I’ll admit: I’m a fan of courtroom drama. The theatricals, the stakes, the tension… what’s not to love? There’s something about courtroom scenes in films and other media that really get me on the edge of my seat. However, it is rare that I watch a film (or other piece of media) where the main premise, cliffhanger, and selling point is courtroom drama. Especially when it involves a real-life story that I knew very little about… until now. I’ve watched plenty of great courtroom scenes (acted or otherwise) before: Can Aaron Sorkin’s latest film somehow surpass my expectations?
For the uninitiated: The Trial of the Chicago 7 is, as you can probably already tell, based on a true story. Beginning in 1969 and ending in 1970, the film follows the more-than-100 days long trial of eight (it is lowered to seven later, you’ll see) defendants, each belonging to a different societal or cultural movement, who have all been charged with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and several other misdemeanors regarding the 1968 anti-Vietnam War protests during that year’s Democratic National Convention. A seemingly innocuous trial of eight protestors unfolds, becoming one of America’s most publicized and controversial trials.
First things first: I was blown away by the sheer amount of talent displayed in this film – by talent, I mean both the actors that are displayed and the acting abilities that are shown. I knew little about the cast beforehand, so I was happily surprised when I saw the amount of very recognizable actors casted: Most notably, Sacha Baron Cohen as hippie Abbie Hoffman, Eddie Redmayne as student leader Tom Hayden, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as prosecutor Richard Schultz, amongst others. But don’t be fooled, these guys aren’t just around for recognition. Every major player is casted and played with pinpoint precision, so much so that you can almost see how this all played out in real-time. Hoffman (Baron Cohen), despite acting like an ostensibly ridiculous, careless hippie, is still given his moments of subtlety, while Schultz (Gordon-Levitt) and opposition prosecutor Kunstler (Mark Rylance) both skillfully play the role of government-servers caught between loyalty and justice with nuance. In short, every actor gives it their all, and by the end you’ll likely be left with many unique perspectives.
Of course, good performances ultimately mean nothing without good writing, and that’s where Aaron Sorkin comes in. Having learned that he’d begun working on the script more than a decade ago in 2007, I’m not surprised by how well the dialogue is written: It’s quippy when it has to be, serious when it has to be, and captures the personalities of every person involved with cleverness and wit. And I believe that it is this writing that managed to make a more than 2-hour long film that takes place almost entirely in a single courtroom pass by all the more quickly.
In conclusion, The Trial of the Chicago 7 may not have the most exciting premise for most people, it is still a well-acted, well-shot, and well-written piece of work that puts a much-needed spotlight on an important cultural and societal event in the history of American protests, 60s movements, and the quest for justice – the last of which is sorely needed today more than ever.
Final score: 10/10
The Art Archive 
I think you’re absolutely right about talent: it’s the sheer watchability of almost all these actors that makes the film so compelling. Mark Rylance is always gripping, in a similar way to John Malkovitch, both of them intense and unpredictable. Sasha Baron-Cohen is too, although differently: with him it’s intelligence and great clarity, which of course suits his character. Redmayne’s restrained, understated passion is strangely reminiscent of Vanessa Redgrave. Then, of course, it’s Sorkin’s brilliant script: how many promising Hollywood films have evaporated because of the lack of substance, which is writing? (Did you see Alexander the Great? Awful rubbish.)
LikeLike