Seven Days in May [DVD]

I recently re-watched this movie after buying the blu ray, and I was reminded of what a good, taut, suspenseful political thriller it is. But it's also interesting to see what a definite product of its time it was. This film was made hard on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis, at the very height of the Cold War. Today, that seems like ancient history to a lot of people -- perhaps even to some of the people who lived through it. For those of us born after the baby boomer generation, nuclear weapons have been a fact for our entire lives. It's easy to lose sight of what a new and horrifying development they were for people back in the mid-century era, and how large they loomed in everyone's consciousness. We've lived with their existence now for almost three quarters of a century, and perhaps that has made us complacent in a way that people back in the sixties were not, when the specter of nuclear annihilation had only been around for a few short years. So it's natural that the plot to this movie should revolve around the threat of nuclear weapons, and the idea of a disarmament treaty, especially given that the script was written by Rod Serling. Just think how many episodes of the original "Twilight Zone" were about a nuclear apocalypse, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse, or the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse (e.g. "The Shelter," "Two," "Third from the Sun," "One More Pallbearer," "The Old Man in the Cave," "Probe 7 Over and Out," "Time Enough At Last"), or remember the ending to the original "Planet of the Apes," (whose script was also written by Serling), with its famous twist ending, where Charlton Heston's stranded astronaut, Taylor, discovers he's been back on Earth the whole time -- an Earth where the apes displaced us because we pushed the button and blew ourselves back to the stone age. There was a real, pervading sense in those days, when nuclear weapons were new and gave us a capability that we'd never had before -- to wipe out human civilization, and perhaps the human species itself in one horrifying spasm -- that it was virtually INEVITABLE we'd destroy ourselves, given our warlike history. All it would take would be one catastrophic mistake -- and we are a species prone to making those. Three quarters of a century have given us a perspective they didn't have then. We know today that as terrifying as it was, Mutual Assured Destruction DID actually work! The Cold War ended, and as close as we got to the brink, we didn't go over it, because ultimately, we weren't suicidal and neither were the Soviets or the Red Chinese. This is not to say all danger is passed, but today the threat can realistically be assessed as significantly less grave than it was during the mid-twentieth century.But this movie was made back when the threat was quite new, and seemed quite dire, and as I said, the plot revolves around the struggle between two factions, one who believes deterrence is the only answer, and the other, which believes that only disarmament would end the danger. (Spoilers ahead!) Frederic March plays U.S. President Jordan Lyman, a believer in disarmament. He is absolutely convinced of the inevitability of nuclear war if both sides don't disarm, and signs a treaty to eliminate the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Burt Lancaster plays Air Force General James Matoon Scott, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a well-known and very popular war hero, who believes the opposite: that disarmament is inexcusably naïve; that the Soviets, who have a long history of breaking treaties, cannot be trusted to honor this one; that once America scraps its arsenal, but the Soviets keep theirs, then war would indeed be inevitable, but so also would total defeat. (I have to say personally, that I agree with the second premise: disarmament and disarmament treaties have a poor track record -- the democracies voluntarily disarmed between the two world wars, and signed disarmament treaties [e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty], but the dictatorships armed themselves and made war against enemies who looked weak and unwilling to fight. The ancient Romans got it right all those centuries ago: si vis pacem para bellum.) General Scott is so convinced of the sheer folly of Lyman's course, that he resolves to seize control of the government. Caught in the middle is Scott's aide, marine colonel "Jiggs" Casey, who fully agrees with Scott's assessment of the folly of disarmament, but is repelled at the thought of overthrowing the legitimately elected government of the United States and installing a military junta. Casey realizes, correctly, that it's a cure far worse than the disease. It would mean throwing away the rule of law, and the political stability and peaceful transfer of power that the U.S. has enjoyed for two centuries, and would entail the U.S. becoming just another banana republic, with all the corruption and political instability that would bring. It could lead to a government as repressive and authoritarian as that of the Soviets. So, despite his misgivings about Lyman's policy, Casey works to uncover and thwart the conspiracy before the coup d'état can take place.This is a great movie, with superb direction and pacing, outstanding performances from a stellar cast, and a great, suspenseful story, and finally, is a superb window to the dangers and concerns of the Cold War era. It comes highly recommended.

It's interesting to me how books and movies can come, go, and come again in relevance. In 1964, with the sound of Kennedy's assassination still lingering in the air, the Vietnam War on the horizon, and the nation erupting in violence as the Civil Rights movement hit the streets, the idea that drives SEVEN DAYS IN MAY probably seemed much more realistic than it did some decades later, when a weak remake of this film was made just after the Cold War ended. But the way things are going today, in 2019, the premise of SEVEN DAYS -- that the President might be deposed by the U.S. military -- has once again edged back into the furthest realms of possibility.SEVEN DAYS takes place during the darkest days of the Cold War. The nation's deeply unpopular president, Jordan Lyman (Frederic March) has just signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union, a move angrily opposed by the Joint Chiefs, most notably their charismatic Chairman, General James Matoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), who feel this is a sign of weakness that will provoke, rather than prevent, a nuclear war. Scott's able and loyal aide, Marine colonel Martin "Jiggs" Casey (Kirk Douglas), also opposes the treaty, but irritably fobs off suggestions from Senator Fred Prentice (Whit Bissel) that the military should take a more "active" role in opposing the president's plans. The constitution is sacred to Casey, as is the chain of command, and he assumes this feeling is universal throughout the military. A series of strange events, however, soon make Casey wonder if some of his fellow officers share that feeling, and before long he finds himself reluctantly confronting President Lyman with the seemingly fantastical idea that General Scott is planning a military overthrow of the government. The President is of course skeptical, but when his best friend, Senator Ray Clark (Edmond O'Brien) disappears while trying to locate a military base that no one seems to want to admit exists, Lyman's attitude changes. The President is desperate not only to abort the coup before it can take place, but to do so in a way in which the wider public, and the Soviet Union, never know of its existence. Unfortunately, he has few allies: Scott has the military leadership, an elite airborne unit led by a fanatical neo-fascist officer, the support of Prentice, and -- most importantly perhaps -- a Rush Limbaugh-style demagogue with a loyal audience of ten million, who plan to help him legitimize his coup. Lyman's hasty plans hinge on blackmail, in the form of Scott's embittered former mistress, Eleanor Holbrook (Ava Gardner), but Lyman may not have the stomach to stoop so low even with all the chips on the pass line. And yet me must find a way to stop Scott fast, because the day of the planned coup is fast approaching.SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is a rare sort of film -- a military-political thriller that employs almost nothing in the way of violence or bloodshed. Everything which occurs does so in a single week, hence the title. The tension is achieved first through Casey's growing unease and suspicion (Kirk Douglas does a great job of acting with his face as he stumbles on some of the clues of the coup's existence), then by a plot twist which gives and then takes away the President's advantage over Scott, then by Clark's adventure in the desert (complete with capture, escape, and possible re-capture) and finally by a terrific all-dialogue confrontation between Scott and Lyman, during which March and Lancaster rise to sublime levels as actors. I confess I wanted to see just one scene in which the army of the plotters comes into conflict with soldiers loyal to the President (think the combat sequences in "Dr. Strangelove"), but such a sequence would have run contrary to the spirit of the film. The fact is, the talent pool on this film was very deep, and the direction by John Frankenheimer is crisp and assured, never flashy or distracting. To be perfectly honest, DAYS is one of those rare cases in which the film is better than the book upon which it was based, a novel by Fletcher Knebel whose tone was not appropriately serious enough for the subject matter. A lot of this falls at the feet of the great Rod Serling, whose screenplay is full of gems, including some great exchanges between Douglas and Gardner that would fit perfectly into a Film Noir movie ("I'll make you two promises: a very good steak, medium rare, and the truth, which is very rare.") It is possible to deliver a thriller with little physical action, but only if you have the right script, and the right actors to act it out.We live in strange times, and the fact that SEVEN DAYS IN MAY has crept quietly into relevance again after 50-odd years is depressing and cause for anxiety. But it certainly makes an old black and white movie feel as relevant as today's news.

This will give you a look back in history as to what is happening now. Great movie, Jeff Woods

This is an awesome movie; history seems to be repeating itself. No matter how one feels about politics or personal affiliation this is a movie to ponder. Absolutely. Great stars and magnificent plot.

Excellent, suspenseful, 60's thriller. From the pen of screen writer Rod (Twilight Zone) Serling.

This was an excellent movie that we just watched tonight 2/19/23. It shows how a relatively few men can overthrow a government with the right planning/timing... like a game of chess very carefully played out by a group of unelected people... people whose names were not known to the public.

Well worth a look if cold war era drama holds any interest for you. Good cast, good acting etc. I hadn't seen this film before. Don't be put off by the Spanish packing, just select the English language option, miss out subtitles, go back to the main menu and play.

A great film about the military vs democracy .

Good but short.

A little known classic.

'Fantapolitica ancora attuale'Questo film di John Frankenheimer uscìqualche mese dopo l'assassinio di JohnKennedy. Erano gli anni della guerra fredda, delle tensioni politiche, dello smarrimento dell'uomo moderno di frontea una nuova minaccia: il nucleare.Tutto ciò nel film si percepiva palesemente.Una psicosi generale che dalle strade dell'America violenta di quegli anni, si riversavanelle stanze dei bottoni degli appartamentipresidenziali, dove, sotto la rassicurantecomposizione degli arredi, serpeggiavanoi tradimenti, la corruzione, l'equilibrioinstabile di una nazione che non si sentivapiù al sicuro e, mai come in questo caso,pronta ad 'esplodere'.Frankenheimer compose un affresco apocalittico (non senza qualche retoricadi troppo), inserito nel mezzo di altri duefilm che formarono un'ideale 'trilogiaFantapolitica o della paranoia', ovvero"Va' e uccidi" e "Operazione diabolica"(per chi scrive il suo capolavoro).Spettacolare b/n, secondo lo stile del regista che, venendo dalla televisione,lavorava sulla profondità di campo e iprimissimi piani dei volti (quasi a renderneevidenti le imperfezioni), per creare unasorta di avvicinamento ai personaggi e,allo stesso tempo, isolarli dal contesto,lasciandoli a combattere con le propriesolitudini.Eccezionali furono le interpretazioni deicinque attori protagonisti, icone dellaHollywood degli anni d'oro, ai quali bastavaun'alzata di sopracciglia o un leggeromovimento delle labbra per esprimereun'intera sequenza (si veda il confrontofinale fra il presidente Fredric March e ilgenerale Burt Lancaster).Cinema classico, nel senso più alto e nobiledel termine. Purtroppo a questo grandecinema la A&R non ha reso un adeguatoservizio qualitativo. Come sempre, questacasa di distribuzione difetta nel manico.Alla lodevole riproposta dei classici, nonfa quasi mai seguire la qualità dei dischidistribuiti. E qui non si smentisce, con unriversamento non ottimale, disturbato a tratti da spuntinature e imperfezioni.Anche il comparto extra appare desolante,con il solo trailer e una serie di foto di scena. Dulcis in fundo, l'assenza dei sottotitoli in italiano, pertanto, non si puògodere della versione originale dellapellicola. Per fortuna è stato mantenutoil doppiaggio originale d'epoca.Le quattro stelle vanno al film, per un'edizione di qualità aspettiamo fiduciosi.