What the F is Going On!?! Part Five: Protest

I had initially included The Trial of the Chicago 7 in my list of movies that relate to current events as a reference to the government’s MAGA shift in enforcement policies and the blind eye that the Judicial branch has taken toward the Trump Administration in many ways. This is the dramatization of the trail of protest leaders stemming from riots in Chicago during the 1968 convention. They were there to protest the war in Vietnam, a rather disorganized combination of protestors, all with very different personalities, backgrounds and techniques in their brands of protest. I also watched King: A Filmed Record… Montgomery to Memphis, a film by Sidney Lumet and Joseph Mankiewicz documenting Martin Luther King from 1955 to 1968, and King’s story of protest and assassination was tragically timely as well. 

Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis (portrayed by Eddie Redmayne and Alex Sharp) are “All-American” “nice boys” who are intelligent, properly dressed, but protesting to do the right thing, they are a bit like Captain America and Falcon in the MCU, the forward faces to show that protest isn’t all hippies and weirdos. David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) is a conscientious objector, protesting the war for moral, religious reasons. He is the face of protest for the older generation and for churchgoers that wrestle with the morality of killing anyone, even in war, raising questions that counter the status quo. This is much like Texas State Legislator James Talarico has been doing recently (although he is of a younger generation), where he raises biblical questions to conservative stances that have been given religious justifications. Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin (Sacha Baron Cohen and Jeremy Strong) were rebels that very much used comedy as their weapon for rebellion. This has very much been a part of the news lately with the cancelation of Stephen Cobert’s show and the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel. Very similarly, trying to silence comedians only emboldens them and brings more attention to them. Both with Hoffman and Rubin and Cobert and Kimmel, it is really impressive that they haven’t used a greater platform to self-enrich or let it get to their heads, maintaining a true north for their advocacy. While the other two members of the “Chicago 7,” Lee Weiner and John Froines weren’t prominently depicted in the movie, Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), one of the founders of the Black Panther Party was tried alongside the 7, while he was not represented by their legal counsel, was not affiliated with them, his inclusion was an excuse to attack him and his organization through the judicial system. He was painted by the court as violent and defiant and he was ultimately tortured in the courtroom before his inclusion was dropped in a mistrial. While the Black Panther Party is often remembered for being armed and the violent death of Fred Hampton, but the purpose of the party and how they functioned in the Bay Area was to provide services, medical care and protection to underserved people, filling in the gaps where government had failed them. Amazingingly, this is reminiscent of the goal of Jose Andres and World Central Kitchen, without the militant aspects of the organization. 

While the depiction of the trial shows the extremes that the government can take to quash resistance, it also shows diverse means of resistance and shows that there are ways that the judicial process cannot completely corrupt when voices speak up against it.

Recently, Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson have mentioned that there were hundreds of plainclothes FBI agents in the crowd during January 6th, implying that they entrapped MAGA followers in the crowd into bad deads, a claim that has been debunked by Kash Patel. There is a funny sequence in this movie where the leaders of the protest realize that each one of them interacted with protestors that ultimately ended up being FBI agents undercover, joking that there were more members of the FBI in the crowd than protestors. During the actual events in 1968, my dad happened to be driving through Chicago, a bit oblivious of the events at the time. He was in college at University of Vermont, and his semester ended about a month before most other colleges around the country, so he and a couple of frat brothers hopped in a convertible and went on a coast to coast road trip staying at frat houses along the way. They happened to drive by this protest on the way and my dad, who was hardly outspoken with his politics at the time (his grandfather, the Lieutenant Governor, got him into the Connecticut National Guard after college to avoid the draft… oddly a detail of Ted Danson’s character in Bored to Death). They had the top down on the car and my dad stood up from the back seat and gave the hippies a peace sign and two men jumped out of the crowd, in front of the car and took his picture. He jokes that this is the only thing in his FBI file… although it’s entirely possible that he has a Forest Gump level of connections in an FBI file. He also chatted with Kevin Raferty, an old friend, who grew up to be a documentarian, that had one of the only cameras taking footage of the attack by the police. Kevin would teach Michael Moore how to make documentaries and also happens to be first cousins with George W. Bush. Around this time my dad helped his cousin with a concert at Yankee Stadium with the Beach Boys and Stevie Wonder. My dad would tell the acts when it was time to hit the stage. His cousin’s business partner ripped everyone off, didn’t pay anyone and disappeared, and my great grandmother would get calls from creditors for years after.

King: A Filmed Record, is an excellent documentary, a great historical work showing Martin Luther King’s leadership in the Civil Rights Movement. This isn’t especially stylized as most documentaries this century are, and even at a runtime over three hours, this is a transfixing and inspiring film. Released in 1970, two years after the events of the Democratic Convention in Chicago and the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr, this is a rare opportunity to experience some of the most important events and speeches of King’s life. 

This was important for a couple of reasons, the one that’s actually important is that the speeches, protests and civil disobedience are still a great framework for resistance even if the means of organizing is wildly different in this century. The message is very much the same, the dream of coming together is one that is still alive, Obama’s “no red states, no blue states,” speech of 2004 updated the message to political divisions and the shared disadvantages of those outside of the privileges of money/class/power and that to solve our problems we need to come together. We have tried coming together on the left, it is consistently an uphill battle to include those most vulnerable into the mainstream when the status quo is for exclusivity. 

I didn’t intend to watch this with current events in mind, but it is really hard to avoid thoughts of Charlie Kirk discourse. It’s not just the parallels to King’s assassination, that neither of them politicians but brought Christianity to political discourse as a means to show a relatable morality to their messages. Unfortunately, they had very different perspectives on how Christianity should approach morality. King preached Christ-like forgiveness, unity and equality for Civil Rights. Kirk may have prided himself as a contrarian, making statements that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake or that Martin Luther King was a bad person. These aren’t exactly his original thoughts they have been libertarian conversational pieces for the last couple of decades. I’m not so sure it’s entirely with a racial intent, but it is definitely something that has been a thought experiment by libertarians whether it’s sincere or not, and that might just be trying to give a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, which I’d rather not say is earned. 

One of the most surprising juxtapositions of this movie and recent weeks and 1968 (and the time of release of this movie), is that King’s death is portrayed in this film purely as an announcement at a public event, the filmmakers don’t provide as much as the infamous still of pointing toward a shooter from the balcony, as Kirk’s death instantly flooded social media in gruesome detail almost immediately as it happened. At King’s public memorial service, his wife is stoic behind a black veil, politicians aren’t highlighted, it is a solemn event. Kirk’s public memorial was a worship event for much of the service, but also used pyrotechnics and anger fueled political speeches from members of the executive branch. After King’s death, there was a celebration of the peace movement that he called for, and his legacy for civil rights and peace only grew over time. There were those who celebrated his killing, but those who carried his legacy have been able to carry that torch for decades. The reaction to Kirk’s death has been hate and fear. Kirk fancied himself a warrior for free speech and discourse. Perhaps his debate strategies and his messages weren’t always open to listen to the other side, but he at least wanted the perception that he championed free speech. While there are some other internet personalities that seem to want to inherit his audience, the reaction from the administration is to seize the opportunity to let loose on an enemies list, even at the expense of Charlie Kirk’s beloved free speech.