Coup of Grace
Today's review: Seven Days in May.
I’d heard family members talk up Seven Days in May before I actually watched it, although they didn’t give a lot of details so I was able to go in fairly blind. After watching it, I could see where they were coming from. That being said, I don’t think I’m as inclined to praise it as highly as they did.
True to the title, the story takes place over one week in May, around the time that President Jordan Lyman (Fredric March) has been negotiating a nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union, to the anger of a lot of people. One of the most notable figures objecting to this is General James Scott (Burt Lancaster), the head of the joint chiefs of staff. Initially, he just seems like the charismatic face of the movement, but then a series of small coincidences lead his assistant, Colonel Martin “Jiggs” Casey (Kirk Douglas), to suspect there’s something strange going on behind the scenes. He brings his case to the President and some of his close staff, and while quite a few of them are skeptical, further events start to make the evidence hard to ignore. Basically, what we have here is a slow burn political thriller, though I think the burn may have been a little too slow initially.
Obviously, you can’t start the movie with Jiggs discussing his concerns; you need to establish the situations and (ideally) the personalities of the characters so that everything will feel believable. My problem is that it takes too long for things to settle down. The opening scene, showing two groups of protesters marching outside the White House and then getting into a fight, is slow-paced and oddly shot, to the point where I was concerned the whole movie would be that way. After that, the various conversations people keep having are clearly important to the plot, but other than a throughline of an important military drill coming up, they don’t seem connected. There are little bits of intrigue here and there, but for me, things don’t really start picking up until the moment when Jiggs chooses to go to the president. The good news is, once that happens, things improve dramatically.
Once Lyman is let in on Jiggs’ theory, the story becomes much more tense, featuring confrontations and attempts to hush things up on both ends. Kirk Douglas in particular really comes into his own at this point and turns in a great performance. I especially like the scene where Jiggs comes to Lyman, knowing that he’s risking his career if he’s wrong but also knowing he can’t live with himself if he keeps quiet; Douglas’ acting really sells it and adds something extra to the scene. I’ve also heard praise for Lancaster’s acting in this, but while I certainly don’t think he’s bad, he doesn’t stand out to me the same way Douglas does. In fact, what I most noticed about him is how little he’s actually in the movie. It makes a certain amount of sense in context, but it did make the fact that he got top billing that much odder. Then again, given the egos of actors, I’m not all that surprised by it.
If you like thrillers, I think this movie is worth a look. If you can make it through the establishing material, you’ll find a movie that may hit a lot of familiar beats, but plays with the beats just enough to keep things from feeling stale. It may not be as memorable to me as it was to my family members, but it was good enough for a recommendation, and that’s still a positive overall.
I’d heard family members talk up Seven Days in May before I actually watched it, although they didn’t give a lot of details so I was able to go in fairly blind. After watching it, I could see where they were coming from. That being said, I don’t think I’m as inclined to praise it as highly as they did.
True to the title, the story takes place over one week in May, around the time that President Jordan Lyman (Fredric March) has been negotiating a nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union, to the anger of a lot of people. One of the most notable figures objecting to this is General James Scott (Burt Lancaster), the head of the joint chiefs of staff. Initially, he just seems like the charismatic face of the movement, but then a series of small coincidences lead his assistant, Colonel Martin “Jiggs” Casey (Kirk Douglas), to suspect there’s something strange going on behind the scenes. He brings his case to the President and some of his close staff, and while quite a few of them are skeptical, further events start to make the evidence hard to ignore. Basically, what we have here is a slow burn political thriller, though I think the burn may have been a little too slow initially.
Obviously, you can’t start the movie with Jiggs discussing his concerns; you need to establish the situations and (ideally) the personalities of the characters so that everything will feel believable. My problem is that it takes too long for things to settle down. The opening scene, showing two groups of protesters marching outside the White House and then getting into a fight, is slow-paced and oddly shot, to the point where I was concerned the whole movie would be that way. After that, the various conversations people keep having are clearly important to the plot, but other than a throughline of an important military drill coming up, they don’t seem connected. There are little bits of intrigue here and there, but for me, things don’t really start picking up until the moment when Jiggs chooses to go to the president. The good news is, once that happens, things improve dramatically.
Once Lyman is let in on Jiggs’ theory, the story becomes much more tense, featuring confrontations and attempts to hush things up on both ends. Kirk Douglas in particular really comes into his own at this point and turns in a great performance. I especially like the scene where Jiggs comes to Lyman, knowing that he’s risking his career if he’s wrong but also knowing he can’t live with himself if he keeps quiet; Douglas’ acting really sells it and adds something extra to the scene. I’ve also heard praise for Lancaster’s acting in this, but while I certainly don’t think he’s bad, he doesn’t stand out to me the same way Douglas does. In fact, what I most noticed about him is how little he’s actually in the movie. It makes a certain amount of sense in context, but it did make the fact that he got top billing that much odder. Then again, given the egos of actors, I’m not all that surprised by it.
If you like thrillers, I think this movie is worth a look. If you can make it through the establishing material, you’ll find a movie that may hit a lot of familiar beats, but plays with the beats just enough to keep things from feeling stale. It may not be as memorable to me as it was to my family members, but it was good enough for a recommendation, and that’s still a positive overall.