Trial of the Chicago 7

Trial of the Chicago 7 is a highly dramatized, Hollywood shaped version of one of the most famous trials in United States history; a trial some have described as the closest the country has come to a major show trial or kangaroo court. This case was a pivotal part of many different political movements of the time, from the peaceniks to the Black Panthers, and the movie does an admirable job of balancing all of the different factions and storylines that were born of those circumstances. Some of the criticisms, particularly in how the movie chops up and rearranges events, uses manufactured dialogue when the real speeches were just as powerful, and other concerns with the film’s realism are valid, but perhaps don’t appreciate the challenges of fitting such a long and troubling case, as well as backstory for both the inciting events and the many key characters, into a tight two hours and ten minutes.

I enjoyed the movie a great deal. In the world where you either love or hate Aaron Sorkin, I’m more in the love him camp. I like his style of writing and his use of dialogue as a kind of musical patter. I can admit that every character being as witty as they are smart lacks the verisimilitude some people expect from their movies, but my tastes were partially honed in theater, where stylised writing is more accepted, and so the reparte of Sorkin’s characters is something I can uncritically enjoy.

Sorkin is also totally in his wheelhouse here, writing both a political story and a legal drama. While he is probably best known for creating The West Wing, it is worth remembering that he also wrote A Few Good Men, both the play and the subsequent film adaptation. Trial of the Chicago 7 does a great job of exploring the political motivations of many of the people involved, from the prosecution to the accused, and does so in a way that doesn’t reduce the story down to a simplistic vision of the protesters being universally good and the government as universally bad. The prosecutor has doubts about the case but feels pressured into it by his superiors. The yippies making a mockery of the court frequently comes across as childish and unhelpful, putting their fellow accused at greater risk for some brief moments of “protest performance art.”

My biggest disappointment with the movie is that it almost certainly could have been better. The original pitch was for a Sorkin script directed by Steve Spielberg. Eventually, however, due to production difficulties and timing, Spielberg took over producorial duties and handed the film to Sorkin to direct. Oh, what could have been. Sorkin’s presence behind the camera is passably fair and not much more. The shots are simplistic and utilitarian. The look and feel of the film offers little more than the expected visuals of a period piece set in that era. The performances are adequate to the task but rarely set the screen alight. The difference between a Sorkin script directed by a master craftsman and a Sorkin directed by Sorkin is the difference between, well, The Social Network and Molly’s Game. It is not that anything is particularly bad or out of place, just that I know that it probably would have been better in someone else’s hands… especially if that someone was Steven Spielberg.

Would Recommend: If you are curious about this important piece of American history, especially if you know next to nothing about it going in.

Would Not Recommend: If you were hoping for something with the dramatic flair of A Few Good Men, the political savvy of An American President, made with the deft touch for stories about real events of Moneyball.