The movie starts with an onslaught of American news and political context to get an audience up to speed with 1969, so strap yourself in and be ready for that, because it comes thick and fast. After the stressful year we’ve had in lockdown; compare that to the idea of getting ordered by your government to conscribe to war, and the resulting social unrest… Being bombarded by political chaos from five decades ago, and thinking on our current shitshow – COVID-19 and the upcoming U.S.A election – just forces me to remind myself of Billy Joel and how ‘we didn’t start the fire’ – how it was always burning, since the world’s been turning. Every decade has its figures, challenges and outrage.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 revolves around eight members of anti-Vietnam War protests, that were indicted with conspiracy to cause riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, 1968. A good court drama can be like a boxing match, where the defendants and prosecutors intellectually spar with one another. Or it can be theatrical warfare, like Chicago would have us believe. I was poised, waiting for both sides to get the opportunity to fire their shots, but it doesn’t take long to realise how bias this trial is going to be. One member is denied council, and evidence is refuted on the grounds that it is basically too helpful to the defence. Founding Yippee leader Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) labels the proceedings a ‘political trial’, and it takes a while to the rest of the accused to catch on. There are countless other courtroom dramas that could have sprung to mind; a courtroom is a long-running iconic setting for a movie, but this movie reminded me most of a new-age A Few Good Men, which I ironic, because I’ve just learnt that Aaron Sorkin is the pen behind both movies.
I’ve experienced Aaron Sorkin’s quick-witted and frantically pointed dialogue a few times before – I love the opening of TV show, The Newsroom, like many others. The heated exchange between Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) and Abbie, that includes reference to Jack and his magic beans, slapped me in the face, and must be among the best conversations he’s written. Sorkin’s first attempt at directing a feature film was Molly’s Game, and whilst it was a solid production, it was not as eloquent as this; I’d suggest where Christopher Nolan builds momentum by intersecting concurrent action scenes, Sorkin has done it here with dialogue – often it’s the court case, the protest events as they occurred, and Abbie retelling the events in a comedy-club environment that are interjecting. It’s remarkable, and completely effective. The movie also uses real-life footage as successfully as Da 5 Bloods, and even contains a sheer depiction of racism that, I’ve got to honest, made my blood boil hotter than anything in Spike Lee’s 2020 joint. This movie brings to life one of the worst villains in recent years when it comes to, abuse of power, failure to justice, incompetence, and ignorance, and he is based on a real person! Incidentally, Frank Langella played President Nixon in Frost/Nixon, and now he’s Judge Julius Hoffman, tasked with making an example of protesters that don’t agree with Nixon’s government. I riled when Judge Hoffman is shocked to be accused of racism for the first time in his professional career – it’s amazing to think that people can be blind to their own ignorance when wrongly reinforced by silence. The scene is capped off when Weinglass (Ben Shenkman) counters the Judge by volunteering himself as the second person to suggest it.
The cast is so perfectly placed, it’s incredible. I tip my hat to the casting director, and perhaps the draw of Sorkin, to nab the right suitably talented people. Mark Rylance is ever so reliable, and after some thrilling supporting roles in recent years, in Bridge of Spies, Ready Player One and Dunkirk, I’m so very glad that he leads this movie; even if he’s out there in front with one of the worst haircuts in movie history. On the opposing side of the courtroom, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is so good at playing the stiff straight-man, that it’s criminal to remember that he also excels at comedy as well. I don’t think he gets talked about enough as a killer double-threat. Sacha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne are surprises, as Englishmen encompassing these American ideologues – Cohen, in particular, is fantastic as this eccentric intelligent radicalist, like he is in real life. I worried his performance might cross over into pantomime early on; it doesn’t at all. And all this is not to mention part actors like John Carroll Lynch, Alex Sharp, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Kelvin Harris Jr., and even all the way down to J.C. MacKenzie, who’s main objective is to stay quiet and look smug for the whole trial. Just between you and me, I like to recognise an ensemble when I do my awards, in awards season, and The Trial of the Chicago 7 just went streets ahead of anyone else this year. I’m even convinced Jeremy Strong is just doing an impression of Arj Barker in Flight of the Conchords, but it fits.
Look, I’m going to give this movie a perfect score, but on the provision that it is holistically accurate to the historical case in point. Sure, dramas take liberties, but there’s not much I hate more than watching a movie and playing into the relevant emotions, only to discover that, um actually, nothing of the sort really happened. I know this is a movie, and not a history book, but I believe, as a moviemaker, you’re supposed to write the story that fits the true event, and not the other way around – which would be, finding a true event that matches the story you want to tell. That being said, I’d be pretty confident that The Trial of the Chicago 7 holds the goods, considering the final statements in print at the end of movie reflect the movie’s sentiment. A little research goes a long way, and will be happening on my part after this review, but I wanted to talk about the movie first. Nonetheless, this movie’s cast, dialogue and direction still make it one of the most effective movies of the year.
5.0
Leave a Reply