“Your best option is to stop this nonsense and help us empty this Bottle”? A review of the movie ‘Conspirator’.

Migara Doss

‘The Conspirator’ is a Hollywood film based on a true story with regard to the assassination of American president Abraham Lincoln and the legal suit that follows, directed by Robert Redford. What interests me most about this film are the deep insights it provides into the system of rule of law in a country, and its relevance to our present day. The movie rotates around the legal suit of the alleged assassins of President Lincoln and the story of a young ambitious soldier turned lawyer’s struggle to achieve justice for Mary Surratt the mother of an accused assassin who herself is charged for the assassination of the President. 

The plot of the movie is preoccupied with the portrayal of the innocence of this middle aged woman and the bias of the judicature on this position, along with a lonely battle of a counsel to achieve the unreachable justice. There were many interesting aspects which are worth discussing in this movie in terms of justice, law and order, and nationalism of a country which I thought is important to share.

At first the topic of ‘Nationalism’ could be evaluated in terms of this movie, is nationalism good or bad? To answer this question the concept nationalism needs to be defined, but I would not attempt to provide a standard definition to this concept; instead I would try to discuss the concept with regard to the scenes which unfold in this movie. 

The main character Fredrick Aiken played by James McAvoy happens to be a Soldier in the American Civil War who fought against the south in the peak of nationalism, and his love for his nation remains intact throughout the movie. However his anti southern prejudices are short lived in the story, as he encounters coincidently his client Mary Surratt he appears to fight for her cause; which is her innocence and thereby justice. 

However when he chooses this decision his fellow soldiers and those others who shared the same commitment with him in the battlefield including his superiors challenge and strongly oppose his decision. “You all are so blind with hatred and you cannot see the truth” is how he responds to them; the question which arises here is whether obsessive nationalism blinds our sight of the truth, humanity, and justice; perhaps the question is best left unanswered as it always requires a moment to think in order to answer it.

The next most important phenomenon addressed by this movie is its clever exploration of the concept of Rule of Law. The movie outlines the importance of Rule of Law to prevail in a society through the tireless efforts of the young lawyer to represent the innocent Mary Surratt. This demonstrates the most essential prerequisites of Rule of Law in any society that being a person’s entitlement for legal representation, and the presumption of innocence; where an accused shall be considered innocent in the eyes and in the process of law until such time he/she shall be found guilty in a court of law, the importance of an opportunity for a fair trial of a legal system is thus highlighted throughout the course of this movie. As it is depicted very well in the movie the concept of rule of law has many impediments in a society, where it becomes distorted due to the operation of many forces. The character of the Secretary of War, Edwin M Stanton played by Kevin Kline, shows to us the operation of these forces whose interest exceed the scope of Rule of Law. 

In the movie the reasons for such devaluation of the Law and order maybe because governance may entail higher priorities such as the stability of the state; in the words of the character Secretary of War of this movie “I need to make sure the war stays won”. The scene where Anna Surratt is not even permitted to see the sight of her mother Mary Surratt in the courtroom as her mother’s view was blocked by army officers, provides to us the directors view on how growing militarism could prove to be a impediment to rule of law and how it lacks the most essential qualities of humaneness in society. 

However once again in terms of modern society we come across two extreme ends in governance, which are the ‘national interest’ spearheaded by the actors of governance, and the aspects of Rule of Law and Humanity which may be impeded in the quest of state security and stability. However it should be borne in mind that both these ends are of equal importance to the well being of social democracy and both aspects require equal attention and balance.

The third and my most favorite aspect of this bioscope are the social reactions to the stand taken by the lawyer Aiken, such stand coming in form of humanity, professional obligation and justice. The very words used in this context by Aiken’s girlfriend against the accused assassins are “these are criminal despicable people, who you risked your life as a soldier fighting against’; such remarks aren’t alien to even us in the present social context, but what is of importance in this regard is to remember that even such people share the same pain, grief and wounds as our own which require healing and thereby giving rise to a question whether in a humane sense we can abandon them? And most importantly one is enabled to think of the meaning of ‘fighting for the country’ as to whether the very powerful phrase refers only to battle’s in war or in a broader sense it encompasses each person’s commitment to safeguard the country’s law, order and justice?

At one stage Fredrick Aiken was denied entry to a social event where a notice had been displayed of, providing as reasons his ‘Conduct Unbecoming’ which referred to his commitment to the legal suit of Mary Surratt. It is important for us to think a moment of how such labels such as ‘conduct unbecoming’ could be defined, and contrast it with the actual social constructions of such narrow stereotypes..

In the movie throughout the course of court proceedings we see how arguments of the Counsel Aiken are either objected or his objections overruled, But it comes clear to the viewer that what is objected are not his arguments but a fair trial for the interest of political governance and what that is overruled are not the counsels objections but the country’s rule of Law. Ultimately what is the response that the lawyer who sacrifices many of his options for the best interest and well being of society get from society, ‘Your best option is to stop this nonsense and help us empty this bottle’. 

The concluding message I see from this movie is that the bottom line of conflict diseased societies is Inter Alma Silent Leges meaning at times of war the law is silent; the choice of choosing our best options are open to us.