THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS OF THE DISCUSSED FILM. READERS DISCRETION IS ADVISED.
There have been cases that landed such an impact to an American community that we forget a few that are equally important.
PLOT
Netflix's The Trial of the Chicago 7 follows the titular case of protest that led to violent riots. Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbott Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins), John Froines (Daniel Flaherty) and Bobby G. Seale are all accused of inciting a riot during a protest at Chicago's Democratic National Convention. The protest was against having young adults be enlisted to the Vietnam War, believing it to be unnecessary. All but Seale are represented by Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shenkman) and William Kunstler. Seale refuses to have them represent him as his original lawyer is unable to attend due to an illness. Richard Schultz and Tom Foran (J.C. Mackenzie) appointed by Attorney General John Mitchell (John Noman) to be the prosecutors. From beginning to end, their judge Julius Hoffman shows prejudice for the prosecution, being irritated by the defendants such as Hoffman and Seale. Since the latter is a national Black Panther Party chairman, he has support from Illinois chairman Fred Hampton (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), which Hoffman assumes is legal help. When the case progresses, we discover more than one would anticipate. Multiple officers and FBI agents were undercover during the riot. One agent revealed that there was a protest when Tom vandalized an officer's vehicle. Jerry and David tried to calm the crowd but it led to the police attacking nonetheless when someone shouts to take the hill of a public park. It is clear that none of the defendants instigated that event. Jurors were even dismissed when receiving threats by the Black Panther Party. At one point, Seale has a rant when Hampton was shot by officers during the trial. Unable to control his temper, Hoffman has the bailiffs 'deal with him', as in assault, handcuff and gag him. Uncomfortable of what appears to be discrimination, Schultz convinces the judge declare mistrial, which he agrees to do. Hence the case officially being called 'Trial of the Chicago Seven' with Seale out of the picture. The group chooses to not stand during that day's 'all rise' as an acknowledgment of losing the judge's respect. But Tom makes the mistake of standing up, claiming it to be a reflex. William is able to get Ramsey Clark (Michael Keaton) on the stand due to being Attorney General at the time of the riots. He confirms that the police instigated but Hoffman doesn't allow the jury to hear what he had to say. David becomes the most bothered that he loses his temper and gets arrested after assaulting a bailiff. A tape is discovered of Tom unintentionally encouraging protestors to stand up to the police after witnessing Davis get assaulted by the police for defending a minor. This would lead to a riot before the hills, whereas as the defendants got attacked by officers right outside Haymarket Tavern, along with protestors encountering National Guard. Tom shouted 'If blood is going to flow, than let it flow all over the city' when he originally meant 'If our blood is going to flow'. Because of this, Tom cannot take the stand. Abbie is chosen to do it and when he does, he does imply that Tom was misconstrued, while still expressing disdain for the US Government's leadership. On the final day of the trial, Tom chooses to give defiance to the judge by have his opening statement naming every soldier killed in the Vietnam War. The film ends with an epilogue, information of what happened to everyone since the trial concluded: Bobby was found not guilty of murder, Hoffman was claimed unqualified in a bi-annual survey, while five of the seven spent five years in prison after found guilty of incitement to riot. and the case was not re-tried. Jerry lived his life as a stockbroker until killed in a fatal car accident in 1994, Hoffman wrote the novel 'Steal this Book' before committing suicide in 1989, and Tom won seven elections in a row to run for the California State Legislature.
THOUGHTS
I wasn't sure if I wanted to see this first released on the infamous streaming service. But people always had me whenever namedropping Aaron Sorkin. Because of that, I caved and afterwards, I was impressed of his work yet again. I have grown to be a sucker for courtroom dramas and this one is no exception. This one is investing to watch because as I was unaware of this historical case, I was willing to see what unfolded visually rather than looking up the whole event. Sorkin was great at being able to ensure every word of his script said onscreen, implying that every word matters in the story. This movie alone is implying how the government seems to do their best to find loopholes of freedom of speech, whereas trying to restrict it. The way he has Alan Baumgarten edit it in a manner of a back and forth perspective because it was unique way for us viewers to connect the dots, increasing the investment. It was something done in The Social Network and it's just as effective here. Even though I respect this movie for having an interesting message, I admit that there are some flaws that are hard to ignore. There are inaccurate stuff in the story but there were other things that appear to be left out. First off, I was confused on how Lee and John were left out in the climax as we don't know what happened to them in the epilogue. I had to look up how both weren't charged of the incitement of riot but for crossing state lines, and they got fined $5000 along with five year sentences of their own. If you're willing to acknowledge them, it isn't gonna hurt going into an arc for them. Also, why doesn't Bobby get flashbacks? The guy was accused of murder and we don't get to see what really happened on that scenario. You're willing to make this guy so vocal, yet we don't visually discover why he's in his predicament. Continuity wise, I didn’t like how the timeframe was condensed to the point where Bobby’s gag scene only occurred after Fred Hampton’s death. Hampton died two months after Bobby got gagged in court. I know you want to have a better reason for Bobby to lose it during the trial, but I feel like this could’ve had a better execution. And lastly, I'm a little picky on how they did the ending. I found it weird how they paused the scene during the epilogue, as I found it necessary. I would prefer letting it play because we were bound to read it and I don't believe the scene would be distracting in the background. Once you ignore all of these flaws, you'll likely have a better time seeing it. The big reason that many are talking about this movie is gonna be the cast as every performance held up so well, you can get a lesson out of it. Eddie Redmayne was good as Tom Hayden because while having an impressive American accent, he was able to embrace how he had an intellectual heft that made him a potent force. He also seemed to be more compassionate than anyone would expect because he was willing to break from his peaceful motive when seeing his friend get attacked. It wasn't the first time, but it was definitely his last straw that made him use a poor choice of words that triggered the following events. I did find it weird how he said the names instead of Dellinger as it accurately was so, but what mattered at that moment was reminding us where it all started, the attempt to bring back young men that didn't belong in a battlefield. I was impressed with Alex Sharp as well when playing Rennie Davis because he presented him as the most soft spoken. Even after his assault, he was able to be the most calm of the group and that amazed me. I enjoyed John Carroll Lynch as I would with any other role he's played, but playing David Dellinger felt different. He's depicted as a radical pacifist that wanted things to go smooth like the others would. He arguably had the most positive spirit but as the trial was close to concluding, he had this 'push come to shove' moment how tiring it had been for him and company. He may have not actually punched a marshall but again, it represents how things were going nowhere for them. Jeremy Strong was the funniest one of the group as Jerry Rubin but he knew when to get serious. He wasn't an ideal person to know politics, but that was all the more reason to appreciate his presence. That statement couldn't be any more true with Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman because he was electric. In this case, he did have a funny bone but in his mind, it really wasn't. The guy was tired of how messy the country's government was and his way of conversing through comedy seemed to keep him together. When he is taking the stand, it felt like he was releasing what had been haunting him all this time. When he says to Schultz, "Give me a moment, would you friend? I haven't been on trial for my thoughts before", it felt like the boldest thing to ever be heard onscreen. It breaks my heart knowing he took his life but based on how the world hasn't changed much after that, it seemed like the last thing he wanted was continue to live in a shitty environment. I'm not trying to depict him as a depressed figure, but he does seem to appear that way. Yahya Abdul Mateen II likely gave his best performance out of Bobby Seale. He expressed his rebellious attitude and depicted him as a man who refused to be silent. While he spent most of his screen time being unhesitant on what he had to say, even if he was shockingly gagged. I found relief that they didn't show him go through the gags because I'm not sure if I were to keep going seeing someone being mistreated like that in a courtroom. My relief increased significantly knowing that he never was guilty at all and no longer slept in a cell after his situation was dealt with. Mark Rylance was good as well with the role of William Kunstler because he was a lawyer that knew what had to be done to help his defendants. He was a humble guy that did his best to do the right thing and didn't care how far it he'd go to do it. He even had an unapologetic attitude whenever he stood up to the judge which felt new to me in this genre. It's not everyday you see a lawyer get over a dozen counts of contempt. I was really into Joseph Gordon Levitt because he wasn't such an ambiguous prosecutor like it can be presented in other courtroom dramas. It's very interesting how he didn't enjoy the biggest case in his lifetime because he seemed to sympathize with our protagonists. It was a relief that he spoke up for Bobby to have a mistrial because only he had the power to call out a despicable act. This may have not been the actual personality of the real Schultz, but it works because it felt necessary for the story to have hope that our protagonists to walk scot free. Last but not least, the great Frank Langella left his mark as he succeeded in presented Hoffman as the most incompetent being that ever lived. I mean the fact that he prevented the jury to examine evidence from being looked at is appalling because it would've been such a benefit for the defendants. I don't know how he sleeps at night for what he did to Seale and it blows my mind how silent it got over that because I assumed an eruption. To wrap up, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is an interesting film that makes you think twice on how the government works. If you have Netflix and love courtroom dramas, this one is right up your alley.
If you or someone you know is struggling with depression or thoughts of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.
Comments