The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)

 

This film follows the trial of seven defendants after protests broke out in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Conventions. 

Related Titles: Chicago 10, The Chicago 8, Da 5 Bloods.

Rating: 8/10

By Leanne

There was huge buzz around this film when it first released for a number of reasons: a star-studded cast, the Award Season conversations and, most glaringly, how politically relevant it still is in 2020 despite being based on a trial that took place over 50 years ago. 

This trial is something I knew absolutely nothing about and now I've watched the film and read up about it's true story, I'm astounded that it's not something we are taught about in school. It could play a part in the history that is already covered in school including the Black Panther movement, The Vietnam War and the racism in America. It's a very interesting trial for a number of reasons; a few of those being it lasted for just under five months and their eventual sentencing was later overturned as parts of the trial were considered unconstitutional (not surprising when you look into it!) 

The 130 minute runtime is quite daunting I'm not going to lie. I find it especially hard to focus on films that break the two hour mark. Even more so at home when there are so many other distractions. Despite the film having a fast paced introduction to the named defendants in the trial and there purpose for being in Chicago at the time, it quickly falls into a slow burn of a film. 

The opening cuts that use radio audio and TV footage of the alarming rate at which men were being called up to fight in the Vietnam war is a great way to bring the audience up to speed with what the main problem of the film revolves around and sets the scene perfectly. It then cuts between the defendants: David Dellinger, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden to Bobby Seale while each of them speak about their motives and plans for what they want to happen in Chicago. Despite all being from different groups (Black Panthers, The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), The National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam and Youth International Party) they all had the same motive to oppose America's involvement in the War. It was a great way to introduce all the defendants in a quick and engaging way. 

After this introduction, director Aaron Sorkin used a non-linear storytelling pattern. Cutting from the court room, to flashbacks, to moments of the story being told through the medium of stand up comedy. I think that this was a great way to tell the story as I can imagine watching a film that is solely told through the courtroom would be boring but I found parts of the story quite hard to follow. This could be due to the sheer amount of information that is imparted and the amount of defendants involved but I definitely spent a good chunk of time rewinding and double checking that I was keeping up. That being said - it's is so worth powering through and getting to the end because the film really picks up pace in the second half and the ending is excellent. 

The cast in this are fantastic as to be expected. There are plenty of big name actors in the mix. Eddie Redmayne plays leader of the SDS and, as expected, is excellent. He really has his moment in the latter half of the film when he is making a speech during a protest; it's this scene that became the turning point in the film for me. Jeremy Strong who plays Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman are excellent. Their excellent delivery of the comedic lines and pranks during the court case were fantastic; upon further research, it seems that many of these outbursts and moments are presented accurately. I have to say that usually, I am the first to say that I don't associate Sacha Baron Cohen with being involved in films that are great because of his track record but I've been proven wrong. He played the role fantastically. My final cast mention has to go to Frank Langella playing Judge Julius Hoffman. There were countless moments throughout the film that I was absolutely furious at this man for the way that he was treating the defendants and their attorneys. I think that just goes to show how fantastic his performance was and how immersed he was into this role.

This film is politically very interesting because, with a September release, it came out in the wake of the BLM movement in America and it is far too easy to draw parallels between the two showing how despite being over 50 years apart much of the commentary was very familiar. This became even more interesting to me after watching it in late January after pro-Trump supporters stormed and illegally invaded the Capitol Building and faced very different consequences to those peacefully protesting in the streets less than a year before. I also thought about the chanting of the phrase 'the whole world is watching' which was a big anti-Vietnam war slogan, as it was the first televised war. I found this interesting because the whole world watches similar things continue to happen on a much grander scale with much of the world now having constant 24/7 access to not only the news and filtered media but the unfiltered media that is constantly flooding social media. 

While this account of events presents all the defendants as innocent, it's a very pro-defendant film and presents a lot of the violence as coming from the opposing police. While it's not as black and white as that, the film definitely takes a anti-authoritarian stance which I haven't got a problem with but I do thinks it's important to know. After reading this page on the true story versus the film, I found it interesting to see some of the different routes that Sorkin took. For example the inclusion of some of the characters and the Hayden's final speech to the court are not accurate representations of what happened in the real case. But one of the things I particularly liked was the use of real life footage from the real event. It merged together easily and I'm sure had a big impact on reminded the audience that this is based on real lives and events. 

I can imagine that this film won't appeal to everyone with it's heavy political nature and lack of 

'action.' But, that being said, I would encourage everyone to watch this; if only to learn about a part of history that is, when it comes down to the fine print, pretty insane. 

Rating: 8/10

By Rebecca

I honestly had no idea about this film, not even an advert on the Netflix homepage or anything. Only until Leanne did some research about upcoming awards films is where this shot onto my radar. Obviously this is straight to streaming, and you can watch at your leisure on Netflix. 

The opening scene is super fast, with all of the 7 introduced one by one. The link up play between the characters with the dialogue was very clever however it ran at such a speed that you may feel a little overwhelmed with the amount of information that is coming to you at once. Don't worry though you will soon get up to speed with all of the 7 and who they are/ what they represent. The audience is quickly made aware of the time that this happens, where the Vietnam war is rife and young men are being conscripted into the forces at an alarming rate. All 7 men plan to go to Chicago to protest outside the Democratic National Convention. While mostly all 7 have different thoughts and beliefs they all were protesting against the Vietnam war in Chicago. 

As the protests happen it soon became violent between protesters and police alongside the National Guard. The authorities knew about the protest as they had been approached by the different organisations for permits which were denied. 

The 7 go to court represented by William Kunstler, except for Bobby Seale, who's lawyer was of ill health at the time. The way in which Bobby Seale was treated was a representation of the racism and discrimination that black people had to face in the 1960s and STILL have to face today. There is a scene towards to end of the film with Bobby and it is truly awful to watch. Bobby was actually the 8th person to be on trial but you see why he is not included in the 7 as the events pan out.  Kunstler, played by Mark Rylance was particularly incredible in terms of his performance. He was persistent in his cause to represent the men, and held himself well in the court room despite the inadequacy of the Judge. 

The flow of the movie ran well for me. I am truly fascinated with court room dramas and I loved how the story flipped between the events from the riots to the courtroom. Little bits of information or bits of the narrative were dropped little by little which gave you a better perspective of what happened and the involvement of each of them. I particularly liked that Aaron Sorkin (director) used real life footage alongside their 're-enactment'. 

There were some seriously great acting in this movie. Especially from Sacha Baron Cohen who plays Abbie Hoffman and Eddie Redmayne who plays Tom Hayden. Two men fighting for the same cause but in a completely different way. Hayden has to let go of some old beliefs to be able to achieve what he does at the end of the trial. But the back and forth between the two characters were excellent. There were a few quite emotional moments which they played out so so well. 

If you're interested in history this film is definitely one for you. Even 50 years later there are too many parallels drawn to events happening in the present day. It puts it into perspective that maybe we haven't progressed in a way that you would expect. You definitely get attached to some of the characters, which you would seeing as it is all in the view of the defensive. Nevertheless you can't help but sympathise with them. I am very intrigued at if this does get any awards or nominations this year. This is for sure a great start to our awards season movies.