Movie Review: The Trial of the Chicago 7 pt. 2

The testimonies abstracted from the witnesses are visualized, which I found effective, due to the obvious point that movies are all about what meets the eye, and that this helped the movie feel just the right amount of fast-paced and impossible to bore the audience. In the end, the defendants of the trial lose. While they had been stating that it was the police who started the riots, it was proven that it was actually Tom Hayden who did, a reaction to the police hitting one of the protestors. Although it might’ve been beside the point, I found this as rather a plot twist for people like me who didn’t know the history behind it.

But what happens during the many days on trial mattered more than the result. From the very first day, we see the judge, Julius Hoffman stating the names of the defendants incorrectly, confusing people, or the names themselves. He even interrupts the attorney speaking, just to question if a statement already made had been made. This seems ironic, as the judge constantly states that the court is ‘his court’, but fails to complete his duties of paying attention to what others say in it. Also, we see that an African-American, Bobby Seale (who actually has no relationship with the other defendants, but as he states, ‘was put amongst them to make the Chicago 7 look more scary.’.) mentions the fact that the trial should not start without his lawyer, who was absent. Although this was a completely justified right, the judge dismisses this statement without a logical explanation. As the lawyer for the Chicago 7, William Kunstler, argues about this, Judge Julius Hoffman waves the point away lazily, saying that he can be Bobby Seale’s lawyer. I found this rather ridiculous, coming out from an authorized member of court, which as I know, is heavily influenced by the law. The same scenarios happen continuously, the defendants and their lawyers constantly charged with ‘contempt of court’ when they try to speak up for themselves, to the extreme point of one of the defendants being literally gagged in court. And as the judge refuses to show testimonies that are to the defendants’ advantage to the juries, stating everything that comes to the opposing side’s disadvantage as an ‘act against the law’, it soon becomes clear that what Abbie Hoffman stated at the very beginning was true. There was such a thing as a political trial.

I came to the conclusion that this movie wanted to say that all citizens, no matter who they are, need to be heard and seen. They cannot, and should not be ignored. The ‘listening’ part, indicated by the judge’s behavior, and near the very end, with Tom Hayden’s way with subjectives. How it’s easy to misunderstand the situation if you don’t listen carefully and fail to see the whole picture, which was also mentioned by Abbie Hoffman. The ‘seeing’ part, indicated also near the end, with the metaphor with the bar and its windows, and how the Chicago 7 did everything in their power to show the reality of the protests on camera. How the people inside the bar were careless to the current situation of society and decided to stay put in the 1950s, while all chaos was breaking loose outside of it, in the reality of the 60s. But refusing to see was no use, and in the end, the pressure of it all broke the glass, forcing everyone to know what was happening. And also how the protestants tried to stand out to the rest of the world peacefully, but as no one decided to take a glance, they had no choice but start the riot themselves to show the police brutality involved on camera.