Just because a film has the revered Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network, Steve Jobs, The American President, Charlie Wilson’s War, Moneyball) attached to it as a screenwriter doesn’t mean we should automatically assume it will be a hit. The screenwriter has hit some home runs on the big screen. He’s the mastermind behind a few of the most revered television shows (The West Wing, Sports Night, The Newsroom) of the last 25 years. But that doesn’t mean that everything he touches will turn to pure gold. Venturing into just his second movie as a director (Molly’s Game), The Trial of the Chicago 7 is far from a film that should receive a Best Picture nomination. Sadly, it could very well win the top prize for 2020. Of the eight Best Picture nominated movies for 2020, only three finished in my top ten. In other years, I don’t think any of the three would have found a spot in my end-of-the-year list. 2020 was not a great year in the history of the world. The year in film was no exception.
Only two movies have won Best Picture at the Oscars, and they were also my favorite movie of the year (Titanic in 1997 and Braveheart in 1995). The Best Picture winner is often at least one of my top ten movies of the year, but it is not. The four movies that stand the best chance are The Trial of the Chicago 7, Nomadland, Judas and the Black Messiah, and Minari. If I had to give one word to describe this collection of Best Picture nominees, it would be “disappointing.” The second word would be “boring.” The third would be “ugh.” The fourth would be “original.”
While “original” is a great word to describe a movie, it’s not great when it falls behind these other adjectives. I had incredibly high hopes for Nomadland. It was the last of the critically acclaimed movies to be released. Much like 2019 with the movie 1917, I was clinging to hope that Nomadland could save the year. It didn’t. Word of mouth late in the season suggested Minari might be that one memorable movie from the year. It wasn’t.
Judas and the Black Messiah was a wonderfully acted film. It was based on a true and felt very timely in a year when the Black Lives Matter movement was more vital than ever. This movie was much better than the movie I am reviewing in this post, but it will be more memorable for Daniel Kaluuya and LaKeith Stanfield’s performances than for the film itself. The excellent performances certainly didn’t detract from the movie, but we should remember the Best Picture winner more for its story than it should be for its acting. While Nomadland resonated with me more than this movie did, I’m pulling for Judas and the Black Messiah to beat it, Minari, and The Trial of the Chicago 7 at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 had undoubtedly the best ensemble of any movie of the year. With all that talent, I’m perplexed why this movie was so dull. Sorkin wrote the screenplay for A Few Good Men, one of the most memorable courtroom dramas ever. Like The Trial of the Chicago 7, A Few Good Men, with Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Keifer Sutherland, and Kevin Pollack, had one of the best casts ever. A Few Good Men wasn’t based on a true story, though, while The Trial of the Chicago 7 was. With all else equal, you give the nod to the movie based on a true story. So why is The Trial of the Chicago 7 more heralded than A Few Good Men? I’m not entirely sure.
The Chicago 7 was a group of left-wing activists who convened in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention to protest the Vietnam War. The protests turned violent, and the incoming Nixon administration chose to prosecute the group on charges of crossing state lines to incite violence, an infraction of the Anti-Riot Act. This was telling because Attorney General Ramsay Clark had previously declared that the Chicago Police Department was the group that initiated that day’s violence.
We meet the seven…while actually eight…men all within the film’s first fifteen minutes. With an overlay of music, we see each man in his element, leading a group of others or coming together with plans on how they will protest at the convention. It’s clean. It’s fun. It groups our protagonists, and Sorkin tells us, in no uncertain terms, that this is who we should be cheering for and that everything will be okay. Of the eight men who will be on trial, we get to meet the anxious and easily agitated Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne – The Theory of Everything, The Danish Girl) and Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen – Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, The Dictator), the contemptuous, anarchist who serves as the film’s comic relief more than anything.
Eight men are put on trial together, though Black Panther Party Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II – The Greatest Showman, Us) is grouped with the other seven to make the group look more dangerous with him in it. At the trial, he has no representation, while the other seven men being charged are all represented by William Kunstler (Mark Rylance – Bridge of Spies, Dunkirk) and Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shenkman – Blue Valentine, Concussion). The prosecuting attorney is Richard Schultz, played by the always likable (Joseph Gordon-Levitt – 500 Days of Summer, Snowden). The casting of this character alone is telling in itself. It’s as if Sorkin is telling us from the start that even the guy going after our defendants is someone we aren’t going to root against. The film’s main antagonist is the villainous, intimidating Judge Holland (played superbly by Frank Langella – Frank Langella – Frank Langella, Robot and Frank). A racist, Judge Holland makes, in no uncertain terms, that the courtroom is his and all involved will play by his rules or will suffer the consequences.
The film sways back and forth too much on whether it wants to be entertaining and lighthearted or wanted or serious in tone to drive its point home better. In a way, it feels like Sorkin thinks he can do both. He can’t. The clashes between Judge Holland and Bobby Seale are so tense that they believe they belong in a different movie. The racism displayed by Holland is so blatant that it’ll make you angry. Sorkin does a great job of allowing this to play out throughout the film. Unfortunately, it still feels reduced as a side story because it must align with the narrative that guides Sorkin’s story.
In the end, much effort was put into a movie that might have been better as a documentary. I was supposed to feel emotion, victory, or vindication at the film’s end. Still, I felt no emotional connection and barely cared enough to read the epilogue of what happened to each character following the movie’s conclusion. I had no voting interest and was indifferent towards each character outside of the required disdain for Judge Hoffman. Outside of him and Bobby, the characters were uninteresting, and their performances were flat. Baron Cohen received an Oscar nomination for his performance of Abbie. It didn’t feel deserved to me. Yes, Baron Cohen played a character I hadn’t seen from him before, but that doesn’t mean it translates to an Academy Award nomination. In total, The Trial of the Chicago 7 earned six Oscar nominations. I don’t get it. It’s as undeserving of a Best Picture-nominated movie as any recent memory. If you do watch it, prepare to be dulled. The Social Network this is not. This is different from the Sorkin you are accustomed to seeing, and if this indicates what he can do as a film director, I hope he steps back and continues to work on screenplays instead. Overrated movie. Hard pass.
Plot 8/10
Character Development 7/10
Character Chemistry 7/10
Acting 7/10
Screenplay 7/10
Directing 5/10
Cinematography 8/10
Sound 8/10
Hook and Reel 6/10
Universal Relevance 8/10
71%
D+
Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie
- A Few Good Men
- 12 Angry Men
- All The Presidents’ Men
- The Social Network
- Philadelphia