The Trial of the Chicago 7

In a certain sense, I've been on a roll lately with great films. 

Part of Welcome to the Blumhouse was worthwhile (Nocturne, Black Box) and snagging Nomadland through a distant, but virtual film festival was one of the best movie experiences of the year thus far. This after several months of consistent, very "just okay" films where most have already left my mind (and some bad ones too). Other than the lone awesome theater experience of Tenet, that is. 

The Trial of the Chicago 7 - now on Netflix - is a welcome increase of quality from their last several streaming films and continues this small moment of light in a dark year of film. I was half surprised when it came out because I feel like its been talked about a lot but I was unsure of release date, and I'm just not keeping up with movie releases like I used to because...well...ya know. 

This comes to us from director Aaron Sorkin, who is most commonly known for being writer Aaron Sorkin on many high profile TV shows. It's well known he has a quick, sharp-witted style that provides energy into nearly every scene his script is part of. Perhaps my favorite (not necessarily recent) example of this was with the electrifying Steve Jobs. 

With him helming the director's seat for the second time, it's refreshing to see that he's comfortable in the position and, as both the owner of the script/screenplay and the director's chair, a film can really portray his vision as much as he wants it to. The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a shockingly exciting film that takes place mostly (~50-60%) in a courtroom. As someone who either hates or loves courtroom dramas, that's saying a lot the I was on the edge of my...ahem...well I was watching it in bed, so give me a break. 

Historically, this is an event that I'm unfamiliar with where there were large scale riots - not unlike the ones we've seen this summer - before the Democratic National Convention of 1968. After the riots were said and done (with a lot of bloodshed), 7 men were charged with conspiracy of merging their three left-based groups to incite violence on the city and the police. The film takes the hard stance that it was the police that incited the riots. Without doing much research of my own, I'm going to assume that the answer is somewhere in the middle if we're being honest, but from a political angle, just know which way the movie leans. 

Redmayne sometimes acts with his shoulders and its weird (but oddly effective?)

The next Clark Kent? 

One of my favorite parts of Chicago 7 is how downright ludicrous the cast becomes. It feels like every other scene has a new face from a "Hey, I recognize them!" to a downright "Oh wow, that's X!". The list of stars here is incredible and the fact they're all turning in potentially supporting-Oscar-worthy performances is even more impressive. Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong (playing someone much different than his Succession character), John Carroll Lynch, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Frank Langella, and Michael Keaton (and I've likely missed a few). Redmayne's character honestly feels a bit awkward, almost like he's trying to act, rather than just acting, but Baron Cohen, Strong, and Rylance in particular - all some part of the "hippie" group - do wonderful. They're delivering Sorkin's zingers with perfect timing, but also emphasizing the right emotion in the more dramatic bits. All of them in one place adds to the fun the film creates, despite the heavy subject matter. 

There's a unique approach to storytelling too that is mildly disorienting at first (I thought I had missed something within the first 15 minutes) where it begins in court and then plays back through the key events being questioned. Referring back to Steve Jobs, it feels like Sorkin might have taken notes from Danny Boyle in terms of energetically directing a film. It's not as "aggressive" as Boyle's films can be with their style, but the smart editing from scene to scene, often jumping back multiple times, makes the films pacing feel brisk and exciting. During moments of substantial drama and reaching various climaxes, it slows down (or speeds up) this technique to great effect. 

The unlikely duo we didn't know we needed in our lives

Where I feel like Chicago 7 stumbles - and stumbles is a harsh word because I really mean just the stuff it does merely "good" - is the ending and cinematography. It uses music effectively throughout (actual music, not OS) to add energy as well, but there aren't really any lasting, iconic shots that I can refer to. The ending, while powerful, seems to come abruptly and have a very awkward text-update over a weird still image to let us know what happened to these characters. It's almost like they made a really exciting film, got to the end, and were like "Holy s**t, our movie is over 2 hours. End it now!". 

I'll be curious to see how time ages The Trial of the Chicago 7 in my mind. It hasn't been super kind to other Netflix films (for the most part, don't worry Da 5 Bloods!). I have a feeling that the kinetic energy this script and direction give us, plus the stupidly impressive cast is enough to keep it quite high in my mind for some time to come. In a year that's substantially lower quality of films (and quantity, obviously), could that be enough to put it in the Top 10 for the Rath Awards? We shall see!

CONS

• Eddie Redmayne - while he's fine and his character is well written - feels awkward here. Almost like he's trying too hard
• Weirdly abrupt ending when I feel like an extra 3-4 minutes could have made a smoother transition
• Slightly disorienting in the beginning
• I wish there was better cinematography, but you can't always have it all

PROS

• If there was a drinking game where you take a shot every time you recognized a star in this film, you'd die. Saying the cast is impressive is an understatement
• Fitting and apt performances from all but Baron Cohen, Strong, and Rylance get special shout out. They pair perfectly with each other and Sorkin's script
• Speaking of Sorkin - fantastic direction and script, both of which give the film a palpable energy
• Timely take on historic events
• Outside of the script, the editing and song choice pulses the move forward with more of that energy. This is a very quick 2 hours
• Quick witted and has moments of good laughs. Also takes the appropriate time to stick on the somber, more dramatic moments

Rath's Review Score | 9/10