Revisiting “The Trial of the Chicago 7”
Nationalism, Politicization, and Storytelling
In The Trial of the Chicago 7, a legal thriller about one of the most famous trials of the 60s, protestors of the Vietnam War are charged with conspiracy and crossing state lines with the intention of inciting a riot. As the film attempts to condense six months worth of trial and history into two hours, it uncovers the corruption of Judge Julius Hoffman and the US government at the time.
Intention of the Storytellers
Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter and director, revealed in an interview with Vanity Fair that when “Donald Trump was elected, Steven [Spielberg] thought the time to make this movie was now” even though he had written the script about a decade prior, saying:
“the script didn’t change to mirror the times, the times changed to mirror the script.”
Even though Sorkin didn’t intend this work to comment on modern political issues, the themes of nationalism, tradition, and racism are explored in the film in a way that is eerily similar to the polarization, corruption, and injustice seen at the time of the movie’s release.
Drawing Parallels
Nationalism’s Creation of Tribalism
Specifically, the backdrop of the Vietnam War presents nationalism and the dynamic of “us” versus “them” in an interesting light. Nationalism is built upon traditions and myths of the past instead of the political realities of the present (Wilson 832). The nationalistic tendencies of that administration and supporters of that administration during the Vietnam War can even be linked to the war in Iraq in calling those who disagree with it “un-American” or “unpatriotic” despite Americans being killed by the war.
Exceptional, Yet Exclusionary
To an extent, nationalism, as portrayed in this movie, is divisionary and actually turns Americans against one another. In the movie, Abbie Hoffman quotes Lincoln:
“In 1861 Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address said, and I quote “When the people shall grow weary of their constitutional right to amend the government, they shall exert their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow that government.” If Abraham Lincoln had given that speech in Lincoln Park, he would be on trial right here in this courtroom.”
Sorkin includes this real quote from Abbie Hoffman in the film not only to stay consistent with the fact that most of the courtroom dialogue came right from the transcripts but also to use Hoffman’s perspective on what it means to be American and a patriot. When being questioned by prosecutor Richard Shultz, Abbie Hoffman answers the loaded question, “do you have contempt for your government,” with “I tell you, it’s nothing compared to the contempt my government has for me.”
In this powerful scene, they are able to highlight the illogical claim that Americans must be wholly supportive of every political decision in order to be deemed “patriotic.”
In that same vein, the biased representation of protests in the media, which was revealed during the movie, felt similar to the villainization of protestors and rationalization of police brutality in some of the media coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Power and Politization
Additionally, it was the Nixon administration that covered up the investigation done by the previous one that found the Chicago Police at fault for the riot. In this case, they attempted to leverage their power to create evidence to prosecute the seven individuals on trial, thereby discrediting the anti-war protests and anti-establishment sentiment in general (not to mention the true motivation of the trial being a political attack against the Attorney General’s predecessor). These men had hardly anything to do with one another–Abbie Hoffman was a Yippie, Hayden was head of the SDS, and Bobby Seale was the head of the Black Panthers–yet they were lumped into one entity. Additionally, the hierarchy present in a courtroom setting, enabled by the rules and traditions of the court, allows for injustice to occur.
Throughout the trial, there were 175 different counts of contempt of court, demonstrating the clear bias of the judge. Additionally, Bobby Seale, the head of the Black Panthers, did not have representation as his lawyer was in the hospital and he was gagged and bound in the courtroom for three days.
Although most of the trial and pre-trial were left out, it was made clear by the storytellers that justice is not blind. It was probably difficult for the audience to not draw parallels to modern government corruption, division and tension among Americans, and injustice when viewing the film in 2020.
