The Trial of the Chicago 7
The most disturbing thing about The Trial of the Chicago 7 is not simply that it tells a story of political confrontation, but the growing sense that we are watching a judicial process in which the rules matter less than the desire to punish the people sitting at the defense table. Aaron Sorkin turns the courtroom into a verbal and moral battlefield, and it worked for me because I ended up far more outraged by the institutional machinery itself than by the ideological differences among the defendants.
The film makes it clear very early that these men are not all alike and do not think the same way. Some are pragmatic activists, others deliberately provocative; some believe in organized political action, while others use humor and irreverence as weapons. That diversity keeps the group from becoming a single political block and gives the trial another layer: a clash between different ways of understanding protest.
What eventually dominates everything, however, is the judge. Frank Langella is extraordinary because he never needs to turn him into a theatrical villain. A mixture of authority, irritation and self-assurance is enough to create the impression that neutrality has disappeared from the room. That hostility becomes suffocating precisely because it comes from the person who should guarantee balance.
That is where the film genuinely disgusted me. Not because every defendant has to seem admirable or because we must agree with every one of their ideas, but because a justice system only deserves the name if its rules also apply to people who make those in power uncomfortable. Once procedure begins to feel like an extension of punishment, the issue stops being partisan and becomes much more basic.
Sorkin knows this territory inside out. His dialogue is fast, sharp and built so that each scene advances through verbal blows. At times it is too obvious that everyone speaks with the same level of rhetorical brilliance, but the pace is formidable. The film makes a case involving many characters, political background and legal complexity accessible without turning into a history lesson.
Sacha Baron Cohen brings fantastic energy. His humor never removes the seriousness of the situation; instead, it shows how mockery itself can become a form of resistance against an authority demanding absolute solemnity. Eddie Redmayne works from a more restrained register, while Mark Rylance conveys the exhaustion of trying to mount a defense on ground that seems to shift beneath him.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II has an especially powerful presence. His character gives the film another dimension: not everyone reaches the courtroom from the same position or receives the same treatment. Sorkin does not always go as deeply as he could into the racial and political differences within the movement, but whenever those differences become visible the film gains considerable force.
I also liked the structure. The trial is not presented as a purely linear reconstruction; testimony and memory gradually rebuild what happened and show how a protest can become a different story depending on who has the power to narrate it. That idea feels central to the film: actions are not the only things on trial; the public meaning of those actions is contested too.
The film has flaws. Sorkin tends to turn every conflict into an opportunity for a brilliant line, and sometimes the emotion feels too carefully prepared. Some characters are reduced to recognizable traits, while historical complexity is simplified in order to maintain dramatic momentum. There are moments when you can feel the writer steering us toward a specific reaction.
But that reaction hit me very strongly. I finished the film with a sense of shame and helplessness at the image of a justice system that seems to have decided in advance who deserves to be heard and who does not. The uncomfortable part is that the movie does not need to turn its protagonists into saints for the injustice to feel obvious.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is, for me, an excellent courtroom drama: highly entertaining despite the anger it provokes, sustained by a remarkable ensemble and by Sorkin's ability to make a room full of people talking feel electrifying. It can be overly rhetorical and occasionally self-satisfied, but its essential question remains: what value does a trial have if the authority meant to guarantee it has already decided whom it wants to punish? That feeling stayed with me until the end.
The film makes it clear very early that these men are not all alike and do not think the same way. Some are pragmatic activists, others deliberately provocative; some believe in organized political action, while others use humor and irreverence as weapons. That diversity keeps the group from becoming a single political block and gives the trial another layer: a clash between different ways of understanding protest.
What eventually dominates everything, however, is the judge. Frank Langella is extraordinary because he never needs to turn him into a theatrical villain. A mixture of authority, irritation and self-assurance is enough to create the impression that neutrality has disappeared from the room. That hostility becomes suffocating precisely because it comes from the person who should guarantee balance.
That is where the film genuinely disgusted me. Not because every defendant has to seem admirable or because we must agree with every one of their ideas, but because a justice system only deserves the name if its rules also apply to people who make those in power uncomfortable. Once procedure begins to feel like an extension of punishment, the issue stops being partisan and becomes much more basic.
Sorkin knows this territory inside out. His dialogue is fast, sharp and built so that each scene advances through verbal blows. At times it is too obvious that everyone speaks with the same level of rhetorical brilliance, but the pace is formidable. The film makes a case involving many characters, political background and legal complexity accessible without turning into a history lesson.
Sacha Baron Cohen brings fantastic energy. His humor never removes the seriousness of the situation; instead, it shows how mockery itself can become a form of resistance against an authority demanding absolute solemnity. Eddie Redmayne works from a more restrained register, while Mark Rylance conveys the exhaustion of trying to mount a defense on ground that seems to shift beneath him.
Yahya Abdul-Mateen II has an especially powerful presence. His character gives the film another dimension: not everyone reaches the courtroom from the same position or receives the same treatment. Sorkin does not always go as deeply as he could into the racial and political differences within the movement, but whenever those differences become visible the film gains considerable force.
I also liked the structure. The trial is not presented as a purely linear reconstruction; testimony and memory gradually rebuild what happened and show how a protest can become a different story depending on who has the power to narrate it. That idea feels central to the film: actions are not the only things on trial; the public meaning of those actions is contested too.
The film has flaws. Sorkin tends to turn every conflict into an opportunity for a brilliant line, and sometimes the emotion feels too carefully prepared. Some characters are reduced to recognizable traits, while historical complexity is simplified in order to maintain dramatic momentum. There are moments when you can feel the writer steering us toward a specific reaction.
But that reaction hit me very strongly. I finished the film with a sense of shame and helplessness at the image of a justice system that seems to have decided in advance who deserves to be heard and who does not. The uncomfortable part is that the movie does not need to turn its protagonists into saints for the injustice to feel obvious.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is, for me, an excellent courtroom drama: highly entertaining despite the anger it provokes, sustained by a remarkable ensemble and by Sorkin's ability to make a room full of people talking feel electrifying. It can be overly rhetorical and occasionally self-satisfied, but its essential question remains: what value does a trial have if the authority meant to guarantee it has already decided whom it wants to punish? That feeling stayed with me until the end.
Mini Review: The most disturbing thing about The Trial of the Chicago 7 is not simply that it tells a story of political confrontation, but the growing sense that we are watching a judicial process in which the rules matter less than the desire to punish the people sitting at the defense table. Aaron Sorkin turns the courtroom into a verbal and moral battlefield, and it worked for me because I ended up far more outraged by the institutional machinery itself...
More Reviews of The Trial of the Chicago 7
Watch the Trailer