Aaron Sorkin's The Trial of the Chicago 7 is about as subtle as a heart attack and hokey as hell but it does effectively dramatize a crucial moment in modern American history and for that it has value. It's clearly pitched to be a nod to the moment we're in where Bill Barr and Donald Trump seek to pervert the criminal justice system to serve their political ends. The movie is so broad in its characterizations and content that no one could miss the movie's mission statement.
It's for this reason that I struggle with it. If I didn't know the history I might have been more bowled over by this film -- but I do know it and so it's hard to see important figures like Tom Hayden and Jerry Rubin get reduced to caricatures. Oddly enough, Sacha Baron Cohen fares better than many of the others as the affable and astute Abbie Hoffman (although he's at least a decade too old to play the role).
Frank Langella makes for an appealing villain in an over the top role as the absurdly biased judge. Yahya Abdul Mateen II doesn't have much to do as Bobby Seale. Michael Keaton shows up and has grit and gravitas as Ramsey Clark (but it's more of a cameo than anything). And John Carroll Lynch tugs at your heartstrings in one of the most Sorkin-y moments in the film.
That said, Sorkin is relatively restrained here. In fact, if you didn't know it this film could have been made by competent Hollywood mainstay like Ron Howard or Rob Reiner. Unlike his almost unwatchable Molly's Game, the screenplay is not overwhelmed by speechifying and self conscious dialogue.
And yet, the movie goes the attractive biopic route and doesn't attempt anything particularly daring or interesting with its approach.
I am curious how the real-life inspiration (those that are still alive) feel about the portrayal here -- particularly Tom Hayden whose played by Eddie Redmayne as a bit of feckless equivocator -- and I am suspicious of Sorkin's decision to portray the prosecutor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt giving essentially same earnest performance he always does) as a noble, conflicted bystander to the proceedings.
All of this being said, I can see this film being enormously encouraging and inspiring to younger people who don't know about the police riot at the 1968 convention or the completely politically motivated trial to prosecute high profile antiwar activists a couple years later for inciting said riot.
These figures are worth lionizing and the tragic events of 1968 are worst being realized on film.
Do I wish it were done in a less heavy-handed way? Absolutely. But do I regret that it's being dramatized at all. No.
Sorkin needs good collaborators. His unusual pairing with director David Fincher led to one of the best films of the previous decade -- The Social Network. And his writing has invigorated what would have otherwise been bland affairs like A Few Good Men. I'm even one of the few fans and defenders of his work on Steve Jobs, a movie that worked for me if apparently few others.
I like that he's a liberal and wears his ideology on his sleeve -- like Oliver Stone -- he makes projects that he wants to be about something and that he wants to provoke a reaction. I just don't this film lands with the force that he wants it to.
No comments:
Post a Comment