Thomas Hayden gives a big speech in Vietnam War protestors who were charged with conspiracy and inciting riots in Chicago at the time of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
Sorkin uses non-linear storytelling to dramatically unfold the events leading up to, during, and after the riots allegedly caused by the Chicago Seven, moving back and forth from the courtroom to show what actually happened compared to the recounts being given by key witnesses, as well as showing Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) doing a stand-up performance where he also frames things. The Chicago Seven initially start as the Chicago Eight, with Black Panther leader Bobby Seale on trial among them. However, he is eventually given a mistrial - after repeatedly trying to make clear that he didn't have legal representation, as well as being bound, gagged, and beaten by the court's marshals - and so the Eight become the Seven heading into the movie's final act.
In true Sorkin fashion, The Trial of the Chicago 7 features a lot of whip-fast, razor-sharp dialog, which helps it build to its crescendo where the remaining five of the Seven who face sentencing, after John Froines (Daniel Flaherty) and Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) are both acquitted, as predicted earlier in the movie. Here's what happens in The Trial of Chicago 7's ending, how it differs from real life, and just why Sorkin changed it.
Tom Hayden's Speech In The Trial of the Chicago 7's Ending
The Trial of the Chicago 7 ends with Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Abbie, and played by Frank Langella) allowing just a single defendant to make a closing statement. Hoffman chooses Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) to be the one from the group to do so, believing him to be the most decent of the bunch (in part because he was the only one to stand for the judge when the others refused), but telling him to make it respectful, remorseful, and most of all, brief. While doing so would help reduce their sentencing, Hayden chooses this moment to for his past mistake by ignoring the judge's wishes. He takes out a document and begins reading the names of the 4, 752 U.S. troops killed in the Vietnam War since the beginning of the trial.
As a furious Hoffman tries to prevent the names from being read out, the rest of the defendants and several others in the courtroom stand to show respect to the fallen, including Richard Schultz (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while just as many decide to leave. It's clearly designed as a powerful moment and, for the member of the Chicago Seven who is shown to be the most establishment of the group throughout the film, an act of true rebellion. They may have already been found guilty, but Hayden, recognizing that this is indeed a political trial and that the system he's tried to work with is too flawed and too set against them, uses his final moments to make a point that things are so much bigger then the Chicago Seven themselves, and to continue his anti-war message in a way more palatable to most than the protests in Chicago. It's a pure movie moment, not least because it didn't happen in real life.
When The Fallen Soldiers' Names Were Really Read In The Trial of the Chicago 7
Tom Hayden may not have closed out the trial by reading the names of fallen U.S. troops, but an attempt was made to read the names at an earlier point in the court case. Rather than the end of the trial, the names started being read out on October 15, 1969, which marked the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, including demonstrations and speeches being given all across America. The idea behind the Moratorium was very much a contrast to the riots that took place in Chicago a year earlier, with the intent being to show grief and sorrow for all the lives that had been lost in the war.
It makes sense, then, that this would be the occasion where one of the Chicago Seven attempted to read out the names of the fallen troops - except rather than Hayden, it was David Dellinger (played in the movie by John Carrol Lynch) who did so. Dellinger is believed to have read out only a handful of names before Hoffman put an end to things, which is quite different from the judge being shown to have completely lost control of the courtroom in The Trial of the Chicago 7. That same day, the Seven brought Vietnamese flags into the courtroom, which Judge Hoffman ordered to be removed. Abbie Hoffman then engaged in a tug of war with deputy marshal Ronald Dobroski over one of the flags (as depicted in a courtroom drawing via the Library of Congress), though that incident was left out of the movie entirely.
How The Trial of the Chicago 7 Ended In Real Life
Although some of the core facts of The Trial of Chicago 7's ending are kept in place by the movie - namely, the verdicts and sentences handed down by the court - the focus on Hayden as the sole person permitted to speak on behalf of the defendants is a big departure from what really happened. That's not only because him reading out the names of the U.S. troops killed in Vietnam didn't happen in that way, but also because the fellow of the Chicago Seven were permitted to offer their own closing remarks. However, even with that Judge Hoffman doesn't come off any better, as the defendants weren't even told they were being sentenced that day. When William Kuntsler (played by Mark Rylance in the movie) complained that this was unfair, since the defendants' families weren't present, Hoffman said: "The reason they were kept out is my life was threatened by one of the of the family. I was told they would dance on my grave in one of the hearings here within the last week." [via UMKC]
After that exchange, Kuntsler and his partner, Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shenkman) declined to make a statement on behalf of their clients, instead allowing each of them to speak in turn. David Dellinger spoke first, making four points. The first was that "every judge should be required to spend time in prison before sentencing other people there." Secondly, Dellinger remarked that "whatever happens to us, however unjustified, will be slight compared to what has happened already to the Vietnamese people, to the black people in this country, to the criminals with whom we are now spending our days in the Cook County jail." Thirdly, he noted that being sent to prison would not address the various issues America was facing with "racism... economic injustices... foreign policy." Finally, he wished that everyone was "smarter, more dedicated, more united" in the need for the revolution he worked towards.
Next to speak was Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), who similarly did not use his moment to appeal or look for a more lenient sentence, but instead said: "I think that what moves a government that increasingly is controlled by a police mentality is action. It is not a time for words; it is a time that demands action... When I come out of prison it will be to move next door to Tom Foran [the chief prosecutor, played by J.C. MacKenzie in the movie]. I am going to be the boy next door to Tom Foran and the boy next door, the boy that could have been a judge, could have been a prosecutor, could have been a college professor, is going to move next door to organize his kids into the revolution. We are going to turn the sons and daughters of the ruling class in this country into Viet Cong."
Tom Hayden did speak as well, and it was one that, though perhaps not as "filmic" a moment as reading the names of the troops, did convey a strong message to the people of the United States, as he said that he has little respect for the freedom of speech being offered in court, because it was what the Government wanted to restrict them to. He added, though, that it was the same Government who had turned the Chicago Seven into "notorious characters", that they were designed to be "scape goats", but such a plan backfire. He continued:
"... If you didn't want to make us martyrs, why did you do it? If you wanted to keep it cool, why didn't you give us a permit? You know if you had given us a permit, you know that by doing this to us it speeds up the end for the people who do it to us. And you know that if this prosecution had never been undertaken, it would have been better for those in power. It would have left them in power a little longer. You know that by doing this to us it speeds up the end for the people who do it to us... You don't believe it but we have to do this. We have no choice. We had no choice in Chicago. We had no choice in this trial. The people always do what they have to do. Every person who is born now and every person under thirty now feels an imperative to do the kind of things that we are doing. They may not act on them immediately, but they feel the same imperative from the streets. Some day they are going to proclaim the that imperative from the bench and from the courthouse. It's only a matter of time. You can give us time. You are going to give us time. But it is only a matter of time."
Abbie Hoffman spoke next, and said: "[Tom Foran] says we are un-American. I don't feel un-American. I feel very American. I said it is not that the Yippies hate America. It is that they feel that the American Dream has been betrayed. That has been my attitude... I don't even know what a riot is. I thought a riot was fun. Riot means you laugh, ha, ha. That is a riot. they call it a riot. I didn't want to be that serious... I am not made to be a martyr. I tried to sign up a few years, but I went down there. They ran out of nails. What was I going to do? So I ended up being funny. It wasn't funny last night sitting in a prison cell, a 5 x 8 room, with not light in the room... Bedbugs all over. They bite. I haven't eaten in six days. I'm not on a hunger strike; you can call it that. It's just that the food stinks and I can't take it."
Hoffman's remarks continued to discuss the injustices of the trial he faced, but like others before him, he expressed some hope for the future, and that people may be inspired by had what transpired during the trial, saying: "People - I guess that is what we are charged with - when they decide to go from one state of mind to another state of mind, when they decide to fly that route, I hope they go youth fare no matter what their age."
Jerry Rubin was the last of the Chicago Seven to give his closing remark, and like his fellow defendants he chose to give a broader statement that was less about him, and more about the United States. He said: "Judge, I want to give you a copy of my book... I made two little inscriptions. One says, 'Dear Julius, the demonstrations in Chicago in 1968 were the first steps in the revolution. What happened in the courtroom is the second step.' Then I decided to add another note, and that was: 'Julius, You radicalized more young people than we ever could. You're the country's top Yippie.' I hope you will take it and read it... Julius Hoffman, you have done more to destroy the court system in this country than any of us could have done... I am glad we exposed the court system because in millions of courthouses across this country blacks are being shuttled from the streets to the jails and nobody knows about it. They are forgotten men. There ain't a whole corps of press people sitting and watching. They don't care. You see what we have done is, we have exposed that."
Following all of their closing statements, the sentences were handed out, with each of the five men remaining given five years in prison and fines of $5,000. Although he had previously said he wished not to make a comment, Kuntsner does try to praise his defendants in a final speech, remarking upon how much of a difference they will have made in the United States with their actions and words. He is, unsurprisingly, cut off by Judge Hoffman one last time, leading to Abbie Hoffman saying: "We love our lawyers," before the court is put into recession.
Why Aaron Sorkin Changed The Trial of the Chicago 7's Ending
On the one hand, it is easy to see why Aaron Sorkin decided to change the ending for The Trial of the Chicago 7. In part it comes from other changes to the narrative: in real life, Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman did not butt heads so much; by turning them not into people who are working towards the same overarching goal but with deep-rooted ideological differences, but more like fierce rivals in that, then having Hayden deliver the decisive speech comes as more of a surprising moment of triumph to complete his character arc. Whereas Hoffman is already completely committed to his idea of revolution, it's Hayden who is shown to be more uncertain about how far things can go and what respect ought to be shown to the American institutions such as court, and so having him do this serves as, ostensibly, an inspiring moment of rebellion.
The Trial of the Chicago 7's ending is also, undoubtedly, a classic Sorkin showstopper, or at least designed to be one. This is meant to be a very movie moment; it's a victory scene at the very last, clutched from the jaws of defeat. The judge pounds his gavel, the music swells, the people left in the courtroom stand and applaud. It's the kind of moment that Sorkin writes in earnest, though milage may vary as to whether it comes off as emphatic and triumphant or just rather corny.
At the same time, though, it's also one designed to bring people together, though perhaps only in Sorkin's own sense of ideology and faith in Americans. Sorkin first began working on The Trial of the Chicago 7 over a decade ago, with Steven Spielberg eyed to direct, but he would have known the parallels to the present-day, as it releases in a year that has wrought its own severe injustices and mass protests. The film plays into these, with the shots of the riots quite clearly (if not necessarily deliberately) evoking footage from across the United States in 2020. And so Sorkin's ending speaks to, perhaps, how he believes the deep-rooted problems in the U.S. can be fixed, because it's a moment of both sides coming together. Schultz expresses his contempt for the men earlier in the movie, but he stands with them in showing "respect for the fallen." It suggests that Sorkin hopes there can be peace found in that middle ground, of opposing sides working together to a common cause, which is likely why is portrayal of Schultz as a whole is more sympathetic than in real life.
This is, then, perhaps the problem with The Trial of the Chicago 7's ending and the changes Sorkin made to real life history. In the actual ending, there is truth spoken to power, and quite specifically a lot of the comments from the defendants discuss racism and racial injustices. While, again, Sorkin started this movie earlier, such an ending would have given this far more resonance, and made the parallels to the modern world all the stronger by giving a much clearer message of what stand needs to be taken in the United States and around the globe. The truth of the moment was already powerful, but it was lessened in trading in for melodrama.
