Film review

The Whole World is Watching: Inside Aaron Sorkin's Trial of the Chicago 7

2021 · 28m

In a sentenceTwenty-eight minutes of clever people agreeing that their film is important, which it nearly is

TV MovieDocumentary

Chicago, August 1968. Outside the Democratic National Convention the police wade into anti-war demonstrators while the crowd chants the line that gives this film its title. A year later the organisers, among them Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden, are tried for conspiracy in a federal courtroom. Aaron Sorkin has turned that trial into The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020), and this 28-minute companion piece goes behind it. Sorkin explains why he wanted the case; Sacha Baron Cohen, who plays Hoffman, and Eddie Redmayne, who plays Hayden, talk about the men they play and the arguments those men had with each other; newsreel of Grant Park and the courtroom sits beside Sorkin’s restaging of the same nights. The question underneath is whether 1968 is still happening.

Fi1m review

A tidy half-hour in which Aaron Sorkin and his cast explain why the 1969 trial matters now. Everyone is articulate and nobody is challenged, and the archive footage from Chicago does more in thirty seconds than the interviews manage in twenty-eight minutes.

First, a word about what this is, because the title takes a while to say it. The Whole World is Watching is not Aaron Sorkin’s film about the 1969 conspiracy trial; that is The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020), which runs over two hours and has Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne and a good many other famous faces in it. This is the 28-minute companion piece made to sit beside it, in which Sorkin and his actors talk about the trial, the film and the country. Most of the reviews so far that carry this title are in fact reviews of the feature, and they are warm, so their scores do not describe this. We would be warm about the feature too. This is a smaller thing and should be judged as one.

The form is the one you know. Sorkin, seated, explains the case: eight men charged with crossing state lines to incite a riot at the Democratic convention, a judge who behaved as if he were the prosecution, a defence that turned the courtroom into a stage. The actors take turns describing the men they play, and clips from the feature are cut against black-and-white newsreel of the real thing. It is well organised, it never dawdles, and it is exactly as long as it needs to be for the point it wants to make, which is that the arguments of 1968 are the arguments of now.

The newsreel is where we felt something. There is footage of Chicago police going into the crowd in Grant Park with clubs raised, and the crowd chanting the words of the title back at them, and for a few seconds the tasteful lighting and the reasonable voices drop away and we were watching people get hurt in 1968. Then it cuts to an actor telling us how powerful that footage is, and the feeling goes. It kept happening. The film has the real thing in its hands and keeps putting it down to talk about it.

What it does not have is anyone who disagrees. A making-of is a friendly form, and nobody expects the cast to complain about the script, but the trial itself was a fight between men who could not stand each other, Hoffman’s theatre against Hayden’s discipline, and Sorkin’s feature is at its best when it lets that fight breathe. Here everybody is on the same side, and the side is the film. Sorkin is fluent and likeable, and he says nothing about his own choices that a sharper interviewer could not have made him defend. Nobody asks whether the feature is too clean, which several critics of it did. Nobody asks why a film about a riot has such orderly crowds.

As a piece of filmmaking it is anonymous, which is the habit of the form rather than the fault of anyone in particular. The interviews are lit the way these interviews are always lit, the music is low and stirring and tells you when to be stirred, and the cutting between feature and archive is quick enough that for a beat you cannot always tell which is which. That last is the one interesting idea in it, and we are not sure it is intended. When Sorkin’s staged Grant Park and the real one slide past each other, the feature looks briefly like an expensive reconstruction and the reconstruction looks briefly like evidence. The film does not pursue this. It moves on to the next testimonial.

Against other companion pieces it is above average: it has a real historical argument and it makes it clearly, where most of these things have only a stunt coordinator and a lot of praise for the director. As a documentary about the Chicago trial it is not one, and Chicago 10 (2007) already exists. As half an hour of your evening it is fine, and fine is a low bar for a subject this loud.

Watch it after the feature, not before, and not instead. It will send you back to the newsreel, which is the best thing in it and which it did not shoot. If you have not seen Sorkin’s film, this is 28 minutes of people telling you it is good. They are right, and you would do better to spend the time finding out for yourself.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

69
Positive
3
Mixed
3
Negative
0
Deadline
24 September 2020 · Pete Hammond
85*

The critic praises Aaron Sorkin's dramatization of the notorious 1969 trial for its urgent energy, prescient relevance to modern America, and strong ensemble cast, especially Eddie Redmayne and Sacha Baron Cohen.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
12 January 2021 · Amber Wilkinson
80*

Sorkin's dramatisation has a spring in its step and a sharply relevant message about protest and prejudice, delivering an informative, compelling story with verve and pace despite some Hollywood gloss and orderly crowd scenes.

Read the full review →
/Film
24 September 2020 · 7.5/10 · Chris Evangelista
75

A showcase for fantastic performances and punchy Sorkin dialogue that is almost unbeatable as a delivery system for great actors, though the direction leaves something to be desired.

Read the full review →
The Playlist
24 September 2020
65*

The film zips comedically with snappy dialogue and an uplifting final act but often feels manufactured in its outrage, too safe and witty rather than gritty, though it captures captivating story elements and timely philosophical divides.

Read the full review →
HeyUGuys
16 October 2020 · ★★★ · Hayden Mears
60

Sorkin's film does a decent job highlighting the earnestness of the protesters and has undeniable relevance, but skims emotional beats, becomes innocuous, and addresses its subject with stiffness that undercuts its weight.

Read the full review →
Film Stories
16 October 2020 · Mark Harrison
50*

The film succeeds as a throwback to star-studded 1990s courtroom dramas with a dazzling ensemble cast and irreconcilable tensions, but feels scattergun in its approach and less substantial overall than Sorkin's prior work.

Read the full review →

If you liked this, try…

The Trial of the Chicago 7 poster

The Trial of the Chicago 7

2020 · The film this is about, and the one you should actually be watching tonight

Medium Cool poster

Medium Cool

1969 · Haskell Wexler shot his fiction inside the real Chicago convention as the tear gas fell

Chicago 10 poster

Chicago 10

2007 · Brett Morgen animates the trial transcripts; angrier and stranger than any restaging

Punishment Park poster

Punishment Park

1971 · Peter Watkins imagines the tribunals that came next, and it still stings

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse poster84

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse

1991 · The making-of as a real film, with a director who is actually in trouble