Netflix's Oscar-Frontrunner: "The Trial of the Chicago 7"

The Oscar-Contenders 2021, Film #1

Watched in: Pondicherry, South India

Rating: 5/10

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is the first American film I've watched after 2 months of only foreign films. End of september, I started to watch every country's best film and didn't interrupt that project until now. The reason for that is the slow start of the Oscar Season: the release of The Trial of the Chicago 7, then the release of Fincher's Mank and furthermore, Tenet will be released in Indian cinemas (yes, I'm still travelling and not back in Europe yet) on 4th of december. As usual I'll try to watch every film awarded in any main category – but I can already say that 2020 was probably the worst year for cinema since its birth - and therefore the Oscars 2021 the least special since a long time.

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is already a pretty weak film to begin with, although being one of the strongest contenders this year. Undoubtedly, this film will get nominated for Best Picture, maybe Best Director and obviously for Best Original Screenplay – which I would predict it will win. Sure, this film is very well-written. Aaron Sorkin simply knows how to write an exposition. He also knows how to write a scene with 10+ characters (two even having the same last name) without confusing the audience too much. Furthermore, coming back to new American cinema after watching 65 foreign films made me realize how easy to watch they are. Cinematography, the expensive sets, most unusual for me was the CONSTANT background music. There are so many good foreign films who can show a dialogue without having to play any dramatic music in the background which tells the audience what to feel! Especially a writer like Sorkin should be able to create emotions through spoken words and not need kitsch music constantly.

Anyways, the film started really well. After all, Sorkin chose a really interesting topic- protests, police brutality, a few heroes against an injust system: all this sounds very 2020 and Sorkin definitely wants to tell us more about Trump, Black Lives Matter and the protests against the inhumane police behavior than he wants to tell us about the protests at the Democratic Convention to stop the Vietnam War. At the end, the flow gets a bit interrupted and the showdown happens very abruptly and quickly instead of preparing it with a healthy crescendo – that shows that Sorkin may be a good writer, but not a very good director. But that's not the film's main problem.
For me as a leftist it should be easy to like this film because the Chicago 7 are a bunch of left-wing people who I absolutely agree with. But that's not the case. Yes, Sorkin's heroes might be quite left-wing, but the film itself isn't. I would rather compare it with the American Democratic Party: their image is progressive, liberal – but actually, they are conservative and 1005 pro-establishment. Exactly the same goes for The Trial of the Chicago 7: it may look like a progressive film, released just before the US elections, but deep down, it is unfortunately quite conservative and strongly believes in the system.
From now on, small spoilers ahead:
The film completely lost me in the scene when they listen to the tape of Hayden's (Eddie Redmayne's) speech in which he loses control. The whole trial is about the question whether the protestors wanted to cause violence or not. In that tape, Hayden shouts that the street should be filled with blood, and calls for revolution – which is the most radical thing in the whole film. The US are killing millions of civilists in Vietnam, the police are treating the demonstrants as if theys were in Saudi-Arabia. Hayden's best friend's skull just got cracked up by the servants of the injust system, the policemen. Yes, calling for revolution was the right thing. A peaceful protest is what the liberal media likes to propagate nowadays. Yes, you can express your opinion, but after that, just accept – even if nothing changes (mostly the case). Calling for an angry revolution, for confrontation is simply right. When justice becomes injustice, resistance becomes a duty.
But Sorkin turns the whole page around: as soon as Hayden's fellas and his lawyer find out what he shouted there, they shame him, get angry, the music obviously goes along with it. It's portrayed like a major twist. Not even only that, instead of just accepting that Hayden shoted toxic revolutionary words, they re-interprete his words in the film: the Yippie leader (Cohen) understands that he never wanted to call for conflict, but that Hayden just misused some pronouns.
What Sorkin is basically saying is that yes, it's right and important to protest, but please always be polite and nice and don't destroy anything. Maybe nothing changes, but then you just have to accept that, that's how democracy works. Then just go home. In the end, the system is holy. Revolution is bad. Even when Dillinger hits a policeman, it's a big moment of shock, as if he did something horrible – but to be honest, it's the best thing he could do in that situation. As words didn't help, he had to raise awareness for the judge's injustice in a more radical way, and that's absolutely reasonable.
Then, another flaw of the film is the theory that every ideological problem can be solved if a compromise is made. There's the character of Schultz, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is fighting in court against the Chicago 7. He strongly believes in the juristic system of the United States and for him, it's important that all citizen get the right treatment according to the laws. At the beginning of the film, he says openly that he disrespects the Chicago 7. Like this, Sorkin introcudes another idoelogical point of view in the court room. While the Chicago 7 represent the political left, he represents the political right, the conservatives. Sorkin basically says with his film that the best would be if all sides find a nice little compromise in the end. That in the end, it's not about ideologies and policies, not about left-wing or right-wing. That's why there's that unbearable judge: he doesn't even represent the Conservatives anymore, he simply represents injustice. The judge is what happens when the system isn't properly working, if laws are not being followed (like a trial with one missing lawyer, a POC beaten up in the next room, kicking out some witnesses, etc.) In the end, Sorkin states, all groups, SDS, Yippies, Panthers, left-wing and conservatives have to overcome their ideological differences to support the system. The film is against any revolution, it believes that the great American institutions will solve all problems if only some nice people get elected. That money, power and other aspects also exist isn't even mentioned here.
So, in the end, Sorkin finds no better solution than to end his film with one thing which apparently connects all of the ideological sides: dull, stupid patriotism.
Because as a film about the Vietnam war, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is quite a shame. Over and over again, the activists mention not to forget what all this is about: not them, but the war. But after all, the only people who ever get mentioned are the US soldiers who went into war to kill some innocent people. Only the attacker's side. Not one single time, the Vietnamese people get mentioned. The end is absolute patriotic kitsch and is barely a brave act (although the music says it is!). Sorkin doesn't even seem to believe in his own film's end, as he almost immediately cuts away.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a passable film with a good script, when it comes to the technical level. But this film is not the liberal-progressive anti-establishment film as it may look like. This film is extremly anti-revolutionary and conservative. After all, all which Sorkin is able to say at the end of the day is "I LOVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOD BLESS THEM WE ARE THE GREATEST NATION WITH THE GREATEST JUSTICE SYSTEM!!11!1! IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES DON'T MATTER HERE AS LONG AS WE HAVE GOOD PEOPLE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS!!!1!1!! OUR SYSTEM IS AMAZING GOD BLESS AMERICA"