In my second, and final, film review of this Oscar season I will be looking at The Trial of the Chicago 7. Although this film did not win any Academy Awards, it was nominated in six categories including ‘Best Picture’ and ‘Best Original Screenplay’. While this result was not a snub in the way that Chadwick Boseman not picking up ‘Best Actor’ was, it still came as a surprise on the night that such a star-studded movie failed to pick up any awards.

While the name of the film immediately tells us that this fits into the genre of courtroom drama, Trial is so much more than that as it delves into the murky relationship between law and politics and the human element that makes legal systems so fallible.

The titular Chicago 7 were protesters who campaigned against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. In the summer of 1968 they were all in Chicago for the Democrat Party’s National Convention where a peaceful protest turned violent. The film gives us this much at the start before filling in the blanks via flashbacks and witness testimony at the actual trial that took place the following year. In the wrong hands this could have ended up being long-winded or confusing but director Aaron Sorkin (of West Wing fame) is perfectly adept when it comes to this sort of thing.

At any given time, the exploration of the right to protest in a democratic society will feel at least somewhat relevant but that is especially true today given everything that has happened in the States during the past 12 months. Questions of racial injustice are never far from the surface because the Chicago 7 could well have been the Chicago 8 if a mistrial had not eventually been declared in respect of Black Panther Party founder, Bobby Seale. Importantly the film does not ignore the story of this eighth defendant but instead exposes how he is subject to the worst treatment of all by being held in contempt of court, being denied legal representation and even getting bound and gagged on the orders of the judge.

There is an argument that amongst a star-studded cast that includes Sacha Baron-Cohen, Eddie Redmayne and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, it is Judge Julius Hoffman (played by Frank Langella) who has the best claim to be the lead character. By the time of the trial Hoffman was already in his 70s and was not warmly regarded by many of the lawyers who appeared before him. His incompetence and inability to exert control in one of the most important cases of the 20th Century is testament to how the edifice of our justice system can swiftly fall apart when those who we entrust with its protection are not up to the job. Langella does such a beautiful job conveying this unwarranted arrogance on the part of the judge that there were multiple times when I was on the verge of shouting at the screen like I would if it were a bad referee officiating a football game.

Beyond the underlying racism, police brutality and judicial negligence, the central theme of this movie is that we are witnessing a political trial. The proceedings transcend two presidential administrations (Johnson and Nixon) and the film does not shy away from showing that this is a political show of force from the new administration because the new Attorney General feels personally slighted by his predecessor. This point is not made as vividly as the action in the courtroom yet throughout the 130 minute runtime, the facade of the blind administration of objective justice is dismantled piece-by-piece. By the end, things have broken down completely and the idea that the law is a reflection of our politics has a disturbing resonance in the current climate.