The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020)
Story overview
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a historical drama based on the real-life 1969 trial of seven activists charged with conspiracy and inciting riots during the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago. The film follows their courtroom battle against a biased judicial system while exploring themes of political dissent, civil rights, and justice. Through powerful courtroom scenes and flashbacks to the protests, it portrays the clash between anti-war demonstrators and law enforcement during a turbulent period in American history.
Parent Guide
Historical courtroom drama with mature political themes and intense confrontations. Requires parental guidance for teens.
Content breakdown
Depictions of police clashes with protesters, pushing, shoving, and tense confrontations. No graphic violence but scenes of physical conflict and arrests.
Intense courtroom confrontations, emotional testimony, and scenes of civil unrest. Themes of injustice and political conflict may be disturbing to sensitive viewers.
Strong language including profanity used in emotional courtroom exchanges and protest scenes, consistent with R rating.
No sexual content or nudity present in this historical courtroom drama.
Brief social drinking in background scenes, consistent with period settings. No prominent substance use.
High emotional intensity throughout courtroom drama, with passionate speeches, confrontations, and themes of injustice and political conflict.
Parent tips
This film deals with mature themes including political conflict, civil disobedience, and systemic injustice that may require context for younger viewers. The R rating indicates content that may not be suitable for children under 17 without parental guidance. Parents should be prepared to discuss historical context, the right to protest, and how legal systems function.
While not graphically violent, the film contains tense courtroom confrontations and depictions of police clashes with protesters that could be intense for sensitive viewers. The dialogue includes strong language appropriate to the historical context and emotional courtroom exchanges.
Consider your child's maturity level and ability to process complex political themes before viewing. The film offers opportunities to discuss important historical events and civil rights, but requires parental guidance for younger teens.
Parent chat guide
During viewing, pause if needed to clarify legal procedures or historical references. The courtroom drama format may require explanation of trial terminology and the roles of different participants.
After viewing, focus discussions on the themes of justice, protest rights, and how people can work within systems to create change. Connect the historical events to contemporary issues of free speech and civil rights when appropriate.
Parent follow-up questions
- What did you notice about how the people in the courtroom acted?
- How did the characters show they were friends or working together?
- What colors or sounds in the movie did you like best?
- Why do you think the characters were in court?
- How did the different characters work together or disagree?
- What does it mean to stand up for what you believe is right?
- What were the main reasons for the protests shown in the film?
- How did the courtroom scenes show different perspectives on justice?
- What historical lessons can we learn from this story?
- How does the film portray the balance between free speech and public safety?
- What contemporary parallels do you see with the protest movements depicted?
- How effective do you think the legal system was in handling this case, and why?
🎭 Story Kernel
The film's true subject isn't the 1968 protests but the 1969 trial itself, framed as America's first great culture war broadcast live to the nation. It explores how power constructs narratives: the government seeks to criminalize dissent by painting the defendants as anarchic conspirators, while the defense fights to frame the protests as patriotic dissent. The driving force isn't plot but ideological collision—Tom Hayden's strategic idealism versus Abbie Hoffman's theatrical rebellion versus Bobby Seale's brutal silencing. The real verdict delivered is about whose story—the state's or the people's—the jury, and by extension history, will believe.
🎬 Visual Aesthetics
Sorkin and cinematographer Phedon Papamichael employ a stark, procedural visual language for the courtroom—tight, static shots and a muted palette of browns and grays that feel like a suffocating institution. This contrasts violently with the flashbacks to Chicago: handheld, chaotic camerawork, saturated colors, and visceral, fragmented editing that mirrors the confusion and brutality of the police riot. The most powerful visual motif is the recurring shot of Bobby Seale, bound and gagged, centered in the frame—a silent, horrifying sculpture of injustice that says more than any dialogue could.
🔍 Details & Easter Eggs
💡 Behind the Scenes
The role of Abbie Hoffman was originally written for Sacha Baron Cohen, who indeed played it. Mark Rylance (William Kunstler) and Frank Langella (Judge Julius Hoffman) never rehearsed their courtroom confrontations to preserve a raw, spontaneous tension. The famous 'chiclet' scene where Jerry Rubin eats evidence was improvised by Jeremy Strong. Much of the trial dialogue is taken verbatim from the actual trial transcripts, with Sorkin weaving in his signature rhythmic pacing.
Where to watch
Choose region:
- Netflix
- Netflix Standard with Ads
Trailer
Trailer playback is unavailable in your region.
