The Trial of the Chicago Seven: A Little Too Much Fiction in this Docudrama

My wife and I saw The Trial of the Chicago Seven on Netflix on Saturday. Having lived through the real trial of the Chicago Seven (originally Eight) in 1969-1970, we thought there was a little too much fiction in this docu-drama to be 100% successful and effective.  Nonetheless, it was powerful viewing.

To back up a little, as I alway tell my classes, docu-dramas are by definition never 100% truth or exactly as the events in the movie actually happened.  Hey, even straight-up documentaries are never 100% true, because the film-maker inevitably has to leave some events, one hopes inconsequential, out of the film.  Real life is too sloppy and inexact to fit in just as it is or was in a documentary.

But docu-dramas go a big step further away from truth.  At the very least, they rewrite or make-up dialogue.   Worse, they often make up characters and/or endow characters who existed in real life with deeds they never did.   This works best the further back in history the docu-drama goes.  I couldn't possibly have any personal recollection of what Lincoln said and did.  So I was able to enjoy Spielberg's Lincoln with zero quibbles.   But 1969-1970 is a lot closer than are the early 1860s to our time.

So, lots of people noticed that Tom Hayden's closing statement in the Aaron Sorkin docu-drama wasn't made by Hayden in reality, and was not a closing statement.  Or that the pacifist Dellinger -- who did in fact earlier read the names of some of the American fallen in Vietnam during the trial-- never hauled off and punched a guard who was trying to escort Dellinger out of the courtroom, as so dramatically depicted in the movie.  To be honest with you, neither my wife or I jumped up and shouted during the movie that those events never happened.  But my wife had a vague sense of irritation throughout the film, and I was annoyed after the movie to have been brought to tears by that closing scene, so effective, that didn't happen in real life.

I suppose Sorkin might say that such a reaction is my problem, not his, and if I was brought  to tears by the ending that didn't happen in reality that shows that Sorkin succeeded, doesn't it.  I'm not so sure.  I think that, even in a docu-drama, or maybe especially in a docu-drama, the film maker has an obligation to present a greater quotient of truth.  Again, especially if the docu-drama is so close to home in time.  I'm sure Marc Anthony never said "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;  I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him," but that didn't in the least get in my way of really enjoying Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, from the moment I first read it, so many decades ago, and for that matter thinking about that play right now.

Maybe the answer is Sorkin's movie is meant for a younger generation than mine.  It has lots of assets, including boiling down the differences between the protestors on trial to Hayden vs. Abby Hoffman.  I don't know if that's true, either.  But since I don't know for sure that it isn't, I'm ok with thinking back on that crucial aspect of The Trial of the Chicago Seven, and enjoying the recollection and contemplation of that fundamental conflict between political revolution (Hayden) and cultural revolution (Abby Hoffman). And I should say the acting in this movie, including Eddie Redmayne as Hayden and Sacha Baron Cohen as Abby Hoffman, was just superb.   Regarding those two, special kudos to two Englishmen talking at each at some length in passable American accents.

So, see the docu-drama - with no reservations if you weren't around the first time this trial happened, back in the 1969-1970.  And see Medium Cool made in 1969 if you'd like to see a documentary about the protests around the Democratic National Convention which ignited the trial.

Why I'm Not Too Upset about the Sony Hack

Aaron Sorkin, among others, has been attacking the media for their reporting of the content of the Sony hacks - including, among other things, "an inappropriate and racially charged exchange" in private email between Sony producer Scott Rudin and Sony exec Amy Pascal.   To be clear, I think hacking is wrong, and release of private financial and medical information even worse.   But "racially charged" email, though understandably embarrassing to the emailers, surely falls under a newsworthy event that the public might want to know.  And, therefore, contra Sorkin,  the media are only doing their job in reporting on these emails.

Further, the people who wrote the emails should have known better - or known what anyone who has been online, going back to the 1980s, should always keep firmly in mind: anything you put online, anywhere, anyplace, in private email or on Twitter, can in principle be seen by everyone in the world a few seconds later.  Anthony Weiner obviously discovered this to his chagrin.   The principle is inexorable: if it's digital in any place other than your own computer, laptop, phone, or tablet, you might as well put it up in lights over Times Square.   An even when it's on your own device, you need to take care these days that your app isn't automatically set to put your content up in a cloud - from where it could wind up over the equivalent of Times Square.

This might sound like it's blaming the victims - the Sony execs who were hacked.  But aren't the real victims, not to put too fine a point on it, the object of the racism that was expressed in these Sony emails?  It mystifies me that Sorkin is more upset about what the media are doing than the racism that inhabits at least part of Sony.   I'm surprised that Sorkin has given in to the all-too common instinct in our society to blame the media - in this case, for reporting about admittedly just a tinge of racism, but racism nonetheless.    An executive and a producer at a media giant like Sony bantering about Barack Obama's taste in movies -  "Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” ... "I bet he likes Kevin Hart" - is indeed worthy of the reporting it's received from the news media.

Again, I think the hacking and release of financial and medical records is terrible, and should be condemned and opposed.   But regarding the racist bantering:  the emailers should either keep their opinions to themselves, certainly not email them, and better yet don't have them in the first place.

The Newsroom Season 2 Finale: Love, Triumph, and Wikipedia

A rip-rousing conclusion to The Newsroom season 2 last night, as true love triumphs and maybe begins, and the newsroom crew (to no surprise but still satisfying) beats back attempts from various sources, including themselves, to shut them down.

Will and Mac finally kiss, proclaim their love for each other, and - in a move that was a surprise - get engaged.  Sloan - after a frustrating evening of not being to say much at the news desk - expresses herself even better by planting a passionate kiss on Don.  Jim and Maggie don't kiss, but at least get to have the beginning of a worthwhile conversation.

Leona has appointed her son to decide whether to accept Will and Charlie's resignations, which creates some tension, because he previously told Charlie that he and Will should resign.  But in looking over the whole sordid story, he comes to the correct conclusion - no one will be fired.

There's a lots of good political humor woven into this episode. Ever wonder why on Election Night on occasion one network is hugely ahead of the others and the actual reported vote in announcing a winner? Newsroom's explanation: a mistake in the news room.  I have no idea whether this has actually ever happened, but it certainly is an intriguing possibility, and it's played out beautifully on this show.

The one slight misstep takes place in the Wikipedia story - more precisely, Mac's attempt to get Neal to change something she doesn't want on her Wikipedia page. Although Aaron Sorkin got most of it right, the repeated reference to what "Wikipedia" needs or wants misses the crucial point that there are no Wikipedia editors in charge.  Instead, all readers, who by virtue of being on Wikipedia are able to edit, are the powers that discuss, reach consensus, and make decisions on talk pages available to everyone about what should be retained in articles.   More about this in my book, New New Media.

But, hey, that's a small quibble, I'm more of a fan than ever, and I'm looking forward to the next season of The Newsroom.

See also The Newsroom Season 2 Debuts on Occupy Wall Street and More ... and (about Trayvon Martin) If Only There Was a Video Recording ... The Newsroom 2.2: The Power of Video ... The Newsroom 2.7: Autopsy of a Bad Decision ... The Newsroom 2.8: The Course of True Love

And see also The Newsroom and McLuhan ... The Newsroom and The Hour ...The Newsroom Season 1 Finale: The Lost Voice Mail



#SFWApro

The Newsroom and The Hour

I just saw the first season - or, first series, as the say in the U.K. - of The Hour, the 2011 BBC2 show about a news show struggling to be news worthy, during the Suez Crisis and the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary (to crush its attempt to leave the Soviet block) in the Fall of 1956.  The show, which has been renewed for a second season, is superb on many levels, including a primer on the self-destructiveness of any democratic government trying to regulate its media.  The United Kingdom has no First Amendment, as was made clear regarding coverage of the Suez War in 1956 and the Falklands War in 1992, when the British government, well, dictated what UK media could report and criticize about those war efforts.

That makes England a very different news environment than what we have here in the United States, where the Supreme Court has by and large struck down any attempt on the part of the government to muzzle reporting (not so much when it comes to perceived "indecent" language).  But the dynamics of news shows striving to be cutting edge, aiming at the ideal of presenting the truth to the people, regardless of what the government (or, in the U.S., corporate masters) may want, is much the same, and makes The Hour a great older sibling to The Newsroom.

And there are other family resemblances, including love affairs between the dynamic female producer and the male anchor (played by Dominic West of The Wire in The Hour), and their ability to put on a great show despite or maybe in part because of this.  Are such relationships a staple of news rooms in real life, or were Abi Morgan (writer of The Hour) and Aaron Sorkin (The Newsroom) just similarly inspired?

Since The Hour was on last year - or a year before the debut of The Newsroom this year - there is a fair likelihood that Sorkin was inspired by The Hour, and that's ok.  The Hour, taking place in the 1950s, could be seen as inspired by Mad Men, and that's just the way television works.  There is sufficient difference between the two series.   The Newsroom, currently situated in 2011 in its story, addresses a wider array ethical issues, including the quintessentially 21st century problem of the anchor as bully (not as in bully pulpit, but in bullying guests on the shows).

And the topic of news show fighting to be free is so important, so crucial to our democracy, that it more than deserves two superbly written, superbly acted shows on both sides of the Atlantic.

See also The Newsroom and McLuhan

The Newsroom and McLuhan

I've seen the first four episodes thus far aired of The Newsroom on HBO, and I think it's the best show on television.

I've heard some people say that The Newsroom, though good, is not in a league with Aaron Sorkin's signature television creation, The West Wing, and of course it isn't - The White House and the issues and lives that move around it are indeed in a different league from any newsroom.  But for a show about the lives of cable news, The Newsroom appears just as strong, so far, as The West Wing was for the life and times of a great President.

And there's this.  If Marshall McLuhan was right that "the medium is the message" - and I think he was - then news media, and the time we spend with them, and the way they report the actions of Presidents, may have more influence on our opinions than most of the Presidential actions themselves.  McLuhan wrote in the 1960s, and we have three 24/7 all news cable stations today in addition to the three networks - as well, of course, as the Internet.

Speaking of which, there's another notion of McLuhan's that helps explain The Newsroom's appeal.  McLuhan observed that as technologies and media get outmoded, they can come to be appreciated as art forms.  As soon as I heard this, I thought of delicatessen - meat at first spiced for preservation, now enjoyed for taste.  Convertible cars are another example - first driven to keep physically cool, now (after the advent of air conditioning) to be socially cool.  Or silent movies - one of which recently won an Oscar for its unspoken art.  The more we get our information and breaking news from Twitter and Facebook, the more cable news is becoming a suitable subject of art, too.

Life and media are evolving so quickly nowadays, that specific events can become worthy of artistic treatment after just a year or two.  The Newsroom tells real news stories - at this point though 2010 and the beginning of 2011.   This Sunday brought us to The Newsroom on a Saturday in January 2011.  We didn't learn until near the end - unless, maybe, we were consulting a calendar - that the galvanizing news event for this day's story was the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  Anchor Will McAvoy and his brilliant, dedicated people courageously resist reporting her death, until and unless explicitly confirmed by a physician.  It was a heart rending, enobling moment, because we at home  knew the good truth.  It was also reminiscent of the misreporting by Fox News and CNN, several weeks ago, of the US Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.  Of the three cables, only MSNBC got that right (all three were wrong in their initial reporting of Giffords).

MSNBC is my favorite cable news station in reality.  But I like McAvoy a little better.  He and his cohorts are a little more articulate than anyone on real television. Hey, that's what art and the improved reflection it gives us of reality is all about.

See also Why CNN and Fox News Wrongly Reported the Supreme Court on Health Care