The Big Picture - Aaron Sorkin Top 5s and ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’

Episode Date: October 16, 2020

Acclaimed writer-director Aaron Sorkin’s new film, ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7,’ hits Netflix this weekend, so Sean and Amanda commence a walk-and-talk on one of their favorite Hollywood voices. They examine his long career on film and television, share their top 5s, and break down his new movie from every angle. Hosts: Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm Sean Fennessy. I'm Amanda Dobbins. And this is The Big Picture, a conversation show about Aaron Damn Sorkin. The acclaimed writer and director's new film, The Trial of the Chicago 7, arrives on Netflix this weekend. This is one of the movie events of the year, no doubt, and certainly here on The Big Picture. On this episode, we are going to discuss the plays, television, and of course, the movies of Aaron Sorkin, the acclaimed screenwriter and now filmmaker. We're going to pick some top fives, and we're going to talk about what this movie in particular means for Sorkin's legacy, whether it's worth watching this weekend or not, what it means

for the Oscar race that may or may not be happening in April. All that is coming up on The Big Picture. Amanda, let's go. Aaron Sorkin, I say the man's name, and what do you think? Been waiting my whole life for this. I really honestly, probably the two podcasts that I have been training most for career-wise and just in terms of things I do for fun were the Devil Wears Prada Rewatch Bulls, which was done like

two and a half years ago, and this podcast. And I don't know what that says about me, but I can do most of this, not even from memory, but from my heart. Aaron Sorkin, for those of you out there who are not familiar, and I would find that shocking if you're a regular listener to this show, but if you're not familiar, he's a renowned screenwriter from New York City. He's a 61-year-old man, and he is, I would say, probably the most well-known screenwriter of his generation. And he is known for a number of things.

We're going to talk about some of the signatures of his work in this conversation. But when you think of Aaron Sorkin, what do you think of immediately off the bat? What does your heart tell you about Sorkin? It tells me about a person who shares my belief in the power of talking over everyone else until you can prove to everyone that you're right. I mean, there are a lot of fundamental Aaron Sorkin beliefs and ticks and, you know, themes, but one of them is that if you speak beautifully enough and with enough

decency and principle, quite literally anything is possible for you, especially if you are a white man, which, you know, history has mostly proven him right on that, at least the white man part. Um, but I do think that I learned a lot about how, you know, the rhythm of movies and dialogue and screenplays, and honestly, a little bit how to write and speak myself it's certainly inflected uh by Aaron Sorkin and the hours I spent on the couch just crushing the West Wing just crushing it like I have the first four seasons memorized a very kind listener actually I'm so sorry that I didn't see this until too late very kind listener was doing some sort of

Aaron Sorkin trivia um tonight I believe for charity and knew I was a fan and like invited me to be on their team and I and I couldn't be because it was the same time that we were recording this podcast but like I would have won that team like straight up would have won because I uh have spent a lot of time consuming this content he's made a lot of content you know that's a a notable thing about him is he's written nine screenplays since his first in 1992, which of course is A Few Good Men, which was based on his play, which he wrote, I believe, as a young man coming out of Syracuse in the late 1980s. And he's also created and largely written four television series, including The West Wing,

which you noted, Sports Night, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, and The Newsroom. And that's a lot of words. That's a lot of work. And he's well known not just for the speed and dexterity with which his characters speak, but the speed and dexterity with which he writes. And some acclaimed screenwriters are only able to get five films made in their entire career. He is, you know, in some respects in kind of his prime, I think I said he was 61, I think he's actually 59. And he is as, you know, as productive as ever and is at the center of the movie conversation right now. And I think there's a delineation here between the two Sorkins. Like I'm bringing this up for a reason. You're a West wing acolyte, right? That's one of your favorite pieces of culture of the last

quarter century. I like that show. I certainly watched all of it and thought it was interesting, but it is not the signal achievement of Aaron Sorkin's career to me. His, his achievement is really on, on the big screen. The movies that he has written, I think, are his great contribution to culture. But I was wondering, before we kind of get into what it is he does, if you think Aaron Sorkin's done more for TV or done more for movies over the last 25 years? God, that's really hard. I think there's a West Wing quote that is repeated, which is called, let Bartlett be Bartlett. And that is a reference to Judd Bartlett, who is the president played by Martin Sheen in the West Wing. But TV really lets Aaron Sorkin be Aaron Sorkin. He has a lot more

control. And obviously, TV is a writer-driven medium. And so you get Sorkin uncut for better and sometimes for worse. And let me tell you, we're going to talk about that. I've seen it all. It's not always the highs and the lows, but I think that there is something, I think West Wing is just like a singular television achievement within the medium, the performances, the characters, the storylines, it's kind of when he's firing on all cylinders TV-wise, but it is also just really just Sorkin land. And on the flip side, I think, you know, you mentioned he was a playwright and he's a tremendous writer of like a structure and dialogue and he understands movie star performances and all of that has lent itself to tremendous screenplays that in the hands of a talented director are also some of my favorite movies and they're,

they're more collaborations. I love them both. I can appreciate them independently. If that makes sense. What an amazing non-answer that was. It's like you were raised in the Bartlett White House, you know, make a decision,

stand on a mountain. But like I literally, no, I was. I was raised on the West Wing and Gilmore Girls and there's people talking very quickly and using a lot of references in order to avoid,

you know, their feelings or confrontation that they don't want to face. And I appreciate that education. It's gotten me very far. Here I am. Yeah, there are plenty of episodes of this show that I think at their best sound like mock scripts for Aaron Sorkin's perspective show about podcasters. Just imagine his piece. What would it be called? Would it be called the studio? The sound bay, you know, like the stream. Like imagine him comporting all of his tools into our lives.

Because that's what he does. He like chooses these spaces. He does, but I don't really want him to. And again, we can talk more about that later in the podcast. So let's talk about what he does do. What he's best known for. What his signatures are. Because I think they're largely evident.

But it's worth noting in the particular choices he makes what interests him. So I've written down a handful of things here. I think we should just trade back and forth on what we think the key Sorkin aspects are. The key one, in addition to that verbal fireworks that he leans on so frequently is the setting of his stories and what happens inside those settings. So he has an absolute belief in the power of work and the workplace. And where that takes place can be any number of places. They're usually institutional in many ways. So not just the White House, but the JAG Corps, courtrooms, a cable news television show, a late night variety show, a baseball team's front office, a tech company,

but also just frequently courtrooms. The guy really is into courtrooms. He's into legal proceedings. He's into circumstances in which people have to ask open-ended questions and other people can respond with long, deep, analytical, cutting dialogue. Why do you think he creates these rhetorical settings? Well, he is a playwright. And some of that is just training, right? You're used to setting people in one place where they can just speak to each other. And the words are the key.

And the words are what Aaron Sorkin does. So courtroom is a really obvious one because it's just people talking. That's what you're supposed to do in a courtroom. And then I think the workplace is just that is where people get to speak to each other with principle. But it's the workplace is where you find your family. The workplace is where you find yourself. The workplace is where you achieve your highest ideals.

And I think that's because he's really drawn to these principled, usually male characters who have like a real sense of purpose and they need to achieve something despite, you know, whatever hurdles or flaws that they have. And they're going to achieve stuff at work. He's not really interested in, you know, domestic dramas. There are elements of it in the workplace. We could have a whole conversation about Aaron Sorkin's work life boundaries, which are not good, but just it's not a 2020 workplace, but it just, it allows him to set the parameters in order for his central characters to achieve something. Yeah, he really likes workaholics. You know, he likes people who define their lives by their jobs. Needless to say, I can relate to a know if Sorkin himself would deem, say, you know,

the key characters on Sports Night or the people who helped build Facebook as like healthy people, as people who have a good relationship to their lives and their careers. But also, I think it's probably true for him. It's a reflection of him. The same way when we talked about Nancy Meyers, we felt like so many of those characters who were so neurotic and so driven and so frazzled but so brilliant were representative of some of Nancy Meyers' grace, talent, and skills. There's a lot of Sorkin in all of his characters. There's a lot of duality in all of his characters. And he tends to create these dynamics. dynamics, usually men and women, but sometimes men and men and sometimes women and women,

though very rarely women and women, candidly, where the interplay feels like two halves of one brain. Yeah, I think it's interesting that he writes these amazing workplace dramas that are always their ensemble pieces at its best, or at least kind of really dynamic scenes between two people just yelling at each other. And he is a writer and his life is like a pretty solitary existence, at least the part where he's sitting on a page writing things. So there is this kind of longing and romanticism of this workplace that I have always interpreted as like an attempt to connect and an idealized version of what it could be if we were all achieving things together of like wanting to be on a team. Maybe that's the only child in me, but, uh, I really do. I see, I understand that yearning. And to your point about

it being two sides of, or like two halves of one brain, it is still just written from, you know, he's learning, yearning to connect with people who are like him, which aren't we all? In many ways, yes. What are some other signatures, some Sorkin things that you think of when you think of his work? So let's start with some of the stylistic choices, which is they are just dialogue loaded with references. And that's not unique to Sorkin. The types of references really recur themselves. The Gilbert and Sullivan of it all.

My guy just loves Gilbert and Sullivan. And at every single major speech at some point, someone will give a Gilbert and Sullivan reference. Usually HMS Penafore, though sometimes he does do Pirates of Penzance. Tons of classic rock references. People are just suddenly being like, what does this song mean? Or did you know about this? Or like, maybe we should listen to the Doobie Brothers, which maybe we shouldn't, but I think that's a Josh Lyman reference and I do love Josh Lyman. So I would listen to the Doobie with him. Um, there are sports metaphors galore and not just on sports night, though. I love sports night. And I realized when I was

rewatching it, some of it in preparation for this podcast that like, I probably learned most of my sports knowledge from sports night. And to the extent that like, I know what you guys were ever talking about. It's because I had a major crush on dan rydell aka josh charles on sports night and i was just like let me hang and um but yeah they're and the references kind of come back he often uses them they're they're obvious metaphors um they recur over seasons and they just they're very dense people are really talking and they're they're talking because they want you to know that they know stuff yes Yes. Wow. I deeply relate to that particular aspect. I think if I picked up anything from him, it's to share as much information in long and serpentine sentences as possible to

indicate that you have an intelligence that should persuade people to keep listening. And not everyone is charmed by that. That is an approach that is very particular. And it's interesting how successful he's gotten with those very odd quirks. Sports metaphors are not a quirk necessarily, but Gilbert and Sullivan references laced throughout your entire filmography and television career is pretty weird. And yet we accept these kind of very peculiar flourishes throughout his career. Like what, why do you think he had, we have special dispensation for Sorkin isms?

Well, I think at the beginning it was fairly novel and funny. And the way these people speak was immediately identifiable as its own particular art form. Like the Sorkin speech just by the mid 90s, or I guess late 90s, between Sports Night and West Wing, which starts a year later. You know exactly how these people speak. And that's fun. You're just kind of enjoying your own art form. You're in your own world. And now, 20 years later, it's basically like a drinking game.

I'm never, ever sick at sea shows up in Mal Malice and then it shows up in Charlie Wilson's war. And it's just kind of like, when am I going to get this specific reference to this song or this musical or this operetta? And there's something comforting about it. It's, you know, I respect people who have a specific vision and they know how to execute. And Aaron Sorkin really created his own form of dialogue and really of like a screenplay or a teleplay.

And so even though some of the references are more predictable as his work goes on, I still, I'm just like glad to be back with Aaron and his pop culture. What about as a family man and a teller of stories about families? Because the workplace obviously is so central, but there are some familial aspects to his work. You mean as a father of daughters? He's a father of a daughter. He's a father of a daughter.

And I think that he must love his daughter very much. And it's very endearing. And so from very early on, his characters always have daughters who they just are trying to impress. And they just want the love from their daughter more than anything else. And, you know, sometimes it becomes a bit of a character crutch. You and I are going to have a discussion about one such movie. No spoiler. But, you know,

I'm a daughter of a father and I always find it a little bit charming. And also it is still sometimes the most affecting part of the film. We have talked about Molly's Game before, so we can talk about the Kevin Costner bench scene, which there is absolutely no reason for that scene to be in the movie or the father-daughter thing to be in the movie, but it's kind of the best part of the movie. Costner kills it. I think we could agree to disagree about that being the best part of the movie, but I am not a daughter of a father. And so that particular emotional resonance is not as strong with me, but it does crop, it creeps into all of his work. I mean, it's in almost everything. I guess there are no daughters in the trial of the Chicago seven, as I recall, but otherwise like most of the films that he makes and most of the TV series have,

if not discreet fathers and daughters figures in the story who fit the bill there. And that feels like a much more of a late period Sorkin thing, much more in the aftermath of having a family and his kind of fascination with that. Sure. Though it's, you know,

it's in West wing, the Zoe Bartlett of it all is a major part of it. And, um, it is, it is also, by the way, in trial of Chicago seven,

they're minor characters, but Joseph Gordon Levitt, um, his character has two daughters. That's right. He takes walking on the park. It's there. It's like,

you know, drink. If you had father of daughters at home. Great point. Um, what are some other things that, that jump out to you about his, like you mentioned the politics.

Let's talk about his politics. Cause I think it's going to be really relevant to the conversation around the trial of the Chicago seven. When we get to that point. Um, yes, this is some like deep, deep nineties,

Clintonian idealism that I'm sure in the 90s felt naive and optimistic, being a generous word. But as we have gone on, it's wild to watch some of the West Wing or the American president. One of my favorite movies of all time now, just in terms of how it understands the political system, but also what a politician should be and kind of what the ideals that a liberal politician should espouse. All of his politicians are liberal, pretty much, though they're the definition of liberal changes, depending on your own politics. And you may have less patience depending on your level of interest in progressiveness, especially in 2020.

They also just hew to this insistence that if everyone would just behave and be decent, then we could figure this all out. And, you know, hasn't aged as well. Yeah. I would say that he is a, a relic of a couple of different eras.

There is a part of him that feels very baby boomer thinking about the power of civic change by way of addressing those changes through institutions. And so certainly protest matters, but it doesn't really matter unless you are able to affect change, say, by voting or by changing the structural shape of an institution that dominates what happens in our society. But then there's also something a little bit old-fashioned that comes from the greatest generation that I think is about a kind of respect for authority. And that tends to collide pretty clearly with his desire to make change in the world with this kind of like liberal policy, this sort of soft liberal policy that he seems interested in.

And so if you look at a lot of the work that he's done, and the trial of of Chicago 7, I think is kind of the absolute pinnacle. And we'll probably talk about that in depth. It's like, this seems like his, in many ways, like his political exegesis, what he wants to actually say about how change is made or not made in the face of institutions. But even in Moneyball, I mean, Moneyball is a political movie. It's a movie about the way that things were done in baseball and the way that they needed to change in order to succeed or not succeed. I think Molly's Game is about that. Molly's Game is about how you can be railroaded by organizations and how one person's lone

voice could be enough, but it probably won't be enough. Obviously, Charlie Wilson's War, The American President, these are definitively political documents of culture. They're also like total fantasies. I tend to think that most of his work aspires to be real, but can never be real because of how hopeful and how, as you said, kind of naive. I think a lot of his point of view is on how change actually happens in this country. For someone like me, who's very, very cynical about institutions and very cynical about people, that's always been my biggest roadblock with his work. And I think that when he meets very dark-hearted figures, either in the characters he's creating or in his counterparts creatively, like David Fincher, that's when he excels. That's when he is at his absolute best.

The thing that holds me back from worshiping the west wing is that episodes of the west wing will end and you would have a feeling like wow the the world is evolving and we can do this together and that is a lie like i really think that that is a lie um but i appreciate the fact that he he seems to believe it i don't think that he is espousing those things those ideas because he's trying to trick society into thinking that something could happen in an attempt to like lull the masses. I think he really believes it. Yeah. In a lot of ways,

he just invented like the resistance bot 25 years before everyone else did. And I will give him credit for being first in that sense. And I think it's one thing when you are like this singularly optimistic or naive voice in a world where people are like, that just seems like a Hollywood fantasy. And it feels like more of a Hollywood fantasy now, but people are like really clinging to it in a different way. And I understand why. I think also I've been reflecting a lot about the West Wing and why I find it so powerful. And the politics are like

often, sometimes I just don't agree with them. They're misguided. It's a fairly limited worldview and also are quite dated and seem divorced from the real world. But there was something about the characters and the optimism of the people and that there are still like people who really do believe in the idea of of serving their country and that things could be better and that you would do something um in order to live up to a higher ideal that i am a real sucker for and that is like extremely extremely romanticized hopeful um stuff that has nothing to do with Washington, D.C., as I understand it. And like probably doesn't have a lot to do with most people day to day, just trying to get through their lives. And that's not a criticism of anyone. But I find

his ability to create these characters. And that's why the West Wing, to me, is such an achievement. It's hopeful about people rather than institutions. And I mean, I don't know. What else am I supposed to believe in at this point? I've noticed something really interesting with his work over the course of the last 15 years and wanted to kind of float this. I don't think this is necessarily a novel realization, but it strikes me as I went back and looked at everything that

he's done. The first 15 to 20 years of his career is largely about invention. They can be simulacra of real life events, but they're not docudrama. So in the American president, we have a wholly created universe. We have new characters. There's no real people represented in that story. A Few Good Men is the same. In Sports Night, it's the same. It's very much understood that Sports Night is inspired by Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann and John Walsh and the people who worked at ESPN and SportsCenter in the 90s, but they don't play Dan Patrick or Keith Olbermann on that show. And if you look at his work since the West Wing, almost everything that he's done is based on real events. And I was trying to figure out why that turned out to be the case.

Why did he make this transition with Charlie Wilson's war, with the social network, with Moneyball, with Steve Jobs, Molly's Game, Chicago 7, even the newsroom is essentially, even if the characters in the story are not real, the events are real. And they're meant to chronicle what really happened in those events. And I'm fascinated by that choice that he made to essentially become a history teacher in a lot of ways. That seems to be what he seems most interesting now.

Why do you think that happened? Well, some of it is, I just think he becomes more successful. And so you can watch him considering himself more of an authority and kind of thinking that he's inching towards the world as it is portrayed in his his films and in his tv shows and that's why i think the newsroom is a fascinating document and like ultimately sort of a failed

document because i think he is both writing criticism of the media but is like very aware that he's in the media and is like a source of of power and a voice in the media and but is like very aware that he's in the media and is like a source of power and a voice in the media. And he's like, this is my shot to actually write everything that I feel is wrong through these characters. And that's hard in a fictional TV show. I think also some of it is just the industry and it's much easier to get people excited you know those movies are money ball was like a big michael lewis uh documentary and molly's game we were so excited that aaron sorkin was making like the hollywood poker movie you kind of have to get people into the theaters um in a way that tom cruise and jack nicholson yelling at each other

would got have gotten people into the theaters in 1992? Yeah, I think that's right. I think it's like it is a question in some ways of just IP. There's strong intellectual property in the story of Facebook, whereas there is not in a created American president who's not necessarily a realistic figure. It's just, it's striking that, and I think your point about him gaining more success and more confidence as being the teller of the stories of American history is fascinating because one thing that he does

in those stories is, you know, he massages the truth. He plays fast and loose with the facts. And I don't, I personally don't have a problem with that. I think it certainly makes the social network a better movie that there was a kind of license taken with how the story was told and i don't think the meaning is really stripped out at all when you learn that some

of those events are not exactly as they are portrayed in the movie same may or may not be true of the trial of the chicago seven we can talk about that a little bit later but it's interesting that he assumes this incredible power to teach people about these signal events of the last hundred years. I mean, this 1969 trial in this new movie is a major American event. And even though it's been portrayed many times in books and in history and TV shows and movies, this is the one that I think most people will look to because it seems to summarize the events most clearly, most comprehensively, and arguably most entertainingly.

And so that's like a pretty big burden to put on yourself to say like, I am the man to show you what happened in radical late 60s America. Why do you think he like, what is motivating that? I was gonna say cue every Aaron Sorkin character ever who is like, let me go ahead and tell you in a very clear four to seven minute monologue with 10 minutes left in my project. Let me tell you how it is. And let me tell you a story about history and what we did then and what that means now and what we don't

understand about this moment and the way that we all have to come together in order to overcome this moment and that humans can do it because there is decency in humanity and there is decency in America. Because that's his core belief, that he just really, really thinks that if people understood and knew things, then everything would be fine which is something that jeff daniels yells within the first 10 minutes of the newsroom after yelling that his religion is the new york jets which is why you love the newsroom i realized such a good show man loved it um but but he just i think he believes in intelligence and in people knowing things and sharing things. And I think that that can be both inspiring and condescending, depending on how he's wielding it. And he believes in the

power of just explaining and talking. And he really thinks that if you can just get through to people, then everything will be okay. And there is a whole history of politics that actually upholds that. And then there is the reverse, which is what we're living in right now. And I think he's just inching closer to it because he can. He's an interesting counterweight, I think, to Oliver Stone, who we heart of a lot of stone's work is really runs in contrast to sorkin's which is idealized and idealistic and even if there are not necessarily happy endings there is a future to look forward to um i would it's interesting the way that they've attacked these stories too like i don't think that they've ever taken on the same story.

I'd be curious to see the, like a side-by-side, like what is Aaron Sorkin's W look like? You know, what is his JFK look like? Like they're not, their films are not necessarily in dialogue, but I would like to see that kind of laid out because they,

they've kind of taken a bite out of the last 60 years collectively together. Yeah. I, They've kind of taken a bite out of the last 60 years collectively together. Yeah. I'm trying to imagine what two-day event in the W presidency Aaron Sorkin would pick. And probably what he would do is pick the recount. And he would just talk about the ways in which America could have gone a different way. I mean, he loves a counterfactual. And that just gives you a lot of hypothesizing to do. which America could have gone a different way. I mean, he loves like a counterfactual and a, um, that just gives you a lot of hypothesizing to do.

Um, the other thing about Aaron Sorkin is that he really is a student of Hollywood. Like he has the same, he watches the same screwball movies that you and I did growing up and that fast talking and that happy ending and that sense of the thing on the screen is just, is supposed to be different and,

um, and showy and work out in the end. Um, that certainly Oliver Stone doesn't have, or he has, but in a different way, but that I think inflects, sometimes I think we're interpreting his political ideology when it's really just his Hollywood ideology. I think that's so well put. He does something fascinating or he is a representation of the same thing that Stone is for me, which is that I don't have to agree with or even really understand his politics to enjoy his work. I think it's probably easier to be a Democrat or a liberal and to be on the same wavelength in the same way that I think it probably helps to be suspicious of authority and power structures to enjoy Oliver Stone's work. But I like them both almost equally. I think I get like some, their best works in my mind are among my favorite things. You know, those guys at their pinnacle are among my favorite movies of the last 50 years. And they're both kind of insanely committed to themselves.

You know, they're sort of like, their mission is self-evident and it's exciting to see. And I think that there may be, I'm reluctant to be like, here's the thing about Gen Z, but I think that there is clearly a generation that is right behind us that looks at this idealism that Sorkin brings to the table. And when he is asked, how would you write the script of how this election would play out if

Aaron Sorkin were to script it? And he says, well, yeah, he's like, I would say that the Republicans should say your time is over, Mr. Trump, and you should turn in your badge at the Oval Office. And now it is time for a new voice of leadership to step in. That's absurd. That's like complete poppycock. But that doesn't make me hate Aaron Sorkin, and it certainly doesn't make me dislike any of his work. And I think that there is maybe not a conflation necessarily, but there's a different kind of relationship that some younger viewers have to the politics of their work and whether or not there is the same ability to kind of enjoy it in a, I don't know. I don't even know how to define this specifically,

but are you willing to basically table your political and moral ideals for the sake of entertainment because of what you're describing with Sorkin where it's like, he's a Hollywood screenwriter. He's not a politician and he doesn't make policy and he shouldn't make policy because he doesn't really know, clearly doesn't know enough about it to make it effective, but he writes great scripts. And so there's something fascinating about his work. Yeah. That's the thing that I'm glad you got back to, which is just, there is just a level of talent in terms of writing scripts. And it's not just the dialogue though. I love the dialogue and it's flashy. And I really do wish I were like at the Algonquin and everyone just talked like that all of the time. But just in terms of structure and knowing that the, you know,

the thing that shows up in act one is going to be the kicker and you can kind of see it coming, but you're still surprised. He's very deft. He's so skilled and he writes good movies. He writes good TV shows. And like I am of a generation where I am willing to put aside some of my disagreements with him. I mean, this is an easy one. Guess what? The president shouldn't date a lobbyist. He just shouldn't. Even if it's a lobbyist for the environment, like the president shouldn't date a lobbyist, probably shouldn't be alone in a room with a lobbyist. Okay. Let alone the Oval Office. But that's fine. Cause I saw that movie in theaters four times. I was 11. I had the VHS. I was like, I will tell you, as you were talking about how it's probably a bit easier to enjoy Aaron Sorkin movies, if you are of the,

um, you tilt left with your politics. I did have the VHS. And I remember I grew up in Atlanta, Georgia and in a more conservative part of Atlanta, Georgia. I remember going over to a friend's house for a sleepover. And I had known this friend, like honestly, since, you know, two or three and had known her parents. And her dad was a very nice man who was a Republican. And I remember, like, I remember showing him the VHS of the American president. This is like maybe 1996, guys. I was like, have you seen this? I love this film so much. I just remember him saying he's too liberal for me. So, you know, there I was doing my best evangelizing to as a 12 year old. And it didn't quite work. But, you know, I do think

if you grade him just on the politics, which, let's be real, are often preposterous, then you miss just some basic craft. And I hate talking about craft, but it's there. I love talking about craft. Let's talk about it very quickly. There are a couple of things that he does, not just turns a phrase,

though you cited the I'm never sick at sea line, for example. And there are YouTube clips of the kind of self-plagiarism that he has been accused of throughout his television series. There are phrases, there's phraseology that he is bound to in terms of the interaction between characters. He has an interesting tick that I picked up on um very acutely while revisiting a lot of his stuff which is he'll have a character say something and then another character respond with a question and then that character who said something responds redefining the question so if someone says what the person will then repeat themselves but then they say it's not that i couldn't hear you it's just what you said didn't make any sense to me and like that's a scene in the trial of chicago seven he does this in almost

everything he does there's a this sort of like the at cross purposes aspect of of interaction is a fascinating like you know stylistic choice he makes and he has all kinds of little tricks like this that he pulls out of his bag he's really good at these kinds of this verbal interplay but he's developed a couple of key things. I think in his career, one that is very well known, which is the walk and talk. He's the Lord of the walk and talk. So many of his best scenes and his most entertaining sequences are written between two people who are striding from one room to another or one building to another and having a conversation of great consequence. And the camera is following them all the way there. The West Wing was famous for this, but it's really in almost everything he

does. And the sort of like a life of activity and a life of nervous energy seems to define his characters in a big way. I wonder why you and I relate to this person. I was going to say, I was 10 and I was like, oh, I have friends. Yes. The other thing that I have noticed that in the last five or 10 years that I love, that I love that he does is the intercut, which is that he has characters usually in courtroom settings, but not always talking

and telling stories. And then the filmmaker gets the opportunity to return to the moment that the story is being told in. And then you have multiple people describing both in the present time and in the past, the sequence of events that is happening. This is very difficult to do. If you've ever looked at a screenplay, this is very hard.

Now, it's possible that some of these filmmakers are finding these kind of intercuts in the edit, but I highly doubt it. I suspect that it's all by design from Sorkin. And if you look back at Act Two, that's the culmination in Steve Jobs between Jeff Daniels and Michael Fassbender. Or if you look at the Inquisition scenes

in the Social Network, this is extraordinary writing, like incredible filmic dialogue. And he has like a knack for this, unlike almost anybody I've ever seen. And those are the things I think that stick with me the most. And this is a fairly new trick for him. He wasn't doing this in the script for malice but once he started taking

on these real life events and he had to recreate things we think we know about he develops this new tool were there any was there anything else that you've like picked up on over the years that you think defines like oh this is a signature of his the other one is just the obvious the monologue like which is like saying the sky is blue i understand that there's like a great sorkin speech but it really does build up to not a theatrical moment that is a cinematic moment where someone is just like now i will explain it for you and it almost always like feels hokey until it starts happening. And then you're like, oh no, actually,

you can write these monologues. This is your gift. And those references that he's kind of littered through the first two hours of whatever kind of come together, the various themes. You can just see the puzzle and all of the pieces that he's laid in order to be able to write his own soliloquy. And we make a lot of fun of it.

And I think that's kind of silly because he's like the, in a lot of ways, the Shakespeare of this particular generation, just in terms of the, the, the meaning and the sentimentality and like the, the oratory that his characters can produce. I love them.

I can quote all of them, which is so dorky. But like, who else can you just quote entire speeches from, from the last 30 or 40 years? I have a distinct memory of being an enormous weirdo and being like 11, 12 years old shortly after A Few Good Men came out, of being... There was a basketball court at a local park around the corner from my house, and I would go to that basketball court frequently after school, after whatever sports I was playing had ended. And I would just go and shoot by myself, or if there were people

on the court, they would join me. But I remember practicing, practicing the Jack Nicholson speech from A Few Good Men out loud while shooting free throws as a kind of like some sort of like psychological device. And that character is evil. And that speech is dark. And I don't know why as a 12-year-old that I connected with that. But like you say, the power of the oratory, it was pretty radical on the same way that you were moved by the American president. I was moved by a few good men as a kid and I don't even know why. And don't you think a little bit, that's how we learned to,

to banter the way that we did. I certainly do. Like, I know that a lot of my rhetorical flourishes are picked up from like season three of the West wing and, or that just the cadence, their rhythm. And I think that that's also a real tribute to the actors who agree to sign

on to, to do a Sorkin speech and who can nail it because many people can, but you can really tell when someone's locked in and they're vibing. And especially on the TV shows, Sorkin starts writing for the actors and they're just, it becomes a new, a new language that I was certainly envious of and still am. Wouldn't it be fun if every meeting were like a meeting in the Oval Office in the West Wing?

No, actually, I don't think it would be fun if every meeting was in the West Wing of the White House. No, just like it. I don't. I don't want to have any of these responsibilities. Like these people are just convinced that they're going to just stop nuclear attacks all the time. And I would find that to be very stressful. But I just, you know, if everybody were that witty and also things were that efficient. Yeah, if we could be CJ and Josh, we'd be great.

Everything would be wonderful. We'd be crushing it in life. And frankly, like no surprise, two podcasters talking quickly at each other. We're very influenced by this stuff. I think we should talk about our top fives. Maybe when we come back, we'll talk about our top fives.

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from real real canadian superstore with pc express Shop online for super prices and super savings try it today and get up to 75 in pc optimum points Visit superstore.ca to get started Okay, so There were some questions in our most recent mailbag episode about how we build out these lists and how we make interesting choices. This is a tough one, right? Because Sorkin's got a big resume. He's got a long CV.

He's got some great stuff. But I think there are a handful of things that are fully agreed upon to be masterworks. It will come as no surprise to anyone that we will discuss The Social Network on both of our top fives. We both cited this movie as the movie of the 2010s. I don't know how much more space

we need to give to it on this podcast in general, but I did try to pick a couple of things that I wanted to have a chance to talk about. It seems like you did as well. Do you want to start with your number five, Sorkin? I do. And I'd also like to do a little preface with how I put my list together because we've talked about all of the movies on my list and all of the movies on your list before. It's honestly a little embarrassing.

Um, just when you go to make a Sorkin top five and then you can quote all of your top five movies or shows from memory. Um, I don't know. I, I spend some time on self-reflection, um,

and that's okay. I think it's important. Um, so because we've talked about all of these um projects at great length I tried to rank them by sorkiness and as opposed to um general greatness which is a long way of saying that moneyball is my number five even though moneyball is one of the greatest movies ever made and every time we talk about Moneyball, we just yell like, this is the most underappreciated film of all time. Watch it again. Masterpiece. Are you kidding me? Also, I decided to get really into baseball for one week only because the Braves are in the

National League Championship Series. And once upon a time, I was a very young Braves fan. So I've just been yelling. They're getting their ass kicked right now. I know, but you know what? It was 11 in the first inning, which is just like the money ball game. The A's, they score 11 and then everyone comes back. The A's won that one. It's fine. I've just been yelling like, he gets on base

every time anyone gets walked. And Zach's like, could you please leave? This is, I love this movie. I love this movie deeply. We don't talk enough about this movie, even though we talk about it all the time. The thing I wanted to say on this podcast is that I thought it was really interesting.

I watched it after having rewatched a lot of other Sorkin things. And so to watch how Brad Pitt specifically, but all of the characters do Sorkin is fascinating because they are not doing the rat-a-tat dialogue. And there are those scenes in those moments where Brad Pitt says something and then Jonah Hill repeats it. And then Brad Pitt asks the question again in a different way.

And you can tell that they are the Sorkin dialogues, but it is like slow as molasses. Okay. People who run ball clubs, they think in terms of buying players, your goal shouldn't be to buy players. Your goal should be to buy wins. And in order to buy wins, you need to buy runs.

You're trying to replace Johnny Damon. The Boston Red Sox see Johnny Damon and they see a star who's worth $7. million dollars a year. When I see Johnny Damon, what I see is an imperfect understanding of where runs come from. They do it beautifully. And I think it's just another testament to their performances that they're able to reinterpret Sorkin

in a different way. I do wonder what it was like for Aaron Sorkin to watch this and be like, no, that's not how you need to talk faster. Yeah, I wonder because the film was originally written and developed, I believe, for Steven Soderbergh. And it was eventually directed by Bennett Miller. I should say this is the number three movie on my list.

I also obviously worship this movie. I can't believe I wasn't invited on this rewatchables. That's just brutal i was thinking back on that i was like god damn it this is like all of my interests all in one place anyhow um i think you're right that slowing it down is a fascinating choice i still would have liked to have seen the cut glass you know dark core version of this story from soderbergh you know the almost like pulp fiction version of this story, because Bennett Miller is like a little bit of a classicist and there's like some majesty in some of the storytelling that I think is

just a, just a touch overblown in the movie. Like it's, we're talking about like 2%, but there's just a little bit of it that I think is maybe it doesn't reflect ultimately what happened here which is that Billy Bean never won and also now Billy Bean we learned this week I don't know if you saw this news I did see this but he is is joining the Fenway owners group uh which is John Henry's company and there is of course that famous scene in this film sure in which Arliss Howard plays John Henry and tries to lure Billy Bean to the Boston Red Sox. Right. And that was- Billy Bean stays near his daughter and then listens to a CD of her singing a song

that's been in my head for a week. That's right. But it was like, that was like a nice end cap on the Moneyball movie experience. You know, we're almost 10 years in on that movie. We're probably almost 20 years in on that book i can't remember when that book was published but um the you know everybody ultimately succumbs to to the big dollar in the sky even billy bean and that's like there is something ultimately even darker than i think what what bennett was getting after that i think sorkin again like i think he's at his best when he is paired with somebody who has has a dark heart and this is one of them this is like a simultaneously cynical and uplifting

story of change inside of an organization um and I agree with you like definitely one of the best movies made this century and I don't know how many more times you think we can bring it up in the next six months on this pod I like every month, every week until we get invited, like on the re-watchables, like the re-Moneyball. That's a good spinoff pod. Just talk about Moneyball every week. You know, there's a series of podcasts that break down movies one minute at a time.

You know, there was a famous Heat version of this. There are now many other films that are broken down one minute at a time where the hosts literally have a new guest on every episode. And they- To talk about one that are broken down one minute at a time where the hosts literally have a new guest on every episode. And they... To talk about one minute. Talk about one minute

of a movie. Okay. Sign me up for the Spike Jonze interview scene with Sam Donsky and we'll just talk about his sandals and good parenting decisions.

Tremendous. Should I talk about my number five? Yes, please. Okay. I really had a blast revisiting steve jobs you're being ridiculous i'm gonna sit center court and watch you do it yourself

then i'm gonna order a nice meal with the 55 marco and sign some autographs jesus christ you want some advice pepsi generation don't send waz out to slap me around the press anybody i think steve jobs is just immensely underrated. And we were talking about Last Action Hero and the movies that we like to save. I don't think enough attention was paid to Steve Jobs. I think this is an amazing

movie. And it's an amazing movie because it's not really a movie. It's an opera. And if you think about what Sorkin likes to do, is he likes to create these operatic structures. This is a three act play. This is a three act opera in the form of a movie, in the format of a movie directed by Danny Boyle. But the way that it is written across periods of time where we leap from signature event to signature event, signature event in Steve Jobs's life is not so much like a biography of a man,

a brilliant and very troubled man, but clearly a reflection of ego and success. And I think only a person who has the ego and success of Aaron Sorkin could render Steve Jobs in this way. Dynamite performances all the way around. Every single person who is in this movie is a genius. This is Michael Fassbender. I think it's my favorite Michael Fassbender. Now, he is not a sex god in this movie. He is not as charming as he is in Inglourious Bastards, but harnessing his specific power and charisma, I think he's fantastic. It's absurd to me that Seth Rogen

was not nominated for an Oscar. I think he should have won an Oscar as Wozniak. It's a great Kate Winslet performance, although I've said this before. I don't totally understand why she has a Polish accent in the future, but not in the past.

How does she have more of an accent in the second and third sequences than in the first sequence? I don't, it feels like something happened there in the making of the movie. Have you ever noticed that? No, I haven't.

I have not seen this movie as many times as you have apparently. So, you know, I guess my answer to that would be probably that they filmed the later scenes first. it feels like it for sure um incredible score by daniel pemberton i think boyle is doing the absolute most he can do with a script that is more or less a stage play um it has it features that extraordinary intercut in act two that i

mentioned and i think that this is like um i think this is in many ways a worthy sequel to the social network in terms of looking at the power of big tech, the power of quote innovation, of the way that corporations drive what our lifestyles look like and how those decisions are made. The way that some people play the short game and some people play the long game. And Steve Jobs is unbelievable foresight, not just into sort of what people wanted and what technology they liked, but why he even started companies so that they could be acquired and that he could reclaim power these are such interesting and you know you said he's our shakespeare like in many ways this is a very shakespearean tale this is richard the third in many ways and i think i like that sorkin is unafraid to swing that deeply for the fences.

And he, he does, he does it in all this other stuff we're going to talk about here, but this was the one that leapt out to me. I was like, why didn't we not make a bigger deal out of this movie? It really does feel like a very special movie to me. Anyway,

that's my speech for Steve jobs. I completely agree with you that it is a sequel or a partner to social network in a lot of ways. And I think I watched them sequentially this time so that was interesting um it's pretty interesting what Aaron Sorkin chooses to humanize in these two characters and what he chooses to ignore and it might be the Fassbender performance which is like I think extraordinary and I was watching it just being like why doesn't Michael Fassbender act anymore I understand that he's like really into race cars um and that's cool

he is by the way like I'm not making that up Michael Fassbender is just his Wikipedia page now says actor and race car driver um but there is something very menacing about his performance which is Fassbender bringing kind of that dark quality to it. And it makes Steve Jobs' personal failures pretty off-putting. And let's be real, his personal failures are extremely off-putting, especially the Lisa plotline. But at the end of the day, that a film is a bit harder on Steve Jobs than it is on Mark Zuckerberg, knowing what we know now about the two companies and that they created and their positions in the world. Um,

you know, I, I would, I would like to, it would be interesting to have them remake Steve jobs now, I guess. Um, the other thing that I just want to say is that it is the later Sorkin gets in his career,

the more self-aware he becomes and the more self-aware his characters becomes. And when like the Steve Jobs character has like a three-year therapy breakthrough in under two minutes in the aforementioned Jeff Daniels, like intercut and just yells control. It's because I wanted control. And suddenly we're just going to the adoption stuff. And I was like, it's, it's a lot, even for me, a student of therapy, a person who believes that our relationships with our parents do affect our adult lives. And also who is obsessed with the idea of control. I was just like, okay, like my guy had some other things to do. All right.

He was not yelling with Jeff Daniels about control. But that's why it's an opera and not a documentary. But you know what? No one is self-aware in opera. That's the problem in every major opera is just kind of like if people had thought through some of the situations that they would be in, then we would not have to have the tragedy in Act 5.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. But I think that to dramatize something effectively, you have to have the tragedy in act five. Yeah, I suppose that's true. But I think that to dramatize something effectively, you have to have these moments of realization that is actually not how life works. Very rarely do we get the light bulb or the exclamation point over our head and have verbal recognition of our flaws and what is holding us back. But movies can do that. I like that about movies. I think everyone should investigate their relationship to control. I just don't know whether you're doing it three minutes before your presentation. That's the other thing.

I'm just kind of like, everyone is really bothering this guy 10 minutes before he has to go on stage. I would find that very stressful. If I were Steve Jobs, I could have locked the green door room like a lot sooner. Anyway, Chris Ryan is very fond of saying that many movies are about the act of making movies even if they're not about making movies and this kind of seems like a movie about a movie director or a screenwriter someone who's constantly being asked what do i do now what do i do now how do i do this why did this happen can you fix this so in that way it's also a very

keen kind of film i'm sure that's part of what attracted boyle to it as well i honestly like i don't even have a big um sweeping statement about like whether what steve jobs did was worth it in terms of the way that he hurt people the way that he treated people he certainly seemed like an absolute bully um and at times destructive to people's lives based on the way that he acted as a as a as a creative leader and he helped create some enormously impactful things in our lives. But that same idea, that sort of like, was it worth it idea is in a lot of his other work.

It's in the trial of Chicago 7. You know, the idea of like, was this the right way to do this? How do we make change? And who has the right strategy? It's such an interesting concept, especially now. So that's Steve Jobs. What's your number four?

I can't believe we didn't talk about how he just invents the iPod on top of a parking roof. I'm going to put music in your pocket. It's tremendous. It's incredible stuff. It's really good. That's why I love Aaron Sorkin. Number four is the American president. America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, you want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You

want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. This is just a tremendous romantic comedy that has no basis in reality or healthy relationships in the office or in the home. And I love it. This is a very formative movie for me with my dad. I think my dad also just really loved the old timiness of it. This is a very formative movie for me with my dad. I think my dad also just really loved the old timiness of it. I mean, it is kind of, it owes a debt to the romantic comedies of the 40s.

Pepper and Tracy. Through and through. That you and I love so much. And it is a lot of ways a test case for the West Wing, both in terms of like there are many actors who are in the American president are then recast in the West Wing, including Martin Sheen. He gets promoted.

He's chief of staff and the American president gets to be president in the West Wing. Good for him. In some of the political ideals and, you know, this liberal fantasy. I mean, at the end of this movie,

spoiler alert, the, the president of the United States takes action on climate change. So he does it because of the lobbyists that he's dating who dumped him because she got fired, which is completely reasonable. But whatever. That's still wouldn't that be nice and it also has i think the single greatest aaron sorkin speech certainly the most aaron sorkin speech which is obviously uh the uh my name is andrew shepherd and i am the president an all-timer he's very good at the declarative sentence um we are not talking about malice on our top fives but i think i am the president is only rivaled by, I am God, Alec Baldwin's kicker, the end of that film. Um,

so can I just share with you some general concerns about the American president? I know, I know it's a very sentimental artifact for you and, I don't want to take it away from anybody who loves it. I'm not, I'm not going to denigrate it. It's a, it's a very good movie.

Um, what, like, why did this movie happen? Like what, like, I'm not going to denigrate it. It's a very good movie. Why did this movie happen? Like, we have, at the time, this was a Clintonian moment. This was a moment in which a baby boomer, ex-hippie who was against the war, who wanted to have significant change in our society, but also at least represented the Andrew Shepard of the beginning of the film, which is like, it's all about deal-making. It's all about, if I deregulate, then I can win over the Congress and get some of the other things that I want for our society, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, Andrew Shepard's trying to pass a crime bill, and Bill Clinton did pass a crime bill. Do you think that the movie was created, written, made to reflect the moment, to correct the

moment, to like what relationship did it have? Because, you know, you and I were so young when this movie came out that as I look back on it as this representation of Sorkin's ideals and politics, I'm a little confused by what it is so i think it's written a bit earlier in the clinton experience and is also is kind of inspired by the clinton candidacy as much as and and is more of a reflection of the early 90s than say any one thing that clinton did in his presidency and or our perception of the Clinton presidency now, which, by the way, our perception of it would have been very different in 1995 than

it would be now for for many, many reasons. I it's his broadest political work, which in some ways to me means that it's the best because he can just, you know, deal in his ideals and in the, um, what is it? 10 word answer is I think the West wing debate one, if I got that wrong, if it's a different number, you guys know what I'm talking about. Um, but you know, in the West wing that's used as an example of the flip-reductive nature of political discourse. But who's really great at flip-reductive versions of politics is Aaron Sorkin. And so to me, this is like a training ground.

It's something that he's interested in. He's in DC or around DC people and writes the big version. And then it's like, oh, there's more here. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think it's, you made a good point at the top of the show, which is that the president should not date a lobbyist. That's, that's. Just don't do it.

Don't do it. Doesn't really matter what they're lobbying for. Just, just not lobbyists are not to be trusted. Another in the, in the Rob Reiner Hall of Fame, which I guess we'll have to do at some point. This is not the last time Rob Reiner will come up on this podcast. My number four is Sports Night. Name three things the Knicks need to do this season

to make it to the finals. I couldn't get another question. You will, but not till I hear an answer to the first one. What do the Knicks... Three things the Knicks need to do to contend. Ms. Whitaker, I would be great at this job. You've got to believe me when I tell you I've been training my whole life for it.

I've crunched stats, I've broken down film, and there wasn't a team at my high school that didn't have me for an equipment manager. I have read every box score in every newspaper that's printed in English and has a sports section, and I have seen Sports Night every night since your first broadcast two years, two months, and a week ago today. Now, yes, sure, indeed, I can tell you

what Ewing and Oakley are shooting from the field and that you're not gonna stop John Starks if he squares up to the basket and put any defensive pressure on Charlie Ward. He's gonna fold like a cheap card table. But if you're asking me for genuinely sophisticated analyses, and I sense that you are... you've got to give me some time, at least 20 minutes. Man, could you imagine what it would be like to be 15 and for a TV show like Sports Night to land in my lap?

As much as the American president, I think, informed your way of being, I think Sports Night informed mine. I was a very loyal viewer of the show when it first came on television. I think it's one of the more acid-laced things that Sorkin has done. I think there is plenty of that hokey sentimentality around the power of sport and the power of telling stories about sport that you hear about from time to time

on ESPN and elsewhere. But I think the show is best as a document of friendship and particularly the bonds of friendship that are built in the workplace. Sometimes love, sometimes relationships. He dabbles in that in all of his work, but I think especially what's going on between Peter Krause and Josh Charles and to an extent what's happening between Peter Krause and Felicity Huffman and then all the ancillary figures, Josh Molina and Robert Guillaume, but specifically like these two guys and what their friendship is

and what it's like. You know, I have somebody like this at work. You know, his name is Chris Ryan. That's like, that's my guy. Chris and I have been working together. Only you can say. I really can't answer that because of my aforementioned,

neither of you can be Dan Rydell. You're two Ks. I'm sorry. I wish you guys well well I hope your marriages are happier than his um you know what he got offered a fake talk show you know and and turned it down so that's nice but yeah you're both cases I I accept that that's okay but I think that that is a that is a powerful thing and he speaks to um at least a certain kind of a of a guy uh who thinks that the workplace can be fun and life-defining and you can forge your most meaningful relationships in those settings at times um just a really it's like not a funny show at all and the show's life cycle is so interesting because it was like it was it's it's a you know a network sitcom structure style. And at some point there was a laugh track,

which is ill-conceived. And it was a very like round peg square hole kind of a thing where, you know, he was trying to kind of change the form of network sitcoms. And I think in many ways did. And if you look at how the variants that you get in these kinds of shows now,

like The Office and, you know, where everything in kind of network sitcoms went after that. He was ahead of the curve on some things. I would say there are parts of the show, just in revisiting it, that have not aged well. I think his politics and the way that the characters talk to each other has not aged well. I would say that these two guys are a little rough on their colleagues, a little rough on the women in the workplace. I would not be surprised if it was an accurate reflection of what it was like to work at ESPN in the 90s.

So you could say that it's kind of fairly rendered, but you could never get some of this stuff on TV now, which was interesting because I don't feel that way about the West Wing. Yeah. I mean, it feels like a rougher version of the West Wing in a lot of ways. And like, it's funny.

I rewatched a lot of sports, which was a show that I also loved when it was on TV. And like, my family loved it we all watched it or my mother and i watched it together which was not typically the case so i think it like it broke through it's like this was a thing i think for erudite and it like like educated people it was clearly scratching an itch yeah and and the kind of instant chemistry between peter krause and josh charles and and Charles and the rest of the team, you know, you just you wanted to spend time with those people in that world, even if they were kind of sniping at each other a lot and saying some things that are definitely not OK in television or in a workplace in 2020.

But as I was rewatching it, just whole plot lines are tested out on Sports Night and then repurposed on the West Wing. There's the poker night and I'm writing a letter home to my sister about my workplace experience. And that letter will be the framing device and the interviews and bits of dialogue. And they were very close together. I believe that Aaron Sorkin is writing the second season of sports night in the first season of West wing, or at least developing their first season of West wing simultaneously. There's a lot of overlap, which is just,

that's like extraordinary. That's so much TV. And, and to me, it doesn't really feel like self-plagiarism as much as like workshopping and learning how to do this tremendous thing but um i have i have a lot of affection for it and again i really understand most of the sports that i know because of this show so thank you it's a great show uh hard show to find these days

it should come to a streaming service soon i had to go back and reinvestigate my old dvds which um was it always a journey for me number three your number three is my number two what is it let me just go ahead and reiterate that it's so dumb that this movie is number three it's the social network which i think is the best movie of the last decade i'm going back wait wait is this real yes okay then wait i apologize okay i have to go study yes i'm sorry i mean it apologize, okay? I have to go study. Erica? Yes? I'm sorry. I mean it. I appreciate that, but I have to go see you. Come on. You don't have to study.

You don't have to study. Let's just talk. I can't. Why? Because it is exhausting. Dating you is like dating a stairmaster. All I meant is that you're not likely to currently. I wasn't making a comment on your parents.

I was just saying that you go to BU. I was stating a fact. That's all. And if it seemed rude, then of course I apologize. I have to go study. You don't have to study. Why do you keep saying I don't have to study? Because you go to BU. So again, we are evaluating on like different terms this time.

I think we talked about this a bit on the Fincher podcast as well. This was not, I guess this was my number one. I voted for this as the number one Fincher. And you guys, I think correctly, or at least i can respect it advocated for zodiac but same reasoning zodiac is like the fincheriest and i think there are aaron sorkin things that are more sorkiny but the magic in this is what happens when you put together like a just fantastic aaron sorkin script and david fincher directing. And the sum is greater than the parts. Also, you know, all of the classic Sorkin character types here, except for the main guy,

who is a little murkier and it's more of an antihero. And he does it really well. I think he can't quite make him full anti-hero. You're supposed to be, you know, at least understand him a bit more by the end. But it's interesting to try to watch him try to work through someone who he doesn't totally respect. And certainly a world that Aaron Sorkin does not respect. Because Aaron Sorkin, not a fan of the internet. Yeah, his dramaturgical training, though, seeps through. You mentioned the things that you see at the beginning of a film

then finding their way at the end of the film. This is a movie that opens with a conversation between a man and a woman who are about to break up. And the movie ends with the man looking longingly at the profile photo of that woman and seeing whether or not she has accepted his friendship online. Incredible screenwriting device. That woman does not exist. And that is one of the huge

liberties taken in this story. But the point stands. This was a person who had difficulties connecting with people in real life and created a world in which people could connect without having to be in real life. And what that created was a complete dystopian nightmare in our society. And the asocial nature in the social network is like what is destroying the connections that we have to people. It's smarter people than you and I have examined this very closely and how all of this happened. But I think this thing that is full of mistruths or disinformation, this movie tells the story as well as you can tell it. And when it's told with somebody like Fincher, obviously it's incredibly effective. The one other thing about this movie that I like is it just features some of Sorkin's like best bars.

You know, like a guy who makes a nice chair doesn't owe money to everyone who has ever built a chair. You know, they're just, you know know obviously a million dollars isn't cool you know it's cool a billion dollars has become this this catchphrase almost like parodied at this point but there's so many there's such precision in the writing you know the internet isn't written in pencil mark it's written in ink like there there is a he the way he communicates and the way the characters connect is very very powerful and very sharp very funny frequently very funny i think it's underrated how funny this movie is. And, you know, it's like, I wonder like, what is his best script? That's kind of an interesting conversation. Like, I didn't really think about that specifically when I was doing the list. I was more just thinking, not unlike you, like the relationship

I have to this stuff. Like, Sports Night is very flawed and at times was mediocre, I thought, but at its best, I loved it and I grew a huge relationship to it. The social network might be his best script, like period. So that's a credit to him. Yeah, I would agree with that. That first scene in terms of just the experience and the dialogue

and it'll be because you're an asshole is up there. And then also structurally in terms of what it sets for the themes and the end of the film and all of the other themes that he works in, like the minor characters are still so well developed. I mean, like the Winklevii are just hilarious. And, you know, that's the Winklevii is something that the Mark Zuckerberg character says at some point, um, the Sean, Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, just delicious, just, and gets better with age. That was so fun. Also one of my favorite

throwaway lines is when he, um, he has just spent the night with Dakota Johnson and a tremendous, like one scene performance. And he says, I'm an entrepreneur. And she says, what was your latest preneur? Which is the only way in which I can I like I every single time someone says I'm an entrepreneur that's what I think what is your latest preneur and and that is like a funny joke but also definitely just changed my entire relationship to the concept of Silicon Valley with one line so yeah I think on like a thematic Shakespearean level and also a line to line level you You can't really, really can't top it. So we're going to move quickly now through these because my number two was the social network. My number three was Moneyball.

So we can skip both of those. So we go to your number two. What is your number two, Aaron Sorkin? Well, it's your number one. So would you like to present it? It's my number one. Dancer's a few good men. He told Kendrick to order the code red. He did? That's my number one. The answer is a few good men. Oh, we get it from him. Yes. No problem. We get it from him. Colonel Jessup, isn't it true that you ordered the code red on Santiago?

Listen, we're all a little... I'm sorry. Your time's run out. What do we have for the losers, Judge? Well, for our defendants, it's a lifetime at exotic Fort Leavenworth. And for Defense Counsel Caffey, that's right. It's a court-martial. Yes, Johnny. After falsely accusing a highly decorated marine officer of conspiracy and perjury lieutenant kathy will have a long and prosperous career teaching typewriter maintenance at the rocco colombo school for women yeah thank you for playing should we you're defining your list by sorkinnessness. I'm defining my list, I think, by sheer entertainment value.

Not unrelated. Yeah, and that's what Sorkin does, right? That's the thing for me is he is one of the great entertainers. His scripts I find endlessly enjoyable and re-enjoyable. That was actually a question that came up on the Mailbag episode earlier this week, which was like, how do you guys define how to rate a movie you know like is it performances is it cinematography is it screenwriting is it rewatchability maybe i'm a little bit poisoned by being here at the ringer but i think rewatchability is a big factor in putting together a top five like this few good men it's in the conversation for the most rewatched movie of my lifetime. It's Network.

It's The Wizard of Oz. It's The Godfather and Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction. And A Few Good Men is right there with it. It's right at the top of the list. And like you said before, I could recite almost the whole movie from top to bottom in my head. That's really powerful. And it's because of him. Rob Reiner is great.

Tom Cruise is wonderful. There's an iconic Jack Nicholson thing in the movie, Kevin Bacon, Demi Moore, the whole nine. But by all intents and purposes, this is a conventional military courtroom drama. There are a lot of movies like this. Some very good movies like The K-Mutiny, some very mediocre movies like Rules of Engagement. For whatever reason, this movie has something special this has an energy it has a vitality it has an intelligence and it has a pure entertainment factor that i think is just chalked up purely to sorkin i think this is probably my most seen movie i think like i think i have seen this more than any other and that is a little bit of function of you know how cable

channels worked in the 90s and early 2000s it's a little bit of function of, you know, how cable channels worked in the nineties and early two thousands. It's a little bit of function of my husband and I had to kill like an hour the other day and didn't feel like doing any real homework. And I was like, Hey, will you watch a few good men with me? Cause I need to rewatch it for the podcast. And his answer was yes. And then, and, and, and off we went. Um, so I think it's a little bit about it. It does. It's probably the broadest appeal to, um, to everyone. Um, and a little bit of that is also just because I think this is, these are the most movie star performances in any Aaron Sorkin. And I was reflecting just on how good Tom Cruise is doing Aaron Sorkin and the rhythms are there and the, and the ticks and I need the thing.

And he really does think better with that bat. And a lot of it is on the script, but it's also Tom Cruise bringing his essential Tom Cruise-ness. And I don't know that a few good men is, you know, as iconic as it is without Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. Um, which is fine by me because this is how I learned about movie stars are. Tom Cruise. And that's in that uniform is still just, it was, it was an astonishing time, the nineties. And I learned a lot and I'm really grateful for it.

But yeah, I love this movie. Yeah. I think you're right about him being one of the best, you know, I think Fincher and Sorkin have said that, that Eisenberg is the best ever at doing his dialogue that he, because of the speed and neuroses with which he brings to the table.

But, you know, Cruz, the sort of like Lieutenant Caffey will have a long and prosperous career teaching typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Colombo school for women. Um, like that whole, he's amazing at that kind of a thing.

And that, that charisma is essential to making his characters work as we'll discuss I think in the trial of Chicago 7 you have to have people that want to gnaw on the scenery that want to yell that want to be in the center of the frame this is a movie where like you have to be at the center of the frame to dominate the movie that's what the whole thing is about the one other thing I wanted to say about this that I think is interesting, because it's his first script and it's his first play as well, is that this is not really a movie or a play that is about very much.

Now, it has a morality to it, but I don't think it has a lesson. You know, I don't take away from this that the military- military industrial complex treats people like garbage. Like I don't, I think that you could draw that conclusion, but that's not really what the movie is about.

Like the trial of Chicago seven, there's all of these obvious themes, these kind of this, like the despair ribs to pick apart, to pull the meat off of, to discuss, to dissect. Like a few good men is mostly just entertainment.

And I think that's okay yeah i mean it has that you're responsible for your actions that's one and you can outsmart anyone which that's what tom cruise does and also that yelling is really important i mean i don't know about you but i remember like you can't handle the truth being like an elementary school joke which I don't know why the parents of of Atlanta were letting a bunch of elementary school kids watch a few good men I mean it's weird lessons but I think also just the the power of yelling and of talkiness which then animates the rest of his career there Jack Nicholson's character says some things at the end of this film that I don't think children should hear. I'm going to rip the eyes out of your head and piss in your dead skull.

You fucked with the wrong Marine. Colonel Jessup. On the flip side, you have to ask me nicely is a good lesson for everybody. You have to ask me nicely. I beg your pardon? You have to ask me nicely i beg your pardon you have to ask me nicely i thought about bringing that into my day-to-day life what if i'm just like you have to ask me nicely um more often that's what i'm gonna start doing at the top of every pod is who's gonna do it you amanda you bobby wagner just think about that um okay that's a few good men.

It's one of the most fun movies ever made. What's your number one? Funny you should ask. Charlie, my father gave this to me, and his father gave it to him. And now I'm giving it to you. Little show called The West Wing. Take a look.

The fully tapered bolster allows for sharpening the entire edge of the blade. It says PR. I thought I knew them all, but I don't recognize the manufacturer. Yeah, these were made for my family by a Boston silversmith named Paul Revere. Mr. President. I'm proud of you, Charlie. Thank you, sir. I feel like I've talked a lot about the West Wing on this podcast, so I won't belabor the point. But I think, first of all, as an achievement, he wrote 22 episodes a year for four years, which is just extraordinary in terms of output and the quality of the dialogue.

And they are a product of network television, but you can also tell that they are more sophisticated and updating network television. And in addition to the C plots and the Donna character who just has to ask questions for exposition, there are kind of longer plot lines and, you know, bigger questions of morality and, you know, responsibility and duty and a lot of political, like thornier certainly than the American president, even if it is ultimately extremely idealized. And I just think this is also what wrote the rest of his,

of his tickets and what he will be remembered for. If you need to understand Aaron's work in, in 42 and a half minutes, you put on a season two episode of the West wing and you can understand everything that happened before and everything that happened after. I do also think like Tom Cruise is maybe the single Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson are the best single Sorkin performances, but this ensemble in terms of being able to do his rhythms and then Sorkin having the time to write for them is like a very exciting, it's what TV allows you to do and one of the cool things about TV

and you can just see the writing and the acting going together and it's very exciting. I don't hear as much about people discovering this show. You know, it's available on Netflix right now. Moneyball is available on Netflix. Steve Jobs is available on Netflix.

Netflix has this very savvy move they've done of late when they are ready to roll out a film from a filmmaker they'll acquire as many of the properties as they can to create a kind of mini hub for their work they did it with Scorsese obviously they did it with Noah Baumbach they're doing it with Sorkin and so it's easy

to watch have there been seven full seasons of the West Wing at this point I think that's right I'll be. Even I have not seen all of seven. Yeah. Well, the show, the show definitely tailed off at the end, especially as he became less and less involved in it. And, you know, he had some, he had some personal struggles in that period of time. You know, like he obviously went through a lot very publicly as a creative person, but I don't, I'd be curious to know what the viewership numbers are like on the west wing in 2020 i do think that there's a small much smaller but like

comfort rewatch group like i i have certainly done that and if you were the type of person who had the west wing dvds which like a fair number of people did including myself and i'm not a person who owned dvds like you um but i i think it would be hard to start from scratch because it is a product of 1999 and 2000 and that's in terms of like the format of the show and also certainly the you know the politics and i i i don't know whether especially if you're starting with season one if anyone listening has never seen the west wing and wants to watch them i would recommend that you start with season two you can catch the gist and the the official aaron sorkin west wing episode season rankings by the way are season two season three season four and season one i just wanted

to let people know that that's, that's decided. That's a great service. You've just provided to all future watchers of that show. There's going to be a reunion for that show. Paradoxically on HBO max soon. You excited about that? I'll watch it. Okay.

It's Hartsfield landing, right? Yes. That sounds right. Yeah. That's an episode about a very small group of people who have like an undue amount of influence on American politics. So it's probably not the most reassuring choice right now.

Yeah, wow. Can't imagine where he got that idea from. Didn't really manifest in any meaningful way. Let's talk about the trial of Chicago 7 because this is a fascinating document to me. If you do not want this movie spoiled for you, I suggest you turn this podcast off now. I assure you this is not the last time we will be talking about this movie because I expect it to be completely dominant in the Oscar conversation over the next few months.

Also, it is based on real-life events that are available for you on Wikipedia and cannot be spoiled if you are a student of American history. However, if you don't want to know anything else, turn it off. Okay, here we go. Trial of Chicago 7. Let's just start very plainly. Did you like this movie, Amanda? I liked it. Yes, I enjoyed it. I've seen it twice and enjoyed myself both times. I have seen it twice as well, and I like it. I would not put it in the top tier. It did not show up in my top five. I think it's a really interesting document of Sorkinese, of Sorkin history in many ways I thought Adam Damon wrote a very I thought perhaps too harsh

piece about the film on the ringer.com he is often just a shade darker than I am in terms of takes on things like this but very incisive about what does does and does not work in the piece and it's fascinating because it represents all of his idealism, but it also

represents all of the holding back, I think he does, in an effort to preserve a sense of hope. This movie, for those who don't know, is of course about the eight defendants who were charged by Richard Nixon's Justice Department in 1969 with conspiracy charges under the anti-riot provisions of Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for their actions at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that same year. So these eight people were Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and Bobby Seale. This is a true ensemble movie. It's a true courtroom drama. And by true, I just mean in the spirit, not necessarily in the literal truth. And it's not the first time that a filmmaker has opted to tell this story. In fact, it's been told many times

in various different ways over the last 50 years. Medium Cool, Haskell Wexler's part documentary, part narrative feature in 1969 kind of reflects on the events at the DNC that year there's this great movie called Punishment Park that I would recommend to anybody that is very loosely based on this trial you can see parts of this trial rendered in Woody Allen's Bananas you can see it in an HBO movie called The Trial of the Chicago Eight you can see it in a Brett Morgan animated documentary called Chicago 10. The idea had been kicking around

for north of 15 years. Steven Spielberg had always wanted to make this movie. He encouraged Aaron Sorkin to write the script. Somehow, eventually, he got the chance not just to write the script, but to ultimately become the filmmaker behind it after 2017's Molly's Game, which we talked about pretty much in full

on this podcast earlier in quarantine. So we've really been spending a lot of time with Aaron Sorkin. Do you think that this is the right movie for 2020? I mean, that's a very loaded question. I know that many people will feel that it is timely. I know that the marketing of the movie and just the conversation around the movie has already put that word timely and for this moment, um, around the film. And I think in some ways that's true in the sense that, you know, there are, there are certain elements, particularly the footage of,ized police interacting with peaceful protesters, interacting being a euphemism for attacking, and also in the portrayal of just

like a really comically villainous government figures to the point that you would think that you can't make it up. So there are certainly maybe not connections, but parallels between this film and certain aspects of the current moment. I think this film also cannot speak to the current moment. And in a lot of ways, like my ideological hesitations about this film are because of its limitations in how it can speak to this moment. And this is a film that, like all other Aaron Sorkin films, believes that just talking can save everything and principle can save everything. Let me tell you, I'm living here in 2020 and I know that that's not the case. And I don't mean to be pessimistic. I have spent the better part of two hours now saying that like the Aaron Sorkin vision of the world really does speak to me.

But I think the fact that this is 1968 and we are many years later and not really dealing with these issues. Like, you kind of... The timing list doesn't work in this film's favor, necessarily, if that makes sense. I think in very superficial ways, it works perfectly, right? Because it's very easy to build a marketing campaign around a movie in which the whole world is watching, and the concept of police brutality, and the concept of a brutality and the concept of a

merciless and almost vindictive government and justice department feels very resonant right now the movie was conceived in a george bush presidency as a reflection of hope towards the barack obama presidency i mean that's really where when the whole concept was forged and you know american politics has changed a lot in that time, but it also hasn't changed that much. I think we're obviously living through an administration that will go down in infamy in terms of the way that it treated people and the way that it conducted its business. But I, I I'm, I'm really betwixt in between on this whole concept of like what a movie can or should do. You know, I, i thought i always felt like moonlight was

a movie for its time in a very sentimental way that there was like there had not never quite been a movie at that scale with that much visibility that told a story like that and i think that there's power in that like i'm willing to be as hokey as aaron sorkin is about ideas like that i'm not averse to it but the way that Sorkin tells this story, which is with humor, with sharp dialogue, with a lot of fealty to court transcripts and some of the events that transpired. And there were, you know, the figures that are portrayed in the movie are pranksters, are legendary counter-cultural figures, are righteous leaders. You know, Bobby Seale was a very righteous person. David Dellinger and his own boy scout way was very righteous person.

I still don't, I think it's really hard to be serious enough, you know, to really like to, to make the message matter. Um, and as I said before about Oliver stone and all of his other things, I think there's an interesting question here. Like, is this movie entertaining enough to justify itself? Because I think politically it's it leaves me a little bit wanting because it speaks to i think like maybe maybe without even realizing it it speaks to what i think is the signature divide in liberal american politics for lack of a better

word which is what's more important drastic noastic, no fear, cultural revolution or incremental practical protest? What matters? What was going to affect the most change long term? I don't have the answer to that. If I had the answer to that,

I probably would be working not at the ringer. I'm not qualified to answer that. I have my opinions about it. My opinions are almost irrelevant to it, but I think that,

you know, by using, by using by using essentially the character that eddie redmayne plays in the movie um tom hayden as a counterpoint to the character that sasha baron cohen plays in the movie abby hoffman we see these like two divergent points of view now on the outskirts of this is bobby seal who's played by yaya abdul matin could make the case that what happened to Bobby Seale and what happened to the Black Panther movement

and the way that those people were treated is much more important to the history of American history than whatever happened to Tom Hayden. But Aaron Sorkin, because he is Aaron Sorkin, is very interested in something else. He's not interested necessarily in, you know, he's interested in Bobby Seale to a point,

to the point until he leaves the movie. And those choices are really important. Now you can make the case, well, this is about the trial. And at some point, Bobby Seale left the trial and there was a mistrial declared on his behalf. And so he was able to leave after he was bound and gagged in the courtroom in this extraordinary sequence, which works really well in the film. But where his interests lie and where his loyalties lie like tells you so much about his own view of politics and his own sense of like what can solve things which i just don't i just don't think is um is precise enough that's like my my big concern with the movie i agree with all of that you know people have been talking about and and naman's piece talks about how in a lot of ways this is the peak aaron sorkin movie and it is like a real marriage of interests and setting and and style and career and I and I think that's really true

in the sense that it is Aaron Sorkin looks at the trial of Chicago 7 and he sees like a lot of shenanigans and theatrics and then sees a group of principled people triumphing over an institution. And I guess we can spoil the ending because we already said, turn it off if you don't want to know about that. And also this is historical events, but there is a very righteous, and I will admit, like I've teared up both times I've watched it involuntarily because there is something about the, just the, how we are trained.

It's a Pavlovian response. And also, you know, I think it's a, it is a moving gesture and I don't want to diminish the, the gesture, but the final scene where the aforementioned Tom Hayden, um,

character who has been portrayed, not particularly flatteringly throughout the film. It's like, it's pretty clear also where Sorkin is on that divide of cultural revolution versus practical protest, or at least what he thinks of Tom Hayden. But Tom Hayden is given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendants before sentencing and is told to keep it brief and instead chooses

to read the names of every single American soldier who has died in Vietnam since, since their arrest. And it, you know, it turns into a small protest within the courtroom. And it is like a metaphor and a piece of a whole and all that good Sorkin stuff. But it's played as a triumph. And the end cards roll. And you learn that the trial was, I'm sorry, the verdict was turned over by the appeals court and the

U.S. attorney declined to pursue it again. And essentially that like standing in the middle of the room making a statement won the day. And that's like all you needed to do. And that's what Aaron Sorkin believes. And I think in the context of these seven men who were charged with made up charges and got to say something about their government and how they were treated and about the Vietnam War. Like that is true. It's a very small piece of just like a much larger, more complicated thing that we are still living through in a lot of ways. And it just kind of feels like he picked a tiny slice and the sorkiniest slice. And I enjoyed the sorkini aspects of it, but I felt the smallness. Yeah. It's interesting how you characterize how he views someone like Tom Hayden versus

someone like Abby Hoffman. So I think as a showman, as an entertainer, he obviously favors Hoffman because Hoffman gets all the best lines. It has the most creative and I think successful casting in the movie of Sasha Baron Cohen. He's the person who's probably most likely to compete for awards and frankly, great. I love Sasha Baron Cohen.

We, you know, we're going to talk about him again in a couple of weeks. He's got a Borat movie coming out. I think he's hilarious. I think he's very bright. I think he's well cast despite being movie coming out. I think he's hilarious. I think he's very bright. I think he's well-cast despite being a British man. I think he pulls off Abbie Hoffman,

who's a well-known figure to students of U.S. history at this point and to many people who are still alive and were alive at that time and remember him as the kind of chief prankster and in some ways like chief narrator of the countercultural movement. But in the end, the movie ends with Tom Hayden's voice. The movie ends with Tom Hayden reading that those names and Tom Hayden's nobility and him defying judge Hoffman portrayed by Frank Langella.

And like that to me is everything. It's like when it's, when it's appropriate for the entertainment value, he will go to Abby Hoffman. But when it's expeditious the entertainment value, he will go to Abbie Hoffman. But when it's expeditious to tell the lesson, he will go to Tom Hayden. And there's a kind of tucked shirt quality to so much of his work. And I'm a guy who tucks his shirt in sometimes, so I'm not offended by it. But when we're talking about issues like this, and we're talking about events like the ones that happened in 68 at the DNC or like the ones that are happening right now it's it's you

actually i think need to have uh the the fist needs to be clenched tighter you know like the blade has to be sharper and i didn't i just didn't feel like it was sharp enough i even in in and there are like subtle ways to do this i think that the film doesn't always pull off i think the sequences where two people are talking to each other are frequently great. If they're not funny, they're riveting, and almost every person who's in the movie turns in a great performance. The sequences

that are about action, physical action, violence, the threat of violence, protest, the music choices that he makes, the way that he stages scenes, he's not quite there yet as a filmmaker so he he has this like simulacra like 60s rock and roll score where there's like electric tar combined with this very syrupy film music score and like if you want to hear what those moments sounded like,

you have to play the MC5. You know what I mean? You have to make it clear what a radical protester was listening to, what that moment sounded like. And in the movie, he intercuts real sequences

of some of the brutality, but very quickly. And he cuts away from the real stuff to go back to the dramatized versions of it, which I understand as a filmmaker, but the real stuff is scarier and realer. And those black and white sequences where you're seeing people get beaten

in the street with batons, that happened fucking 50 years ago. That didn't happen 300 years ago. And it's happening right now. And I think that I'm turning over in my mind, and I'm taking it very seriously because I think it is a very serious subject matter. Turning over in my mind,

what's the responsibility of an artist to events like these? And in some respects, if your movie is entertaining, I like that and I accept that. And I would recommend that people who like movies should check this movie out. It's a really good movie.

But there's something politically that I'm still a little bit, I haven't figured out how I feel. I agree with that. And I was just reflecting about how like the very somber nature of our conversation to a movie that both times I watched it, I was like, oh, okay. And I think we have to acknowledge them the same way the movie is like engaging with the timeliness. And I understand why they're doing that. Like we are also affected by the timeliness and the current moment. And it's a very strange moment to watch this particular movie because we're human beings and we're dealing with a lot of stuff with the election and, um, just, you know, with America and with the protesters in the street right now. So I think possibly we're seeing it at a very specific time.

I do also just, I have one more technical hesitation with the, the film. As I mentioned, it being a Sorkin film, there is a climactic speech and it is actually another intercut Sean, as you mentioned and it's and it's the moment when Tom Hayden and Abby Hoffman um kind of not not quite come to

blows and also Mark Rylance is involved in it but like it's kind of the idea ideological boiling over which it's what you come to a Sorkin movie for and if this is a movie about how our principles and our arguments like have to be bigger than us and to movie for. And if this is a movie about how our principles and our arguments like have to be bigger than us and to change the world, then like, this is the crucial moment. And it's, he doesn't quite land it.

And it like, it, it, it turns out again to be pretty small, the resolution and the, and the way it turns on a, a pronoun, um,

a missed pronoun. And I was like, okay, that's it. And I think if you want to make these things as grand scale as Aaron Sorgan wants to make them and as I want him to make them because I am like a student and I worship at the altar of these like really big moments, then I think it needs to be a little simpler, honestly, than this climactic scene is. And I think the climactic scene is written the way it is because it's reflecting real life and because real life was like slightly naughtier and because these are like fraught political ideas and these are real people and real situations and you can't reduce it to like I am the president. But again, I like i felt the limits i think that's really well put it's there it's hoping that procedural decisions and rhetorical confusion can be enough to explain something that happened that does not have an explanation other than just by saying, well, there were very, there were evil

people involved, or there was a desperate people who were trying to protect institutions that they felt like were vital, whether you're talking about Mayor Daley in Chicago, or the police department, or individual police officers, or the U.S. Justice Department, or Judge Hoffman,

or all of the people who are, or Richard Schultz, who Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays in this, I think very good performance in a very strange part. And Adam Naiman in his piece, I think spent a lot of time writing about a character that I don't think many people will think about much when the movie is over. But he is essentially the hotshot young attorney in the U.S. attorney's office who is brought in to prosecute these eight people. And at the beginning of the film, he has a lot of suspicions about their guilt or whether they could even successfully get a conviction on these charges.

And over time, you sense that he has some sympathy for these figures, but he's still pushing forward in the case and then at the end of the film he also has a moment of nobility where he sort of stands out of respect for the names that tom hayden is reading but i have no idea like what i'm supposed to make of that character and i've now read and i don't know how true this is because i don't know enough about the case that that is not even necessarily an accurate representation of richard schultz. So as a character invention, why did we need that guy? Why did there need to be a halfway decent person on the other side of Richard Nixon's Justice Department? These are the decisions

occasionally that Sorkin makes. It's not unlike the one that we were joking about with Molly's game where I don't know why Molly needed to be motivated by her father on a park bench in New York City at the end of that movie. Why can't Molly just be motivated by her own desire to be successful and to be a whole person? There are choices like this that he makes, not always, but sometimes, that I think holds him back. And I'm really just confused by the Schultz character.

I'm confused by the way that some of the like roadblocks are created, especially when you have a character like judge Hoffman, who just seems like a horrible person. And it's like a notorious figure in us history. And I think Sorkin very effectively with it. And like the end credits identifies that this is a person who was like incompetent and unfit for the job and was put in charge of a very important case in American history. So I think sometimes there can be like just too much, too much icing on the cake. You know what I mean? Yeah, I do. I mean,

I think probably that the frankly angelic character is, um, judge Hoffman, not to be confused with Abby Hoffman. Um, as he as he uh the judge himself interjects several times which is like a funnier part and you know the moments were in the courtroom and everyone is doing their courtroom bit and we're like oh it's working back in a courtroom sure why not no spoilers but we already said we were spoilers there was a michael keaton cameo where when i was watching it again i was just like keaton keaton's about to show up i'm cheering like i just want to see michael keaton walk in and just like explain to people how it is. Um, but there is something about like the, the judge Hoffman character that is so cartoonishly. I know

I already said that like evil that sort of can like kind of has to create stakes. And this trial just seems like an absolute, not a joke because it was serious and there are real people's lives at stake, but just like a mess. And such a mess that like you can see Sorkin trying to create his own stakes within a bunch of people just being completely incompetent. And it is interesting to see which stakes he chooses to create.

Who else jumped out at you in the movie? It's a huge cast. The Michael Keaton moment, of course, I think most people who are watching the movie will be delighted. He plays Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General of the United States, giving a very entertaining voir dire, um,

testimony. Who else? I mean, we have to talk about Jeremy Strong. Yeah. It's Jerry Rubin. Yeah. Um,

a comedic performance, I would say, but, you know, still with kind of this, this, the soft lostness of his succession character as well, you know,

um, some great lines, including the other thing that I'm just going to start saying to you all the Austenus of his succession character as well, you know? Yep. Yep. Some great lines, including the other thing that I'm just going to start saying to you all the time, which is you've asked that question in a form of a lie. That's a great one. Which is really good and very useful. So I feel like a lot of people walked out of the movie and were like, oh, we need to talk about, you know, Stone or Jeremy Strong. He's very good. What did you think of Mark Rylance, who plays William Kunstler, the legendary courtroom figure in American history, I would say?

On the one hand, I would watch Mark Rylance like do anything. Like if there is, it's interesting because I, Mark Rylance is someone who I depend on to show up and restore order and, um, and a sense of dignity to all involved. He's just that he's the custodian of decency. Um, and he's in a film by a person who believes in decency above all else.

And Mark Rylance just kind of felt like he was doing a Mark Rylance character. You know, it's like he was not quite SNLing himself. Cause I think he's very good, but there is like not much for him to engage with except for the Mark Rylance of it all. I was happy to see him.

I think it was interesting to see him be stymied at all times. You know, he's stymied by Judge Hoffman repeatedly. He's stymied by Abby Hoffman. He's stymied by Hayden at times. He's stymied by the U.S. government when he goes to visit Ramsey Clark.

I thought that that was like kind of a stripe you don't see from him too much. He's usually so doggedly determined and dignified, as you said, that it was an interesting part for him um i wanted like one speech out of him you know i wanted one more big moment and in a movie that is kind of defined by its big moments as all sorkin movies are i was surprised that he

didn't get a you know a chance to fully take off you know he doesn't get to give a big closing statement that that summarizes everything in the film but he's very good i you know i guess that's as like elegant a segue as any from something that really matters in the world which is uh how institutions either prevent or allow people to make change to something that doesn't matter as much which is like awards but this is a movie that is made for awards and i suspect it's going to compete for a lot of awards and it credibly i think i i would be shocked if it did not compete for best picture and best screenplay and it did not have between two and four best acting nominations what do you what do you foresee in terms of at least the oscars for the trial of the chicago seven are you kidding all the boomers

are gonna be like yes, give it to me. Like what we did in the sixties really mattered. And now we're going to give it all the Oscars. And I actually, I don't mean to diminish anything that people did in the sixties. And I think I have been a little, I don't mean to come off as dismissive of the actions in this movie. And I find the last scene like very moving but i do think that it is simplified in a way that a certain

segment of the academy um is hungering for yeah i agree with that i i'm very curious to see if it kind of runs away with the oscars you know there's an expectation that mank is coming we've seen no mad land there are a handful of movies that are understood to be competing in a big way we saw a trailer for hillbilly elegy also from netflix can't say i was really swayed by that one in terms of the awards conversation based on what i saw but this is a this is a big fat fastball right down the middle um it's not hard to explain to people why this matters it's not hard to explain why it matters to hollywood um it's not hard for net to people why this matters. It's not hard to explain why it matters to Hollywood. It's not hard for Netflix to put all of its weight behind it. We went to a lovely drive-in screening of this film at the Rose Bowl.

It's quite an affair. One of the nicer affairs I've been to since quarantine started, frankly. And that's the sort of thing that Netflix can do at this time. So yeah, it just strikes you as a movie that has nine Oscar nominations, right? Yes. And I think like four of them will be acting nominations. It'll be very interesting to see how the supporting actor category goes because this is filled with showy, memorable, fun performances. I walked out of this and I was like, oh, cool. So yeah, Abdul-Mateen is going to win an Oscar. And I saw this like the day after the Emmys. And so I was like, great. He's going to get an Emmy and an Oscar. I got it. Star power. Other people seem

to focus on the Jeremy Strong or the obviously the Sacha Baron Cohen, the Mark Rylance. Someone said Keaton, which like I would love it. But also Michael Keaton is in this movie for five minutes. Let's just let's be grateful for what we get from Michael Keaton in this movie. Yeah, but I think you're raising kind of an interesting challenge that the movie has, which is how do you slot these figures? You know, you've got between four and seven really good performances that are worthy of awards consideration. It's a true ensemble.

My guess would be that Sasha Baron Cohen will run as best actor and not as best supporting actor. Whether he can win in that category, we'll have to wait and see what other movies come out this year. But that leaves then I think Jeremy Strong, Mark Rylance, Yaya Abdul-Mateen, Eddie Redmayne,

and maybe even Michael Keaton all potentially competing for supporting actor. I will say I'men, Eddie Redmayne, and maybe even Michael Keaton all potentially competing for supporting actor. I will say I'm not an Eddie Redmayne fan at all. I thought he was very effective in this movie. I have not really understood his work like in any movie. And that's nothing against the man personally, but like every time he's shown up in a movie from, you know, the Stephen Hawking biopic to Fantastic Beasts. I've been like, what's this guy's problem? I thought he was very good as Tom Hayden. And it'll be interesting to see, which is a much less showy performance,

if he's able to get any attention here relative to Sasha or Yaya or whomever. Here's what I want, is that I just want Jane Fonda to do an hour-long Q&A with anyone about this film. Because you reminded me afterwards, after we saw this, that after the events of this film, Tom Hayden marries Jane Fonda. And if you have not read Jane Fonda's autobiography,

if you've listened this long into an Aaron Sorkin podcast and have not read Jane Fonda's autobiography, I absolutely recommend it. Fascinating portrayal. All I want to know is what Jane Fonda thinks of this movie. And if we're going to have an Oscar season, I think I deserve that. I mean, Jane Fonda, the case was overturned in 1972. And a year later, he's married to Jane Fonda and they're married for 17 years. And he goes on to be a California state legislature politician. So fascinating life and career for Tom Hayden.

We'll have to see what happens in terms of the Oscar race. Any other like stray Sorkin reflections? Anything else you want to share from your heart before we wrap this up? You said at the beginning that we would tell people whether they should watch this movie. And I feel kind of bad. You guys should watch this movie. Number one. It's very good.

If everyone is this far in this podcast and you didn't watch the movie and you're not going to i just i would encourage you to think more about how you spend your time because i value it even if you don't um yeah watch the movie i i think i think it's fascinating and i'm fascinated to see like the waves of reaction to this because the first reaction was very positive um and from a number of people who i didn't expect to like it that much. And I wonder whether I was protecting, you know, my heart because I believe so much in Sorkin and because my standards for the things and people I love are so much higher, as you know well, Sean. But I do think that there will be a lot of conversation about the politics of all of this. I think it's a very interesting time for it to be coming out.

I think just the world in the next six weeks is going to be a ride anyway. And to that end, this like might be a bomb, you know, I, it does, it is optimistic. So I watch this movie.

Let's be very clear about that. And then we can continue discussing it. That sounds like a plan in the meantime i hope you will stay tuned to the big picture next week we're going to be back with a little halloween treat talking about some horror movies amanda thank you as always bobby wagner thank you see you guys next week Thank you.