Seven Days In May (1964) - All Region DVD - UK Region 2 Compatible - Classic Political Thriller Movie for Home Theater & Film Collection

I recently re-watched this movie after buying the blu ray, and I was reminded of what a good, taut, suspenseful political thriller it is. But it's also interesting to see what a definite product of its time it was. This film was made hard on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis, at the very height of the Cold War. Today, that seems like ancient history to a lot of people -- perhaps even to some of the people who lived through it. For those of us born after the baby boomer generation, nuclear weapons have been a fact for our entire lives. It's easy to lose sight of what a new and horrifying development they were for people back in the mid-century era, and how large they loomed in everyone's consciousness. We've lived with their existence now for almost three quarters of a century, and perhaps that has made us complacent in a way that people back in the sixties were not, when the specter of nuclear annihilation had only been around for a few short years. So it's natural that the plot to this movie should revolve around the threat of nuclear weapons, and the idea of a disarmament treaty, especially given that the script was written by Rod Serling. Just think how many episodes of the original "Twilight Zone" were about a nuclear apocalypse, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse, or the aftermath of a nuclear apocalypse (e.g. "The Shelter," "Two," "Third from the Sun," "One More Pallbearer," "The Old Man in the Cave," "Probe 7 Over and Out," "Time Enough At Last"), or remember the ending to the original "Planet of the Apes," (whose script was also written by Serling), with its famous twist ending, where Charlton Heston's stranded astronaut, Taylor, discovers he's been back on Earth the whole time -- an Earth where the apes displaced us because we pushed the button and blew ourselves back to the stone age. There was a real, pervading sense in those days, when nuclear weapons were new and gave us a capability that we'd never had before -- to wipe out human civilization, and perhaps the human species itself in one horrifying spasm -- that it was virtually INEVITABLE we'd destroy ourselves, given our warlike history. All it would take would be one catastrophic mistake -- and we are a species prone to making those. Three quarters of a century have given us a perspective they didn't have then. We know today that as terrifying as it was, Mutual Assured Destruction DID actually work! The Cold War ended, and as close as we got to the brink, we didn't go over it, because ultimately, we weren't suicidal and neither were the Soviets or the Red Chinese. This is not to say all danger is passed, but today the threat can realistically be assessed as significantly less grave than it was during the mid-twentieth century.But this movie was made back when the threat was quite new, and seemed quite dire, and as I said, the plot revolves around the struggle between two factions, one who believes deterrence is the only answer, and the other, which believes that only disarmament would end the danger. (Spoilers ahead!) Frederic March plays U.S. President Jordan Lyman, a believer in disarmament. He is absolutely convinced of the inevitability of nuclear war if both sides don't disarm, and signs a treaty to eliminate the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Burt Lancaster plays Air Force General James Matoon Scott, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a well-known and very popular war hero, who believes the opposite: that disarmament is inexcusably naïve; that the Soviets, who have a long history of breaking treaties, cannot be trusted to honor this one; that once America scraps its arsenal, but the Soviets keep theirs, then war would indeed be inevitable, but so also would total defeat. (I have to say personally, that I agree with the second premise: disarmament and disarmament treaties have a poor track record -- the democracies voluntarily disarmed between the two world wars, and signed disarmament treaties [e.g. the Washington Naval Treaty], but the dictatorships armed themselves and made war against enemies who looked weak and unwilling to fight. The ancient Romans got it right all those centuries ago: si vis pacem para bellum.) General Scott is so convinced of the sheer folly of Lyman's course, that he resolves to seize control of the government. Caught in the middle is Scott's aide, marine colonel "Jiggs" Casey, who fully agrees with Scott's assessment of the folly of disarmament, but is repelled at the thought of overthrowing the legitimately elected government of the United States and installing a military junta. Casey realizes, correctly, that it's a cure far worse than the disease. It would mean throwing away the rule of law, and the political stability and peaceful transfer of power that the U.S. has enjoyed for two centuries, and would entail the U.S. becoming just another banana republic, with all the corruption and political instability that would bring. It could lead to a government as repressive and authoritarian as that of the Soviets. So, despite his misgivings about Lyman's policy, Casey works to uncover and thwart the conspiracy before the coup d'état can take place.This is a great movie, with superb direction and pacing, outstanding performances from a stellar cast, and a great, suspenseful story, and finally, is a superb window to the dangers and concerns of the Cold War era. It comes highly recommended.