The Trial of the Chicago 7: engaging, emotional, effective

SPOILERS AHEAD

(do they apply for a film based on a true story?)

When I first heard about The Trial of the Chicago 7, I must admit that I wasn't particularly interested; I had no idea what it was about, and it seemed as though it would be another boring, overlong courtroom drama. However, after hearing some positive reviews, I decided to go and see it.

I am immeasurably glad that I did. I didn't do any research before going in, nor did I watch the trailer. I assumed that the film would tell me everything I needed to know about the trial itself - and it did.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting to love this film as much as I did. It was, in my opinion, close to a masterpiece of cinema. Now, I have since seen a few potentially scathing reviews (going by the titles, anyway), but I haven't read them. I want to preserve my own, honest, genuine opinion of the film.

If you're not sure what it's about, I'll give you a quick rundown. In 1968, the Democratic Convention was held in Chicago. During this time rallies, demonstrations, protests, and marches took place across the city - primarily in protest of the Vietnam War and President Lyndon B. Johnson's policies surrounding it. The Chicago Seven - Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - were charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting riots at the convention. There was an eighth defendant - Bobby Seale - whose charges were dropped mid-trial. The trial resulted in five of the seven being convicted of crossing state lines to incite riots, but all seven were acquitted of conspiracy. The five were given prison sentences and fines; these were subsequently reversed in 1972 due to the judge's misconduct, and the case was not retried.

The film itself is constructed in multiple layers that follow the same narrative. Certain events - usually those with high-stakes or of a particular intensity - are told concurrently by different people and in different settings. For example, there is one particular sequence in the latter half of the film where defence lawyer William Kunstler is showing the seven a potentially incriminating tape in which Tom Hayden appears to incite a crowd to riot. The existence of this tape is damning, and the stakes are high. Footage from three different settings - Kunstler's display of the tape, one of Abbie Hoffman's stand-up sets, and the event itself - are cleverly blended to give alternative perspectives on what happened.

This occurs often throughout the film; Hoffman's stand-up sets offer some comic relief, while also offering his unique perspective on certain events. Hoffman is constructed and portrayed as a comedic character who doesn't take things seriously, but there is far more to him than that. He is extremely intelligent, with an understanding of situations that goes far beyond what one might expect. Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal of him is magnetising; he plays Hoffman with an adequate amount of comedy, but also with overwhelming depth, compassion, and comprehension. He regularly jokes around in the courtroom, but takes the stand with poise and speaks with honesty and solemnity. Cohen has been praised for his portrayal - and rightly so.

Cohen is not the only cast member to give an excellent performance; in fact, the same can be said of everyone in the film. 2020 has hailed a great comeback for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who took a few years off to spend time with his family and to grow his online media platform HitRecord. This is his third film of the year, and the only one I've managed to watch thus far. He plays Richard Schultz, the lead prosecutor who appears at times to be struggling with the ethics and morality of the case. JGL plays Schultz with poise, measure, and just the right amount of moral questioning. This is evident in his body language and expressions; he is able to say so much without saying anything at all.

I felt like I hadn't seen Eddie Redmayne in anything for a while, so it was nice to see him on the big screen again. Personally, I thought his accent was quite convincing; I kept expecting him to sound as he does in Fantastic Beasts. Tom Hayden is an interesting character anyway; he makes some decisions that call his integrity into question. However, at the close of the film, he reads a statement on behalf of all of the defendants that is comprised of the names of everyone that has died as a result of the Vietnam War since the day they were arrested (I think). It is a list that Rennie Davis had been working on throughout the trial; he could often be seen in the background of a scene, scribbling down names in an attempt to keep sight of the bigger picture. This final scene is perhaps borderline predictable and cheesy, but also extremely poignant. Despite the fact that this statement could have been used to try and sway favour with the court, the seven instead chose to give due respect to the fallen.

Throughout the film, new footage is blended with raw, black and white footage from the actual protests themselves. This is extremely effective; it drives home the point that this entire film is based on a true story, and emphasizes the existence of police brutality. At one point, footage is shown of police being given permission to shoot to kill; a terrifying reality across America. These sequences are all the more effective when considered alongside the protests that have been taking place across America this year, in light of the murder of George Floyd. Although the causes are different - anti-war and BLM - the reactions and subsequent actions are largely similar. And, in both cases, peaceful protests are met with undue violence and bloodshed, as a result of the establishment being confronted with things that it would rather not consider.

Bobby Seale's position in the trial is an interesting one. In the film, he is portrayed beautifully by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II. Seale is in a unique position in the courtroom, given that his lawyer is not present. He is one of the cofounders of the Black Panther Party, and was present in Chicago at the time of the convention to give a speech. Evidence against him was weak; he hadn't been a part of protest planning, and was only in Chicago for a limited amount of time. However, he was severely mistreated throughout the trial; whether for the colour of his skin or not is never explicitly stated, although seems likely. He was outspoken in court, and one such instance of said outspokenness resulted in him being bound and gagged. He is removed from the courtroom by force, and taken to be "dealt with" in another room. The editing here is particularly good; short, sharp cuts take us between the courtroom and where Seale is. We do not see all of what happens to him beyond closeups on his hands, legs, and head as he is chained, bound, and gagged. There are sounds of a scuffle and of a beating; although these images are not given to us directly, it is not difficult to infer what happens to Seale. We do not need to be told. The fact that we do not see the physical violence inflicted upon Seale is all the more shocking and powerful. When he is led back into the courtroom, shock and disgust ripple across the assembled crowd at his treatment. Even Schultz is visibly and viscerally affected, and he campaigns to the judge for Seale's trial to be dropped. Luckily, it is (although he was charged for contempt), and the Chicago Eight became the Chicago Seven.

The film is extremely well written and engaging in a way that I did not expect. The dialogue is convincing, easy to follow, and flows well throughout. It is easy for typical courtroom dramas to become bogged down with jargon, to be boring and drawn out, to be incomprehensible and fruitless. The Trial of the Chicago 7 defies these expectations; it is accessible and captivating, with just enough action to break up the potential monotony. It elicits various emotions and reactions from the audience: tension, fear, nerves, excitement, joy, disappointment, anger. The latter is invoked often during scenes of police brutality, but also during scenes in which the judge - Judge Julius Hoffman - makes decisions that are infuriating and nonsensical. One of these such scenes follows a statement from former Attorney General Ramsay Clark - played brilliantly by Michael Keaton - who discourages an indictment on the grounds of his belief that the riots were started by the Chicago police. Clark gives this statement from the stand, and does so with complete conviction. However, Judge Hoffman refuses to allow this critical piece of information to be relayed to the jury. This incited such rage within me that I couldn't help but throw my hands into the air. If I wasn't in a quiet cinema, I might have shouted. At the end of the film, we are reassured that Hoffman had since been condemned for his attitude throughout the trial. Rightly so, I say.

Ultimately, I think the film is excellent. I'd be here all week if I said any more about it, so I'll try and sum it up now. It is the perfect blend of great acting, direction, writing, cinematography, and editing, among other aspects. It is arresting and effective in eliciting a certain reaction from you depending on the context. It tells a true story in a way that is engaging, exciting, and, at times, harrowing. I would highly recommend it. I think it will be coming onto Netflix in the next few days, so if you don't get the chance to see it in the cinema, you can watch it at home pretty soon. Although, if you can and if you feel comfortable doing so, please try and get to your local cinema to see it. The arts industry is struggling at the moment, and the government does not care. We need to do our bit to support the arts, or the industry will not survive.

Anyway, doom and gloom aside, thank you for reading another review! Have you seen The Trial of the Chicago 7 yet? If so, what did you think? Let me know!

You can find me on Instagram & Twitter as @rac_on_film, or on Facebook as Rac on Film.