Aaron Sorkin is arguably this generation’s most prolific screenwriter. With the right director collaborating with him, his stories featuring people talking in rooms can be enthralling to watch. But in 2017, Sorkin decided to make his directorial debut with his screenplay, Molly’s Game. While the plot at times took irrelevant turns, his directorial style showed some visual promise that could pair well with his dialogue. It showed promise that many critics and audiences were excited to see grow with subsequent projects.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 has circulated around Hollywood for the past 14 years; at one point, Steven Spielberg was set to direct the project. Regardless, the film feels especially relevant in today’s climate. After seeing Molly’s Game, Spielberg encouraged Sorkin to helm the project. The story centers on the trial which accused Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Rennie Davis, David Dellinger, Lee Weiner, John Fronies, and Bobby Seale of intention to incite violence during the protests outside of the Democratic National Convention in 1968.
Indeed, Sorkin’s screenplay features witty one-liners delivered by smart and (sometimes) arrogant men in a courtroom. It also features a non-linear story structure that immediately throws the audience into the action of the trial. We get a montage that introduces us to each character’s motivations and beliefs. We immediately understand the intentions of the Nixon administration to punish the “radical left” (a specific term that has an obvious tie to the current political administration). We understand the judge has a racist agenda.
As the narrative progresses, there are some interesting questions about the ethics of both the protestors and, of course, the government during the protests and during the trial. Particularly, the flashbacks during examinations during the trial brilliantly cut between the present and past to reveal the corrupted agenda set against the defendants. However, for about the first three quarters of the film, the pacing feels very slow as a result of the onslaught of exposition and dialogue. With exceptions of comedic brevity from Sacha Baron Cohen and Jeremy Strong, the film takes almost no moments for the audience to absorb the story on screen.
However, the biggest issue with The Trial of the Chicago 7 is it feels all too familiar. The “government vs. the underdogs” is a formula Hollywood has used to produce rousing stories about patriotic individuals trying to do the right thing for everyday citizens. It is no surprise that Spielberg wanted to direct the film because the screenplay wants the audience to feel inspired and, ultimately, good about themselves. It completely contradicts the political message about protesting and police brutality that obviously wants to connect to the current political climate.
This is summarized by the last scene of the film. In it, one of the defendants gives a monologue that is emphatically rousing. Everyone around them is standing and cheering, the antagonists lose control of the situation, and overlaid sentences reveal that everything turns out well. Paired with music that is overly sentimental, the film tries to appeal to the highest number of viewers. But at the same time, the monologue completely disregards the liberal political message for which the defendants were fighting.
On a technical level, the film feels solid. Arguably, there is not a single bad performance from the cast throughout the film. The mise-en-scene of the protest set-pieces were shot on the actual locations and felt authentic with the actual events. But the conflicting messages and incessant need for the audience to “feel good” about serious political issues remain problematic.
3/5 STARS