“There’s been abroad
in this land in recent months a whisper that we have somehow lost our
greatness; that we do not have the strength to win without war the struggles
for liberty throughout the world. This
is slander, because our country is strong. Strong enough to be a peacemaker. It
is proud. Proud enough to be patient.
The whisperers and the detractors, the violent men are wrong. We will
remain strong and proud, proud and patient, and we will see a day when on this
Earth all men will walk out of the tunnels of tyranny into the bright sunshine
of freedom.”
-Seven Days in May (1964), written by Rod Serling; directed by
John Frankenheimer.
Seven Days in May, a film, penned by Twilight Zone (1959-1961) creator Rod Serling is based on a
1962 best-selling novel that concerns an attempted military coup of the U.S.
government by an extreme right-wing, four star general.
Like
the tale depicted in The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May is
actually an unusual -- and often uncomfortable -- fusion of historical
inspiration, and speculation that, given the vantage point of time, reads like
prophecy.
Specifically,
Seven
Days in May looks to historical figures and events for the nature and
details of its villain, the treasonous General Scott (Burt Lancaster).
But
simultaneously, the 1964 film forecasts the future (or rather, the now…) in terms of right-wing outrage
over any U.S. President or agenda not to its ideological preference.
As
you may have noticed if you’ve been conscious at all for the last eight years,
it’s not just that the President’s agenda is wrong to these folks, it is that it is illegitimate and dangerous, and
that the Commander-in-chief is actually traitor (or “other”) for possessing
non-right wing values and beliefs.
We
have seen this very dynamic recur in at least three presidencies in modern
times, and Seven Days in May -- in a brilliantly-worded finale -- exposes such
narcissistic “patriotism” for what it really often is: sedition and treason.
You
simply can’t lay claim to being a patriotic American citizen if your sole
mission in life is to destroy the legally elected U.S. President.
Seven
Days in May
gives us two military men, both right-wingers, and allows us to compare them,
side-by-side (much as The Manchurian Candidate provided us
two right wing senators -- Harding and Iselin -- and afforded audiences the
same type of comparison).
One
right-wing soldier in Seven Days in May, played by Kirk
Douglas, understands his duty, and obligation under the law, to serve the
Commander-in-Chief, even though he disagrees with the president’s politics. Douglas’s Casey is able to put his personal
belief system aside and trust in the people who sent the President to office.
And
then there is another right-wing soldier, the aforementioned Scott (Lancaster),
who plots a revolution to substitute his own judgment for that of the lawfully
elected U.S. President. Duty is not what calls Scott. Evangelical certainty,
and moral self-righteousness are his only guideposts.
Seven
Days in May is
a battle between these two men and their competing visions. One man serves his
country, and realizes that to be President is to see things in a different way
than a general, or soldier might.
The
other man serves only his ideology (and thus his vanity). In serving this idol,
he steps over the will expressed by the American people.
Seven
Days in May is
disturbing -- and tautly edited -- as the exquisite screenplay by Serling
fleshes out the details of the coup attempt, and the President’s last-ditch attempt
to hold onto the sacred responsibility that “We the People” entrusted him with.
Like
The
Manchurian Candidate, this film may feel dated to some today, in part
because the Halls of Power featured in Seven Days in Men are populated
exclusively by white men, and in part because the depiction of Eleanor Holbrooke
(Ava Gardner) is a bit patronizing. She is treated, even by Casey, as a child;
one who can’t select for herself how she should live, or who she should be.
But
again -- as I always like to point out -- films are made in a historical context.
It’s
true that Seven Days in May has seen time pass it by in some ways. But
like The
Manchurian Candidate, it
seems to resonate more fully today than it has in some recent
years. In some fashion, it has been
passed by modern contexts, and in other ways Seven Days in May is
again frighteningly timely.
“Why,
in God's name, do we elect a man president and then try to see how fast we can
kill him…”
Marine Colonel Jiggs
Casey (Kirk Douglas), through happenstance and coincidence, discovers that his
superior, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Scott (Lancaster) is
moving men and equipment in preparation for a coup in just a matter of days.
In just a week, Scott
and those he commands will seize all television and radio communication in the
United States, using a secretly-funded and secretly-manned unit, ECOMCON (Emergency
Communications Control) to usurp authority from the historically unpopular
President, Jordan Lyman (Fredric March).
Scott’s reason for
the coup is simple. He disagrees with a disarmament treaty between the Soviet
Union and the United States that the President supports and wishes to see
ratified. Many Americans feel just as he
does, and many of them protest outside the White House.
Casey reports
everything he knows about the coup attempt to the President, and Lyman’s chief
of staff, Paul Girard (Martin Balsam).
Girard rejects the tale as paranoid fantasy, but the President realizes
he can’t afford to be caught flat-footed, and organizes a brigade of trusted
aides to help him determine where he stands.
As everyone is quick
to realize, General Scott controls the military, and therefore possesses force.
The President’s great power, by contrast, is the moral authority of his office,
and the Constitution.
Girard is killed in
a suspicious plane crash while soliciting the aid of a Navy officer (John
Houseman) who refused to be part of the coup.
Meanwhile, the
President’s friend, Senator Raymond Clark of Georgia (Edmond O’Brien) is held
in custody by Scott’s men when he attempts to find the secret ECOMCON base.
Casey is ordered,
against his will, to hunt down incriminating love letters from Scott to his
former lover, Eleanor (Ava Gardner), so that the President, if necessary, can “slime”
his enemy with them.
The President
absolutely resists this option -- realizing it works against his moral
authority -- and instead demands, in a face-to-face meeting, Scott’s
resignation.
But Scott is not
ready to give up his grab for power just yet…
“And
from this…desperation we look for a champion in red, white and blue. Every now
and then, a man on a white horse rides by, and we appoint him to be our
personal god for the duration.”
Seven Days in May opens with a pan down across the United States Constitution. The
writing on the document is large enough, and clear enough that we can read
it.
As the camera pans
down this founding document, the numerals 1 to 7 are scrawled hastily and
awkwardly over it, in black writing.
This writing
suggests that in just seven days, the Constitution can be desecrated, if Scott’s
plan is carried out.
The writing over the
founding document is thus akin to graffiti, despoiling the image of the
Constitution.
And this optical “superimposition”
of graffiti, of writing, over our Constitution also serves as a metaphor for
Scott’s actions. By planning to take power from the President, and from the
people who elected him, he is similarly spoiling or betraying America. We see the Constitution literally soiled. And
we see Scott’s plan to trample it.
After this dynamic
and effective opening, Seven Days in
May cuts to a protest outside the White House as it becomes violent.
On one side of the
divide are the folks who see the disarmament treaty as a cowardly, treacherous
act.
On the other are
those who agree with Lyman, and view the treaty as a way to help secure peace
in our (nuclear) age. Frankenheimer’s camera takes us right into the scuffle
with a shaky cam, quick cuts, and very informal camera work. This approach
makes the protest surprisingly visceral, and also has the effect of making us
feel under siege; like we are there, experiencing the protest and the blows ourselves.
This technique is
perfect because, of course, we are there. We all grapple with issues like this,
on a daily basis. We all stand to win or
lose, depending on how things turn out, depending on what our leaders decide.
These two scenes, in
tandem, create quite an ominous or tense mood right out of the gate. First, we
see our most revered founding document desecrated, and then we see civil debate
break down into irreconcilable violence.
Together, these two
moments light the match, the fuse that burns throughout Seven Days in May right up until the film’s cathartic and
uplifting final speech by Lyman, a true statesman.
In terms of its
approach to history, Seven Days in
May has clearly selected some historical inspirations for Scott, the
self-aggrandizing “patriot” who is convinced, primarily, of his own
greatness/correctness.
Some critics (and
indeed, Frankenheimer himself), view Scott as a Senator McCarthy figure. McCarthy,
as I wrote in another review, led a witch-hunt against “Communist infiltrators” in the
U.S. Government to make, actually, a name for himself.
Other see Scott as a
corollary for General Edwin Walker, a man whom President Eisenhower chastised
for putting his own personal politics above his duty. Eisenhower asked for, and
received, Walker’s resignation.
Today, men of this
stripe are
still with us, putting their personal religious beliefs and views on
ideology ahead of their job as military men or advisors to the government. So,
Seven Days in May has not created Scott out of whole cloth in some
attempt to discredit people on the right side of the political spectrum. Instead, a straight line can be drawn from
men like McCarthy, and Walker to Scott…and then people in the present time.
And again, we have
the example of Casey. He is from the same political party and belief system as
Scott, but he is not a demagogue or an ideologue. He is a patriot who sees the system as wise, and protects it from desecration.
What Seven Days in May also gets
right is the long, historical -- and let’s face it -- disgraceful attempt to
dismiss and diminish peace efforts (and treaties, specifically) as insidious
weak-kneed methods by which Presidents plan to destroy America.
Think this is a
belief that only occurs in fiction?
Consider the
skepticism with which President Reagan -- a conservative! -- was greeted, by
right-wingers in 1988, when
attempting to get a disarmament treaty with Russia through the Senate. One senator said, almost word for word, in
that meeting, what Scott says to Lyman in Seven
Days in May, beginning with the assertion “The Soviets have broken most every treaty they have ever
signed.”
If you require a
more recent historical example of the principle and scenario spelled out in the
Frankenheimer film, just remember the response to the U.S.’s attempt to make
peace with Iran in 2015-2016. Some 47
senators signed a letter warning Iran that they would not consider any such
treaty binding. Essentially, they were circumventing
the prerogatives of the U.S. President, in an act that some have called “mutinous”
and “traitorous.”
Seven Days in May cannily includes a Senator (Whit Bissell) in the conspiracy “loop”
with Scott, and goes just one step further: making the mutiny and treason
manifest as a military take-over.
Most deftly,
however, Seven Days in May
gets right the notion we see so often in our national discourse; that people
are loudly patriotic only so long as their party and beliefs are in power.
When they are not in
power, what do they do? How do they act? What do they say?
They talk down America.
They say
specifically, that America is no longer great. They say it is weak. (And only
they can make it strong again. Not with their action, but with their “beliefs.”)
Posted at the top of
the review is the speech by President Lyman in Seven Days in May, which addresses this terrible quality,
the diminishing of America to score political points…even when the whole world
is listening.
President Lyman
rightly reports exactly what this kind of talk really is.
It is “slander,” he declares.
America is great. Great enough to
be both strong and patient, and to seek ways out of wars, rather than finding
excuses for fighting them.
That speech calls
out men who purport to be patriots but actually root against America when their
team isn’t in power.
Lyman has another
great moment in the film. He is baffled
-- as often I am -- by the hatred of these so-called patriots for the very government
they claim to revere.
He reports: “You
have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country. Why in the
name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell
bent to protect?”
That’s a good
question.
And one we should all still be asking, even fifty years since Seven Days in May’s premiere.
No comments:
Post a Comment