Gorgeous Writing and Generic Visuals in Sorkin's "The Trial of the Chicago 7"
film review: “the trial of the chicago 7”
70/100 “sweet/sour”
Due to the lack of films released this year, writer-director Aaron Sorkin has provided us with our yearly dose of Oscar bait in the form of The Trial of the Chicago 7, a biopic of the protestors on trial for over one hundred days from false accusations. As usual, it’s filled with talented performers, plenty of old-fashioned courtroom drama (where’s Jack Nicholson?), and a whole lot of finger shaking at the government, which is inherent considering the subject matter. The acting is very fine for the most part, Sorkin still has some wickedly sharp screenwriting skills, and it’s creatively structured, so what’s actually wrong with a little bit of pleasure for Academy Awards voters? The pacing is off, going from briskly fast-paced to boredom-inducing slowness, Sorkin is close but has not yet found his directorial style, and at least the first half felt generic and meandering. The last act is where it finally reached the heights it desired for a while, and it ended on a compelling, emotionally resonant note that undoubtedly moved up my rating considerably. Otherwise, however, it could have been far better.
As I mentioned briefly before, the subject is the federal trial of eight activists protesting the Vietnam war. Among them were Thomas Hayden, one of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society, notorious hippies Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and Bobby Seale, the leader of the Black Panther party. The eight were accused of conspiring to cause the riots that had broken out at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. You must be wondering about the title, which implies that there are seven accused, but Seale was dropped from the case, leaving that number. Sorkin doesn’t forget the absurd trial, and mocks it with the erratic behavior of the judge, Julius Hoffman. He begins with the assassinations of both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in the spring of ‘68, while flashing back and forth from the trial to the riots without losing sight of the ever-growing death toll in Vietnam.
The defendants all agree on opposition to the war, but aren’t united on style, tactics and strategy. David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) is an utter pacifist. Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), and the leader of the Chicago Panthers party, both prefer more confrontational methods with the police. Hoffman (Sasha Baron Cohen) and Rubin (Jeremy Strong) are nearly always at odds with Hayden, a boy-scout, clean-cut avatar of righteousness portrayed by Eddie Redmayne. The prosecutors, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and J.C. MacKenzie respectively, take every chance they get to butter up the judge and sink their deadly teeth into the opposing side. This unruly, chaotic combination makes for a bonkers trial full of interruptions, much of which are provided by Cohen, who sports a Bostonian accent for the notorious Hoffman. Mateen’s Seale isn’t actually even with Judge Julius, either, and constantly demands the right to have a lawyer, which he’s denied multiple times.
In terms of the cast, Cohen once again shows that he can induce gut-busting laughs with Borat, and still provide some dramatic flair with his newest credit. Albeit, with a touch of his comic style that made him such an iconic actor in comedy. Redmayne does what he can, but audiences unfortunately feel the lack of creativity put into his character. Hayden is sidelined more than not, and it’s quite the familiar role for the actor. Mateen, coming off from a Emmy nomination for Watchmen, is particularly strong, if not a standout. To be frank, there weren’t many of those. My real issues lie with Jeremy Strong, fresh from winning an Emmy, who has proven himself to be a mesmerizing actor to watch on screen. I admire Strong for attempting to try new things, going from the cowardly son of tech mogul Logan Roy in Succession to the vibrant hippy in Sorkin’s courtroom drama, but the line delivery feels too uncomfortable to really work.
Let’s talk a bit about the direction in the film. Sorkin is clearly still working out the tweaks of his general style in directing, which should be considered normal. His debut was only a few years ago with Molly’s Game, and it shows, with the feeling of the movie changing frequently. The screenplay is superbly written (not as genius as in The Social Network), and further establishes him as one of the greatest writers of our time. However, I’m intrigued what his finalized vision will be for his promising and flourishing career, which is just starting to bloom in terms of helming movies. Disappointingly, a lot of it really felt generic, without much visual flair or innovativeness. Hell, The Glorias even had more passion to it visually. So while Chicago 7 nails it from a writing perspective, some parts can really drag. At 2 hours in running time, something needs to pop to keep your audience invested, and besides the dialogue that’ll sound like music, nothing truly stands out. Thankfully, what it lacks in creativity is mostly made up for by the intrigue of the fact-based story, solid performances and dazzling screenplay.
The final opinion is: The Trial of the Chicago 7 won’t earn any brownie points for being visually inventive, or particularly engaging, but it wins in terms of a couple fine performances, gorgeous writing and refreshingly odd structure…$TREAM IT
Rating: R (Drug Use|Bloody Images|Language Throughout|Some Violence)
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 2 hours 9 minutes
Directed By: Aaron Sorkin