Directed By Aaron Sorkin

Starring – Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen

The Plot – In Chicago 1968, the Democratic Pary Convention was met with protests from activists like the moderate Students for a Democratic Society led by Tom Hayden (Redmayne) and the militant Yippies led by Abbie Hoffman (Cohen) and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), which led to violent confrontations with the local authorities. As a result, seven of the accused ringleaders are arraigned on charges like Conspiracy by the hostile Nixon administration, including Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) of the Black Panthers who was not involved in the incident. What follows is an unfair trial presided by the belligerent Judge Hoffman and prosecuted by a reluctant but duty-bound Richard Schultz (Levitt). As their pro bono lawyers face such odds, Hayden and his fellows are frustrated by the Yippies’ outrageous antics undermining their defense in defiance of the system even while Seale is denied a chance to defend himself his way. Along the way, the Chicago 7 clash in their political philosophies even as they learn they need each other in this fight.

Rated R for adult language throughout, some violence, bloody images and drug use

POSITIVES

– Dialogue indulgence. It would be a crime if first and foremost we didn’t praise Sorkin for once again articulating such smooth, free-flowing banter between his characters that really has a magnetism for sucking the audience in to every conversation and examination. In a normal movie, these would be down period moments in between the big bangs of a case with so much hanging in the balance, but with Sorkin, he crafts meaning and personality behind each of the deliveries, seeing and valuing his characters in a way that captures their internal struggles differently, thus bringing them to life in a way that feels like seven different people instead of one continuous presence. Unlike other Sorkin films, however, the dialogue here doesn’t feel glamorized or catapulted for the cool factor of the screen, and instead garners the accessibility of real life people delivering real life thoughts that live and breathe so accordingly with the many emotional beats of the courtroom drama, giving us an untouched account of the real life trial whose lunacy for dramatic moments feels giftwrapped for the big screen.

– Exceptional editing. This is the very best in storytelling stitching that I have seen in 2020, juggling real life colorless documentary footage and cinematic fiction in a way the events converge together, and outline one continuous story that never compromises or feels influenced in post-production. Especially is the case with the unique spin of how the riots are unveiled, the film takes its time along the way, giving us an eye witness accounting of the on-the-ground events that are revealed to us in the same timing and manner that the jury is learning about them, instead of right out of the gate like most historical dramas convey. It deviates back and forth in a visual storytelling manner that I honestly haven’t seen articulated so fruitfully since 1990’s “JFK”, doing so without halting or violently hindering the momentum of the narration being told at the forefront of the sequence.

– Period piece. On a directing standpoint, Sorkin shows much reserve for the subtleties and nuances that he maintains cohesively throughout the film, choosing never to let the gimmick or pageantry of the flower power generation dictate what visually will influence the progression of the film. Instead, he illustrates the timeframe with an ominous coloring scheme and experimental cinematography from Phedon Papamichael whose distinct identity radiates that of a bygone age of artistic flare. Hammer it home with a series of wardrobe designs and wigs with sideburn additions that outdates our characters with the kind of honesty for detail that comes with such a vibrant time period, and you have believability that emanates from a simplistic place of creativity without the film’s production turning into decade porn. It keeps the attention of the film solely where it needs to be; on the characters, and doesn’t allow itself to get lost on the many pieces of low-hanging fruit that the decade could supply in musical choices alone.

– Stacked ensemble. It’s not enough that this is one of the biggest and most heralded collective casts that I have seen for the year, but what’s more impressive is how each of them stirs an ingredient in the script’s pot that brings for some tasty and tantilizing drama for the sake of its audience. There’s a debate to be made for any one of them being the standout here, but for my money my attention was most captured by the work of Redmayne, Cohen, and especially Frank Langella as the overwhelmed, evidently racist Judge Julius Hoffman. Each of them steals their respective scenes with the kind of meticulous timing and impactful deliveries derived from accomplished character actors, but it’s how each of them adds to the real life people themselves without sacrificing their identities for the sake of the screen, particularly with Cohen’s Abbie Hoffman, who could’ve easily been a forced comedic muscle for the film without Sorkin’s control at the helm. There’s even a huge mid-movie cameo that I won’t spoil, that really instilled fuel for the fire of what was transpiring. If there is a 2021 Oscars, I hope that these men are considered at the very least for nominations. The consistency alone is a throwback to ensemble pieces of the tinsel age, like “Eight Men Out” or “12 Angry Men” that prove promiscuity goes much further for a film when all hands are on deck.

– Tonally expansive. It’s a great surprise that so much of the film maintains an equal compromise of comedy for the lunacy of what is enveloped in the courtroom, but also drama for the many lives that hang in the balance. Both succeed with ample time of spontaneity that deviates between both genres, but it’s especially rewarding when you consider that neither compromises the work of the other, and somehow creates this hybrid of dual worlds where each can coexist simultaneously in the eyes of the many Americans who witnessed and each had their own experiences with this pivotal court case. The laughter is well-timed, and offers a parachute of relief in between the barbaric moments of the American justice system, and the dramatic tension is some of the most scintillating sprees of judicial expression that practically begs for those theatrical experiences where an audience watching the screen come together as one cohesive voice shouting for change.

– Contemporarily relevant. As we saw earlier this year with “Da 5 Bloods”, a film can come along at the perfect place in time that captures the idea that the more things change, the more they remain the same, and “The Trial of the Chicago 7” is certainly the latest in this thought-provoking circumstance. Set against a real world backdrop currently full of riots, division, and especially inequality, the film can’t escape this unfortunate outlining from a political world that does the same thing and expects different results. As is especially the case with police uneasiness among a growing number of disappointed patrons, Sorkin alludes that the problem goes much deeper than our boys in blue, and that a growing uneasiness of disconnect between the two sides fuels a rage that often stems from a personal narrative illustrated by a few. It’s another film in a growing list of the ones begging us to change, and is a powerful piece that far exudes one of just entertaining value.

– Smoothly paced. “The Trial of the Chicago 7” clocks in at 125 minutes on the experience. 15 of those minutes are ending credits, so what we’re left with is 110 minutes that not only move with the kind of fluid storytelling that burns time so effectively, but also an easy sit that dominates the attention span of anyone reaching for the pause button. As I previously mentioned, the film begins at the beginning of the trial itself, and what this does is thrust us right into the thick of the action, saving the character exposition and set-up for the moments long after the audience has already been won over with the procedural of this courtroom drama. From there, the second half of the movie, and easily the better half between the two, takes us through more of the unforeseen events of the riot itself, complete with some sturdy shaky camera effects and claustrophobic shot composition that never deters us from what we are supposed to be seeing. It leads to a confrontation in conclusion that is one of the more inspiring endings to a film that I have seen in quite sometime, and made all the more poignant by an on-screen text epilogue that alludes to what came of these pivotal pieces.

– Graphic material. Even for Sorkin, who has captured some unnervingly moving moments of dramatic tension throughout his films, the work here feels like a climatic evolution for the director, if only for the way he documents the material with an unapologetically revealing look into what transpired in the heat of the riots. This is easily Sorkin’s most graphic film to date in his respective filmography, complete with intense police brutality sequences, which were hard to stomach, as well as the displays of racism inside of the courtroom, which personally made my blood boil in ways that very few works of cinematic biopics capture in today’s medium of entertainment. The film earns its heralded R-rating by getting the audience involved in the urgency and unpredictability of the situations, and toes the line of excessiveness accordingly to the point of showing what needs to be shown without this becoming a full-blown horror film for the sake of artistic integrities.

NEGATIVES

– Politically meandering. If I have one small negative for the film, it is in the political spectrum of ideals and depictions that do feel a bit too one-sided for my cinematic taste of impartial commentary. This is so evidently obvious in a case that is constantly being referred to as a political case, but even more than that trying to justify or alleviate the poor decisions made by the democratic side of the story that entirely feels too one-sided to relieve itself entirely of its obvious intentions. Sorkin himself is a well known and critical member of the Democratic party, so it isn’t exactly a surprise that he depicts the members of the antagonist side of this story as the lawless monsters that he more than likely sees them to be, often steering this film irresponsibly in the wrong direction, and sometimes skewering some of the on-the-ground account details for the story that the film occasionally fumbled in execution.

My Grade: 9/10 or A-