Seven Days in May (1964) User Reviews

Seven Days in May Was Anything But Far-fetched

[msilbergeld-1 · 9/10 · 12 January 2006]

The novel and the movie Seven Days in May were based on a very potential reality. See James Bamford's 2002 book, Body of Secrets, which is about the National Security Agency. General Edwin Walker, mentioned in another review, was only the least of what was going on in the higher echelons of the U.S. military near the end of the Eisenhower Administration and the beginning of the Kennedy-Johnson Administration.

At military bases, and even at the National War College in Washington, the most rabid preachings took place about the real threat of communism coming not from Russia or Cuba, but from high-ups in the domestic power structure, including the government. The entire Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), led by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, was very right wing and rabidly obsessed with the idea that American civilization could not endure unless Cuba was militarily conquered and occupied in the long-term. They repeatedly threw suggestions for this at Eisenhower, who never took the bit. When Ike left the Oval Office and Kennedy, who had never been a military higher-up, replaced him, Lemnitzer felt adrift and became very paranoid. There were all sorts of JCS contingency plans, never implemented, for creating an incident that could be blamed falsely on the Russians and/or the Cubans to justify an invasion - a sort of second sinking of the battleship Maine. The more far-fetched of these ideas included terrorism at home to be blamed on Cuba and an attack on a friendly Central American country that could be falsely blamed on Cuba, all without the President's approval. Lemnitzer, according to Bamford, had little use for the concept of civilian control of the military. In fact,enough of this atmosphere within the U.S. military was in the wind that there was a secret Congressional inquiry into the potential for a military takeover of the government, which was based on more than idle wonder. Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee (the father of the recent Vice President), a member of the investigating committee, called for Lemnitzer's firing. Kennedy did not fire him, but did not re-appoint him to a second term as Chairman, preferring the more rational Maxwell Taylor.

When the book came out, I stayed awake for 24 hours to finish it. I could not put it down. Mercifully, the film is shorter, but it is superbly acted and very well scripted. You won't be disappointed.

" Do You Know Who Judas Was? "

[thinker1691 · 9/10 · 7 June 2007]

There are many movies directed by John Frenkenheimer which simply evolve over time into great works of art. In their own way, they exemplify his innate sense of mystery, suspense, and dark drama. Too many to list, one example would be "Seconds." In this film, "Seven Days in May" we have what will surely become one of the finest examples of his craft. In the story, we have Gen. James Mattoon Scott, (Burt Lancaster) (in what certainly became a custom tailored role for him) who firmly believes that the president of the United States has criminally endangered the country by agreeing to a nuclear disarmament treaty. So concerned for the safety of the U.S. that he and several Joint Chiefs of Staff, decide to remove President Jordan Lyman ( Fredric March) with a cleverly designed military alert, or Coup d'etat. Unable to confide in his own aid, Col. Martin 'Jiggs' Casey, (Kirk Douglas), Scott, arranges to keep Casey out of the loop, until the overthrow is complete. Unfornatuately for the Generals, Casey suspects their innocent "secret wagers" are more menacing than they appear and hopes the president will believe him when he shares his suspicions about the man he work's for and admires. Edmond O'Brien is Sen. Raymond Clark, one of the few men the president can trust. The late Rod Serling wrote the script and like his twilight Zone episodes, this classic film has one wondering who the real traitors are? *****

The military plot

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 23 August 2020]

Seeing that 'Seven Days in May' is as highly regarded as it is immediately grabbed my attention. John Frankenheimer was a truly fine director who directed some truly fine films such as 'The Manchurian Candidate' and 'The Train'. His several collaborations of Burt Lancaster (of which this is one), which include 'The Train' and 'Birdman of Alcatraz', are all worth watching at least and there are some talented actors here. As well as an intriguing premise.

Which luckily is wholly lived up to in 'Seven Days in May'. If the subject doesn't appeal to you, the film may not be to your taste. If it does appeal and you like the genre, it is very likely to be the opposite. It is not one of Frankenheimer's best (quite) and not one of his very best collaborations with Lancaster (do prefer personally 'The Train' and 'Birdman of Alcatraz'). 'Seven Days in May' is still a very, very good film in my opinion, with many brilliant assets.

It does meander in pace in the third act, where it gets too talk-heavy, and gets a little heavy handed at times.

There is so much to love in 'Seven Days in May' otherwise though. It looks great, with the very atmospheric cinematography being especially good. Frankenheimer's direction is taut and accomplished, if not as visually innovative as a couple of his other films. He makes great use of the setting which has a sense of foreboding throughout, while the editing is pretty amazing. Jerry Goldsmith's, a personal favourite for years when it comes to film composers, music score is not too over-scored or bombastic while having great presence and ominous atmosphere.

Although the script has a lot of talk, with reliance on monologues, it is intelligent and thought-provoking talk that has a good deal of intrigue. Lancaster and Fredric March's big scene is exceptionally well written. The story did engage me and has tension, thanks to the chilling omnipresence of the surveillance mechanics, and didn't strike me as hard to follow. Some of the middle act is outlandish but in an entertaining way rather than a lacking in cohesion one. The film starts off incredibly well, with a stark documentary-like style to the filming

Found the characters to be well written and interesting, though Ava Gardner's was a bit too thin for my liking. The best thing about 'Seven Days in May' though is the acting which is nothing short of brilliant, even Gardner brings all she's got in a tricky part to make interesting considering the thin writing of it. Two of the trickier roles are for Kirk Douglas, which is reaction-heavy and not with a massive amount of talk, and Edmund O'Brien in a part that is so easy to play too broadly. Douglas tells so much with his eyes and his expressions and O'Brien enjoys himself hugely and makes his role a lot more interesting than it really is. Lancaster brings his usual intensity and nuance and March gives one of his best late-career performances.

In summary, very good even if not everything works. 7.5/10

Prophetic warning

[mermatt · 14 August 2000]

An excellent cast, a well-crafted script, and a talented director add up to one of the great films.

This movie captures the paranoia of the cold war and how that paranoia tested the strength and definition of a democracy. The importance of civilian control over the military is well illustrated in this chilling story of a plot by the Pentagon to overthrow the US President because the military disagrees with his disarmament policy.

Use of black & white gives the film the look of a documentary, emphasizing the sense of realism for the story. If you have the chance, see this movie.

Can It Happen Here?

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 16 December 2005]

Fredric March is the President of the United States. He has just gotten a nuclear disarmament treaty signed with the Soviet Union's leader, and it has (barely) been passed by the U.S. Senate. Both countries agree to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, and to end decades of potential nuclear catastrophe. But there are many who oppose this treaty, including Burt Lancaster, the greatest military hero of the day and head of the Joint Chief of Staff. He is in contact with several others regarding these fears, and they are planning a coup, to replace the President and his supporters and rip up this dangerous treaty. That is the background and story of "Seven Days In May", except that Lancaster's closest assistant, Kirk Douglas, is appalled at the scheme and tips off March and his associates (Martin Balsam, Edmond O'Brien, George Macready). We are also aware that there is certain information that can be gotten by the President that would tarnish Lancaster's American patriot and family man image - his love letters to his mistress (Ava Gardner). Also, as the film goes on, we are aware of the spread of the coup - how Edmund O'Brien is held imprisoned by mutinous soldiers. And how Balsam may have gotten a confession out of one of the weaker links in the scheme.

This film is interesting on so many levels. Not only does it include so many good performances in it, it is one of the most "Oscar" filled film casts one can think of - March, Lancaster, Douglas, Balsam, O'Brien, and even the uncredited John Houseman (as the weak-link Admiral Barnswell) all do well in the film. But what is most interesting to me is that the film was made when it was. Because it brings up the issue of whether a political coup can happen here or not.

The subject of a fascist or dictatorial government taking over America is not new. Jack London wrote of such in "The Iron Heel" at the turn of the 20th Century. Sinclair Lewis did the same in 1934 with "It Can't Happen Here, turning real life demagogue Senator Huey Long into "Senator Buzz Windrip" who seizes power. Hollywood would have an unsettling faith (to us) in fascistic politics in "Gabriel Over The White House", "This Day And Age", and even Harold Lloyd's strange comedy The Cat's Paw". That the Depression scared the people does not really reassure us today. But "Seven Days In May was written in the 1960s. It does show how close to success such a plot may go.

SPOILERS AHEAD:

Basically, what saves the day for President Jordan Lyman's administration, and the treaty, is that the confession of one of General Scott's confederates is found. Lyman is unable to bring himself to be as underhanded towards the General as the latter deserves (he can't bring himself to use the love letters the General wrote his mistress to discredit the man). The deus ex machina of the confession saves the day, and causes the other leaders of the coup to save themselves, so that Scott is deserted and discredited as a traitor (when Jiggs, sarcastically asked if he knows who Judas was, tells Scott that he is Judas Scott realizes it's over). His collapse is completed as he hears over the radio of the resignations of his co-conspirators.

The interesting thing was that Knebel's novel pushed a different slant on Scott's final collapse. Lyman, in the novel, produces the confession to Scott, and they both hear of the resignations. Scott leaves the Oval Office aware that it is over, but thinking that he might (after he resigns) start a political campaign to replace Lyman in the White House in the next election. Instead, he is confronted by Senator Clark (O'Brien) and Secretary of the Treasury Todd (George Macready)outside the Oval Office. They remind Scott that if he intends to run for the Presidency rather than resigning, there is still the matter of the love letters. Clark tells him that while Lyman is too much the gentleman to use them, neither Clark nor Todd would hesitate the opportunity of smearing him as a moral hypocrite. Scott actually is more concerned about this - and actually tries to hide behind the theoretical skirts of his betrayed wife at this moment ("You wouldn't want to hurt her" - that sort of thing). Regretfully they wouldn't care.

In 1962, John Frankenheimer had done "The Manchurian Candidate", which also suggested a threat to American Democracy (although manipulated by foreign governments and their hidden agents). Then President John Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and in modern times (sixty three years since the last successful Presidential murder) violence had shaken the government. So "Seven Days In May" was quite timely when it came out in 1964. It has lost none of it's timelessness since then.

Oddly enough, Fletcher Knebel wrote another political thriller that never did get made into a film. I'm not referring to "Vanished", which was made into a television movie in the 1970s. I am referring to "A Night At Camp David". In that novel, a popular American President invites his Vice President to spend a week-end in the Presidential retreat, and has a series of conversations about policy plans that reveal to the increasingly frightened Veep that his chief is an insane paranoid, who is planning moves that may lead to global disaster. The problem: Only the Veep has been informed of this - nobody else. How is the Veep to get the public to realize the danger, without people feeling the Veep is only spreading lies against a popular President in order to seize the Presidency himself? It is a fascinating plot, and I wonder why it was never filmed.

a masterful thriller

[naylands · 10/10 · 20 October 2000]

Seven Days in May is cold war movie making at its best. This film does not have a car chase, gun battles, or a President as villian. It does have great actors and is one of the finest translattion of a novel to screen. It is the first of the U.S. Militery as villian plot lines, since over used on both the screen and tv. A number of years ago a remake was done for cable-The Enemy within-and it did not work. In that the President is to be over-throw because he will sign a defense bill! The Russians are no longer the enemy and that's why it fails. In the first, made three years after the Cuban Missle Crisis, the fear of the Soviets is real and provides the ploters with a major cause against the President's program of disarmement. One of the best movies of the last fifty years.

Modern screenwriters should study this one

[MissSimonetta · 9/10 · 8 January 2022]

Isn't it beguiling how adult this movie is? Now, when I say adult I don't mean raunchy or explicit-- I mean, it treats the audience like they are intelligent, reasoning adults who can be captivated by a clash of political values with little in the way of chase scenes, sex scenes, or explosions. There's a lot of talking and debate, and if you're the type that thinks "cinema= constant camera movement and fancy editing," SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is an open challenge to such an assumption.

Furthermore, it's amazing how this movie treats its central conflict. It's not framed as "this side good, that side bad" the way it undoubtedly would be today, where ideological purity overrules any sense of moral or political inquiry designed to make the audience think. Both Lyman and Scott have fair reasons concerning the treaty: Lyman feels a world dominated by distrust and war will inevitably lead to mass destruction, while Scott feels distrust is reasonable given the character of the Soviets. Both men want what is best for the country. What makes Scott wrong and Lyman right is not their views on war, but their views on the Constitution. Lyman believes in democracy. Scott does not and thinks ditching democracy is reasonable-- the ends justifying the means. This makes him a fascinating antagonist, and a chilling one.

While not as bizarre and stylish as THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY still showcases director John Frankenheimer in top form. It's definitely one of the great political thrillers of all time, let alone the 1960s.

This film will give you the chills!

[sparkette · 10/10 · 26 January 2002]

Although it may seem dated because of its' subject matter (it takes place during the "Cold War"), the underlying content of political back-stabbing is still relevant. In this star-studded cast, Frederic March gives an outstanding performance as "President Jordan Lyman". He shows how a great leader handles the toughest of situations. This is a powerful film with some very tense moments. It is also an excellent example of directing that makes the most of camera angles and lighting to enhance the drama. Clean transfer to DVD.

Can it really happen? Is it about to happen?

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 18 May 2002]

John Frankenheimer directs this powerful political thriller about a conspiracy by top military brass to overthrow the government. A marvelous cast in a powerful, pulse pounding drama. Kirk Douglas is a Marine Colonel that suspects the Joint Chief of Staff Chairman(Burt Lancaster)of plotting a disguised military coup that would destroy the President's nuclear disarmament treaty. Veteran actor Fredric March is outstanding as the President.

The very talented supporting cast includes: the beautiful Ava Gardner, Martin Balsam, Andrew Duggan and Edmond O'Brien. John Houseman makes his debut in this Rod Serling screenplay. This one is a heavyweight. Paranoia prevails. The Russians are always suspect; but who would think of your own military turning inside out?

I think everything has pretty much been said...

[cmcastl · 10/10 · 18 September 2016]

but I would still like to cast a ten out of ten vote for this film!

I often re-watch it in part or in whole. One of my favourite scenes not just in this film but in any political thriller is the tense scene between Kirk Douglas' Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, Frederic March's President Jordan Lyman and Martin Balsam's Presidential Chief of Staff Paul Girard when Kirk Douglas' character first outlines his suspicions to his initially sceptical interlocutors. Each actor brings nuances to the excellent script, both verbally and in their physical expressions, which mark them out as actors of the highest class. Not only is it a dramatic scene but it and indeed the entire film is a masterclass in ensemble screen acting. That particular scene, I often wonder, if the director had been influenced by Stanley Kubrick, in making it simultaneously seem both clinical, mannered and yet also highly dramatic.

I would also like to highlight the tender but ultimately poignant scene between Douglas' Colonel Casey and Eleanor Holbrook, played by Ava Gardner, the former lover of the would-be US junta-style leader General Scott played with menacing charisma by Burt Lancaster. It is obvious that in other circumstances Douglas' and Gardner's characters could have become lovers but the details concerning her relationship with General Scott which the colonel had reluctantly agreed to ferret out through betraying her confidence must spoil the possibility. Once again, a beautiful scene beautifully acted and what a gorgeous women Ava Gardner still was even in middle age. They sure do not make films like that anymore! There are neither the actors, the producers, the directors or the scriptwriters! Or, it would seem, the mass audience.

Could a coup happen in the US? There is no historical guarantee that the US has been given denied to any other nation. All democracies are vulnerable given the right, or rather the wrong, circumstances.

Thought-Provoking Drama.

[AaronCapenBanner · 7/10 · 16 September 2013]

Burt Lancaster plays General Scott, head of the joint chiefs and likely presidential candidate who decides to lead a revolt against president Jordan Lyman, who is as unpopular as Scott is popular, but that doesn't stop him from pushing a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, which alarms and enrages General Scott, convincing him that he can't wait two years until the next election; he must act now. Kirk Douglas plays Col. Jiggs Casey, who remains loyal to the president, even though he doesn't agree with the president either. All three men are on a collision course to determine who stays in the White House, and emerges a "hero".

Fine acting by the cast, and solid direction by John Frankenheimer make this thought-provoking political drama quite interesting, although it is marred somewhat by an overly simplistic(bordering on sanctimonious) approach to General Scott, who may really have a good point, even though he is going about it the wrong way. Was Col. Casey so right after all? What if it turns out he was wrong? Film ends before we find out, which is unfortunate, but otherwise this a good thriller.

a fantastic thriller from Frankenheimer

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 12 June 2005]

The director, John Frankenheimer, had an amazing string of movies in the early to mid-1960s. First, The Manchurian Candidate, then this movie followed up a couple years later by Seconds. These are three of the absolute best thrillers EVER--and all with the same director! Seven Days in May is about a coup d'etat in progress to remove the President of the United States from office. It seems his more liberal course in regard to arms control doesn't meet with the approval of those in the military and they are afraid the US will be destroyed if they continue on the President's path. This plot is great because you can see BOTH sides on this issue and understand so well where they come from and why they think they are correct, so it is NOT a cut and dried issue. IT MAKES YOU THINK and it seems so plausible the way it is laid out for the viewer.

The acting is GREAT as well--with Burt Lancaster as the popular general planning the coup, Kirk Douglas as the military officer who agrees with Lancaster but cannot allow himself to violate his oath as an officer, Frederick March as the idealistic President, and Edmund O'Brien as his trusted (though occasionally intoxicated) adviser--along with many others.

See this, then try the other two Frankenheimer thrillers listed. Unless you are extremely stupid, you'll love the films.

Intriguing

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 26 July 2019]

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."

HISR American Cinema

[s-diblasicrain · 1/10 · 16 December 2009]

There was virtually nothing about this film that i could bring myself to enjoy. It had some of the driest acting acting that I have ever seen, it was painfully slow moving (I fell asleep in the middle of it and had to watch the second part the next day), and the cinematography is unimaginative, bland and boring.

I'll admit that I have never liked war time movies (save "Dr. Strangelove"), however I can usually find something that is at least mildly admirable about the movie, whether it the be excitement of a war movies action, the films acting quality, or the use of good visual effects and cinematic elements. But I am sorry to say that, within this sorry excuse for an art form in entertainment, I found absolutely nothing enjoyable.

Classic scene between two brilliant actors does it all.

[yenlo · 17 May 1999]

Somewhat forgotten political thriller about a military plot to take over the government. Great performances by all in this film, but mostly by Burt Lancaster and Fredric March who toward the end of the movie have a great scene with excellent dialog that sum up the true essence of the story. Ava Gardner is beautiful (literally) in this film. Edmund O'Brien is not to be overlooked as the bourbon loving southern senator. The first time I heard of this picture was when Gen Alexander Haig was being interviewed a number of years ago about the final days of the Nixon administration and was asked if he was thinking about the movie "Seven Days in May" Eventually I saw it late one night on cable and was glad I did.

Far-fetch? Not really, it can happen.

[ironhorse_iv · 8/10 · 23 October 2012]

There have seven days to figure out what will happen on Sunday, May 18? You have 118 Minutes to figure out if an military coup d'état can happen in the United States of America. Directed by John Frankenheimer known for such works as the Manchurian Candidate comes a suspense and thriller on the possibly of a government overthrow. Seven Days in May is an American political thriller novel beautiful written by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II which was published in 1962, during the height of the Cold War, and fears of New World Order bankers. It's been said that John F. Kennedy says it's one of his favorite book he even read and believed the scenario as described could actually occur in the United States… to the fact that it's clearly did happen. The generals at the time actually want to get into an shooting war in with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis which Kennedy was against. The threat of a military coup was quite real. Many of the shots needed for the movie was approved by JFK who fear a overthrow during his own presidency. The screenplay was written by Twilight Zone, Rod Serling brings the story of a unpopular President Lyman played by Fredric March whom pacifists agenda has just made a peace treaty with the Russians to get rid of the their nuclear weapons and that of a popular, General Joint Chief of Staff James Scott played by Burt Lancaster who believes the best thing for America is not to get rid of the weapons, because he felt the Russians are untrustworthy, and doesn't want America to get attack like Pearl Harbor 1941. Between these two men, is Kirk Douglas whom plays Colonel Jiggs Casey whom side with his superior, General Scott, but stands for following the Constitution. He quickly uncovers the plot to overthrow the president, but many of the facts has been well hidden that he doesn't know if he truly wrong, or right with his decision to tell the President about it. It's a quest to get the facts straight, and derailed it as soon as possible before Sunday. The way, it's written is brilliant, as it's makes it out to be a clock timing event. Time is running out. This movie came out in 1964, and became very controversial as many view it to be a leftist movie telling Americans that those of the ring will try to overthrow the government, as some view as a saver for one-world cynic ideas. Both ideas were address in the movie, very clear and clean. In truth, it's hard to case General Scott as the villain as he believes in his heart, what he's doing is best for America. The language addressed by him, during two key scenes: the speech on TV and his meeting with the Senators were well-written to the point, that we understand why he's thinking the way he is. While many people think this might be far-fetch, in truth it did it. The basic of the plot might be taken from real life events. One must research the Business Plot of 1933, where Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. The two characters of Casey and Scott is clearly based on him, each playing a half of him. The movie is very intelligent, as both the President and Scott's actions can lead to Marshal's law… limiting the right of the Constitution both way. The power of the military industrial complex and the vulnerability of the state to fascism during times of heightened "national security" concerns, is ever-present in American society. Watch it, it's a really good.

The electoral process has a purpose.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 6 February 2013]

This is what power-hungry Army general Burt Lancaster must discover when he takes on the President of the United States (Fredric March) who is in the process of signing a peace treaty with Russia. Cold War notwithstanding, Lancaster believes that the Russians are only interested in a treaty to distract the American government from their real plans. The director of "The Manchurian Candidate" (John Frankenheimer) takes on another political melodrama about the obsession with power and the ideals that the electoral process was founded on. Like other military villains (real and fictional), Lancaster is cool, calm, collected and charming. He's also an emotionless lover as former mistress Ava Gardner informs another officer (Kirk Douglas) who is after private letters from her he intends to give to the president to prove his claim. Douglas and Lanchaster are friendly colleagues, so this is a Julius Caesar/Brutus type betrayal, set in modern times. Like "The Manchurian Candidate", this was around the same time as the Kennedy assassination (just a year after that), so this really reflects the political environment of America during this time.

It is ironic that while this deals with a treaty with the Russians, they are not the villain here. That goes to someone inside our own back yard that would gladly kill to get what he wants and utilize the military to force the president out of office. All of the lead actors are excellent, particularly March and Douglas, with Oscar Nominated Edmund O'Brien, John Houseman and Martin Balsam outstanding in supporting roles. The confrontation between March and Lancaster, both on a TV screen which shows them both live, and later in person, is riveting. The film does drag only slightly with the romantic elements concerning Gardner, but there is a purpose concerning her character, sadly not utilized when the betrayal does come to the forefront. The film certainly does not have the bang that "The Manchurian Candidate" had at the end, but what does result is an ending that satisfactorily exposes the villain yet warns the audience against the evils of one person obtaining too much power and the desire to use it in a negative way.

Who wrote this Script! Hint: The "Twilight Zone Guy smoking in the corner"

[Jankoman · 10/10 · 1 July 2015]

Yep...could not believe the opening credits when I saw "The Twilight Zone Guy"'s name: Rod Serling!!! After watching the movie, I could tell...it didn't have the "wierd camera angle's" or "the bizarre suspense music scenes"...but, the brilliant agony-of-the-edge-of-your-seat anxiety and deep-dark-lurking-monster's-in-some-man's-soul intensity is just, well...Serling. And, Alfred Hitchcock too! As an ACTOR!?! Whoa! this movie is STELLAR!!! I Loved the "Good Guys" and I hated the "Bad Guys", and, most importantly BOTH were as insightful and aggressive as their counterparts. And, yes...I am "PARTIAL"... I Loved Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" series, and, with this movie, he "hit the mark" again. Brilliant screenplay,...Brilliant acting...Brilliant movie.

The Quintessential Political Thriller

[VHelsing · 10/10 · 30 December 1998]

Marvellous acting by antagonists Douglas and Lancaster, complemented by sexy and sophisticated Ava Gardner. Fredric March turns in one of his last great performances as a US President who has just negotiated a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. Douglas, playing a Marine Colonel and Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, becomes disturbed by a number of peculiar events surrounding the JCS Chairman (Lancaster), which lead him to believe his superior is planning a coup d'etat. By the time he manages to convince the White House that his suspicions are correct, less than seven days remain till the fateful hour -- which will destroy the Constitution and may lead to World War III. Frankenheimer's direction is stark and taut, worthy of Hitchcock, while Rod Serling's screenplay remains truer to the novel than perhaps any other novel adaptation ever filmed. Watch for an uncredited appearance by John Houseman.

The Lesser of Two Evils?

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 23 March 2015]

Under what circumstances could the United States armed forces legitimately overthrow an elected President? The strictly constitutional answer is, presumably, "never", but if one regards the question as a matter of ethics rather than of constitutional law, the answer is not so clear-cut. What, for example, if the President were planning an unprovoked nuclear attack on a foreign country? Might not Americans conclude that, compared to death in a nuclear holocaust, life under a military junta would be the lesser of two evils?

Jordan Lyman, the fictional President in this film, is not threatening to unleash nuclear war, but in the eyes of his critics is doing something potentially equally disastrous. He has negotiated a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union under which both countries will give up all nuclear weapons. The American political Right are outraged, believing that the Soviets are not to be trusted, and place their hopes in General James Mattoon Scott, the Air Force Chief of Staff, who is known to be opposed to the treaty. Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, an officer on the Pentagon staff, discovers a plot by Scott and some of his colleagues to seize control of the government by force and alerts the President. The film then follows the attempts of Lyman and a small group of trusted political advisers to thwart the conspiracy.

The film was made in 1963 and scheduled for release in December of that year, but this was delayed until the following year because of the assassination of President Kennedy in November. ("Dr Strangelove" suffered a similar fate). It was made in black-and-white at a time when colour was fast becoming the rule, at least in America. I think, however, that monochrome was the right choice here. Director John Frankenheimer was aiming for a claustrophobic look, with most scenes taking place indoors or at night, often in airless underground rooms. Even when we know that a particular room must have windows, they most often remain invisible. The use of colour rather than black-and-white would have weakened this claustrophobic effect, which is heightened by the harsh, driving, urgent musical score.

The subplot featuring Ava Gardner as General Scott's former mistress seems unnecessary; perhaps the financial backers insisted on a big-name female star. Edmond O'Brien was nominated for a "Best Supporting Actor" Academy Awards as the dipsomaniac Senator Clark, a key ally of Lyman, which always amazes me as I felt O'Brien overacted monstrously. It also seemed odd that Lyman should have trusted Clark so implicitly, even if the two men were personal friends, as drunkards are not normally noted for their discretion. There are, however, fine performances from Fredric March as Lyman, a decent, ineffectual-seeming liberal who proves more effective than he looks, and Martin Balsam as Paul Girard, another key presidential aide.

The key performance, however, comes from Burt Lancaster as Scott. Given his own left-wing views, it would have been easy for him to overplay the General as a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth caricature. Lancaster was later to play such characters in films like "The Cassandra Crossing" and "Executive Action", but here he refuses to allow his politics to overcome his artistic judgement, with the result that "Seven Days in May" is a far better film than those two.

Instead, Lancaster plays Scott not as a power-crazed lunatic but as frighteningly sane and frighteningly sincere. In his view Lyman's policies constitute a terrifying threat to national security and world peace, and since Congress backs those policies his only option is to think the unthinkable. Lancaster doubtless realised that to have portrayed Scott in any other way would have turned the film into a piece of reverse McCarthyism, a piece of blackshirts-under-the-beds paranoia inviting the Left to see all conservatives as sinister Fascist plotters.

Of course, March's Lyman is equally sane and equally sincere in his pacifist views. So who is correct, Lyman or Scott? The astonishing answer is that we do not know. We only see the controversial treaty from the American side. We see nothing of the Soviets, so have no idea if they intend to honour the treaty they have just signed, to hold a few missiles in reserve to blackmail the West, or to launch a conventional war once the Western nuclear deterrent has been removed. We do not know whether the failure of Scott's attempted coup has saved the world- or condemned it to those very horrors which Lyman hoped to avoid.

Another piece of ambiguity surrounds Lyman himself. Like Casey, who agrees with Scott politically but believes a coup is the wrong way of going about things, he is the representative in the film of a strict constitutionalism and the rule of law. Yet he does not order the arrest of Scott and his fellow-conspirators or attempt to have them put on trial, and it is never really explained why a President who supposedly stands for the rule of law is content to allow men guilty of attempted treason to escape into an honourable retirement; the possibility is even left open that Scott might run for President himself. (An alternative ending, with Scott dying in a car crash, was apparently rejected).

"Seven Days in May" of course reflects the values of the Cold War which produced it. Yet, unlike some political thrillers from the sixties and seventies, it remains more than just a period piece, and not just because recent events in the Ukraine have raised the spectre of a new Cold War. It is the film's very ambiguity which brings home one of the central paradoxes of the post-war world, a paradox which remains despite the fall of Communism. The existence of nuclear weapons is a potent source of danger to the world. But any attempt to divest ourselves of such weapons might lead to even greater dangers. It is a film about an insoluble dilemma- and has the honesty to admit it is insoluble. 7/10

A Masterful & Ever Timely Thriller

[timdalton007 · 10/10 · 26 June 2018]

In 1962, director John Frankenheimer turned Richard Condon's novel The Manchurian Candidate into a classic. Frankenheimer wasn't with the American political scene, however. Released within eighteen months of his earlier film, Seven Days In May was another adaptation of a bestselling novel of political intrigues. The enemy this time was the Communists but an enemy far closer to home.

The premise of the film (and the 1962 source novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II) is simple enough. Set in the then near-future with the Cold War ongoing, President Jordan Lyman (Fredric March) has signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union that has won Senate approval. Despite being on the brink of peace, Lyman has found himself unpopular with many including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster). Scott, charismatic and outspoken, is an admired figure by some including his aide Colonel Casey (Kirk Douglas). When Casey uncovers evidence of something nefarious underlining a planned military alert exercise, the fate of the American Republic rests with a handful of people including a Presidential aide (Martin Balsam), a heavy drinking Georgian Senator (Edmond O'Brien ), and a Washington socialite with a link to Scott and Casey (Ava Gardner).

As that description might imply, this isn't a wham-bam sort of thriller heavy on action sequences. Instead, armed with a script written by the legendary Rod Serling, this is the kind of thriller driven by characters, dialogue, and plot twists. That isn't to call the film slow-moving or plodding by any means because it isn't. Serling's adaptation of the novel is one of those rare cases of a screen version being better than its source, trimming away the fat and streamlining its plot which makes the most use of the titular days and the ticking clock they present. Making it all the more effective is Serling's ear for dialogue with every conversation being crisp and pushing things forward. The film is full of great Serling dialogue from the confrontation between Lyman and Scott in the Oval Office to the final conversation between the General and his long-time aide, scenes well played by the cast. The result is a masterclass from Serling in thriller writing without resulting to action set pieces.

Serling's script also has the benefit of being superbly brought to life, especially with its cast. Douglas and Lancaster play off of each other nicely of course as the Colonel and the General, the trusted aide and the man who thinks himself the savior of America. Neither plays their roles over the top but pitch them just right throughout, especially in confrontations such as the climactic scene with Lancaster in the Oval Office. March's President Lyman is every bit their equal, a principled man looking for peace and trying to stave off a military coup. Balsam gives as solid a performance as any in his career as aide Paul Girard while Edmond O'Brien steals scenes and provides comic relief as Senator Clark and Ava Garner gets a chance to shine in her brief appearances. The film is very much an ensemble piece though despite the big names of the era involved and together they bring the words off the page nicely.

The cast isn't alone in bringing the film to life, of course. The world of the film displays Frankenheimer's same flair for visuals he showed in Manchurian Candidate from the protest turned riot outside the White House that opens to the film to giving the audience the chance to see events unfolding both in front of them and on TV at the same time. His penchant for mixing filming on location with detailed sets is also apparent with convincing 1960s versions of the White House and Pentagon alongside actual DC locations and beyond. Underlined by a sparse but effective score from Jerry Goldsmith including a memorable opening title sequence. The results are apparent in the effectiveness of the film.

While perhaps overlooked at times thanks to The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days In May is no less of a thriller. From Serling's script to a strong cast and Frankenheimer's direction, it is a taut thriller indeed. It's also a masterclass in doing so without resorting to car chases, explosions, and the like. It also remains, despite its Cold War setting, an ever-timely reminder of the fragility of American democracy and the need to guard against not just enemies without but also the forces of demagoguery within.

defense of the realm

[mjneu59 · 7/10 · 1 January 2011]

One of the better (and more believable) D.C. thrillers was at least two decades ahead of its time, suggesting that the greatest threat to national security lay not behind the Iron Curtain but in our own back yard, where a covert network of ultra-Right Wing renegade Army officers stage a military coup to rescue the government from a liberal president hoping to dismantle their precious nuclear arsenal. Such an outspoken criticism of Cold War power politics was unusual for the time (not long after the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis), but if anything the message would become even more relevant twenty years later: Burt Lancaster's charismatic, fanatical General Scott is a ringer for super-patriot Oliver North. The secret agenda unfolds with cunning (and distressing) simplicity, but if the President (Frederic March) is less of a pushover than the Pentagon believes, and if Rod Serling's screenplay can't resist making one speech too many on behalf of the Constitution, it's only because the nation no doubt needed reassuring after JFK's assassination that the reins of State were still in able hands.

Lancaster v Douglas

[kijii · 10/10 · 13 November 2016]

This was the fifth of Frankenheimer's great black and white movies from the 1960s. Based on a novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey and a screenplay by Rod Serling, it may have seemed like an unlikely cautionary tale at the time. The movie was released when the Cold War was at its height and the John Birch Society was making itself felt by calling into question the patriotism of such main-stream political figures as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Earl Warren. Joseph McCarthy's accusations were still fresh in the public memory, and Barry Goldwater was running for president under the slogan: 'Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!..Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'

When this movie was made, the idea that a cadre of high government officials could secretly act in such a blatantly illegal fashion may have been thought a stretch—before Watergate. The idea that the US government could actually have a shadow government running affairs was thought preposterous—before Iran-Contra. And, the idea of engineering the impeachment of a president—as was suggested in the movie---still meant something important and had great dramatic effect—before Clinton was impeached. Such was the background of riveting plot of this great political thriller.

As the movie opens, the president's Gallop poll is at an all time low (29%); the people are restless because President Jordan Lyman--note the similarity between the fictitious president's name and that of Lyndon Johnson--(Fredric March) is about to sign an agreement with the Soviets to ban nuclear weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Mattoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), and his deputy, Col. Martin 'Jiggs' Casey (Kirk Douglas) are testifying before a contentious and polarized Senate committee about the wisdom of the upcoming agreement. General Scott is totally in disagreement with the president's plan for mutual disarmament with the Soviets and, as he makes his points, he is 'stealing the show' with the help of his backers on the committee. Shortly after this hearing, Jiggs begins to pick up irregularities with Scott, both at a political speech that Scott gives and at the Pentagon where there are code-like communications about a horse race the following Sunday. As he puts several facts together including a scrap of paper with cryptic notes about ECONCOM (some acronym with which he is not familiar), he starts to imagine that Scott is planning a military coup to take over the government on the following Sunday. With Scott out of town, he meets with the president and his skeptical aide, Paul Girard (Martin Balsam), at the White House and lays out his suspicions point by point.

Once the president is convinced of the possible coup, he and some of his most trusted people launch a counter-attack against the possible coup by gathering more information and throwing up barriers in front of Scott's possible plans. Ellie Holbrook (Ava Gardner) is Jiggs friend and Scott's former girlfriend. Her love letters from Scott to her may hold clues necessary to understanding Scott's ideas and plans, and it is Jiggs' unattractive duty to get them from her. The alcoholic Georgia senator, Raymond Clark (Edmond O'Brien), is assigned to find the phantom military base in Texas where ECONCOM may be holding its secret maneuvers. The high-stakes cat-and-mouse maneuvering and counter-maneuvering of the two sides is a race against time that may control the country's future. The movie's suggestive use of military snare drums and timpani serves to heighten the tension of drama as it unfolds.

The casting is very good here, with Lancaster as the square jawed military champion of a hawkish public, Douglas as his aid and partner— dedicated to the military but cautious enough to understand the possible overreach of its power. While in the latter part of his career, Fredric March played the less glorious role of Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind (1960), his resounding scolding of Burt Lancaster, in this movie is something to behold and cheer. March's last film performance was that of Harry Hope in John Frankenheimer's version of Eugene O'Neill's play, The Iceman Cometh (1973).

May meanders

[st-shot · 6/10 · 1 November 2019]

The second entry in director John Frankenheimer's Sixties paranoia trilogy (The Manchurian Candidate (62), Seconds (68) ) deals with a military overthrow of the US government and soft on commies president (Fredric March) led by a rogue Army general (Burt Lancaster). A North American take on a frequent South American occurrence May moves slowly, burying itself in stoicism and clueless prattle in light of the obvious.

What made Manchurian Candidate the excellent thriller it is completely misses the mark here with stilted performances from Douglas and near robot like Lancaster who somehow is supposed to have a charismatic bent but is more akin to Strangelove's Jack D. Ripper. March is fine as is a jaded Ava Gardner in her few scenes while Edmond O'Brien channelling Fred Allen's Southern Senator Claghorn chewing up scenery in large bites.

Frankenheimer for his part gets lost in the wide open polished spaces of the White House where there or anywhere else he fails to ignite the tension with civil, buttoned up conversation of the key players. Lacking both passion, energy and the touch of hallucinatory drive found in his two films bookending it, Seven Days in May is a dull disappointment dealing with an issue that should have crackled with suspense.

A 1940s reunion in the cast

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 1 July 2021]

It's a class reunion in the cast of Seven Days in May. Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster had made four movies together by that point. Fredric March and Martin Balsam played father- and son-in-laws in Middle of the Night. Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien, and Burt Lancaster were in The Killers nearly twenty years earlier, and Ava shared the screen with Ed in The Barefoot Contessa. Burt, Ed, and Whit Bissell were all in Birdman of Alcatraz. Whit made two movies each with Burt and Freddie, and one each with Kirk and Ed. Hugh Marlowe was in Elmer Gantry with Burt. Freddie and Ed acted in two movies together in the 1940s, so it's no wonder that the whole chemistry of the film feels like a "good ol' boys network", much like the chemistry of Advise & Consent felt like a 1930s reunion.

It's another Cold War drama, so if you don't like those, you probably won't like this one. I'm not a fan of that subgenre (probably because I didn't live through it), and the only one I liked was Fail-Safe. In this one, Fredric March plays the President of the United States. He's just signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, which many Americans distrust. Martin Balsam is his Chief of Staff and dear friend, and Edmond O'Brien is an aging Southern senator. Burt Lancaster is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he vehemently opposes the president. Kirk is Burt's assistant, and when he suspects his boss has done something really bad, he throws his loyalty out the window. He finks and tells President March everything, then they all scrounge together to get evidence against Burt.

Even though Burt Lancaster got first billing, he was hardly in the movie. When he finally shows up, all he does is shout and irritate the audience. Ava Gardner's character was completely unnecessary, except to throw a random woman into the mix. Edmond O'Brien snagged an Oscar nomination for doing nothing more than a Charles Laughton impersonation from Advise & Consent. I really like Martin Balsam, but he wasn't given anything to do - and unfortunately, neither was Kirk Douglas. And as far as the actual plot goes: I watched the entire movie and couldn't figure out what it was exactly that Burt was suspected of doing! These movies are a little too complicated for me, so I'll stick with my WWII movies instead.