NETFLIX'S THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7: VIEWERS' REACTION

 

    THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 now on Netflix is, at once, a familiar saga played out in real life and resulting from the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention.  It is also a new version of the same event, this time written and directed by Aaron Sorkin, best known for TV's award-winning series,  THE WEST WING.  The fact that this account can be labeled a "docudrama," mixing fiction and non-fiction, is an interesting perspective in itself and a separate subject. This critic's perspective takes another approach: the viewer's relationship to the film.

     Simply put, that relationship centers around our connection to the "characters." It is a disconcerting one in the beginning. As each of the Chicago 7 is initially introduced, we unconsciously compare the real-life person to the actor playing him.  For example, Academy Award winners , Eddie Redmayne and Mark Rylance, show very little physical resemblance to Tom Hayden and William Kunsler, respectively. ( This critic was put off by Rylance's slight body build, not suggesting, however, that the actual Kunsler was "fat." ) 

     The only actor who approached the actual person he was portraying was Sacha Baron Cohen  with his perfect Abbie Hoffman imitation, particularly his vocal and facial expressions. We might also add Frank Langella as Judge Julius Hoffman, a characterization that seemed to match our impression of the judge. Yet other actors played against what we expected of them according to their previous movie roles: Joseph Gordon- Levett as prosecution attorney, Richard Schultz, and Michael Keaton as Ramsey Clark.

     However, as the film progressed we began to ignore these disparities based on demeanors and appearances. As the members of the Chicago 7 started to assume a dimensionality we hadn't seen before, suddenly it didn't matter whether Redmayne looked like Hayden or not. We were caught up in the issues instead: the actors BECAME the men they were portraying. On their own terms.

     A second consideration centering on the viewer's relationship with the film concerns the narrative's pace. It started with scenes containing lots of dialogue, building up to a faster pace as the plot progressed. Specifically, images and dialogue became more stirring: long shots of police versus the rioters in the park; Hayden's speech  persuading the  crowd to riot; Bobby Seale bound and gagged in the Court Room. This quicker pace provided a dramatic emphasis, eliciting more emotional  involvement from the viewers.

     Finally and hopefully,  audience discovery of a subtle motif also promoted involvement: the importance of NAMES. Not only was the importance of the witnesses' names emphasized, but Judge Hoffman's mispronunciation of the assistant defense attorney's name, Leonard Weinglass, became an Anti- Semitic comment. Moreover, isn't it ironic that both the Judge and a witness had the same last name, Hoffman? Potent adversaries, to be sure,

     The film's ending was even more potent:  Hayden's reading of the soldiers' names who had lost their lives in the Vietnam War. There will probably be no more salient and emotional use of "name-calling" in the media for a long time. Neither should we forget the relevance of the riots in this movie either. Recent TV coverage of protests in the streets proves the point.

 

NOTE: See drawings by Marilyn Church of The Trial of the Chicago 7 for the digital magazine, Queue 16.