Nearing the end of this school year, and my high school experience in its entirety, I decided to return to my reviewing roots — musical theater. There was no better place to start (or restart rather) than Rob Marshall’s 2002 film Chicago, widely believed to not only be a good movie, but a solid interpretation of its John Kander and Frank Ebb written stage source material.

Set in its title city during the 1920s, Chicago is about nightclub performer Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and discontent housewife Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) who both find themselves jailed for murder — in Velma’s case, the double homicide of her sister and husband, and for Roxie, the killing of her lover Fred Casely (Dominic West). However, feeling justified in their actions, the women hire tricky lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) to turn their trials into media sensations in order to free themselves and launch their careers.

To understand the strength of Chicago’s satire, explaining the time period in which it’s set is necessary.

The 1920s were an interesting era. 

Contemporarily, the decade is associated with the glitz and glamor of ‘The Roaring Twenties,’ a time remembered for lavish parties, new style, and embracing taboo — think “The Great Gatsby.” However, the 1920s were not unilaterally great. In order for some to live in the iconographic grandeur, many more lived in abject, intergenerational poverty. Further, it was a time of great social unrest. The years leading up to the 1920s were characterized by pushes for civil, women’s, union, and immigrants’ rights. 

Chicago, thus, tackles the corrupt justice system of this time period, focusing on the way women were treated by the law. Barred from public office, voting, and even from serving on juries, Chicago is a tongue and cheek look at women winning against the system by playing into the egos and biases of men — ironically the ego and bias that leads them to commit crimes are the same ego and bias that free them. Velma and Roxie do not survive by proving society wrong; they survive by using men’s prejudice against them.

Is this a miscarriage of justice, or the most just outcome?

The performative nature of Velma’s and Roxie’s trials is mirrored in the aesthetics of the movie itself. All but two musical numbers take place in the fantasies of the characters, literally rose-colored and grand in scale. Many are set on stages with the women performing to literal audiences or other key figures from the movie. In this way, the viewer is both a member of the audience and a member of the jury — caught between being entertained and judging the actions of the women.

In the end, though, Chicago is less an examination of Velma and Roxie than it is a dissection of the justice system. The women are objectively guilty of their crimes, but in portraying the underhanded slights they endure and the blatant failings of the law to uphold morality, the story asks: How can a corrupt system be allowed to evaluate individuals corrupted by circumstance?

This inability to condemn Velma and Roxie raises its own series of questions about the viewer too. If I as a viewer know the women are guilty, why is it that I sympathize with them and want them to go free? 

In part, this can be answered by the strength of the script which renders the women humanely and charismatically — it’s hard to look away from them even during their worst moments. At the same time, I wonder if my personal attachment to it is due to my own desire to see these women — however bad they are — live in such an unapologetic, uncaring way. It’s refreshing to see how easily dismantled the courts are, and it forces the audience to consider if the courts can even be trusted if they’re so eager to underestimate and misrepresent those who are on trial.

It isn’t necessarily that I seek to validate the women’s actions, but I certainly don’t seek to convict them either.

8/10 would do a song and dance to vote ‘not guilty’ again

Further breakdown:

Writing Quality: 9/10                     Enjoyability: 8/10

Pace: 8/10                                      Visual elements: 10/10

Plot development: 8/10                  Insightfulness: 8/10

Characters: 8/10