The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a historical drama (based on a true story) which premiered in 2020.
The topic is the story of a remarkable trial which took place in Chicago over several months from September 1969 to February 1970.
The Chicago 7 was a group of left-wing activists who were charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting a riot during the Democratic National Convention which was held in Chicago in August 1968.
The activists complained about US foreign policy (the war in Vietnam) and about US domestic policy (the persecution of the civil rights movement within the US).
When the trial begins in September 1969, there are eight defendants, but one of them (Bobby Seale, the national chairman of the Black Panthers) declares that he does not want to be represented by the two lawyers who represent the other seven defendants.
Bobby Seale wants to be represented by his own lawyer. Unfortunately, this lawyer is unable to attend the trial, because he is recovering after having an operation in a hospital. Eventually, it is decided to remove Bobby Seale from the main case and when this happened, it became known as the Trial of the Chicago 7.
Here is some basic information about this drama:
** Directed by Aaron Sorkin
** Screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin (in 2007)
** Available on Netflix
** Run time: 121 minutes
The cast can be divided into four categories, depending on their role in the case. Here are the names:
# 1. The federal prosecutors
** J. C. MacKenzie as Tom Foran (1924-2000) – senior chair
** Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Richard Schultz – junior chair
# 2. The defense
** Mark Rylance as William Kunstler (1919-1995)
** Ben Shenkman as Leonard (Len) Weinglass (1933-2011)
# 3. The defendants
** Eddie Redmane as Tom Hayden (1939-2016)
** Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman (1936-1989)
** Alex Sharp as Rennie Davis (1940-2021)
** Jeremy Strong as Jerry Rubin (1938-1994)
** John Carroll Lynch as David Dellinger (1915-2004)
** Noah Robbins as Lee Weiner (still alive in 2021)
** Daniel Flaherty as John Froines (born 1939)
** Yahya Abdul Mateen II as Bobby Seale (born 1936)
# 4. Other characters
** Frank Langella as Julius Hoffman (1895-1983) – the federal judge
** Michael Keaton as Ramsey Clark (1927-2021) – US Attorney General 1967-1969
** Kevin Harrison as Fred Hampton (1948-1969) – chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panthers
When you look at the chart, you can see that one of the defendants (Abbie Hoffman) has the same last name as the federal judge (Julius Hoffman). They are not related!
The judge was eager to point out that he was not related to the defendant. Abbie Hoffman was just as eager to point out that he was not related to the judge. They resented each other. Abbie Hoffman said so. While the judge never said so, he did not do much to hide his true feelings about the defendant.
The first five defendants were quite famous in 1968 and 1969. But number six and seven (Lee Weiner and John Froines) were not so famous. Why were they named as defendants?
One possible explanation is that the government included them in order to have something to negotiate with in case negotiations became relevant. If the defense was going to complain about the high number of defendants, the government could offer to drop the charges against Weiner and Froines.
We cannot know if this explanation is true, because there never were any negotiations between defense and prosecution.
When the case ended in February 1970, Weiner and Froines were both found not guilty of all charges, while the other five defendants were found guilty of several charges.
This movie is mostly a courtroom drama, but from time to time there is a flashback to events which happened during the Democratic National Convention in August 1968 and which are discussed during the trial of the Chicago 7 or 8.
Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore, I could mention many of them here, but I am not going to do that. I do not wish to spoil the viewing for anyone.
While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here.
Some details have been added or changed or excluded for practical reasons or dramatic purposes.
But the basic story is true.
What do reviewers say about this historical drama? Here are the results of three review aggregators:
76 percent = Meta
78 percent = IMDb
89 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)
91 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)
As you can see, the ratings are quite good. They correspond to something like four or five stars on Amazon.
When we are talking about a drama which is based on a true story, one obvious question is this: how accurate is this drama? Does it follow the true story quite closely or does it ignore the question of historical accuracy to a large degree?
This question has been discussed in great detail by several websites and online publications.
Here are five references to this debate:
(1) “The Trial of the Chicago 7 vs. the True Story”
HOLLYWOOD VS HISTORY (2020)
(2) "Trial of the Chicago 7 accuracy; fact vs. fiction in Aaron Sorkin’s Netflix movie"
SLATE, 15 October 2020
(3) “The Trial of the Chicago 7 true story. How accurate is Aaron Sorkin’s Netflix film?”
DECIDER, 16 October 2020
(4) “The true story behind Netflix’s The Trial of the Chicago 7”
TIME, 16 October 2020
(5) “How accurate is Netflix’s The Trial of the Chicago 7”
LOOPER, 16 October 2020
The general consensus is that most of the movie is true, but there are several cases where historical accuracy has been sacrificed for practical reasons or dramatic purposes.
If you want to have specific examples of historical mistakes, check out the five items mentioned above.
I do not think the quality of the movie is increased by these violations of historical accuracy, but the main point is that most of the movie follows the true story.
The trial of the Chicago 7 or 8 was an extraordinary trial. According to some observers, it often turned into a regular circus, because there were so many eloquent people in this room and sometimes, they were carried away by the heat of the moment and they could not help themselves: they just had to speak their mind, no matter what.
A judge is supposed to be neutral. A judge is supposed to be impartial. In this case, judge Julius Hoffman was not neutral. He was not impartial. His words and decisions showed that he supported the prosecution all the way.
His words and decisions were a provocation against the defendants. When they responded (or tried to respond), they were told to be quiet. When defense lawyers responded, they were cited with contempt of court (in particular William Kunstler).
Obviously, the judge was out of order, but no one in the courtroom was allowed to say so!
Aaron Sorkin’s movie about this trial is a fascinating courtroom drama. Entertaining and instructive at the same time.
It is a story about justice. It is a story about the criminal justice system in the US:
** What is right and what is wrong?
** Who is right and who is wrong?
In this movie, historical truth is violated on a few occasions, but I have decided that I will regard these examples as minor flaws.
I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).
If you are interested in the history of the US – in particular the question of human rights – this drama is definitely something for you.
PS # 1. Conspiracy: The Trial of the Chicago 8 is a historical drama which premiered in 1987.
PS # 2. William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe is a documentary film which premiered in 2009.
*****
Lawyer for the defense:
William Kunstler (1919-1995)
*****
Lawyer for the defense:
Leonard (Len) Weinglass (1933-2011)
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment