful movie. Though, I did not personally watch the movie, the little scenes he showed us were good enough to give me a general gist on the movie. As Mr. Solomon mentioned in class, I originally thought that Lincoln's assassination was solely done by John Wilkes Booth but unexpectedly, this movie had not focused on Booth and had instead focused on Mary Surratt. I want to ask why Mary Surratt was chosen as the focus of the movie and why Mr. Solomon thought that the love between a mother and her son would prove to be an effective technique to convey the atmosphere of the military trials of the assassins. Also I wonder how much research was available on Mary Surratt and if there were any parts of the movie that had to be completely improvised from history, because of lack of information available. In conclusion, I learned a lot in those short 40 minutes, especially about screen writing. So my last question will be, how effective do you think the actors were when they portrayed specific scenes with actions rather than dialogue, and do you think more dialogue would have been better, even though it would have made the movie wordy?
Razwan Miah (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteMr.Solomon's visit was a great experience. Learning about the screenwriting experience was very interesting because it is a very tedious but rewarding experience. Mr.Solomon told us that 1 page of text was approximately a minute in acting. Mr.Solomon's story of making the script for this movie really showed how patience and hard work is important because he said "If he knew how long this would take, he would have not made this film" which would be sad. When he asked us what we wanted to me I was confused, but I learned a great lesson about how screenwriting is necessary in every profession. The best moment was when he wrote "Stay Awake" on the board and told us how the 20s are hard times. He said it is important to do things that keep us awake and interested. Mr.Solomon's talk to us was so amazing and I learned a lot of beneficial advice for my future. Thank you very much for bringing him in Mr.Sandler and I wish we had more time to hear Mr.Solomon!
Sharon Kang (period 2)
ReplyDeleteI thought having Mr. Solomon come to speak was a great experience. I think it's amazing how he started writing a screenplay as a "passion project" and how he stuck with it for 18 years. To see something you write come to life on the big screen must have been a great moment for you. I love how he had a personal connection to Aiken and that was why he chose to write the movie through Aiken's point of view. I think it's interesting how he said he probably would have changed the main character, if he had written this later on in his life. I admire his perseverance and passion; he is a great example of someone who pushed pass the limits of what people say you can and cannot do.
To Mr. Solomon: What were your favorite parts of the film (I saw other people asked this as well)? Are they the mother-son scenes?
Han Zhao(Period 2)
ReplyDeleteAfter Mr Solomon's visit, I wonder how different the Conspirator would be if it was done in Stanton or Ms. Surratt's point of view. Would I be any different from today? In some other case I might believe that Mary Surratt was guilty as charged.
Also, Mr Solomon made me realize how there are always multiple sides of a story. Often times, stories are told in one perspective and the audience never see the other side. We are swayed to believe that we read/see and this creates the basis of our biased judgments, off stories that were told onesidely. However, in the Conspirator, there are many sides of the trial. Ms. Surratt tries to defend her son and Stanton tries to settle the nation back down. Aiken tries to discover what is right and the movie was mostly in the perspective of Aiken. As a result, I was swayed by Aiken's arguments for Ms Surratt's innocence and now, I am unsure if I truly believe that Ms Surratt is innocent or if I am only swayed by Aiken's emotional relations with Ms Surratt.
Jack Ye (Pd 3)- I felt that it was really cool seeing Mr Solomon, and it was a few minutes into the class that I fully realized that a famous guy, who wrote a screenplay for a movie, was talking to us. I felt that when he explained it, I got to notice much more of the movie, like the ideas behind each scene, as well as the reasons for showing each scene. I felt he was very well prepared, as he wrote down a lot of specific scenes to talk to us about, and I felt that it showed how hard working he was. When I heard he had worked on the film for 18 years, I was shocked and immediately looked at the film in a different way. I felt the scene with the unfair trial was very interesting, as Mr Solomon mentioned how it was before 9/11, so something like that had probably never been done or had occurred very few times. I felt the scene was very accurate, and I could definitely see it happening today when we interrogate suspected terrorists. I was amazed at his ability to create such a tense atmosphere without much hindsight to work with. Overall, I felt the experience was very rewarding, and I felt that it was very special to see the guy who wrote the actual script for the movie, come explain the movie to us.
ReplyDeleteEda Tse (Period 2)
ReplyDeleteIt was great to listen to Mr. Solomon detail the amount of work and time that he put into something that began simply as a "passion project." The Conspirators, like many other movies, just seem to appear out of thin air, but Mr. Solomon's simple fact that it took him 18 years to write this film really solidifies the work put into the film. In addition, his take on his movie was a "love story between a mother and son" which I didn't see at all before he pointed it out to us, giving me a new perspective on the tale of Mary Surrat. However, what really resonated with me were the questions that he asked us in the beginning: how many of you want to be a doctor/lawyer/etc? and how many of you consider yourself to be storytellers? The idea that a doctor is also a storyteller/interpreter, by reading charts and trying to fix the tale really connected with me, especially since I consider myself to be a writer and future doctor. It was a pretty inspiring talk, all in all.
Udita Tonnee (pd 3)
ReplyDeleteI thought being able to actual hear Mr.Solomon's process of writing this whole movie was really interesting. I never realized that one page of text is only a minute of acting! I also thought that his point about writing from a character whose view you can agree on is interesting.
I thought the clips from the movie were really good. The way the scene with all the assassination and other attempted assassinations actually portrayed the feeling of chaos and disorder of the time. The movie switches from scene to scene to scene, and you get this sense of urgency, of suspense, that everyone felt when the president was assassinated.
Overall, i thought it was cool that we met an actual screenwriter of a movie, and , of course the dedication he had to writing it.
I really enjoyed having Mr Soloman come speak to us, it was interesting to hear about his dedication, and he seemed like a very interesting kind of man. However, i wish he had talked more about the experience of hunting out information, more about the development of the characters rather than focusing as much on us. I want to know how he feels about having had to change certain aspects of the actual events for creative license. Overall though, I felt that it was a worthwhile experience and I'm now more motivated to watch the movie.
ReplyDeleteEva I (period 3) – I definitely enjoyed listening to Mr. Solomon’s perspective of the making of the movie The Conspirator. Like everyone else, I was impressed by his persistence and his passion for storytelling. The advice he gave about doing things that keep you awake is especially encouraging. In the future, if I ever encounter setbacks and difficulties, I will remember his wise words and pursue something I truly like. Even though I did not watch this movie, the short clips he showed in class motivated me to see it in the future. I was also shocked that Mr. Solomon mentioned that the screenplay was actually inspired by the thick trial record book he showed us because personally I would never touch such a dense book. I felt glad that Mr. Solomon liked it and made it into a film. I am just curious if he is working on any new movies or projects right now.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Solomon: Thank you for coming. Your visit definitely enlightened us.
Sabrina Bari (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteIt was so exciting having Mr. Solomon as a guest speaker today. I never expected to meet someone famous. His enthusiasm and dedication to his project left a lasting impression. It is admirable to see that he spent 18 years committed to this project. His choice of having an outsider (Aiken) as the main narrator of his screenplay shows how perspective is an important factor of any story. Although my class watched Lincoln, I was still able to comprehend the main idea of the Conspirators.It was definitely a rewarding experience. Watching the movie and interpreting it as an audience is different from actually hearing the story from the man who wrote it. I would like to thank him for enlightening us on the importance of storytelling.
MR.SANDLER, THIS IS FOR TINA ZHU (Period 3) BECAUSE SHE IS HAVING TROUBLE POSTING!:
ReplyDeleteIt was unbelievable that I got to meet a man who devoted eighteen years to the making of a sensational cinematic masterpiece. At the same time I was surprised the film took so long to write even though I didn't watch it yet, I was more so shocked by the fact that his persistence was rewarded with well-deserved fame and success. I admire Mr. Solomon's desire to educate people about the facts of Lincoln's assassination and to give justice to the details of our nation's history. I could almost imagine the joy of discovering diamonds under a well-populated city similar to how Mr. Solomon captured new circumstances surrounding a well-known subject. I wonder what he would do next in his life and if his ambitions still drive his career. I really wanted more time to listen to Mr. Solomon and to see more of the film with his commentary which brings to light the meaning behind each scene.
Thank you for gracing our class with your presence.
Eddie Antonio, pd 2
ReplyDeleteMr. Solomon's stimulating lecture was a great finale to our Civil War unit. His captivating film was literally given a personal face, and our class was offered a candid portrait of our presenter. Mr. Solomon's realism and profundity, particularly in his discussion of his own existential moments as an artist, moved me greatly. As a musician, I have sometimes experienced the yearning for validation that Mr. Solomon described, and was relieved to hear that others had also.
I wanted to ask Mr. Solomon, what caused you to turn to screenwriting after you left journalism?
What historical sources other than the trial transcript, if any, did you use when composing the screenplay?
Were you to direct your screenplay, what would you have done differently? If you were to remake the movie, what would you do differently?
Thank you Mr. Solomon and Mr. Sandler for continuing to make history my favorite class
Derek Tsui (pd 3) - Although our class did not watch The Conspirator, I for one found Mr. Solomon's visit and discussion to be very interesting nonetheless! I was especially impressed by the clear enthusiasm and the enormous effort (it's hard to not stress - 18 years!) that he has put into this movie, which sheds light on a historical event that clearly has much more to it than what we learn in history class alone. In addition, his idea that storytelling is important towards any profession or medium definitely resonated with me, and as the comments above strongly suggest, with both classes. After listening to Mr. Solomon today, I have some sense of all the creative talent and remarkable effort that go into writing a screenplay for a movie. Thanks so much for coming and sharing your stories and advice!
ReplyDeleteMohammad Chhipa (Period 2)
ReplyDeleteI found Mr. Solomon's visit to Stuyvesant an interesting experience for us students who rarely get to see speakers tell about their passionate journey. It was a different approach to learning than the usual textbook or power point learning experience students get and I think that that variation is important.
The quote from Georgia O'Keeffe that Mr. Solomon gave at the conclusion of his presentation - "It is only by selection, by elimination, by emphasis, that we get at the real meaning of things" - not only relates to Mr. Solomon's decisions as a screen writer/ director but also can be interpreted into the our daily lives. We need to be able to distinguish the details from the board scope of things - what separates our thinking/ perspective from those around us because redundancy rarely made anybody succeed.
To Mr. Solomon: Why were you drawn to quotes from Georgia O'Keeffe, seeing how she was an artist rather than a movie director?
Stephanie Lin (pd3) - I thought that it was wonderful that Mr. Solomon took time out of his busy schedule to come talk to us about the movie. He was definitely enthusiastic and excited talking about the movie, and it was nice to see how passionate he was about it. 18 years of work finally paid off. It was also nice to see how he elaborated more about the movie for us. When he showed us the book with all the written records of the trials, I was shocked at how long and tedious they looked. So much effort must have been put into this movie, and it was an interesting story, because most of the class didn't know or realize that the assassination plot was actually a bigger conspiracy. Thank you for coming! We really enjoyed you talking about the movie's history and what it depicted, along with showing us how hard work pays off definitely in the end.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Wennendy - I felt having Mr.Solomon come talk to us, after we watched the Conspirator really synergized with each other.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by his storytelling, about how he started writing this before we were even born, and how he came to make the film.
I was even more ineterested in how he gave all these different perspectives to the film. What if the story had been told from the point
of view of Mary Surratt? What if it was told from Stanton's pont of view? I really felt as if he was making a point about how important
storytelling was. Aother ineteresting fact I took notice of was how he intented for this to be a Mother and Son story. How Mary Surratt was
abandoned by her son, and instead Aiken acts as a second son to her. Confirming what we thought and discussed in class to actually be true
is enjoyable.
I am posting this for Wendy Huang because she is having trouble posting.
ReplyDeleteWendy Huang (pd 3)- Having Mr. Solomon come and explain the process of creating this movie was definitely interesting. It has never crossed my mind that making a movie can take 17 years; when Mr. Solomon told us that this was what allowed him to “stay awake,” I was really inspired. I completely agree with him in that people should live life doing what they are truly passionate for. The dedication and devotion put into this film is obvious. Furthermore, I also liked how he showed us a few clips from the movie. I liked the first scene the most because it gave me a sense of how everyone must have felt back then when they found out that Lincoln had been assassinated. The chaos is portrayed extremely well. I liked how this scene shows the other assassination attempts as well, which lets the audience know what really happened. Today’s experience has inspired me to watch this on my own time.
George Triantafillou pd 3
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr.Solomon's visit was a great way to end the Civil War unit. His persistence and dedication to this endeavor moved me and I felt very motivated after hearing him speak about his 18 years working on this film. I found it very inspiring that he discovered this book in the library that showed a part of the Lincoln assassination Mr. Solomon didn't know about and then turned it into a movie. I will also remember what Mr. Solomon told us as words of advice "Do what keeps you awake." This made a lot of sense to me and gave me something else to think about when I choose my career path.
Thank you Mr. Solomon for coming and speaking with us in class and Mr. Sandler for inviting Mr. Solomon in the first place.
Justin Moy Pd3
ReplyDeleteMr. Solomon's visit was great because I was one of the people in my period who voted for The Conspirator over Lincoln so I was excited to talk about the film that I didn't get to watch. He was a good storyteller and hearing him explain his process and train of thought behind the screen writing gave me a new insight on the movie. I was really glad that he explained the assassination scene because that part wasn't explicitly shown in Lincoln and I really wanted to see it.
Rebecca Chang - Period 2
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard that Mr. Solomon was first coming, I was actually extremely excited, because it's not every day that we can meet a famous screenwriter who produced such a prominent movie. Of course, he did not disappoint. I love the way that Mr. Solomon opened up the presentation by asking us, the audience, about being storytellers because to me, it was a very unexpected, yet effective way for him to capture all of our attention. I also really appreciated how he led us through his train of through while he was writing this movie, and how he decided to write the movie through Aiken's eyes, rather through Surratt's or Stanton's, and how he was also able to connect to the character. Even despite how I am writing an article about this for he Spectator and had to take notes, even if I was not writing the article, I still would've gladly taken many notes because Mr. Solomon's lecture (it wasn't really much of a lecture though) was extremely engaging and captivating.
I want to thank Mr. Solomon for taking time out of his schedule, because I am sure he is very busy with other movies that he was working on. Having the opportunity for him to speak to us was marvelous, and I also want to thank Mr. Sandler for making it possible for him to come to speak to us as well.
Jackie Wang Period 2
ReplyDeleteMr.Soloman was very dedicated to have worked 18 years on The Conspirator. It was interesting to hear about the process of making the movie and what was going on in the screen writers head. I really enjoyed his anecdotes about how he choose to write about the Lincoln assassination and other people's reactions to it. He did a really good job connecting to the students :).
Lise Ho Pd. 6
ReplyDeleteTo be able to have such an awesome opportunity to have listened to Mr. Solomon's words of wisdom was really awesome. "Do things that keep you awake." Even though it took Mr. Solomon 18 years to write the Conspirator, he was about to persevere and keep going because making the film kept him awake. As Mr. Solomon told us the story beneath the development of the film, I couldn't help but wonder what things I should do now and in the future that keep me awake. I also couldn't help idolizing Mr. Solomon a bit for his perseverance and his devotion to writing the film.
Mr. Solomon's talk was really enlightening. Although it was short, I feel grateful to Mr. Solomon for sharing his experience with us and telling us a bit about the interesting story of how the Conspirator came to be, because his story demonstrates how doing things that keep oneself awake can lead to success.
I really liked how Mr.Soliman took time to visit the class and even prepared himself to talk deeply (like with his notes and the book he based the Conspirator on.)
ReplyDeleteHis discussion about his perservance towards making the movie was really inspiring and made me want to watch the movie. The trailer was already interesting but with eighteen years of work behind the making of the movie, the movie sounded more interesting than before.
Eric Kolbusz Period 2
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting that Mr. Solomon started working on this movie all the way back in 1993. This gave a much different light to the critical reviews about all the supposed Guantanamo references, as although the 9/11 attacks made the movie's topic much more relatable for Americans, the screenplay had already been 8 years in the making. I was fascinated by Mr. Solomon's dedication to this project; I can never get myself to work on a personal project for a few weeks, let alone two decades. I also learned to appreciate the artistic license behind movies such as The Conspirator, as the transcript book that was passed around certainly did not look anywhere near as entertaining and gripping as the movie. Most notably, the argument in the opening scene of the trial interested me much more than if I had to read the letters the two sides actually submitted as an argument. By choosing to depict a face-to-face argument instead of a written one, I feel that Mr. Solomon brought the conflict to life.
Tomin (period 3) - Mr. Solomon's story (remember his emphasis on the widespread merits of storytelling) was really quite fascinating. Between opening by talking about the eighteen years that he ultimately worked on this film and closing with the notion that history is all around us, Mr. Solomon said something (and notably wrote it on the board) that really stood out to me - that, in life, it's best to "stay awake", to find work that you can continue to be passionate about, interests that stand the test of time. The idea that he simply stumbled upon a story in a library and became so fascinated with it that he dedicated nearly two decades to its sharing was humbling, both in terms of length (I turn 17 next month and have never held any convictions for longer than maybe 7 years) and in terms of consistency with his message - his staying awake was accomplished by means of his unrelenting work on this film. And while perhaps given more time he might have said more about the film making process itself, (which is not to say he didn't speak about Robert Redford's directorial hand at length) what most resounded with me was the path that he describe took to ultimately write this screenplay, which I think he conveyed to us really well.
ReplyDeleteYug (period 2) - It was certainly an awesome opportunity to have Mr. Solomon in our class. I found it interesting how Mr. Solomon started working on the movie in 1993. Therefore it took him about 17-18 years to produce the movie, such an experience is apt to change ones life. For Mr. Solomon, it helped him realized who he was as a person because his project became a key part of his identity. I also found it interesting that his motivation stemmed from his visit to the library. Mr. Solomon was intrigued by the military tribunal that held other contributors to the killing of Abraham Lincoln. Such an anecdote inspires me to go to the library in hopes of finding something new to learn. I was really impressed by Mr. Solomon's speech because not only did he tell us about the process of screen, but he also gave us key advice for our future through his humorous conversations with the class. His underlying message was to find something that makes one "stay awake". Now that I ponder about the meaning of this message I realize that it is best to engage in an activity that makes one stay awake, because such an activity will help enlighten and open the eyes of others and help others stay awake. Mr. Solomon's movie definitely enlightened people the truth about the military tribunal and the fact that there was more than one contributor to the assassination of Lincoln. "Do things that keep you awake" is certainly a good motto to live by.
ReplyDeleteSungwoo [Period 2] - It was a great experience listening to Mr. Solomon. I've never met a screenwriter of any movie before, and it was a new experience that gave me a glimpse of what movie is like and how it is made from the perspective of a screenwriter. I was personally fascinated that Mr. Solomon spent 18 years to make this story. I wonder to what extent the story of final film changed in comparison to the initial draft that was made 18 years ago.
ReplyDeleteFarzana Haque (pd 2) I really enjoyed Mr.Solomon's talk. I expected the talk to be be solely about historical context, and while it definitely provided a lot of that, I also really enjoyed hearing about the process. The story about how the 18 year journey ending at Mary Surrat's former boardinghouse, now a Wok and Roll really stuck in my head(and not just because of the catchy name). It just boggles my mind that Mr.Solomon could first work 3 years on writing a screenplay, 18 in total to see it on the big screen and still be so passionate about it. How was he able to do that, not just find his passion project, but keep the momentum going.
ReplyDeleteAs a history enthusiast and film aficionado, I greatly enjoyed Mr. Solomon's visit. His extraordinary dedication to the project, the culmination of seventeen years of work, was made evident through the passion he employed in his speech. At the same time, through The Conspirator he was able to translate this interest in a relatively obscure event in American history onto others. I was most intrigued by the extensive manuscript of the court proceedings that I know Mr. Solomon must have had spent weeks scouring for scenes he could use in the movie. This demanding process and the challenges he must have encountered through it made his words telling us to "remain awake" all the more powerful.
ReplyDeleteCole Reschke (Period 6) - A superb culmination of our Civil War unit, Mr. Solomon's visit was not only enlightening, but also fascinating. His passion was captivating, and I loved how he tried to instill the idea in us that we are all storytellers and that we should do things that make us "stay awake". The story of his movie's 18 year journey to the big screen is inspiring, and he added a comedic twist by mentioning how Mr. Sandler was a junior at Bronx Science when he started. I was also intrigued by how his inspiration was sparked in a library, which has me thinking that I should read more than I do.
ReplyDeleteThank you to Mr. Solomon for coming to our school, and to Mr. Sandler for organizing it!
Mr. Solomon is obviously very intelligent and good at what he does, yet humble, engaging and funny. It was really interesting to talk to him after seeing bits of the movie and realizing that he created it from scratch, like an architect. I wonder if he has any emotional attachment to the work. He showed that hard work pays off and inspired me to persevere, no matter how tough things may get.
ReplyDeleteIt was an honor to meet Mr. Solomon, the screenwriter of this great film. It amazed me how it took about 20 years for this movie to be produced, and made me admire him for his willingness and determination.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting was the fact that he wrote this before 9/11, for we found many parallels between the film and the events at Guantanemo? Bay. It's interesting to see how sometimes things turn up better than expected. I liked how he chose Aiken as his main protagonist because he wanted to be able to relate to the main character.
The best part of his speech though, was when he said to "do something that keeps you awake".