New on Netflix: Trial of the Chicago 7
Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 11:11AM by Tony Ruggio
We weren't arrested. We were chosen.
The older you get, the more you realize how true the adage “history repeats itself” is. You realize it’s no longer just a pithy catchphrase but a reality of life as we know it. Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 was clearly intended, to some extent, to echo the trials and tribulations of the present. Little did Sorkin and co. know just how relevant their 1960’s period drama would turn out to be. Chicago 7 is both a classical Sorkin courtroom drama, focused on the thrilling broad strokes of such a monumental case, and a protest film designed to show us the moving chess pieces of an ongoing, decades-long culture war between the conservative right and two factions of the left: the progressive revolutionaries like Abbey Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), focused on change through disruption, and the pragmatic Democrats like Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), focused on change through winning elections.
Revolving around a clash between protestors and police that took place outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, the trial was the result of blatant entrapment by local authorities and represented a circumvention of free speech laws by the newly appointed Nixon administration...
Lead prosecutor Richard Shultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is directly ordered by a fuming Attorney General in Nixon’s right-hand man John Mitchell to make certain they win and the charges of conspiracy stick, primarily as retribution for a mild case of professional embarrassment at the hands of LBJ’s outgoing Attorney General Ramsay Clark (Michael Keaton). As the intuitive progressives continually argue to Hayden and their attorney William Kunstler (Mark Rylance), this is a political trial meant to dissuade future dissent over the war and in culture generally, a petty middle finger to the previous administration, and a racist witch hunt all in one hand. It’s all frighteningly familiar if you’ve been paying attention for the last four years.
Among others, the defendants are Hoffman, Hayden, Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), and Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen), a Black Panther wrongly accused of murder, a man who’s never met any of the aforementioned white hippies. They’ve been lobbed together to make all of them look more dangerous. They’re embroiled in a trial whose outcome has been decided ahead of time, been decided before the jury can even render a verdict, as incorrigible judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella) is clearly siding with the prosecution every step of the way, even refusing to allow Seale legal representation out of either prejudice, sheer incompetence, or both. Watching such illegal and unjust proceedings unfold will illicit righteous anger in any moral audience, a setup for Sorkin’s rousing if patently sentimental finale.
Sorkin proves he’s quietly, slowly improving as a filmmaker. We all know his mastery of dialogue, words which flow like musical lyrics, but his command of meaningful, galvanizing editing has gone mostly unsung. It was noticeable in Molly’s Game, and it’s a tour de force in Trial of the Chicago 7, an essential tool here in conveying the scope of the story, the scope of history. He still has far to go in the way of pure cinema, so far lacking an ability to tell stories with images or a confidence in moving his camera around a room and around his characters. Regardless, this is a courtroom drama, and as such it’s not often in need of such cinematic fussiness. As is often the case with Sorkin, the seering language is the language, and that’s just fine.
-You don't fight fire with fire. You fight it with water, jackass.
-It's a metaphor.
-Abbie and his fuckin' banana peels?
-Also a metaphor.
-Between the cops, the state police and the Guard, Daley's got 15,000 soldiers whose guns are loaded with bullets that are very literal.
His screenplay will undoubtedly garner a nomination, particularly in a year as handicapped as 2020. However, the big question heading in was who among its sprawling cast would stand out. The answer is nearly every one of them, as the script is made for monologues and many stand-up-and-cheer moments. As expected, Sacha Baron Cohen is a lively, entertaining presence as sardonic jokester Abbie Hoffman. He and Strong make a funny pair of miscreants, sending up the courtroom happenings with satirical banter and informal sidebars. Eddie Redmayne is well cast as the upstanding, well-dressed Hayden who is clearly smarter if not wiser than his hippie comrades. The most fascinating subplot is the ideological friction between Hoffman and Hayden, a tension arising out of passion. They both want societal change, they simply disagree on the best way of fostering it, not at all dissimilar from the wayward schisms existing on the left today.
Those on the side of the prosecution have a moment or two in the sun, Gordon-Levitt and Langella doing their best to shore up underwritten villains with unspoken histories respectively, and yet it’s two performers I’ve previously been unimpressed with who impressed me the most. Yahya Abdul-Mateen made a terrible first impression on me when he gave a rather robotic performance as Black Manta in DC’s Aquaman, only to follow it up with revelatory, Emmy-winning work as Dr. Manhattan in HBO’s Watchmen and now this, a fiery piss-and-vinegar turn as a man at the end of his rope and facing his oppressors head-on. His Bobby Seale is the angriest and most sympathetic person on screen, his seething rage palpable and relatable in this age of racial tensions in America.
By the same token, I was never sold on the overdue veteran status of Mark Rylance heading into the 2015 Oscars. Here was an actor I had never seen before, a man of the stage with much respect from his peers. His performance never rang as undeniable and therefore I chafed at the runaway train that was his role in Bridge of Spies. Five years and three scene-stealing turns later and I’m sold. His Kunstler is an apathetic defender until the lights come on and suddenly he discovers just what he and his clients are up against: an unfair justice system and an irredeemably corrupt administration shifting its weight on the levers of power. Outside of Seale, the most powerful moments of Chicago 7 belong to Rylance and his growing rebellion in the face of unending injustice, all culminating in a defiance of Judge Hoffman that sounds more like a roar than a simple refutation.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is an urgent, entertaining call to arms against the injustices of American authoritarianism, and a call for peace between opposing left-wing points of view. It’s about right-wing reactionary movements and administrations whose eventual circumvention of democracy and free speech is always borne of moral and political failure. When the tide of history begins turning away from them, from their ideals or lack thereof, they turn to lying, cheating, and other forms of anti-democratic thumbing of norms in order to win by any means necessary. Watching these characters try to cobble together a successful defense is like watching the Democratic Party try to cobble together a successful offense in 2020. From afar, it can seem like an impossible task when the other side is no longer playing by the rules we all agreed to by law. No matter the insistence of these long-term devils, issues that have plagued us for decades, if the outcome of this trial and of recent history is anything to go by then by no means is the battle ever lost. A-
Reader Comments (18)
I did enjoy the film but I do wonder how much of the film is accurate. Since the film takes places in a courtroom with records this ought to be one of the most historically accurate films possible. The dialogue could be easily be word for word in many scenes. But I am not entirely sure I can trust Hollywood not to change dialogue for no reason. But since I liked the film I have not yet gone and checked the accuracy, I do need to at some point but right I now I prefer to just like the film.
Sacha Baron Cohen was my favorite among the cast.
I liked it although it's a bit mechanical. I don't understand why the movie wants us to hate Jane Fonda's husband so much.
B+. I liked it very much. I feel like the ending was fumbled just a bit, transitioning from very compelling testimony from Hoffman on the stand right to sentencing, skipping the actual verdict (I assume Sorkin thinks everyone already knew what happened, but I didn’t).
Still, the performances were terrific. I agree that Rylance was best in show. Mateen also excellent, but the role was very small compared to the others — curious if that affects his nomination chances. If Cohen and Redmayne both go lead, they’d get my vote — Redmayne especially.. a smart, impactful portrayal.
My MVP is Michael Keaton, obviously. If we were in the 90s I could totally see Langella being the only nominated.
I wish I could have liked the movie as much as you did. Unfortunately, I was quite disappointed and am dreading the acclaim the picture is bound to get once awards season kicks in. At the very least, some of the performances were quite good and, except for Redmayne, I wouldn't mind seeing any of these performers nominated.
I'm definitely interested in this, and I tend to love Michael Keaton, but what weird casting of Ramsey Clark. When Clark took over as the Attorney General under LBJ he was in his late 30s.
Who ever said Rylance was overdue in 2015?
I liked, not loved, the film... on acting... Baron Cohen, Langella and Rylance were the obvious stand outs... I would place Rylance in lead and Baron Cohen in supporting, and hopefully both would win.
@workingstiff
There was a quiet "overdue" narrative around the industry itself, if not Oscar punditry. That's why he won nearly every supporting actor award that year despite good competition from the likes of Stallone, etc. Assuming it stemmed from his stage career which his peers were more familiar with...
Not a perfect movie, but an essential one for our times. The more things change...
I'm with Paranoid Android on the ending - it felt like a weird editing choice to skip right to sentencing, and that final scene (which is fictional, of course) fell flat for me. But yes, the acting was excellent across the board - as with MRS AMERICA, hard to pick favorites. SBC is obvs the most entertaining, though the accent isn't quite there. I heart Rylance and Mateen, but JGL's performance also stuck with me, maybe because his situation reminded me a lot of that of many people I know.
As for Redmayne, even though I'm generally meh on him I thought he acquitted himself well. It's in many ways more challenging to play the straight man than the wisecracking firebrand, and I thought his ongoing dialogue with Abbey about how to effect change was quite fascinating, and obviously still relevant today.
@ Tony Ruggio
In my corner of the industry (LA-NYC) no one was calling Rylance "overdue" or even "due." It was definitely one of those cases where it was respectable to honor competent work from an incredibly respected stage actor. But he didn't sweep the regional critics, though he did very well in the Commonwealth, of course. Even SAG, which nominated him twice that year, gave both awards to Idris Elba instead.
I didn't love the film, and really soured on it because of the ending. Also, Sorkin needs new jokes. That French egg joke was in The West Wing over a decade ago, and it took me right out of the film.
Debits for me were Redmayne (who I just don't like in general, sorry) and that hokey ending. That Let's All Stand For Justice style worked in Dead Poet's Society but was just painful here. Anyway, Cohen, Rylance, Langella and Mateen were all just swell.
It's going to be hard to single 1 Supporting Actor out of the film,I thought they were all great even Eddie but Cohen is the only Lead.
Lynn Lee -- i also thought Eddie Redmayne was good in this even though I wouldn't list him up top.
Peggy Sue -- i also was thinking that. Aaron Sorkin doesn't exactly strike me as a total rebel so why is he so anti the guy trying to change things from within the system?
That end scene (which is repurposed from elsewhere in the narrative and taken out of the mouth of the man who actually did it and given to Eddie Redmayne instead) was embarrassing and maybe nearly as bad as the London tube scene of Darkest Hour. Sorkin literally look lines wholesale from other productions. Discards characters. The editing and music was all but insufferable. Sorkin is no Spielberg with the aspirational cinema ideals, but it was at least better than Molly’s Game.
For the commenter who asked, much of the content is dramatic and not historically accurate. Kunstler, not Shultz, moved for the mistrial. Ramsey Clark never testified any of the revealing statements in the trial. Dellinger read the names, not Hayden, and it was during the trial not after. There is a whole article about all the fiction, but we cannot judge a film by the truth only what is on screen. Thus, John Carroll Lynch gave another great performance that will not be recognized. Sorkin would have been a competent director during the 50s. The movie is a reflection of modern times more than a retelling of an earlier time.
I like this movie, actually, I like almost all that Netflix produces. It always covers important and up-to-date topics. As I'm a student at the University of Art, I've decided to write my paper about Netflix company. I've already found interesting materials on https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/netflix/ resource for my academic work. These free essay samples have a lot of useful materials that I can use in my paper.