The Trial of the Chicago 7
When I saw “A Few Good Men” with my parents and grandfather in 1992, it was as memorable a movie experience as I’ve ever had, as much for what came out of it in terms of discussion as watching the film itself. I was not aware of whom Aaron Sorkin was as a writer at the time, but his screenplay popped with energy and excitement that made the courtroom feel like a feature-length action sequence. How am I not feeling the same thing during “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” which is based on the true story of how the Nixon Justice Department put seven people in charge of different activist groups at the center of the riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention? The easy answer is, Sorkin as a director is not as good as peak Rob Reiner when he made “A Few Good Men.” The hard answer is, maybe Sorkin isn’t the writer for this story.
Steven Spielberg had long been attached to this story- much like “Lincoln”- but honestly, like “Lincoln,” it’s time is now, and taking over the directing duties is Sorkin. His 2017 drama, “Molly’s Game,” is also a true story, and it’s a sharp-witted and character-driven piece fueled by great performances, led by Jessica Chastain. I wouldn’t say Sorkin’s direction was part of the reason that film worked, but it didn’t hamper the film, either. Here, it doesn’t help at all. “The Trial of the Chicago 7” feels like a standard-issue courtroom drama where it’s all about a “big issue” rather than the characters, leading to a climax fully expected to get us to cheer at the end. Since the “big issue” is the government’s attempts to suppress free speech, and authoritarian police practices that feel right at home in Trump’s America and in a moment dominated by Black Lives Matters protests, it’s vital, to be sure, but we don’t get enough of the characters to really be engaged in their fate. Yes, it’s a true story, so we can just look up the story, but part of the reason to make a movie like this is to give us a glimpse inside the inner workings of history, even a small part of it, and Sorkin doesn’t feel up for that.
If I can say I got into “The Trial of the Chicago 7” at all, it’s because of the story at its center, being the deconstruction of what went down in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and the performances, although the best one (being from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Bobby Seale, the leader of the Black Panthers) is at the center of the most interesting subplot in the film that is given the least amount of interest from Sorkin, but takes place almost separately from the trial of Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp) and David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch). I have no doubt Sorkin is basically following history with the way he shows the trial, but Seale’s story, wherein he ends up lacking representation, and is gagged, during the trial, could be a compelling story in and of itself, and Abdul-Mateen II’s performance makes me wish it weren’t such a side note in this film, where the main story feels like lifeless melodrama instead of an important history lesson for an uncertain time.
The people at the center of this story were at a key moment of history, where the voices of the many and, mainly, disenfranchised were set on remaking society through radical change, and ending an unjust war that resulted in too many deaths. Sorkin is trying to make that come through, and see how some in power actually sided with these men, but what we’re left with is a hollow history lesson that doesn’t get past the surface of the events. If I wanted that, I’d just read Wikipedia. I hoped for more.
