The Trial of the Chicago 7

The riots surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention are a moment in history ripe for exploring in a movie. A pointless war having been prolonged for hashtag reasons that was deeply unpopular with the generation stuck fighting it; a candidate seen as almost identical to his opponent and who was most definitely a consolation prize after the preferred candidate was assassinated; a government populated by a generation incapable of embracing the energy and the mindset of the new generation coming of age; and a young generation united in cause but divided by how accomplish it. And all of this crashing into each other in a city ruled by a power-mad little tyrant. It’s such fertile ground for a movie. The Trial Of The Chicago 7 looks at the seven men who were deemed responsible for starting the riots outside the DNC and the circus of a trial they were put through. Is it factual? No, it’s clearly fluffed up with some dramatic license, but it’s close enough. The courtroom drama is good, and there’s some fine acting all over the place; Sacha Baron Cohen (who I find as irritating as a rash on my crotch) does a damned good job as hippie rabble-rouser Abbie Hoffman. Eddie Redmayne’s Tom Hayden, leader of the SDS, doesn’t come off as begging for an Oscar nomination. John Carroll Lynch, a “hey that guy!” character actor in almost every other movie, actually gets to show his chops here, and dammit, he’s really good. And Yahya Abdul-Mateen II does a fine job as Black Panther member Bobby Seale. And Frank Langella as a borderline cartoonishly biased judge is easy to love to hate. There’s more to the cast, and they’re all really good. But there are some characters  The script by Aaron Sorkin tends to ladle on the melodrama a little thick (especially the ending, which will give you diabetes), but it does also leaven it with occasional humor. I’m not sure the humor always needs to be there, as it can come off as kind of flippant about the subject matter, but without it, the movie would be too depressing. The direction is simple but effective; no signature flourishes, but nothing distracting either. It’s all well done. But I’m left with so many questions that this movie didn’t answer, and it stems from the fact that Sorkin has romanticized this moment in time to the point of turning it into the most pivotal point in US history, he’s overlooked that the details of it might not be known to everyone. I’ve read some about it, and I was familiar with the SDS and Hoffman. But a lot of people born after 1968 aren’t. The movie never stops to explain some things, like: Why was Hubert Humphrey such an unpalatable candidate for the Democrats? Is “Ramsey Clark didn’t resign until an hour before my confirmation” REALLY the only motivation for John Mitchell going after tje C7? If Clark knew he could be a star witness for the defense, why didn’t he come to them? What are the ideological differences between the three factions within the C7 that keep them from being unified? Why is Bobby Seale’s attorney not present even after months have passed since the minor surgery that kept him from being there at the beginning? It all feels like Sorkin wanted to make a big courtroom drama movie about a historical event, and fashioned a movie around it, rather than take the facts of the situation and make a movie from it. The viewer never gets to know anything about the defendants beyond “they don’t like the Vietnam War, Hubert Humphrey, or Richard Nixon”, which makes them just look like agitators for the sake of it. The defense lawyer (the one who is given lines, as the other mostly just sits there) is hinted at having something of a reputation, but they don’t explain what or why. The lead prosecuting is given a moment at the beginning where he tells the AG that this is a terrible case with no evidence that will only make martyrs out of the defense; once he’s told to prosecute the case anyway, he’s given no more character development. Why don’t we see him struggle with doing his job versus knowing the realities of the situation? The point here is that this is, as a movie, fine. It’s entertaining. If you like courtroom drama like A Few Good Men or anything by John Grisham, this is a whole movie like that. It’s a good watch. But as a historical document, to someone whose knowledge of the convention, the riots, the trial, and the people involved is minimal, this will do nothing to inform. It’s history put through the process of orange juice from concentrate; the basic elements have been extracted and expounded upon, but the core elements that give it depth and value are lost, so what’s left is a basic flavor. Satisfactory in one sense, but hollow in another.