–
‘The Chicago 7 Trial’ is directed and written by Aaron Sorkin, one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood today, writer of such interesting films as ‘Some Good Men’, ‘The Social Network’ or the masterful series ‘The West Wing of the White House’, among others. His mastery of the script is once again noticeable in this film, where the ingenious dialogues in a sociopolitical context are of incredible speed and brilliance, which gives the story a perfect rhythm in the verbal.
Taking classic references such as ‘All the President’s Men’ or ‘JFK’, the film takes elements of the political and judicial genre to mix them with the usual utopian story full of intelligently used flashbacks. ‘The Chicago 7 trial’ is set in 1968, the year in which one of the most popular trials in the United States in all its history was held. Seven people (actually eight) were arrested during a demonstration against the Vietnam War and were tried after being accused of conspiring against national security. The group of protesters broke into the convention of the United States Democratic Party in Chicago and were arrested as a result of riots against the police and sentenced in a clearly political trial, which gave way to a series of social conflicts that went down in the recent history of the country.
An example of fighting against fear and injustice and of carrying out a revolution that aims to change the overwhelming and tense social and political situation (Although explicitly stark violence is never seen on film). In the media and circus trial, at times aberrant and surreal, institutionalized racism was common in the hands of an evil and insane judge, splendidly played by Frank Langella, a very interesting character who gives the feeling that he had the verdict as soon as the trial started , evidencing an unfair judicial bias.
–
I have said “utopian story” because Sorkin tells the story of the trial from the prism of the accused and the defense of the seven, and relates a revolution that finally did not materialize, it remained in the sphere of what was not (feeling that bad things cannot be undone, they are linked to statism). This activism of the 60s and 70s implicitly serves as a parallel with the current era to argue in favor of the complaint, an essential right when the world is going badly.
Being for all audiences and competing for the Oscars, perhaps Sorkin is not as sharp or politically incorrect as on other occasions, but still the film is remarkable. Likewise, the director and screenwriter sometimes underlines too much the drama in this portrait, which is already essentially tragic enough and tends to ignore the nuances in the treatment of good and evil, being on some occasions quite partisan (or at least it is what I think).
Definitely, Sorkin is a better screenwriter than director, since visually his film does not stand out and is sometimes a bit confusing, concretely, when it is narrated in triple parallel, the montage is indefinite and the chaining of some sequences makes it difficult, in cinematographic terms, to follow the thread of the story. All in all, it is a very enjoyable movie.
Trailer
Does the cut pass?
-
Photography
-
Edition and assembly
-
Originality
-
Screenplay
-
Sound band
-
Interpretations
Summary
The best
- The brilliant dialogue of Aaron Sorkin.
- The performances of the entire cast, especially Sacha Baron Cohen or Frank Langella.
Worst
- Unnecessary underlining sometimes.
- Indefinite montage is a bit confusing
–
–
Other Netflix tapes to enjoy include:
–
‘Bajocero’ (Lluís Quílez, 2021), the powerful thriller from which Netflix has benefited
—
–
