Do you have contempt for your government?
I’ll tell you, Mr. Schultz, it’s nothing compared to the contempt my government has for me.
It seems like every so often a couple of movies come out in fairly close proximity that end up bumping up against each other in terms of their subject matter. And it also seems that when that happens, one of them is excellent and the other just kind of middle of the road or worse. Except for the Volcano/Dante’s Peak face-off. Nobody won that year. This pairing is reminiscent of the Dunkirk/Darkest Hour pairing a few years ago, when the two films took different perspectives on some of the same events and made for an interesting double feature of sorts. This time around, The Trial of the Chicago 7 & Judas and the Black Messiah both take place in a racially and culturally tumultuous Chicago at around the same time. Bobby Seale and the trial are discussed in Judas & the Black Messiah, while Fred Hampton actually appears (mostly inaccurately, it should be said) as a character in this film. I could probably leave you to guess which of the movies I prefer and, if you know me at all, you’d probably guess right. But it’s just disorienting to watch these two movies and then think, “Wow, so some people actually thought Trial of the Chicago 7 was the better movie, huh?” Perhaps the fact that there’s a division on which movie is better is as stark a commentary on the divides in our country right now as anything in the movies themselves. Well, probably not, but you get my drift.
That isn’t to say that Trial of the Chicago 7 is a terrible movie or anything. It’s very flawed, very self-conscious, very self-righteous and often kind of annoying in the way it taps out on the deepest conversations by suddenly pivoting to a very Hollywood moment. Probably the final scene is the worst example of this, complete with blaring triumphant music and a LITERAL STANDING OVATION HAPPENS IN THE ACTUAL MOVIE ITSELF. Good Lord. It’s when this movie it wants to swing for those big “movie moments” that it most often stumbles. It wants all sorts of people to get character arcs, even if they’re as cheesy and on the nose as possible; David Dellinger is particularly ill-treated, but the movie does Bobby Seale no real favors either, which is more problematic since he’s the most prominent, and one of the only, black characters in the film, which purports to be about, admittedly among other things, racism.
But what works here? Well, the movie is entertaining, that’s for sure. Sorkin, clumsy as he can be with plotting and character arcs, still has a knack for great lines. You’re never more than about five minutes from something pithy and clever and, while this can be tiring if done incorrectly, it mostly works here. Also, I know it’s de rigueur to slam Sorkin as a director, but he’s trying to shake it up a bit and sometimes his cross-cutting actually works really well. My favorite scene in the movie is the scene where we watch Tom Hayden work up to losing his temper both in the past and in the present as he’s pressured about his “if blood is going to flow” line. That’s two separate scenes that build together really nicely to the moments when Hayden finally loses control of his emotions.
I guess that also kind of brings me to the performances, which are, by and large, really exceptional. Eddie Redmayne really stole the show for me as Hayden; it’s a locked down performance – he’s always in control, until, of course, he isn’t and, as we all know, it’s always scarier when the guy with the coolest head loses it than when a hothead does. And Redmayne makes it terrifying. Mark Rylance is fantastic as usual and Michael Keaton is great in his small cameo, mingling quiet strength with easy naturalism. Jeremy Strong is an actor that I have always disliked, literally in everything I’ve ever seen him in, I thought he was bad. But he’s unrecognizeable and very good as Dave Rubin. Sacha Baron Cohen gives a surprisingly nuanced performance; he’s best in his last substantial scene when he finally takes the stand and finally lets us see the real person behind the prankster. And then there are all the performers who do good work in parts that are either under-written or poorly written: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Yahya Abdul-Mateen, Frank Langella, J.C. MacKenzie, Ben Shenkmen, Alice Kremelberg (women are about as scarce as black people in this ensemble) and, as always, John Carroll Lynch who is no stranger to taking a weak part and being fantastic in it.
Anyway, is this movie worth watching, even at over two hours? Yeah, it is. It’s good overall, but it’s certainly not great or even very good and I feel like it could have been and should have been. As topical and of the moment as it is and as entertaining as it is, it skates by. And at least it isn’t dour and ponderous; a lot of people would have made this story those things, but, while it is serious a lot, Sorkin keeps things moving fast and with a lot of wry humor. But whatever you do, see it before Judas & the Black Messiah.
tl;dr – script has a lot of problems, but also a lot of great lines; an impulse toward Hollywoodization leads to a great ensemble sometimes stumbling. 3 stars.