Friday night, I discovered that NatGeo's Killing Lincoln was on again. I decided to watch it again, just for fun. I discover new things everytime I see it.

Last night I decided on a lark to watch 1997's TNT Day Lincoln was Shot for a comparison. I hadn't seen that one for several years. Since I had worked on both productions as both "background extra" on DLWS and behind the scenes on both as well, I decided to do a comparison.

All in all, Killing Lincoln was the absolute best production. Sets were better, costumes were better and of course, research as well as care and consideration to "get it right" was more highly tuned. The script was far better and more truthful.

In comparing the portrayal of Booth; I thought that Killing Lincoln once again was the cream of the crop. Johnson's JWB was believable and while somewhat posturing (as would be the case with a Victorian actor), he was portrayed as more natural as a person. Lowe's JWB on the other hand was not only posturing, but cartoonish as a strutting, egotistically boasting cad. He's the consummate villain and entirely unlikeable; a Victorian jerk.

The audience can actually feel sympathy somewhat for Johnson's JWB. He's natural, believable and not one who boasts or struts but appears to be only concerned with what "his country" (the Confederacy) thinks. Johnson's JWB also more closely resembles in looks the actual Booth, I think.

Both Henderson's Lincoln in DLWS and Campbell's portrayal in Killing are good. He is quiet, soft spoken and likable yet forceful when he has to be. Both ladies who portrayed Mary Lincoln were good, although DLWS's Mary is somewhat too tall and thin.

The conspirators are also well portrayed in both, with Killing the better of the two once again. Davey Herold and Powell have larger roles in DLWS, with the most lines and on screen portrayals. Mary Surratt has a more prominent role in DLWS as well.

All in all, with the advances in research and study (as well as producers and directors who care to "get it right"), over time, one can see the advantages with which productions go as far as actual history and entertainment are concerned. Even though Killing Lincoln was a docu-drama, and The Day Lincoln was Shot was billed as entertainment only, Killing was and remains, in my eyes, the better of the two.

I have Richard Bak's companion book to TNT's The Day Lincoln Was Shot - enjoyed reading the chapter you wrote on Lewis P., Betty!

Hi, Betty-- I also saw Killing Lincoln on again Friday night. And although I own it on dvd and have watched it several times, I had a hard time turning it off! It's fabulous! The historical accuracy and attention to even the smallest of details still amazes me. As you already know, I am a huge fan of Jesse Johnson, especially as he so perfectly portrayed Booth in this docudrama. Not sure if you remember, but last year you emailed me pictures you took from the set of Killing Lincoln; I printed many of them. Killing Lincoln is one of my all time favorites and, I too, notice some new detail every time I watch it. It's thanks to such great historians like yourself, Betty, that Killing Lincoln is so detailed and accurate.

An aside. I watched 2 Lincoln stories, on last Friday evening, on Nat Geo. and neither was the 2 mentioned here.
One story was the "The Diggers" - the program that Laurie opposed so effectively. Thank you, Laurie. WHEW! what a waste. They raced around various lawns, digging staged finds of recent pennies, with forced enthusiasm. The hoped that they would find the lost pages of the diary, buried in a muddy hole -150 years after the assassination.

The other program was about seeking clues to some diseases that were said to be killing Lincoln at that time. They were inconclusive about their finds. However, I watched the "musical chairs" in the box, with much interest. Laura Keene was shown wearing a huge hoop skirt as she went to the box. It had a distinctive pattern of flowers on a white background. Then, as she held Lincoln head - it was not a hoop skirt, and Lincoln 's was comfortably supported.

The scientists were looking for fragments of the dress that may give up Lincoln's DNA. The owners of scraps of the dress - with Blood stains- were reluctant to give up their relics. (They eventually found a scrap that they used). Apparently, they are still working on the tests.

They also talked about Laura, wearing the bloody dress to social events, in later years. She wanted to show off her relic. This version of the dress was not a hoop-skirt. (As she descended a long stairway, she had no reason to be embarrassed.) I guess then , that the hoops were a separate garment, that could be worn , or not worn, as the lady chose.
I reluctantly add, the box easily held the 4 persons, we know were there, and ONE doctor. (There was space for more.)

John, think of those scratchy crinoline petticoats that girls of our age wore in the 1950s. They were half-slips that could slip off just like our silky ones today. Hoop skirts were actually called crinolines in the 1860s, but they were row upon row of graduated wire hoops that began at the waist and got larger as they descended downward. Sort of like a bird cage. They were/are very easy to get out of - but only in private (I hope).

I have to tell the story of one of our guides (members of the Surratt Society will know her, so no names given) who was working the upstairs hallway during one of our Victorian Craft Fairs on the lawn. She left her post without knowing that she had left her hoop behind. It had literally come untied from her waist and slipped to the floor. I don't know how she missed tripping over it as she started to move, but when I spotted it there was no one around. I just picked it up and went looking for someone missing a hoop skirt - they're easy to spot. She was standing chatting on the front lawn and was quite embarrassed when I handed her hoops back to her. I wonder how many times that happened at functions in the mid-1800s?

(10-05-2014, 06:29 PM)SSlater Wrote: The other program was about seeking clues to some diseases that were said to be killing Lincoln at that time. They were inconclusive about their finds.

Hi John. Although I didn't the see the show my guess is that it was about Dr. John Sotos and his efforts to prove Lincoln was suffering from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B (MEN2B). A few doctors have suggested Lincoln had Marfan syndrome, but Dr. Sotos says "no" - instead he feels it was MEN2B. In his book Dr. Sotos argues Lincoln was slowing getting weaker at the time of the assassination and probably would have passed away within a year.

There were two points that I appreciated. As has been discussed many times about when Booth hurt his leg, Hanks says it may have been the jump or the horse falling, not drawing a conclusion on when it occurred. (On this subject I remember Ms. Verge comments that what matters is it changed JWB escape strategy)
Also when Booth entered the box it shows JWB exiting Door 8. I believe this was discussed in the Surratt Society letter sometime in 2000.

---

(10-06-2014, 10:57 AM)richard petersen Wrote: There were two points that I appreciated. As has been discussed many times about when Booth hurt his leg, Hanks says it may have been the jump or the horse falling, not drawing a conclusion on when it occurred. (On this subject I remember Ms. Verge comments that what matters is it changed JWB escape strategy)
Also when Booth entered the box it shows JWB exiting Door 8. I believe this was discussed in the Surratt Society letter sometime in 2000.

An additional comment. What are we all doing home on Friday evening watching Lincoln? I would have thought most would not get home until the AM!

I am a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the classic movie "The Lincoln Conspiracy" staring Bradford Dillman, as John Wilkes Booth. It's understandable, although made over 35 years ago in in 1977, this movie is in a class by itself.

If you have never seen the movie, or if you have seen it and wish to see it again, your in luck (depending on your point of view - after watching the movie)

Here it is in all it's glory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBbVPbCYCP0

I am generally against book banning, book burning, film destruction. However, when it comes to the various forms of that film....

I still like the way John Ford portrayed the shooting in 'The Prisoner Of Shark Island'
Especially the view of Lincoln's hand suddenly gripping his playbill when Booth's shot rings out
A very well done, touching scene, IMO

(10-06-2014, 04:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote:

(10-05-2014, 06:29 PM)SSlater Wrote: The other program was about seeking clues to some diseases that were said to be killing Lincoln at that time. They were inconclusive about their finds.

Hi John. Although I didn't the see the show my guess is that it was about Dr. John Sotos and his efforts to prove Lincoln was suffering from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B (MEN2B). A few doctors have suggested Lincoln had Marfan syndrome, but Dr. Sotos says "no" - instead he feels it was MEN2B. In his book Dr. Sotos argues Lincoln was slowing getting weaker at the time of the assassination and probably would have passed away within a year.

That's the names. There's no way I could have spelled them. THANX. The rapid deterioration of Lincoln's appearance is the alert that said he had more than Marfan. The story presented did not present a acceptable conclusion. All the other scenes made it worth watching.

I still have to go with the comments made at the time of his autopsy about the amazing upper-body strength of the corpse - especially for a man of his age who had undergone such stress. I wonder if there was a weight-lifting room in the Civil War White House??

Although I am not a conspiracy supporter I do have a soft spot for that film. It came out in 1977 when I was nine years old. I can remember seeing the advertisements on television and absolutely could not wait to see it! It was that movie that sparked my interest in Booth and the assassination.

I watched it again a year or so ago on youtube via the same link that Gene has so graciously supplied us. Needless to say, the 46 year olds perspective is just a wee bit more cynical than the 9 year olds!!!

Roger, I too have Bak's book and concur with the excellent work done by Betty on Lewis Powell! There is also an interesting chapter at the back of the book on the cinematic career of Lincoln and Booth.

Craig

(10-06-2014, 04:55 AM)RJNorton Wrote:

(10-05-2014, 06:29 PM)SSlater Wrote: The other program was about seeking clues to some diseases that were said to be killing Lincoln at that time. They were inconclusive about their finds.

Hi John. Although I didn't the see the show my guess is that it was about Dr. John Sotos and his efforts to prove Lincoln was suffering from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B (MEN2B). A few doctors have suggested Lincoln had Marfan syndrome, but Dr. Sotos says "no" - instead he feels it was MEN2B. In his book Dr. Sotos argues Lincoln was slowing getting weaker at the time of the assassination and probably would have passed away within a year.

Hi Roger, I saw that program and in my opinion Dr. Sotos makes a very convincing case. Something seemed definitely wrong with AL beyond mere exhaustion...didn't he collapse about a month before the assassination, forcing the Cabinet to visit him in his bedroom?

Mary Lincoln knew something was wrong...her letters seem full of dread and foreboding in those final weeks...I think I read somewhere that she purchased a fortune in mourning garments in March 1865?

Hi Toia. His book is extremely detailed, and it's obvious Dr. Sotos firmly believes in his diagnosis. I have exchanged emails with him in the past, and he has always been very polite and courteous to me (despite my personal disagreement with his diagnosis).

In 2011 I emailed Dr. Sotos and asked him how Lincoln could possibly be dying of MEN2B when Dr. Edward Curtis, who was present at the autopsy, wrote, "I was simply astonished at the showing of the nude remains, where well-rounded muscles built upon strong bones told the powerful athlete. Now did I understand the deeds of prowess recorded of the President's early days."

Dr. Sotos wrote back as follows:

(1) Curtis wrote a letter a week after the autopsy. This letter mentions nothing about Lincoln's physique.

(2) Curtis wrote two more pieces, one in 1903 for the NY Sun, and one about 1907 for a collection of Civil War recollections. Obviously, these were written a long time after the autopsy, and they furnish the opinions so often ascribed to Curtis. Their long delay knocks down their reliability immediately.

(3) Curtis's statement is not in the language of medicine. He uses lay terms. This makes his assessment suspect again.

(4) Curtis is demonstrably effusive when he says Lincoln had "strong bones." How does he know? There is no way to know that. Older women today get sophisticated x-ray bone scans precisely to learn if their bones are strong. Curtis did not have x-ray eyes and, indeed, x-rays were not discovered until 1895.

(5) Curtis is demonstrably nonspecific when he says Lincoln had "well-rounded muscles." What does that mean, precisely? There is no medical reason at all for commenting in the roundedness of muscles. I have never seen anyone with square muscles! :-) Small muscles can be well-rounded, just as large ones can.

(6) It is almost more important what he didn't say than what he did say. He did not say the muscles were large. In fact, he said they were "sinewy." As used at the time, "sinewy" muscles are not large. They are stringy, tendon-like. He is saying Lincoln had small muscles.

(7) Curtis had an axe to grind. Not that extreme, of course, but it is clear that his description could easily have been influenced by his beliefs. His 1903 article talks about a weird theory that prominent men have good bodies. He is using Lincoln in support of this theory, and in this article he makes his most-cited comments about Lincoln's physique.

(8) Curtis's statements simply do not fit with the large mass of other evidence available from contemporaneous observers. And I ask you, how could a 6'4'' man, who by his own description weighed less than 180 pounds in 1859, and who clearly lost substantial weight after that -- how could such a man possibly be well muscled? I am 6'0'' and 170, with very little body fat (a common characteristic among cardiologists) and no one has ever called me well muscled, or anything other than skinny.

(9) The MEN2B hypothesis can explain Curtis's use of "sinewy," his failure to call the muscles large, and even one possible interpretation of "well-rounded." It can also explain why Curtis (and others) were so struck with the appearance of Lincoln's muscles, and thought them athletic when, in 1865, they were not.