Sept jours en mai

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.

A splendid ensemble cast brought together in a fun, tight political thriller. John Frankenheimer's direction is first rate. I can't imagine Alfred Hitchcock doing a better job. The novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II was first published in 1962 and takes place in the early 1970s. The film, made in 1964, is more of period piece, shot in black and white by Ellsworth Fredericks. Some of the dark tones in the film are inspired by the mood of the nation since the assassination of President Kennedy. The novel, by contrast, writes of a two-term Kennedy administration. The script by Rod Serling improves on the novel by creating a sharper climax as the president overcomes the brewing plot by panicking high-ranking military officers to overthrow the Executive Branch of the US government. The film is otherwise fairly faithful to the book. Burt Lancaster plays General James Mattoon Scott, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and universally idolized military hero. The man, it seems, would make an ideal president--and that just might happen on the seventh day in May. Kirk Douglass portrays the efficient Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, who is Scott's subordinent and reluctant hero of the film. Frederick March is credible as an aging, weary president who has recently won a hard-fought battle to ratify a treaty with the Soviet Union to eliminate atomic weapons. There is a vociferous backlash against the treaty, led by right-wing television personalities. Soon it is apparent that certain elements in the military, congress, and media are all in league to usurp power from the president and, as they would reason, save the nation from the worthless treaty. The film plays on traditional political labels, both pro and con. Even though it was made 28 years ago, one can identify with many of the characters and situations in the film. In the later 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was criticized by right wing conservatives for signing a treaty with the Soviet Union to downsize nuclear stockpiles. The film has some great editing as well, most notably the scene where some of the recent mysterious occurances are beginning to make sense to Jiggs as he watches Gen. Scott address a conservative political rally. Good camerawork as well, particularly when a nervous Jiggs finally sums up to the president the fantastic plot he believes he's stumbled upon. Another great shot occurs when General Scott presents a speech he is going to make against the president to his team of co-conspirators, only the back of his head is seen. The characters are human, the story is spellbinding, the film is a classic on all levels.

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.

Perhaps one of the most genuinely suspenseful films every made, this paranoic film should be seen in conjunction with its natural brethren, "The Parallax View" and "The Manchurian Candidate" (which is also directed by John Frankenheimer).

The film's strength lies in a group of superb performance -- Burt Lancaster as the ramrod-stiff and egomaniacal general bent on saving the United States by planning the overthrow of the government; Kirk Douglas as his senior staff officer, who only gradually realizes what his boss is planning and just how dangerous he is; Fredric March as the world-weary President; and especially Edmond O'Brien as the souse of a Senator who, like March, demonstrates the kind of ingenuity and resolve that Lancaster and his co-conspirators assume they don't possess. These performers, as well as a splendid supporting cast, make Rod Serling's sometimes preachy dialogue seem completely real, and some of the scenes -- notably the final face-off between March and Lancaster -- seem on the verge of exploding.

Frankenheimer's low-key direction feeds this tension, by allowing the dialogue and the situations do the work. Would-be filmmakers looking to specialize in thrillers should probably spend more time watching films like this than modern-day "thrillers" like "Enemy of the State" or "Conspiracy Theory" which rely more on violence than actual dramatic tension.

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