Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7” Is Masterfully Written and Crafted and is A Timely Representation of Social Activism Nearly 5-Decades Later. And if there is one thing that Sorkin loves, it's a courtroom and trial.
Aaron Sorkin is back to the courtroom and big screen after his 2017 directorial debut with “Molly’s Game,” with Netflix’s latest Oscar contender “The Trial of the Chicago 7.” While the film centers on true events, like most Sorkin films, “Chicago 7” takes some liberties when it comes to the very real event and trial that changes the course of history. Sorkin of course has been known over the past few decades as a writer, crafting some of the fastest, smartest scripts that we have come to know and cherish, scripts like “The Social Network,” “The American President,” and “West Wing.”
Trailer:
Over the past few years, Sorkin has invested his time perfecting and crafting his role as a director, one that comes second to his writing repertoire. While “Trial of the Chicago 7” is beautifully written and masterfully crafted, it is another example of Sorkin’s limitations when it comes to the Director’s chair. Like most Sorkin scripts, the “Chicago 7” is quick and saturated with quips and sarcasm which means there is a lot to un-pack.
Let’s review, shall we?
Before we dive into the movie, it is important to note that the film is based on the true story of the 1969 Trial of the 7 Protestors charged with conspiring to incite violence at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. The movie largely centers around the Trial that shadows the seven individuals charged, incorporating flashbacks between the courtroom and the protests that occurred in 1968.
The movie opens with a montage, a call to action from the current President at the time, Lyndon B. Johnson increasing the size and count of the troops in Vietnam as the world around him reacts. As televised speakers like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. call the American people to action through peaceful protests, they are met with their deaths, captured briefly through live footage. Sorkin uses his specialty flashes with the camera as he captures the quick responses of the current state of our country through the eyes of the political and social organizations from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Youth International Party (Yippies), Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam (The Mobe), and the Black Panthers as they simultaneously plan their organized protests in Chicago for the Democratic National Convention.
As a Leader of the Black Panther Party, Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) plans his departure, he argues with fellow member about his attendance at the protest, arguing with his counterpart to keep the protest peaceful as she challenges him to remember Dr. King and then he finishes her sentence “is dead. He had a dream, well now he has a fucking bullet in his head. Bobby’s dead, Malcom’s dead, Jesus is dead. They tried it peacefully, we’re gonna try something else.” This line is another example of a perfect Sorkin screenplay sentence.
"Martin Luther King Jr...is dead. He had a dream, well now he has a fucking bullet in his head. Bobby's dead, Malcom's dead and Jesus is dead. They tried it peacefully, we're gonna try something else."
- Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II)
The US Government is already planning the indictment of “school boys” on the assumption of the groups’ main purpose to organize chaos and incite violence over state lines. The Attorney General, who we realize had just been appointed by newly elected President Nixon, and prosecutors set up the planned attempt together in the room, the lead prosecutor in the trial, Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).
Schultz (Levitt) initially advise against the set-up, citing that the indictment against the conspiracy is far-fetched, that the Rap Brown Law that they are trying to use to arrest these men “was created by Southern whites in Congress to limit the free speech of black activists,” and no one had ever been charged with it. Meeting with animosity and threats, the Attorney General makes his point clear. The people and groups that came to Chicago, will be arrested and tried for their crimes and America will watch them receive judgement.
As we break from the room, following the prosecutors out of the meeting, we can already hear the chants of the people “The whole world is watching!” from outside the building. Before we can even see the aftermath of the protests and riots that take place, we immediately cut to the courtroom where we see the seven accused in court on the first day of trial. The seven accused include Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch), Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), John Froines (Danny Flaherty), and Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins)—charged by the US federal government with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and other charges related to anti-Vietnam protests in the state of Illinois. Before the action is even seen on screen, they stand accused before the United States Federal Government.
As the trial gets underway, we can already see the circus that is being displayed in court. The trial is starting without all lawyers present. The Judge extends his arrogance in his courtroom as he reprimands and degrades the defendants on trial publicly, his constant interruptions distract from issues at hand. And it sadly seems all too familiar. The Judge operates the courtroom under his direct authority, cutting off claims and questions attempted by the lawyer, William Kunstler (Mark Rylance), defending the seven accused, based on the Judge's own merits.
Meanwhile we experience the different viewpoints, political affiliations and personalities of the defendants convicted. While we see the laid-back attitude from the Yippie Party led by Abbie (Cohen) and Rubin (Strong), it is met with opposition from the Democratic Party led by Hayden (Redmayne). While Abbie and Rubin enter the courtroom eager to incite opposition through open contradictions against the Judge, Redmayne urges the others to keep their heads down and make it out of the courtroom without a prison sentence. Abbie and Hayden butt heads with their lawyer stating that they are there to send a message, but Hayden states he “[doesn’t] have time for cultural revolution, it distracts from actual revolution,” condemning Abbie and Rubin’s performances in court.
As the trial progresses, we begin to see flashbacks between the witness testimonies and the actual events that took place the day of the protests. Flashing back and forth between testimony and actual events, Sorkin weaves the political intercourse over the statements of the defendants, each told from a separate perspective. Sorkin is a master at jumping back and forth between story lines where each of the characters tell a different point of view, yet always seems to finish each other’s sentences.
As we dive deeper into the perspectives of the individuals and parties on trial, we see very real similarities between the 1969 protests and the ones that we have most recently experienced in 2020. While the movie is undoubtedly taking place in the 1960s, the experiences and footage are hardly from a time forgotten. The unfairness and brutality that we see during the protests and in the court seem familiar, even in a country nearly five decades later.
Cohen and Strong provide brief comedic relief during the two-hour and ten minute courtroom drama, while Redmayne delivers the harder hitting lines. Like all of Sorkin’s scripts, the writing flows continuously, floating back and forth between present and past without leaving the audience confused. His clear and purposeful script was enough for me to want to re-visit the film again, but it’s obvious that his direction still needs some improvement.
A great, entertaining and educational watch. It’s got my vote for Best Picture and Best Screenplay.
Comentários