Movie Review: The Trial of the Chicago 7
SPOILER ALERT: This film was recently released on Netflix so I’ll try to steer clear of overt spoilers. It covers the real-life story of the famous case that played out in the aftermath of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I highly encourage you to watch the film, read up on the actual story, and consider what it has to say about the issues we are still facing today.
History repeats itself, but in such cunning disguise that we never detect the resemblance until the damage is done. - Sydney J. Harris
The parallels seem so obvious. At times it feels like history reaches into our current moment, grabs us by the shirt collar, and shakes us into realization.
My experience watching The Trial of the Chicago 7 was one of those times. The newest film from Aaron Sorkin, this story encapsulates many of the themes that have marked his legendary career (public service, justice, morality) in the genre that gave him his start - the courtroom drama. Sorkin wrote the film, and this is also his second film as a director after 2017’s Molly’s Game.
This is the story of seven - but really eight - men who were brought to trial for inciting a riot. Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch), John Froines (Danny Flaherty), and Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) were the men who joined in Chicago in 1968 to protest the Vietnam War at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - Aaron Sorkin is one of my favorite writers. His work on The West Wing is indelible and he’s given us some of the best movie writing of the last 30 years. Here, he is certainly at it again. Back in the realm of the courtroom drama, Sorkin is able to effortlessly weave conflict and ideological viewpoints together so that we feel the weight of what is happening. He’s a master for a reason.
But the writing is elevated by a series of powerful performances. The actors referenced above are all fantastic, as are supporting turns from Mark Rylance (as defense counsel, William Kuntsler), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as prosecutor, Richard Schultz), Frank Langella (as Judge Julius Hoffman), and Michael Keaton (as former attorney general, Ramsey Clark). Langella, especially, turns in a powerful performance as the prejudiced judge. Also, any film with John Carroll Lynch in it instantly becomes more interesting just by his presence.
Crowds chant “The whole world is watching” as they hold signs displaying passion and anger. It feels wholly of the moment. We have seen riots stemming from police brutality and the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor - among far too many others. At times this film feels like a documentary about our current social context. It is clear that Sorkin always has the current parallels in mind. At times this serves the film well, at other times it doesn’t.
There are many storylines, narratives, and perspectives converging here. This is the greatest feat of Sorkin’s script. He weaves characters and ideas in a seamless fashion. As the trial begins, Sorkin deftly reminds us why all these people are even there. Rennie Davis is writing in a notebook. Tom Hayden asks him about it, and Davis responds that he is writing down all the names of those who have died in Vietnam since they were arrested. That is what this protest, this trial, this whole ordeal is about.
At the same time, there are other points here. One is the treatment of Bobby Seale - who begins the trial without a lawyer. This fact is not rectified. It is clear that Judge Hoffman has disdain for Seale’s leadership of the Black Panther Party, and this disdain makes its way into the courtroom. The film certainly addresses the unjust treatment of Seale - particularly in an excruciating scene where Seale is beaten up in a side room before Judge Hoffman finally calls a mistrial for Seale only. Even so, Seale is something of an afterthought as the film continues. You can’t ask a film to do too much, and this one certainly has a lot on its plate. However, I felt that the handling of Seale’s part in the story was lacking.
What makes this such a powerful film is its handling of the idea of the “radical left” and patriotism. Is it more patriotic to blindly follow the structures and systems that have always been there or would a true patriot stand up and speak out when confronted with injustice?
Courtroom scenes are interspersed with flashbacks to the actual riots in Chicago. And here is where this film - which is a very good one - fails to become truly great. Sorkin uses dialogue from Abbie Hoffman to tell us what is happening at various times. While Baron-Cohen gives a fantastic performance, this exposition robs the film of some opportunities for visual storytelling. When police and rioters converge on a hill in Grant Park, Sorkin does use real-life footage to striking effect. But the exposition from Hoffman plus the sanguine music overpower the visuals, which would have been striking on their own.
The most egregious case of this is when two different groups of people converge at The Haymarket Tavern, which has a large front window. Hoffman tells us that “inside the bar it’s like the 60s never happened. Outside the bar, the 60s were being performed for anyone who looked out of the window.” A woman turns and asks if she’s the only one seeing what’s happening outside. A man makes what Hoffman calls “an unnecessary metaphor” about a nut before the police throw the protestors through the window. The score is playing behind the scene the whole time. I’m only focusing so much on this particular moment because I see the greatness of what it could have been. We didn’t need to be told about the dichotomy between the 50s and the 60s. We didn’t need it to be underlined like that. The breaking of the glass could have been such a powerful visual cue. Instead, it was a moment gone in a flash amid a quip about a metaphor. I would never presume to tell Mr. Sorkin how he should or shouldn’t write a scene. But, as a viewer, I couldn’t help but leave that scene feeling that an opportunity had been missed.
This is a powerful film filled with wonderful actors sinking their teeth into strong dialogue. Those elements in a film will always amount to a quality experience, and this is certainly one. I imagine it will win awards, and I’m not going to say it won’t be deserving. But this had the makings of a truly great film, and I’m not so sure it achieves that.
But what it seeks to do, it most certainly achieves. As the film’s rousing finale concludes and Hayden stands up to name all the Americans who have been killed in Vietnam since the beginning of the trial, you feel the weight of this story hit you with full force. Does the swelling music undercut the moment ever so slightly? Maybe. But that is a minor quibble.
This is a strong film, and if my only complaint is that there was more it could have done, let that be a sign that this film takes the audience to a powerful place. The acting is incredible across the board, and the powerful writing is a major factor in that.
I just think that it can be easy to get caught up in the parallels between our stories and the stories of the past. There are clear parallels here. But I wonder if the parallels are so clear that we run the risk of completely overlooking the injustices of today in our fervor to connect them to the injustices of yesterday.
As I watch this film, my takeaway is that we must look at the injustices of yesterday full in the face. We must really see them. Acknowledge them. Atone for them. Once that is done, we must take action today, because there are injustices aplenty still in front of us.
NOTE ON CONTENT: There is a great deal of violence in this film. It takes place in a context that will help foster discussion, and there is certainly a great deal to learn from the real-life story of the Chicago 7. There is also some brief drug use and multiple instances of profanity. There is no overt sexual content, however a woman is thrown to the ground during a riot and it is assumed that men are about to assault her before another man intervenes. No nudity is shown, but the scene is upsetting. Overall, this is a film that will help open discussions, especially given our current cultural climate.