allengrimes John Ford's compelling story attempts to portray Dr. Samuel Mudd as a dedicated professional who innocently helps a stranger, whom he later learns is John Wilkes Booth, the murderer of President Lincoln. Many historians agree that Dr. Mudd met with Booth on at least three and possibly four occasions. Two in Maryland, one time at Dr. Mudd's farm and twice in Washington DC, where according to Dr. Mudd's admittedly perjured sworn statement, he accidentally ran into Booth and met him once at his hotel and once at Booth's hotel. The Washington meetings were in the presence of the other conspirators. There is little doubt that Booth nurtured his relationship with Dr. Mudd for the purpose of planning his escape route. It is not known what Dr. Mudd knew or did not know regarding the plot against Lincoln, but it is difficult to believe, given the number of meetings with Booth and the other conspirators and Booth's inclination to rail against abolitionists, that Dr. Mudd did not have some knowledge of the plot. While it is doubtful that the doctor would agree to assist in an assassination, he may have been a willing party to the original plot which was to kidnap the president and assassinate Secretary of State Seward, allowing the conspirators to stop at his farm on their way to Virginia. It was only later, that Booth resolved to kill the president. When Booth came to the doctor's home, Mudd may not have known that the president had been killed, but surely knew after his trip to Bryantown on April 15th. Despite hearing that the president had been murdered and that Booth was the prime suspect, Dr. Mudd still waited another day before sending word to the authorities that Booth had been at his home. The movie suggests that Mudd was convicted in the frenzy that followed the assassination, but in fact the evidence that sealed his fate was his sworn statement, in which he claims to have met Booth only once before the assassination and the testimony of other conspirators who placed Dr. Mudd in the room when the plot against the president was discussed.Another fictionalized part of the movie is Dr. Mudd's role in the Yellow Fever outbreak at the prison. It is true that Dr. Mudd volunteered his services when the prison doctor died of Yellow Fever and that his heroic efforts saved many lives, there is no evidence to support the assertion that he ordered prison guards, members of the all Colored 82nd, to fire upon a United States Navy vessel in order to force them to bring medical aid to the island during a violent storm.

krorie This film, coming out at a time when the nation as a whole and Hollywood in particular tended to be sympathetic toward the South, presents a one-sided account of the events surrounding the Lincoln assassination of 1865. This was due to some extend by the visual impressions created by D. W. Griffith of Kentucky, especially his seminal "The Birth of a Nation" which made heroes out of the clandestine hate organization, the KKK. From a political standpoint, the South had become important as a result of many powerful congressmen and senators being from that region which by now had become the stronghold of the Democratic Party, "The Solid South." Pecuniary matters are usually the deciding factor for Hollywood, and there existed a large ticket-buying public in that part of our nation. The Civil War became The War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression. The volatile issue of slavery was replaced with the states rights rationalization, forgetting that South Carolina and the other ten Confederate slave states withdrew from the Union so their right to own chattel would not be bothered. The right to own slaves became one of the main planks in the Confederate Constitution."The Prisoner of Shark Island" presents the Southern view of history. It also conveniently omits the incriminating evidence against Dr. Mudd, that he knew Booth well. In fact, he was the one who had introduced Booth to a leading conspirator, John Surratt. After setting Booth's leg, Booth did not leave the Mudd house but stayed the night and was ably assisted by Dr. Mudd. Evidence indicates that Mudd knew much more than he ever admitted about Booth and the assassination conspiracy. The murder of Lincoln occurred in the federal district of Washington, D.C., not in a state, hence the reason for the military tribunal. Needless to say, the conduct of the trial would have been much different had it been a civilian rather than a military one. The fact that the one who pulled the trigger, Booth, was killed before coming to trial also muddied the water.The part of "The Prisoner of Shark Island" that sticks with history best is Dr. Mudd's heroic efforts to combat disease at the prison. This justifiably led to his pardon by President Andrew Johnson.The acting, direction, and cinematography are first rate. Written by a Southerner, Nunnally Johnson, the historical facts are a bit skewed but otherwise the script is a good one. If the viewer keeps an open mind, this is a very entertaining picture.

FilmFlaneur Mmm… just saw this and noticed that there's an eerie correspondence between John Ford's slightly dated, but still superior, The Prisoner of Shark Island and some events today. Those unfortunates accused of Lincoln's murder are given a show trial (in which the judges are briefed to avoid such annoying legal niceties as considerations of guilt being 'beyond reasonable doubt'), as they shuffle, chained, hooded, and without rights, from hearing to internment and back again. Railroaded on the back of belligerent public opinion after an outrage that shocked a nation, guilty by association in the hasty eyes of the establishment, Dr Mudd is denied true process of law in the special military court hearings and ends banged up on the far edge of the States, just outside of the place where the presentation of a Habaeus Corpus would, we are told, ensure a fair reassessment of his case.. Ford couldn't have known of course, but as a study of a controversial case from the past his film is somewhat prescient of the Guantanomo Bay shame, a current and larger stain over the face of American justice

MartinHafer In general, Hollywood bio-pics of the 1930s bore me. So many of them stray so far from the real story or attempt to canonize the subjects that they just seem too fake and sickly to watch. This movie is a good exception to this rule of thumb. I was pleasantly surprised that the movie was NOT all treacle and it was easy to find myself engaged in the plot. Plus, the subject matter of the movie is an enigmatic person in that NO ONE alive knows for sure what, if any, role he had in Licoln's death. It really got me thinking and as a result I did some research--and ultimately learned that this debate will probably never be decided! But, based on excellent writing and acting, I strongly recommend it. Plus, as a history teacher, I am happy that, in general, the facts seem to be presented well. THAT'S a rarity for any biographical movie!