Aaron Sorkin’s bombastic “Trial of the Chicago 7” is based on the infamous 1969 trial of seven protesters who were charged by the federal government with conspiracy, arising from the countercultural protests in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The trial transfixed the nation and sparked a conversation about violent protests intended to undermine the U.S. government.
On one side of the aisle were rambunctious, frizzy-haired Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong) and Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), and on the other, a more pragmatic, moderate-minded activist by the name of Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne). Their attorney William Kuntsler (Mark Rylance), a left-wing ideologue in his own right, but a follower of the law who understood the conformity needed to get these rebellious activists out of jail. In the middle of the whole saga, Black Panther leader Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) who refused Kuntlser’s legal services and decided to defend himself in court after his own lawyer got hospitalized.
The resulting movie is as messy and uneven as one might expect from such an intricate and complicated case. And, that it was. Sorkin glamorizes some of the facts here and there, but some of the more fascinating exchanges in “Trial of the Chicago 7” are between Seale and the biased judge assigned to the case, Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella). All of them occurring in a courtroom turned kangaroo, where Sorkin fires up scathing moments, filled with the usual snap, crackle, and pop dialogue he has been known to churn out for the better part of his 25 years as a screenwriter.
The main flaw in this screen adaptation of the ‘7’ is that there are too many of these aforementioned moments, many forcefully strained and, no less, accompanied by Daniel Pemberton’s soaringly obvious score. Rylance, Langella, and Abdul-Mateen II are the film’s best performances, whenever they are onscreen, the movie is nothing short of gripping. The intellectually stimulating political discussions about race, politics, and social activism come to a crescendo when Seale, treated like a second-class citizen by Judge Hoffman, is held in contempt of the court and then, subsequently, bound and gagged by officers.
Outside the courtroom, Sorkin struggles a bit more to find his footing. He intersperses between flashbacks and present-day scenes by continuously trying to one-up and stay ahead of the viewer, narratively speaking. The result is muddled, but nevertheless ambitious in the intricate way the writer-director refuses to adhere to the token courtroom drama’s usual linear storytelling. You get the moments leading up to the protest in Chicago, where police and protesters would clash, both sides accusing the other of starting the riots, the pre-protest organizing, mixed in with the present-day deliberations of those arrested.
Some of the bigger name actors are, unfortunately, miscast - especially Cohen, Strong, and Redmayne. Cohen, in particular, can’t escape the roots of his past, a notable prankster who made a career out of being a rabble-rouser (“Borat,” “Bruno"), whenever he’s onscreen you automatically feel something being slightly off, the tone, the mannerisms, as if he doesn’t belong in this sobering film. Ditto Redmayne, who is dull as vanilla here, in an underwritten role that doesn’t have much drive to the story. Strong fares slightly better, a commendable actor in HBO’s Succession,” playing around the hippie tropes with a character that is as mellowed out as one might expect from such a stoned figure.
This is only Sorkin’s second directing job after his strong 2017 debut “Molly’s Game” and he has definitely refined his chops, opting for a more sweeping approach here, the slickness displayed in ‘Molly’ is still very apparent, but this new one is an unfortunate example of ‘90s Oscar Bait. The direction in ‘Trial’ is efficient but very glossy and the writing is precise, but maybe a little too precise.
“Trial of the Chicago 7” was tailor-made for the boomer crowd, more specifically, the token Oscar voter, not necessarily a bad thing, but you know exactly what you’re going to get here; over-the-top monologues, speechifying, preachiness, combustibly emotional moments and, of course, a rousing finale in the courtroom - it’s all there, and Sorkin milks every moment to the nth degree. One realizes quickly that he hasn’t necessarily left his ‘90s politi-drama roots at all, this is very much a movie made by the guy behind “The West Wing, “The American President” and, of course, “A Few Good Men.” [B]
This absolutely matters. That room was practically all Oscar voters. Fact remains, “Michael” was always going to contend for a best picture nomination, you just had to set your biases aside.