The Trial of the Chicago 7

 3/4

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, John Carroll Lynch, Frank Langella, Jeremy Strong, Ben Shenkman, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II

Rated R for Language Throughout, Some Violence, Bloody Images and Drug Use

Aaron Sorkin's films, through writing and now directing, have always been dense.  They are very dialogue heavy and the actor's speak them with rapid fire energy.  This can be seen in movies such as "A Few Good Men," "Charlie Wilson's War," and in particular, "The Social Network."  Never has that been more true than in "The Trial of the Chicago 7," which is inarguably the most important film that has come out in 2020.  This is actually the film's biggest problem.  As much as I admire him for not talking down to his audience, it's overstuffed.  There are at least a dozen central characters, each with their own personalities, ideas and perspectives.  It's too much for a movie that is even two-and-a-quarter hours long. There is a lot of good stuff here (the performances in particular), but I spent so much time reminding myself who was who and how they fit into this story that it was hard to remain emotionally involved.  Many movies are guilty of being overlong.  This movie is not long enough.

1968.  The Vietnam war is in full swing.  Young progressives like Tom Hayden (Redmayne) and Abbie Hoffman (Cohen) are unhappy that Hubert Humphrey would receive the Democratic nomination, and planned to go to Chicago to protest.  A riot breaks out and the organizers are arrested.  There are seven of them: Hayden, Hoffman, Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), Jerry Rubin (Strong), David Dellinger (Lynch), Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) and John Froines (Flaherty).  The deck is stacked against them.  The judge (Langella) has already decided they are guilty and does little to hide it.  Even the lead prosecutor, Richard Schultz (Gordon-Levitt) finds the case dubious.

Sorkin has assembled an all-star cast for this film.  Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Frank Langella, Michael Keaton.  Not to mention character actors like John Carroll Lynch, Ben Shenkman and J.C MacKenzie.  And up-and-coming actors like Jeremy Strong and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II.  Talk about a dream cast!  They're all at the top of their game, and the Academy is going to have a tough time singling out who should get Oscar nominations (of which there will be a few).  Personally, my votes would go to Eddie Redmayne (who has never been better) and Sacha Baron Cohen, who brings depth and feeling to a (mostly) straight role.  Nods for Mark Rylance and Frank Langella would not be out out of the question either.  Sacha Baron Cohen is especially surprising as a comic/activist.  It's a far cry from Borat and Bruno.  He conveys the anger, frustration and the need for change that cause the most ardent of activists to seem extreme.  Often at the cost to themselves and their cause.

Two scenes in particular bear mention.  The first has John Mitchell, the new Attorney General (played by John Dolan in a chilling performance of a wonderfully written part), assigning the case to Schultz and his boss, Thomas Foran (MacKenzie).  He instructs them to win or else.  For him, this is a power struggle and he needs to punish those who disagree.  But listen to his words.  This is authoritarianism under the guise of patriotism.  One only has to listen to the news to feel his words and methods being echoed in certain sectors of the political sphere.  The other is a debate between the merits of two different forms of progressivism and obedience under the mask of civility.  Hayden is more pragmatic, arguing for continual, moderate change.  Hoffman is more radical, wanting the endgame now and being willing to do anything to get it.  I've had similar discussions recently myself.

There is much to admire about "The Trial of the Chicago 7."  It shows where we are now when we view those who have different ideas as the enemy.  Where crushing your opponents is more important than hearing them and their concerns.  And when personal bias overrides the rule of law.  But the film is too dense to really feel for the characters or their situation.  We understand the struggle and their motives intellectually but not always emotionally.  A slower pace and more time to expand what Sorkin wants to say would have helped the film gain more power than it already has.

Note: The MPAA gave this film an R rating, and I don't think that was the right decision.  There is some profanity but it can hardly be called gratuitous.  And while the violent protests are unsettling, they are meant to be.  This is a good film for teenagers because it provokes discussion about the world we live in today.  I suspect that the ratings board would sympathize more with the judge and attorney general in this movie than they would like to admit.