On S List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Seven Days in May (1964)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
7/16, 3/21
7/16:
Lauded by many as a fine political thriller, Seven Days in May doesn't leave me impressed which means
The Manchurian Candidate remains the gold standard.
It starts off too heavy, and I've not been able to follow the storyline until forty-five minutes into it. Thereafter, the
film is more lucid, practical, and straightforward. Basically, it's about the overthrow of the U.S. government in the
form of a military coup d'état.
Honestly, it'll never happen. The U.S. Constitution is too strong for the situtation to occur, and it certainly won't be
accomplished by die-hard Americans who have lived in the country for a while. There's so much loyalty involved to allow
such an idea to happen.
The other problem is the president appears to be all alone. It's not going to happen. He has a lot of power and can rely
on many agencies including the CIA and the FBI to carry out his orders. He'll make a lot of things happen before you can
say "blueberry pancakes." The beauty of the U.S. Constitution is checks and balances. They keep all of the three branches
from becoming powerful. Hence, it's hard to get much accomplished in the government.
As for the cast, everybody turns in strong performances, but there are two standouts: Fredric March and Ava Gardner. Both
are very good and make a lasting impression with plenty of subtleties. One scene Fredric March has with Burt Lancaster in
the Oval Office is brilliantly played. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas are classy actors. Edmond O'Brien is perfectly
situated because of his noir background. Martin Balsam is fun to watch. John Houseman stars but won't appear in a
film again until nine years later for The Paper Chase which won him an Oscar.
All in all, Seven Days in May's orchestration of a military coup d'état to overthrow the U.S. President is
neither convincing nor well-developed, and there are too many factors involved to preclude it from happening.
3/21:
Where did it go wrong in Seven Days in May?
Is it John Frankenheimer's lackluster direction? Rod Serling's leaden script? Or the absence of major stars for a long
stretch of time? To me, it's been a combination of these three. I have to say
The Enemy Within with Forest Whitaker looks slightly better in comparison.
When you have Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas in the same picture, they should be seen most of the time. But this, they
disappear until needed for a major plot advancement. Who cares about either Ava Gardner or Edmond O'Brien? They
can sometimes be melodramatic.
The dialogue is either dry, dated, or hard to follow. Lack of excitement is evident much of the time. Made two years
earlier, The Manchurian Candidate came to my mind too much, knowing
how superior it was in all regards. Seven Days in May moves at a wheelchair pace. Of course, nothing is going to
happen at the end. It's been a lot of work for nothing.
At least, Fredric March shines with great, sometimes prattling, lines, and he kind of looks like Gerald Ford. Believe it or
not, it's John Houseman's first American role as Admiral Barnswell, and he won't appear in a film again until
The Paper Chase nine years later for his Oscar-winning performance.
All in all, skip the boredom that's called Seven Days in May, and go with the bona fide political thriller:
The Manchurian Candidate.