Mary Suratt In The Conspirator

When people think of the assassination of president Lincoln, they often think about the person who assassinated him, John Wilkes Booth, a famous southern actor. No one ever thinks about the trials of his accomplices, or those accused of being accomplices to the assassination of President Lincoln. The stories of these accomplices were depicted in many books, articles, and even films. One film in particular, called the The Conspirator, illustrated the assassination of President Lincoln and the trials of Mary Suratt for the modern day audience. Like many films though, The Conspirator was meant to entertain the audience, but surprisingly, the main events of this movie were quite accurate; like the the depiction of Mary Suratt’s appearance along

with her trial. More specifically the part where the meeting of Powell was used against her; although, the testimony of her eyesight was imprecise. Likewise, the illustration of Mary’s interaction with her child Anna, in the sense that they never saw each other, and the fact that Anna was never imprisoned was entirely false.

To begin, the film The Conspirator depicted Mary Suratt’s personality and physical appearance without a flaw. In the movie, Mary Suratt was seen in an all black dress, with a black veil would occasionally cover her face. She was often seen with a pale and stoic face, occasionally showing emotion. Her hair was alway in a bun hidden underneath a bonnet (Conspirator). This movie illustrates Mary Suratt this way in order to help the viewers get a feel for who she is. An expressionless person often indicates that they are composed which Mary was able to do for the majority of the trial. This description of Mary Suratt was also mentioned in the book The Last Lincoln Conspirator : John Surratt's Flight from the Gallows. It states, “Mary Suratt…[was] pale, a little stocky, with a plain guileless face framed by dark hair parted in the middle

and pulled into a prim bun, mary watched… behind a… dark veil that entirely covered her face… Mary’s dress was black, too, falling to the floor” (Jampolar 15). This gave the reader a general idea of how Mary looked, it helped give the readers get a visual of Mary Suratt. Since the movie Conspirator had the same description as the book, it shows that the movie Conspirator was accurate in its illustration of Mary Suratt. Since the book and movie had the same description of Mary Suratt this demonstrates that the appearance of Mary Suratt had an important role in what people perceived of her. To further prove the accuracy of this film the book The Assassin's Accomplice : Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln also talks about Mary Suratt’s appearance in a similar matter. The book states, “Mary appeared in a long black veil that shielded her face from the spectator and press. She sat nearly motionless” (Larson 150). All three books and film mentioned a black veil this demonstrates that the veil was something that Mary Suratt definitely had during the trial. She most likely used it to feel secure from the prying eyes of the observers. The motionless part was also implied in both the film and the two books. This indicates that the movie is accurate when it showed Mary as a person without emotion. Since the movie and all two books mentioned the appearance of Mary, it demonstrates how important her appearance was to the people and it played a huge role in how people perceived her.
In addition to Mary’s appearance, Mary’s trial, more specifically, the part where Mary denies knowing Powell was depicted with accuracy. At one point one of the people leading the investigation at Mary’s boarding house was called to give testimony. He mentioned how Mary saw Powell the night at her boarding house while it was being investigated. When the investigator asked if Mary knew who Powell was, she said that she did not know who he was. Though later, it was proven that she did know him since he stayed at her boarding house before with the Booth and his accomplices. Aikens then defended her saying that Mary had defected eyes, and failed to recognize Powell that night because it was dark, and so her defected eyes failed to identify Powell. He further supported his claim by providing a doctor's note (The Conspirator). This scene here made Mary look suspicious since she denied knowing the person who had attempted to assassinate the Secretary of State. Even though Aikens tried to counter this argument by saying that Mary had poor eyesight, she still looked suspicious since there was a chance that she could be lying. In the end though, this scene of the film was quite accurate since The Last Lincoln Conspirator : John Surratt's Flight from the Gallows also mentions something similar. The book states:
That night… Mary sworn to God that the laborer unexpectedly standing in front of her with a pickaxe on his shoulders was a stranger. It soon developed eh was Powell, Seward’s assailant… five of twenty-nine witnesses… testified to Mary’s poor eyesight, an attempt to explain away her apparent false statements (Jampoler 33).
This demonstrates how the movie was accurate when the depicted Mary misidentifying Powell, and having someone say that she had poor eyesight.

However, the way that the movie expressed Mary’s poor eyesight slightly off base. This is because in the film the person who mentions Mary Suratt’s bad eyesight was Aikens while according to the historical books, five witnesses testified saying that she had bad eyesight. This slight inaccuracy demonstrates that the film makers thought that the five people who gave the testimonies were unnecessary, perhaps even with the testimonies Mary’s death sentence would not change. Which might be the reason why they found this piece of information irrelevant and so did not include it in the film. The reason why they decided to keep the part where Mary Suratt is caught lying about not knowing Powell, is because this was one of the evidence that confirmed the suspicion that Mary Suratt was lying and that she was not to be trusted, which ultimately lead Mary Suratt to her

death.
Even though the film seems to be precise in its illustration of the Mary’s trial, its depiction of Anna Suratt not being able to meet her mother before the trial, or never being imprisoned was entirely inaccurate. In the film, it portrayed Anna not being able to see her mother until after she testified for her mother. Anna was not allowed to see her mother even when they were in the same court together, the had soldiers blocking Mary so that neither could see each other (The Conspirator). However, in the book The Assassin's Accomplice : Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln it mentions, “Each cell accommodated two women; fortunately, Mary and Anna were soon allowed to room together” (Larson 117). This demonstrates that Mary and Anna were able to see each other even before the trial. To further demonstrate how the movie was incorrect with its depiction of Mary and Anna, The Last Lincoln Conspirator : John Surratt's Flight from the Gallows, also mentions something similar. It states, “ During part of the trial Anna was permitted to sleep near her mother (Jampoler 23). The film director and writer might have decided to change this part of the story to make Mary look more pitiful. A child who wants to see her mother but is forbidden to do so is heart wrenching, this appeal to emotion helps get the viewer’s interest, and keeps the viewer hooked to the movie. With not being able to meet her mom, the director can make Anna more complex, in addition to building her emotions up so that it is even more impactful when Anna reunites with her mother. In addition to not being able to see her mother after the trial, the movie always showed Anna at the boarding home and the only time she was in prison was when her mother was about to get hanged (The Conspirator). This was completely inaccurate, since Anna was arrested along with her mother and put in prison together. According to The Assassin's Accomplice : Mary Surratt and the Plot to Kill Abraham Lincoln it states, “Anna had been imprisoned since April 17 (Larson 173). This shows that the movie was inaccurate when it came to Anna’s imprisonment. The movie left this part out most likely because it did not go with the image that the director wanted for Anna. They may have thought that this part played an insignificant role in the main idea or theme of the whole movie.Since the film is revolved around the trials of Mary Suratt, the imprisonment of her daughter was not significant enough to be included, while having Mary out in the boarding house giving evidence in the boarding house helped developed the movie more in portraying the trials.
Ultimately The Conspirator was an extremely eye-opening film to watch; it accurately portrayed the main ideas of the trial especially the evidence that was used against Mary when she saw Powell late at night; which helped the viewers understand why Mary look suspicious. Along with the films depiction of Mary’s appearance, in which the viewer can understand how Mary was perceived by the public. However, the film did have its inaccuracies, like the testimony of Mary’s bad eyesight along with the depiction of Anna’s interaction with her mom. Perhaps the director did not think that these facts were not essential to the main theme of the movie so they never bothered to include it. Overall, the film was very interesting to watch, it gave information about the trials of Mary Suratt, who’s trials most people did not know existed. This film serves as an example that not every single detail of a film is as accurate to what is written in a history book. One must not rely entirely on films to get the true knowledge and meaning of the history that happened, for it could be entirely false. Though, films could be the gateway to grab the interest of people, and get them learning.