Killing Lincoln

[Loomings]

A very fine TV critic who wrote for years in San Francisco and is now in LA had a hard time with Jesse's performance. The critic and I have exchanged thoughts over the years and we engaged in a correspondence about this over the past coupla days. Thought you all might be interested in a portion of my response:

Let's begin with the premise that the subject matter is not, in itself, "entertaining."

Let's take it seriously and bend every possible effort to invest every moment and every frame with authenticity -- based on multiple reliable primary source references to each moment depicted.

In other words, let us allow truth to lead the way rather than the exigencies of "entertainment" and create a definitive film version of the event (definitive also in its embracing of what can never be known).

My principle source of research was an archive of 28,000 documents relating to this tale (more material than I had when I wrote the bible for and led the writing on Band of Brothers).

All of this leads specifically to your most intriguing question re. Jesse's performance.

The answer is positively NO. We did not -- nor would we ever -- change the truth of Booth's bombastic behavior for the sake of the film. There was a great deal of discussion about this. We took an enormous risk -- Jesse put his ass on the line. And Jesse happens to be a friend. So I asked my friend to play the man as he was -- as EVERY first person account of Booth describes (and there are more than you'd imagine, by friends and enemies alike) -- knowing full well that I was pushing him head-first into the danger zone. To my mind it took brass balls to go there, to risk being percieved as a bad actor.

But, if the premise of your 90 minute film is to swim against the current, to forego the liberties to which cinema somewhere acquired the magical right, then you have no choice.

So, we sink or swim.

Not to mention that the style of speech in 1865 unavoidably sounds stiff and wooden to a 21st century ear.

But, there was ONE moment...

In the editing room.

When Booth places his lit cigar on the shelf inside the box office where Clay Ford is standing, he paraphrased a line of dialogue from the play, Bombastes Furioso. He said: "Whoe'er this cigar dares displace / Must meet Wilkes Booth face to face."

We shot it. It was the QUINTESSENCE of John Wilkes Booth and...of "over-the-top."

We were cutting to time - nipping and tucking. I remember looking to director Adrian Moat...to the editor...we winced...

And we cut it without saying a word.

Now all of this is to say that your question is certainly one that haunts anyone attempting to film an historic event. Yes, Twain was right. "Truth IS stranger than fiction because fiction owes an obligation to truth."

But tell the unvarnished truth, and risk being laughed at.

And sometimes, that forces a flimmaker either to grit his teeth and stand firm, or to surrender to what the public might percieve as palatable.

It's all a question of what story are you telling? What's the point of telling it? What's the purpose of the project? Is it worth the risk?

This was for National Geographic -- a channel that's struggling to redefine its noble brand. So...to quote Booth...

Right or wrong, God judge me, not man!