Based on a novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, "Seven Days in May" is characterized by a very tense plot whose central axis is the defense of liberties, world peace and the fight against fascism, political fanaticism and prejudices of all kinds.

Perhaps today the film suffers from a certain complexity, because the plot follows a course too predictable and sometimes loaded with a message somewhat "Capra" but without the touch of comedy.

Be that as it may, at all times we are in front of a drama, a political thriller of high quality that keeps the viewer in suspense until the end, with an impressive black and white photography, shots to take off your hat and with impeccable performances that compensate (and by far) any shortcomings of the work.

The cast is cathedral-like: Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March, Martin Balsam, Edmond O'Brien and an Ava Gardner who seemed to be in a stage of pre-case in his career, but in this film proved his worth more than enough and above from a supporting role that knew how to lead masterfully to a key position for its ability to further tighten the rope with his changes of facial expression in the scene he shares with Kirk Douglas, a true monster of cinema that once again made dignify a role that many others would have been too big.

Image

Great performance by Fredric March, one of my favorite actors, whose presidential role gave a strong personality to the play, accompanied by a discreet Paul Girard, played by Martin Balsam (one of my favorite supporting actors) who knew how to manage the elementariness of the character with note and an Edmond O'Brien who in my opinion was very up to a role with a lot of emotional charge.

And what to say about the enormous Burt Lancaster, who embroidered a repulsive character, with clear fascist overtones and who achieved some high octane interpretative heights although perhaps at the end they take away the gas too suddenly for my taste.

This post contains all the spoilers and discusses the movie with the assumption that you've seen it. It's not so much a review but more an analysis and commentary on the ideas presented in the film. You can watch the trailer at the bottom of this post.

The Credits

Seven Days in May is directed by John Frankenheimer and stars Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Fredric March, Ava Gardner, Edmond O'Brien and Martin Balsam. It is based on the novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II.

The Plot

Although the film was released in 1964, this takes place 10 years in the future, in May of 1974. The cold war is about to come to an end as the President of the United States is preparing to sign a denuclearization treaty with the Soviet Union. In front of the White House pro-military activists protest against the President while peace activists protest in favor of the treaty. Led by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Scott (Lancaster), the military is planning a coup. One of his staff, Colonel "Jiggs" Casey (Douglas) discovers the plan and warns the President (March). Casey discovers a secret base called ECOMCON has been built out west, which is designed to take over all communication networks when they instigate the coup. THe President cancels plans to be alone with the military, then fires Scott and all the other staff who conspired with him, avoiding the coup.

Thoughts on the Film

This was a fictional future based on then current events. It postulated that the cold war would continue at least until 1974. Would a denuclearization treaty with the Soviet Union ever be possible? Could they be trusted to not nuke us as soon as we stood down? It was a fear that would last until the end of the 80s, but as we look back now, it just seems hard to imagine a world where the Soviet Union wouldn't eventually crumble. Why would a peace deal be as controversial as it is depicted in the film? Wasn't that the ultimate goal of the cold war? And didn't treaties ultimately work to some degree?

While we still have fears of nuclear weapons in the hands of small nations, they don't present the dilemma of mutually assured destruction that was inherent in the Cold War. They present some degree of destruction and a disruption to the world order and economy, but nobody thinks Iran or North Korea could defeat the United States in a nuclear war. There is an imbalance compared to the cold war as any other nation would be defeated. While U.S. casualties may be limited, this is horribly ignorant of the fears citizens may face in allied countries in closer proximity to nuclear nations (South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc.)

The film argues against a coup in favor of waiting for the next election so the people can have their say. While this could be compared to impeachment arguments Nixon, Clinton and Trump, that ignores that impeachment is built into the constitution, while anyone planning a military coup could not make that argument. Yet in the film, Scott believes he is saving the constitution. He truly believes that Russia would take advantage of a denuclearized West and send nukes toward. But looking back now, it's obvious that such a fear was overstated. Still, at least based on films and TV from WW2 until the collapse of the Soviet Union, this seemed to be a common theme, of coming nuclear destruction.

While it's easy to try to make comparisons to today's politics, it goes on a long list of political films and novels that people are rushing to devour, including one of director John Frankenheimer's previous films, The Manchurian Candidate. Both are quite dated in being Cold War stories. They help understand the culture of that time and the influence the films had on audiences. But with the rise of Russia in international politics, movies like this are messages from the past about the fears we would face if we returned to such a stand-off.

If it sounds like too unrealistic a plot for this film, none other than John F. Kennedy, the then current President, was a fan of the book it was based on. He reportedly advocated behind the scenes to get the film made, supposedly as a warning to the military generals. He actually did fire a general who was sending propaganda to troops labeling him and Eisenhower as communist agents (source). Films like this provided plenty of ammo for conspiracy theorists that believed the U.S. government itself had something to do with Kennedy's assassination (just months before this movie was released).

The original novel was written in 1961-1962 after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. While it was released in early 1964, the movie went into production in September 1963, just before Kennedy was assassinated. This was just one year after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which occurred around the time the book came out. This is a much closer threat than North Korea in Iran, having missiles pointed at the U.S. not far from the coast of Florida. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon for people to fear any deal with Russia, having lived in fear of the complete destruction of cities. Perhaps it is as irrational as the fears that came over people after September 11, 2001. We are still fighting wars in response to 9/11, some 17 years later. Perhaps there could be a similar movie about a President finally ending this war 10 years from now. Perhaps it'll more likely drag on for as long as the Cold War, if not longer.

This trailer is the property of Paramount Pictures.

Seven Days in May

Reviews

Comments

1 more review

The Credits

The Plot

Thoughts on the Film