Were the protests at the 1968 Political convention headed up by a band of Yippies symbolic of the conflicts of values that characterized the late sixties?
In Chicago 10, a film screened at the California Plaza recently, a rapt audience watched in awe and disgust as the documentary of the alleged events of the 1968 Political Convention in Chicago, unfolded on the screen.
Adeptly facilitating an ambitious mix of CGI animation and archival footage, Director Brett Morgan chronicled the events surrounding the incident where protesters denied permits to demonstrate, repeatedly clashed with police, and the most vocal perpetrators - Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and others - were prosecuted eight months after the melee, pursuant to the Anti-riot Act.
The documentary has been being billed as a parable of hope, courage, and ultimate victory.
It is far from that.
Actually, it's a cautionary tale about clashing wills, human error, and blind ambition - all rolled into one.
True, some of the images are shocking - close-up shots of cops beating on peaceful demonstrators - definitely not for the squeamish.
As the character in the film - "Cool Hand Luke" - said, "What we have here is a failure to communicate".
There were a number of glaring mistakes made on both sides.
For instance, the City of Chicago should have granted the permits; after all, denying peaceable assembly in the U.S. is un-American.
But the Chicago 8 and their merry band of followers erred too; the hapless protesters should have vacated the park at 11 p.m., and postponed the event, until the proper permits were secured from the city.
Although everyone was rooting for Hoffman - myself included - it was painfully obvious from the footage that he and Rubin acted immaturely, stupidly.
What adult or teenager is not painfully aware of the consequence of disrupting a courtroom?
None of their antics in his Honor's presence or the Judicial environs contributed to the cause at all.
Yes, the Judge acted outrageously. But a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Performance, or a petition for removal from the bench - even a request for change of venue - may have been the right way to go.
Yes, Judge Hoffman (no relation to Abbie) erred, too.
Instead of denying Bobby Seale (Co-Chair of the Black Panther Party) his right to represent himself without explanation - the court would have been wiser to have followed one of two courses of action: either warn Seale about the perils of self-representation, then permitted the defendant to proceed if he elected to do so, or - taken the matter under submission, written up a legitimate ruling, citing the valid points of law, then duly noted for the record that Seale was entitled to appeal the ruling in the proper forum.
Instead, we witnessed Seale being gagged and bound to his chair after his wild, disruptive protests about rights' violations aggravated the Judge...probably one of the most shocking and blackest moments in American History.
There were a number of humorous moments in the film, too.
For instance, Allen Ginsberg appeared on the witness stand and was asked by a prosecuting attorney to explain his use of a word referred to as "um" which he used to relieve tension.
Later in the film, when the demonstrators were facing a tense situation in the march, Ginsberg is seen emoting "um" into a loudspeaker - which was hilarious.
Anyone practising Buddhism or Yoga will confirm that the sound of "om" should be a joyous sound, one that connects with the inaudible life stream; in this instant case, it was more like an off-key drone from an old test pattern on a fifties-style black and white TV.
One viewer thought the documentary was "too gimmicky".
For example, the director used CGI animation to depict the courtroom scenes.
The effect, in my estimation, was very effective for one reason: it suggested the drama unfolding in the courtroom was cartoon-like, unreal - compared to the brute reality of the archival footage of the street where heads were being cracked and bodies were being dragged into paddy wagons.
Another moviegoer pointed out that there were two events, actually.
First, there were the demonstrations at the 1968 Political Convention, then eight months later, the trial of the Chicago 8.
The way the footage was edited, reality was blurred - which poses the question - was this a clever manipulation by the director?
In fact, when a woman asked in the Q & A what his response was to claims that his movie was "agitprop", for the first time he squirmed in his chair, was at a loss for words, and struggled to respond.
As a character recently said in the movie "The Year of the Dog", "guilty".
My Art Professor told me once that when you view a work of art - be it a painting, or a film - that you must first step back and determine first what it was that "washed over" you.
In this instant case, the director used his editorial control, and seductive images, to manipulate history.
Just the facts, man.
