Reflections
on “Seven Days in May” (1964)
Directed
by John Frankenheimer
Screenplay
by Rod Serling
(From
the novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W Bailey)
Starring
Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March and Ava Gardner
“Seven Days in May” was made
at the peak of the Cold War and toward the end of the era of McCarthyism, and the
principal catalyst for its action is the divisive issue of peace between the
major powers of America and Russia, and how best to maintain it.
President Jordan Lyman
has, with the approval of the governing authorities, signed a treaty with
Russia which requires both great powers to do away with their nuclear arsenals.
However, this has met with considerable political and public disapproval and
anxiety, and the case for maintenance of the existing nuclear deterrent is championed
by General James Mattoon Scott, one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who claims
the opposition cannot be trusted and America must be able and ready to defend itself
against aggression.
Scott seeks to maintain his
nation’s strength and control through perpetuation of power and threat, while
Lyman seeks to establish safety and security for all by eliminating the nuclear
threat to all. One promotes national defence and posturing while the other
advocates international co-operation and détente.
The crux of the film is,
from General Scott’s standpoint, how best to challenge the legal and political
situation in order to effect change. Using constitutionally endorsed, and
therefore legal means, will take time and so, convinced he has the support of
the people and he is acting in the best interests of his country, General Scott
conspires with other like-minded Chiefs of Staff to seize power militarily.
The dichotomy between
politics and the military is somewhat blurred as devotion to duty and service to
country are confused with the knowledge, wisdom and authority to direct duty
and country. It appears that these military leaders have grown overly
accustomed to authority, military discipline and the following of orders and
they possess, perhaps, a necessarily blinkered and restricted view of political
strategy and reality.
General Scott dazzles
audiences with his charismatic delivery of single-minded rhetoric untroubled by
the complexities of political understanding, compassion, tolerance and doubt.
This is a man whose certainty and belief in himself signify strength for many
and engender admiration, but these may also be viewed as his greatest weaknesses
as they blind him to other paths and the potential consequences of his actions.
Support is expressed for
Scott’s views at political rallies, but his supporters would undoubtedly expect
the principles and values he espouses to be validated by democratic means.
However, Scott and his co-conspirators display egotistical delusions of
grandeur when, used to authority and direct action, they perceive in this
public support a mandate for the autocratic taking of political power.
The calmly intelligent,
persuasive and manipulative Scott involves other senior figures in his plan to
overthrow the elected government of the US, but he and his plan are dependent
upon the blind devotion to military command of his subordinates.
At one point, when a US
Senator is held in a secret military camp, this devotion is put to the test and
is found lacking. A senior officer, when disabused of his carefully devised
ignorance concerning the whole truth and purpose of his mission, opts to put
allegiance to the values of the Constitution above loyalty to his military
commander and helps the Senator to escape from the secret compound, and I
imagine many more under Scott’s command would also put patriotic loyalty above
personal or military allegiance.
General Scott is
eventually accused by President Lyman of being a megalomaniac with a Napoleon
complex. It would certainly require a huge ego and sense of self-importance to
allow him to overrule the very duty and loyalty to nation he claims to hold
sacrosanct, though apparently these apply only if the government is travelling
in a direction of which he approves, thus underlining his egomaniacal nature.
This nature, augmented by
the authority of his elevated position, triggers a willingness to put himself
above the constitutional process of election and endowing of responsibility.
The principles and values he espouses may be genuinely held, but his untoward
methods and attempts to impose his views are debatable to say the least, and
reveal facets of his character which may be considered less than admirable.
In contrast, President
Lyman is a man of principle who will not stoop to personal attacks, even when
the chips are down. He may be viewed as an elder statesman focused on the
bigger international picture. He is not self-centred or self-promoting and he
is willing to work with former enemies and make concessions, if these are
reciprocated, in order to build a lasting and secure relationship based on
understanding and tolerance, not national or individual strength and threat.
His great weakness,
certainly in the eyes of General Scott and his supporters, is his dependence on
trust. Lyman must trust that his counterpart shares his vision and is able to deliver
on his proposals on his side, while Scott rejects that position entirely. Lyman
offers a way forward based on aspiration to reciprocal trust and confidence
while Scott offers a historically successful defensive position based on fear
and distrust.
Politically speaking, each
position is valid, but in terms of the Constitution, only one man has the
authority to act and that concept is really at the core of the film. All
actions should be measured against the idealistic and objective values set out
in the Constitution, values that are held as sacrosanct, and which may even be
regarded as the true heroes of the film.
This contention is supported
by the attitude and actions of Colonel Jiggs Casey, General Scott’s right-hand
man.
Dramatically speaking,
Col. Casey is probably the most interesting character as he faces personal
challenge and conflict while other main characters represent fixed and opposing
views. At one point, Casey reveals he shares the political views of General
Scott but, unlike Scott, he accepts the status quo and is willing to play his
part to support government policy, offering a contrasting yet similar perspective
on Scott’s viewpoint.
Casey discovers evidence
of a military plot to overthrow the government, and his perceptions, suspicions
and actions allow the authorities to avoid an embarrassing and potentially calamitous
event. However, he is forced to choose between disloyalty to his much-admired
commanding officer and loyalty to his commander-in-chief and the Constitution,
and he reluctantly adopts underhand and distasteful tactics to uncover the
whole truth, causing pain to himself and to others. He is praised frequently
for his actions in defence of his nation but he is profoundly distressed by the
personal ethical price he has had to pay, in terms of what he sees as betrayal
and manipulation, to achieve his mission.
Toward the end of the
film, Scott, who demands and expects loyalty and respect from his staff,
accuses Casey of being a Judas but Casey points out that it is he, Scott, who
has failed to maintain loyalty and respect to the principles and values of his
nation.
Burt Lancaster gives a
powerful portrayal of threatening strength and power while Fredric March and
Kirk Douglas are thoughtful and pained as their characters dig deep to combat
this enemy within.
The intelligent and
literate script, combined with taut direction, allow for ample character
development and expansion of the points of view and arguments advanced by the
characters, as well as the personal impact the core conflict has on each, and all
within a framework of ever-increasing tension, drama and suspense.
Apparently, at the time
of the film’s release in 1964, John Frankenheimer stated he saw his film as a
nail in the coffin of McCarthyism, but I suspect certain characters, traits and
actions may resonate with contemporary viewers.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment