...Alright, let's set aside the elephant in the room. Yes, a film about an attempt by the American military to seize power in an outright coup and install a junta during the Cold War isn't exactly like the present threat facing American democracy, namely, that of our electoral system being totally subverted by a handful of demogogues to turn America into Russia; a controlled sham democracy propping up a kleptocratic cabal that lets enough wealth dribble past their attempts to squeeze and suck every particle of it out of the people that said people don't rise in revolt. It's not that much like what's happening now.
But, in so many other ways, watching Seven Days in May is a bit surreal. Rod Serling, as always, had a good eye for how to get across his points about American freedom, and about how its deadliest enemies are deluded into thinking they're its most stalwart defenders. I don't know how much of that comes from the novel, but some of the most gripping scenes of the film are the speeches in the final showdowns, where President Lyman, faced with the charismatic General Scott he knows is plotting a coup, tries in vain to appeal to the values America holds dear, and comes up short against the all-too-familiar authoritarian right-wing glorified monarchism that men like Scott have always considered patriotism.
And the performances from the star-studded cast are almost uniformly great. The free version I saw on Movieland didn't have great picture quality, but the actors never failed to make me believe their plight and their tension, even the villains. I also appreciate that neither side is without friends and enemies, that they don't have to move and maneuver carefully, not knowing who to trust until fortune delivers them a sure answer one way or another. And the back-and-forth chess game of trying to find or scuttle evidence gives the plot a great tug of war feeling; I like that the film never actually confirms that foul play was involved in crashing that airplane carrying the admiral's confession that eventually blows the lid off things.
But, unfortunately, for all that's right with the film, much is wrong. Several transitions are abrupt, sharp cuts, seeming to indicate a lack of budget or will to fill out the script. The ending is unfortunately even more abrupt, especially given a cursory glance at the trope page reveals there was some good stuff in there to fill it out. I like the president's final speech a lot, but while ending it on a literal "and then everyone clapped" does end on a feel-good note, it also feels like a bit much. And while the performances do much to salvage it, the entire subplot about the mistress and the letters feels tacked-on, especially when the president chooses not to stoop to using them to force Scott's resignation. Perhaps it's just this cynical modern age, but I'm not sure I can believe that refusing to sully one's own hands to save American democracy is the right thing to do, or they'd be enough to turn away his fanatical submissive-authoritarian followers who want a dictator like him in charge.
Overall, if you've never heard of it and you do like political thrillers, it's definitely worth a watch for the themes alone. At the very least, I find myself motivated to track down the book it's based on! But, at the same time, I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling it a lost classic either. It leaves me wondering what the film could've been, with enough budget to film important stuff I suspect was left in the script...
Literature Timeless, Tremendous, Tragically Mediocre
...Alright, let's set aside the elephant in the room. Yes, a film about an attempt by the American military to seize power in an outright coup and install a junta during the Cold War isn't exactly like the present threat facing American democracy, namely, that of our electoral system being totally subverted by a handful of demogogues to turn America into Russia; a controlled sham democracy propping up a kleptocratic cabal that lets enough wealth dribble past their attempts to squeeze and suck every particle of it out of the people that said people don't rise in revolt. It's not that much like what's happening now.
But, in so many other ways, watching Seven Days in May is a bit surreal. Rod Serling, as always, had a good eye for how to get across his points about American freedom, and about how its deadliest enemies are deluded into thinking they're its most stalwart defenders. I don't know how much of that comes from the novel, but some of the most gripping scenes of the film are the speeches in the final showdowns, where President Lyman, faced with the charismatic General Scott he knows is plotting a coup, tries in vain to appeal to the values America holds dear, and comes up short against the all-too-familiar authoritarian right-wing glorified monarchism that men like Scott have always considered patriotism.
And the performances from the star-studded cast are almost uniformly great. The free version I saw on Movieland didn't have great picture quality, but the actors never failed to make me believe their plight and their tension, even the villains. I also appreciate that neither side is without friends and enemies, that they don't have to move and maneuver carefully, not knowing who to trust until fortune delivers them a sure answer one way or another. And the back-and-forth chess game of trying to find or scuttle evidence gives the plot a great tug of war feeling; I like that the film never actually confirms that foul play was involved in crashing that airplane carrying the admiral's confession that eventually blows the lid off things.
But, unfortunately, for all that's right with the film, much is wrong. Several transitions are abrupt, sharp cuts, seeming to indicate a lack of budget or will to fill out the script. The ending is unfortunately even more abrupt, especially given a cursory glance at the trope page reveals there was some good stuff in there to fill it out. I like the president's final speech a lot, but while ending it on a literal "and then everyone clapped" does end on a feel-good note, it also feels like a bit much. And while the performances do much to salvage it, the entire subplot about the mistress and the letters feels tacked-on, especially when the president chooses not to stoop to using them to force Scott's resignation. Perhaps it's just this cynical modern age, but I'm not sure I can believe that refusing to sully one's own hands to save American democracy is the right thing to do, or they'd be enough to turn away his fanatical submissive-authoritarian followers who want a dictator like him in charge.
Overall, if you've never heard of it and you do like political thrillers, it's definitely worth a watch for the themes alone. At the very least, I find myself motivated to track down the book it's based on! But, at the same time, I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling it a lost classic either. It leaves me wondering what the film could've been, with enough budget to film important stuff I suspect was left in the script...