Skip to main content

That’s a surprising amount of controversy for a gin and lemonade.

The Trial of the Chicago 7
(2020)

(SPOILERS) If The Trial of the Chicago 7 feels like the kind of fare that might once have been prestige Oscar bait, that’s probably because it was intended to be. Doubtless accompanied by numerous speeches about how its subject matter is more relevant than ever. And maybe Paramount and DreamWorks, after more than a decade of development hell, hoped it still had a shot. Maybe, in a year with as little competition as this, it does. The picture finished up on Netflix, of course, which is a good fit for Aaron Sorkin’s lightweight but engaging approach. There’s nothing very much that goes beyond a practised eye for dramatically repurposed biographical fare, as you’d expect from the writer/adaptor of The Social Network, Moneyball and most recently Molly’s Game.

Sorkin's also, of course, the brilliant mind behind The West Wing, which means his key gift is for politically vapid idealism, Waltons Mountain by way of Capitol Hill, and that kind of approach – cue stirring chords on the soundtrack affirming our collective values – is very visible in Chicago 7. Sorkin is very much one for finding the cherished kernel in material, not for propounding its aptness to cynicism. He’s also not a virtuoso director. Which is fine, few screenwriters are, and his fare is, at least, very writerly rather than stylistically reliant. It does mean, however, that there’s little finesse here, that dialogue and performance are everything and period atmosphere is very much secondary. This is in the John Lee Hancock school of auteurish acumen.

On the plus side, that means we dodged instigator of the project Spielberg’s patented brand of syrup; it’s easy to observe how the film was designed with such rudimentary manipulations in mind, although one might equally attest that Sorkin and Spielberg’s brands are naturally synergistic. The berg has of course, been churning out vanilla, accolade-seeking biographical fare ever since the mid-80s, and it was only a writers’ strike that put the kibosh on this (his next film was the career high of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). His version would tentatively have featured Sacha Baron Cohen (when he was actually the correct age for the part of Abbie Hoffman), Will Smith as Bobby Seale and Heath Ledger as Tom Hayden. Subsequently, various replacement directors were mooted, including Paul Greengrass – ideal for fashioning an “authentic” piece of Hollywood whitewashing/fabrication thanks to his verité style – and Ben Stiller, probably the more interesting suggestion, although I don’t know how his larger-than-life tendencies would have fitted with the content.

Particularly since that content isn’t especially taxing. Because the most interesting tack Sorkin could have taken, rather than reinforcing – as, let’s face it, Hollywood is wont to do – our impressions of that decade, so extolling of it as a solitary shining beacon, when hope was in the ascendant and change truly was possible, would have been to dig in to an era of Tavistock-esque social engineering. Mark Devlin recently broached the protest movement in his Lennon at 80 podcast, whereby the former Beatle’s interaction with such revolutionary luminaries as Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and popular beat paedophile Allen Ginsburg was discussed. Devlin and guest Matt Sergiou consider the possibility, mooted by many over the years, that certain elements of the peace movement represented controlled opposition, designed to douse any hope that its aims might land with normies. This derailing was achieved through grand off-putting theatrical gestures and statements, so making the entire movement look idiotic and out there, and distancing it from any broader meeting of empathy.

Hayden: My problem is that for the next fifty years, when people think of progressive politics, they’re going to think of you. They’re going to think of you and your idiot followers passing out daisies to soldiers and trying to levitate the Pentagon.

Devlin cites the infamous example of the plan to levitate the Pentagon, via Ginsberg leading a crowd in Tibetan chanting (there’s a Ginsberg cameo in the movie, played by Alan Metoskie, repeating “Om” outside a police station). And in fairness to Sorkin, the general gist of this is addressed in the movie, although without any agenda behind it beyond personal glorification; Hayden (Eddie Redmayne, as usual giving a performance where he appears to have just soiled himself – if ever there’s a big screen Some Mothers Do 'Av Em, he’s a shoe-in) shows animosity towards Hoffman’s outlook at an early stage, warning “the very last thing he wants is for the war to end”. Hayden thinks Hoffman is all about brand Hoffman. Sorkin being Sorkin, he indulges a couple of narrative flips in this regard, shallow Abbie revealed to care deeply (asked the price to call off the revolution, he replies “My life” – you can see the actual footage of this, which is inevitably less calculated). He’s also given good reason for his jestering (that when you have no money, he is free publicity). Earnest and buttoned-down Hayden meanwhile is accused of inciting the crowd to violence before it’s revealed that isn’t what he meant.

The main thing to note with these performances is that Redmayne, bereft of ticks and quirks, is left looking a little at sea. As for the general Cohen praise, I found him distracting in his age-inappropriateness (a decade and a half older than his subject is Warren Beatty territory; he comes across – much more than Strong, also in his 40s – like an antiquated hipster). Additionally, I’m not entirely convinced he’s much of a dramatic actor. He can do the quips and the stand-up, but he needs an extra dimension, and the overall impression is more of a caricature than a character. Of course, maybe it's neither here nor there that Cohen isn't very good; what's significant is that he's here in the first place. Which it brings us to...

As for the third man here, Sorkin deals Jerry Rubin rather short shrift. We lucked in when boorish oaf Seth Rogen dropped out and method-head Jeremy Strong replaced him, but you can see the inveterate stoner, incoherent mumblefuck doting over an FBI undercover agent being more tailored to Rogen. Indeed, Sorkin’s approach is likely about attempting to delineate characters sufficiently; with Hayden and Hoffman designated the dramatic tension, pulling for the same thing but from polar positions, there’s little room for a third wheel. Which means Sorkin ends up inventing several really phoney scenes, such as Rubin being smitten with (also Succession star) Caitlin FitzGerald’s FBI gal, or the ridiculously contrived gallantry in saving a buxom protest chick from rape (that he somehow gets off for “assaulting someone who was assaulting someonemight be seen as leading into the next paragraph).

As Devlin reports it, Jon Weiner’s book Come Together details the claims of Lennon’s immigration attorney Leon Wildes (as told by an unnamed source who provided supporting documentation) that Jerry was a CIA Plant tasked with baiting Lennon in order to get damning information on his Vietnam activism. Rubin himself admitted “John considered the possibility that I was a CIA agent”. Certainly, Rubin’s transformation into a stockbroker in the 1980s (very The Big Chill) doesn’t exactly suggest an unassailable ethos (in contrast, Hayden, who married Jane Fonda for a spell, sandwiched between Vadim and Ted Turner – there’s a very definite “progression” for Hanoi Jane there – seems exactly the guy who would become a state senator). Rubin’s alleged activities don’t necessarily reflect on Hoffman, of course; his comments rather reinforce the suspicions threaded together by the likes of Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, suggesting the rise of the hippie movement was anything but organic: “There were all these activists, you know, Berkeley radicals, White Panthers … all trying to stop the war and change things for the better. Then we got flooded with all these ‘flower children’ who were into drugs and sex. Where the hell did the hippies come from?!

If the most interesting threads of the peace movement aren’t found in the movie, Sorkin manages to include some distractingly thudding ones to make up for it. The treatment of David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) is particularly egregious. Dellinger was a conscientious objector during WWII, and Sorkin, seemingly intent on showing just how conservative he is in his liberalism, is bent on making it clear this was absolutely unacceptable. Most innocuously when defence lawyer William Kunstler (Mark Rylance playing Mark Rylance as usual; he does it very well, of course) tells him he’ll have to talk to him about that. Most offensively when Dellinger objects to the judge in court and is restrained; the staunch pacifist is brought to violence, punching a marshal. You see? You see how wrong he was to have such values? It’s a sickeningly facile moment.

Other embellishments are less distasteful. Ironically for a movie about radicals, it’s in the staid manoeuvres of court procedure – and not even especially the wiseacre antics of Jerry and Abbie before the court – that the picture comes alive. This is Sorkin’s bread and butter as a writer. Thus lead prosecutor Richard Schultz becomes a more sympathetic figure; just casting Joseph Gordon-Levitt is liable to do that, but he’s granted the insight that however smelly these reprobates are, they are not guilty of the charges presented against them. The climactic closing statement by Hayden, where he confounds the judge’s faith that he will go far by reading out a list of 4,752 troops who have died in Vietnam since the trial began is a neat fist-pumping capper to the proceedings, but is completely invented.

The rest of the cast are also very good. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, previously best known as the villain in Aquaman, makes the most of the showstopper role of Bobby Seale, bereft of an attorney and continually silenced by the judge. Frank Langella has easily the juiciest part as Julius Hoffman “a judge who’s been handing down rulings from the bench that would have been considered wrong in Honduras”. Michael Keaton also makes the most of a cameo as former attorney general Ramsey Clarke, one of the few who can contradict the judge with authority (“The President isn’t a client of the attorney general” he instructs of concerns over breaking attorney-client privilege). As to his investigation’s conclusion that “the riots were started by the Chicago Police Department” well it simply goes to show that honesty about such matters is an evergreen issue, what with Soros-funded BLM and ANTIFA.

Rubin famously said “this is the Academy Awards of protests as far as I’m concerned” – although Sorkin gives that line to someone else, since it’s a bit too sharp for his Jerry – but I’m not sure how much this will be troubling the real deal. Probably a nod for Langella, maybe Abdul-Mateen II, maybe for Original Screenplay, which admittedly has some choice dialogue (“You think it possible there were seven demonstrators in Chicago last summer leading ten thousand undercover cops in protest?”) And it’s also a good time to be reminded of first principles, in a year when the scoffing of such notions is coming back to bite everyone, that “These people had a plan, and a plan involving two or more people is a conspiracy”.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.