Not knowing that much of the history of this whole thing, I was pretty excited to see the film and get to know about it. I guess I didn't do enough research to find out that it was animated. And badly, at that. They really couldn't just re-enact everything with actual people? I know that would then knock it out of the documentary category, but this is awful.
shareThe animation being bad is a matter of opinion. The entire movie is not animated. Its about 50 percent animated in places where they did not have real footage of the events. The experience at first can be a little jarring but grew on me very quickly. It kind of felt representative of the time.
shareI had no problem with the animation. Thought it was a great film and so timely considering the mess the current administration has us in.
shareHow is anyone supposed to take YOU seriously??
shareyou start with:
Not knowing that much of the history of this whole thing, I was pretty excited to see the film and get to know about it.
Then you get disappointed that parts of the film were animated. What I want to ask is: WHAT ABOUT THE INFORMATION? Did it invoke any thought in you whatsoever? Are you not the least outraged? This story of our government (I am american) taking us to war for business, time after time again is a re-run. And it going to continue. You think they are finished after Iraq?
The american government is a war for profit industrial military complex that is committing mass murder in the name of freedom and democracy. Oh and god of course. And the profits go quietly into private pockets while more imaginary money gets circulated to bail out the economy and throw us further towards collapse. In the "all on board" spirit, the media has collaborated with them to further help confuse the real issue, and to make us afraid of the boogeyman again.
How are you supposed to take this seriously? By focusing on the facts.
And non americans don't get to high and mighty cause we have another dirty trick up our sleaves: Globalization.
You should not judge a documentary by its animation, unless you are judging the animation of a documentary.
I agree with you. The animation stunk. Important riot scenes, involving the most vicious police repression, were left out. Having said this, the points about making people think about the war machine, while valid, could NOT have been brought out by this show because of its rather low political level. I was frankly bored by it.
Just because it is a about a topic you consider to be important, doesn't mean that a particularly good job was done here. Indeed, some of the writers to this thread have expressed themselves much more eloquently than the show did - by a wide margin.
Was is not possible for the film to have contained more facts? Why was there not more actual footage and interviews?
2 very valid questions, and worthy of possibly another discussion. Lets focus now and follow:
jsipes4925:
"Not knowing that much of the history of this whole thing, I was pretty excited to see the film and get to know about it. I guess I didn't do enough research to find out that it was animated. And badly, at that. They really couldn't just re-enact everything with actual people? I know that would then knock it out of the documentary category, but this is awful."
He did not know much about the history of this issue and was excited to see the film. Instead of processing this new awareness into a craving for more information, he complains that the information was not packaged to his liking, and that it contained to little of it as well. As if only when a documentary conforms to certain art guidelines can it be categorized as an informational one and apparently NOT awful.
Well no one can or will tell you everything, nor should you take just one point of view as gospel. Look around, read, watch more documentaries and learn more yourself.
jackr1946:
"Having said this, the points about making people think about the war machine, while valid, could NOT have been brought out by this show because of its rather low political level. I was frankly bored by it."
So watching chicago 10 does not make one think about the war machine? Look, everyone is at different levels of consciousness about anything. If you want more information than you can process, may I recommend Noam Chomsky for you. Not for the faint of heart though, as he is precisely that: information without entertainment. People further up on the knowledge ladder have a responsibility to encourage others to follow, and to leave ego out their perception as much as possible.
You need a considerable amount of puzzle pieces, before you should attempt to arrange them into a comprehensible picture.
jackr1946: "Important riot scenes, involving the most vicious police repression, were left out."
What specifically was left out?
jsipes, sorry commenters were mean to you.
The animation, mixed with old footage and some current interviews, really painted a complete-feeling picture for me.
The actual trial WAS a circus. It would be funny if it didn't have such heavy consequences. One of the defendents said something like "part of me wants to laugh because the charge is so outrageously untrue, and part of me wants to cry because these clowns could put me in jail for ten years." (paraphrase)
I thought the animation helped to potray the nuttiness of the process.
The animation reminded me of another wonderful movie: Waking Life
....you just aren't an "artsy" guy, are you?....
Love. Think. Speak.
I'm totally with you. I thought, overall, the research in the film was pretty thorough, but I really thought the stylistic choices (the whiz-bang animation, the music video editing of some of the archival footage, some just bizarre choices for the soundtrack, etc.) really detracted from the viewing experience and cheapened the material on which it was based.
It's an awful shame, because this is a very important story, politically and socially, and I think the editing and directing really got in the way of it telling the story. It's also a story full of drama and tragic comedy in and of itself; there was no need for it to be embellished with this overzealous style.
They succeeded in turning one of the most important socio-political events in recent American history into some gawdy, MTV b.s.
Which is sad, because with the extensive research that obviously went into this film, it could have been really compelling.
Just seen this broadcast on Australian TV, not having expected it or having known what it was going to be. When it first started, I was thinking "No way! Someone has filmed a reconstruction of the trial of the Chicago 7 IN ANIME! How bizarre/original/hilarious!"
As I kept watching, I was a bit disappointed that it was half original footage and half animation - I kind of wanted it to just be the animated trial straight through. But that is only because I have read too much already about those Chicago 68 protests, and have read the transcripts of the trial online before, spinning out at how insane and egregious the process was. But of course, not everyone has read these trial transcripts, I appreciate the need to contextualise (1968: The Year That Rocked the World by Mark Kurlansky is a great book, also writings by Tom Hayden help put it in perspective.)
Not that I'm into anime, I don't even know if experts/purists would classify this style of animation as anime, but from what little I've seen I thought "Maybe this subject has a kind of resonance with anime, as they often seem to be about dystopian fascistic societies with all-controlling repressive/oppressive governments, and the 'cool rebels' who oppose them".
I thought the advantage of the animation was twofold:
1) not only could they portray those characters as they really looked, with their particular distinctive physicalities, especially Hoffman, but also play with their public personas and represent them as well (e.g. having Alan Ginsberg 'floating' in the meeting with the city official, the intensity of Bobby Seale, etc)
2) having great voice actors like Hank Azaria & Mark Ruffalo (& Nick Nolte has a great voice) meant you could accurately recreate the voices, speech mannerisms, and performative styles of those guys. Abbie Hoffman was a performance artist, as of course was Ginsberg - which is an important part of their performance in that trial. I just think you wouldn't find such verisimilitude having actors voice & play the roles live.
And I would agree with jandybanandy above, animation seemed to emphasise the general air of circus insanity or "nuttiness" present in that courtroom.
If you weren't affected by the portrayal of Bobby Seale in court, I suppose the animation must have been getting in the way of you remembering that this happened to a real human being in a US courtroom. Which is a shame (I mean, shame it spoiled your appreciation of the content - Seale's treatment was a travesty, not a shame)
Also, I didn't realise there was so much news footage extant of the incidents - an amazing record of the times, really. The obvious problem with the original recordings is the sound quality. Having Rage Against the Machine on the soundtrack doesn't hurt - a little loud sometimes, but I thought it was a trade off between poor quality original sound and having an exciting soundtrack. Plus, "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath - yes!
Sorry, I just really enjoyed seeing this.
The reason the courtroom scenes were animated (badly) was on purpose because cameras were not allowed in the courtroom. That means all visual documentation was drawn by courtroom artists. In effect, the filmmakers had to work from crude drawings, and the actual court transcripts, so it seems appropriate to represent the courtroom scenes with crude drawings along with exact wording.
"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"