‘ Trial of Chicago 7’ makes its case
The Trial of the Chicago 7 Rated: R for language throughout, some violence, bloody images and drug use. Running time: 129 minutes. Available on Netflix on Friday, Oct. 16. 666out of 4
Fifty years after it took place, the Chicago Seven trial has finally been made into a first-class film. Written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, the subject brings out everything that’s good about Aaron Sorkin’s writing — not just the clever banter, which is a constant delight, but his way of conveying who the good and bad guys are without succumbing to hero worship or moral posturing.
“The Trial of the Chicago 7” is also where Sorkin makes the case for himself as the director of his own material. In his first film, “Molly’s Game,” he steamrolled the audience with confusing dialogue, but here he discovers and uses the camera. His filming is graceful, and the shots are nicely composed and thought out. Maybe Sidney Lumet could have done a better job with this, but that’s not certain, and in any case, Lumet died nine years ago.
The real-life trial took place between April 1969 and February 1970, with charges arising from the 1968 riots that took place in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention, when hippies and yippies protesting the Vietnam War clashed with Chicago police.
In the immediate aftermath of those riots, Attorney General Ramsey Clark of the Johnson Administration had declined to press charges, having determined that the police had, in fact, started the rioting. But once President Nixon took office, the new Attorney General, John Mitchell, decided to try seven of the organizers on charges of conspiracy. These were Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines and Lee Weiner. In addition, Bobby Seale of the Black Panther Party was indicted for conspiracy, even though he had nothing to do with planning the protest.
In the movie’s first minutes, Sorkin introduces each of the defendants through a series of small vignettes, which communicate their personalities and points of view. With another writer, the audience might feel the strain of that effort, but for Sorkin, every challenge becomes an opportunity for him and the audience to have fun.
Lead prosecutor, Richard Schultz ( Joseph GordonLevitt) is a clean-cut young conservative, but he is skeptical of the case he’s being asked to try. Meanwhile, John Mitchell (played by John Doman, who absolutely nails his one big scene) wants convictions, and he doesn’t care how he gets them.
Sorkin makes everyone interesting, perhaps more interesting than they actually were. Sacha Baron Cohen is funny and clown-like as Abbie Hoffman, but with serious convictions. Sorkin makes Jerry Rubin ( Jeremy Strong) slow on the uptake, but sensitive. Their attorney, William Kunstler (Mark Rylance), is emphatically committed to his leftist politics, but is weary with his flamboyant clients’ antics.
Of the seven, it’s Tom Hayden that becomes the movie’s center. He’s played by Eddie Redmayne as a radical with a decidedly unradical disposition, who absolutely does not want to go to jail, and who’s worried about it. Mostly without dialogue, mostly just with closeups and reaction shots, Redmayne and Sorkin present the larger story as part of an ongoing moral struggle taking place within Hayden himself.
The trial itself is a circus, but a dangerous one, with a superannuated judge, Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella), who has already tried the case in his mind and is determined to find the defendants guilty. This judge may be a joke, but Langella never lets us forget that his malice and his powers are real. The particular object of the judge’s scorn is Seale (Yahna Abdul-Mateen II). He won’t permit Seale to have a lawyer or to defend himself. At one point, he has Seale bound and gagged, a horrifying spectacle in an American courtroom.
Unfortunately, a review can’t quite describe the breezy wit that accompanies the movie’s serious purpose. Sorkin’s talent, distinct and unmistakable, drops a pearl into every exchange. At one point, one of the outraged defendants tells Kunstler, “Somebody other than the FBI needs to investigate this!” Kunstler replies, “Who do you have in mind, Jefferson Airplane?” Indeed, the screenplay is so well-written that you can readily understand why a major name, like Michael Keaton, could be enticed into accepting a two-scene role as Ramsey Clark. Those are two really good scenes.
Of course, every movie that’s set in the past is, at least a little bit, about the time in which it was made. Anyone watching will see the parallels between the late 1960s and today, between Nixon and Trump, between John Mitchell and William Barr, and between the social unrest of the past and present. To that extent, it instills an optimistic feeling. “The Trial of the Chicago 7” may not have been intended as a feel good movie, but if you see it, you may end up feeling good, anyway.