The Trial of the Chicago 7

The Academy Award nominations were announced yesterday and, like last year, there are only two that I haven’t seen yet (you can read my commentaries for The Father, Judas and the Black Messiah, Mank, Minari, Nomadland, and Promising Young Woman by clicking on the titles).  Luckily both movies that I haven't seen are available on streaming platforms that I subscribe to.  Since I always like to see all of the nominees before the big ceremony, I watched The Trial of the Chicago 7, which is streaming on Netflix, last night (look for my review of Sound of Metal, streaming on Amazon Prime Video, tomorrow).  I didn't see this movie when it had a limited release in theaters last year because I am not a big Aaron Sorkin fan.  I know this is an unpopular opinion but I find his movies to be way too dialogue-heavy and that is actually my biggest complaint about this particular movie despite having an all-star cast, including a few stellar performances, and a compelling story that is incredibly relevant for today.  The year 1968 (the year I was born) is a time of violence and tremendous social unrest and the movie begins with several groups planning to protest the Vietnam War at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  The leaders of these groups, including Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) and Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp) of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong) of the Youth International Party (Yippies), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (MOBE), and Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) of the Black Panther Party, as well as Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) and John Froines (Daniel Flaherty), are arrested for trespassing and destruction of property after a riot breaks out during their demonstration.  Five months later, the new Attorney General, John N. Mitchell (John Doman), wants to make an example of the so-called Chicago Seven and directs the federal prosecutor, Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), to charge them with the federal crime of inciting a riot across state lines.  The counsel for the defense, William Kunstler (Mark Rylance) of the ACLU, argues that it was the police who started the riot, even calling the former AG Ramsey Clark (Michael Keaton) to testify about the lack of evidence, but Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella) shows an obvious prejudice for the prosecution, including jury tampering, dismissing eyewitness testimony, and mistreating Seale.  After spending most of the more than two hour runtime on the trial, the movie ends with a dramatic moment before the verdict is even read and then provides information about it, the sentencing, and the subsequent appeal almost as an afterthought in a series of titles during the epilogue.  It was very anticlimactic.  I can see why this movie has generated so much buzz because it definitely taps into the zeitgeist of our time by depicting an assault on free speech and I concede that it does have a powerful message.  I was also impressed by the performances, particularly Redmayne who displays a volatility I don't think I've seen from him before, Baron Cohen who steals every scene he is in, and Rylance who vividly portrays Kunstler's escalating rage at the injustice shown by the court.  However, I just couldn't get past the dialogue because it sounds so manufactured with monologue after monologue about idealism.  The characters may be saying the perfect words at the perfect time but it is not very organic, especially during a time period as emotionally charged as the 1960s, and I never really felt any kind of connection to them as people.  Does anyone really talk like a character in an Aaron Sorkin movie?  This is one of those movies that most people will probably end up liking more than I do!