A Brief Review
The Trial of the Chicago 7 Rahin Badar
T
he ‘Trial of the Chicago 7’ (2020) follows the trials of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines and Lee Weiner. They were charged for conspiracy for starting riots in 1968 related to the antiVietnam and countercultural protests in Chicago. A This Netflix Original (available on Netflix), directed by Aaron Sorkin takes us back to the US in the 60s, introducing the plot and characters of this film by integrating news reports and footage from the 1968 riots. This brilliant take on a courtroom drama, featuring acclaimed actors such as Sasha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, engrosses the audience in the trial’s details. Through this film, Sorkin allows audiences to acknowledge the risk associated with freedom of speech. This introduces the main concept of the film which was based around the idea of a ‘political trial’. Initially, we are told the Rap Brown law would be inaugurally used to indict and arrest the Chicago 7. Despite the Chicago 7 not explicitly breaking the law, the Attorney General and the court create a trial to advance their interests. Sorkin depicts the Chicago 7 as a threat in the eyes of the US Government. The influence of the Chicago 7 created widespread support for
30 | The Brief
anti-Vietnam views, prompting Americans to criticise President Nixon and his handling of the US’ involvement in the Vietnam war. Through the trial, Sorkin indicates that the freedom of the Chicago 7 and the extent of their ideas were subjected to the authority of the government. Sorkin’s film exposes loopholes in the law, and how the law can be manipulated against situations and individuals to create a desired outcome. He highlights how our right to freedom of speech is limited to what is considered a threat by figures in authority. Sorkin depicts the Chicago 7 as revolutionaries standing up for their beliefs, not compromising their ideas for their freedom. He encourages audiences to acknowledge the power of the law and the judiciary in constructing today’s history with the outcome of ‘yesterday’s’ trials. As the movie came to an end, I pondered about the role of lawyers, our justice system and our rights as civilians. And so, I am left with many questions. The protesters harnessed their right to free speech to express their opinions about the Vietnam War, but were met with harsh consequences. Sorkin’s film forces you to think about our freedom of speech. Is it only enabled when it resonates with ideas held by figures of authority? If so, are we really free?
Ed.1 2021
