An intriguing premise, a star-studded cast, and a script written by Rod Serling all had me looking forward to seeing this movie. The idea that a highly divisive issue might cause reasonable men to subvert the rule of law at the highest level, the functioning of our democracy, because they think they are doing the greater good, is thought-provoking. One of the film's strengths is that it shows the debate over the issue - a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviets - from both sides, and it's notable that not only its military leaders believe it naïve and unwise, but the majority of Americans in the film do as well.
The performances are strong across the board, starting with 67-year-old Frederic March as the President; I loved how natural and unforced he was. Burt Lancaster is strong as well as the General who is so concerned by the treaty that he conspires to take over the government. He plays the character correctly, showing him as a rational, patriotic guy who believes he's looking out for his country, not a delusional power-hungry maniac. Kirk Douglas is also quite good as the Colonel who reports to the General and begins suspecting something is amiss. The best scenes are towards the beginning, as the premise gradually unfolds, and near the end, with the confrontation between the President and the wayward General.
Unfortunately, the middle of the film and how the story unfolds once a conspiracy is suspected is rather weak. The actions taken by the President, sending individual men (Edmond O'Brien and Paul Girard) off to investigate or talk to others, is unrealistic. The story line about the General's old lover (Ava Gardner) and her letters is silly and completely unnecessary. The film suffers because in trying to create these subplots to show what the President in such a scenario would do about it, it misses the more obvious and direct response. For the understated payoff which comes - and which I admired - these things in the middle seem to be just filler, and clumsy filler at that.
Fear of the Military Industrial Complex and fear of the USSR were high in this era, so the film was certainly topical. It's still relevant today, in this or possibly other ways. It made me wonder about the inverse scenario: what if an unhinged President decided on a whim to use a nuclear weapon? What would the military do in that situation, and would we have the same view of following the rule of law? Or in our highly divided America, is it possible that we're near a constitutional crisis if one branch of the government simply flouts the rule of law, or perhaps contests an election result? Would a person in power like the President that Frederic March plays in this film step forward and discriminate between bitter disagreement on issues, and continuing to operate the government per its laws and principles?
The film's ending is excellent in the sense that it emphasizes the need to do just that. It doesn't offer a solution to the political question of the treaty (peace or the hard line), perhaps because there is no easy answer, and more importantly, it's not the point of the film. I love the whole concept here, but just wish it could have been executed better.
My favorite lines are some sweet burns from Kirk Douglas. The first is an exchange he has with a senator who has been pushing him to state his views on the nuclear treaty, which Douglas is hesitant to give because he doesn't see it as relevant (his job is to uphold the law): Senator: "You make me think that fruit salad on your chest (his array of medals) is for neutrality, evasiveness, and fence-straddling." Douglas: "On the contrary, they're standard awards for cocktail courage and dinner-table heroism. I thought you'd invented them."
And then of course this one, to the General, who testily infers Douglas is a traitor for working with the President, and asks him if he knows who Judas was: "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."
The performances are strong across the board, starting with 67-year-old Frederic March as the President; I loved how natural and unforced he was. Burt Lancaster is strong as well as the General who is so concerned by the treaty that he conspires to take over the government. He plays the character correctly, showing him as a rational, patriotic guy who believes he's looking out for his country, not a delusional power-hungry maniac. Kirk Douglas is also quite good as the Colonel who reports to the General and begins suspecting something is amiss. The best scenes are towards the beginning, as the premise gradually unfolds, and near the end, with the confrontation between the President and the wayward General.
Unfortunately, the middle of the film and how the story unfolds once a conspiracy is suspected is rather weak. The actions taken by the President, sending individual men (Edmond O'Brien and Paul Girard) off to investigate or talk to others, is unrealistic. The story line about the General's old lover (Ava Gardner) and her letters is silly and completely unnecessary. The film suffers because in trying to create these subplots to show what the President in such a scenario would do about it, it misses the more obvious and direct response. For the understated payoff which comes - and which I admired - these things in the middle seem to be just filler, and clumsy filler at that.
Fear of the Military Industrial Complex and fear of the USSR were high in this era, so the film was certainly topical. It's still relevant today, in this or possibly other ways. It made me wonder about the inverse scenario: what if an unhinged President decided on a whim to use a nuclear weapon? What would the military do in that situation, and would we have the same view of following the rule of law? Or in our highly divided America, is it possible that we're near a constitutional crisis if one branch of the government simply flouts the rule of law, or perhaps contests an election result? Would a person in power like the President that Frederic March plays in this film step forward and discriminate between bitter disagreement on issues, and continuing to operate the government per its laws and principles?
The film's ending is excellent in the sense that it emphasizes the need to do just that. It doesn't offer a solution to the political question of the treaty (peace or the hard line), perhaps because there is no easy answer, and more importantly, it's not the point of the film. I love the whole concept here, but just wish it could have been executed better.
My favorite lines are some sweet burns from Kirk Douglas. The first is an exchange he has with a senator who has been pushing him to state his views on the nuclear treaty, which Douglas is hesitant to give because he doesn't see it as relevant (his job is to uphold the law): Senator: "You make me think that fruit salad on your chest (his array of medals) is for neutrality, evasiveness, and fence-straddling." Douglas: "On the contrary, they're standard awards for cocktail courage and dinner-table heroism. I thought you'd invented them."
And then of course this one, to the General, who testily infers Douglas is a traitor for working with the President, and asks him if he knows who Judas was: "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."