A Few Words About A few words about...™ Seven Days in May -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Richard Gallagher]

What are the troops going to be thinking as they seize American communication centers? I think they figure it out. They "seizure" training they've been doing? I'll bet they don't think they will be operating on US Soil.

I agree with Peter. There would have been some plausible cover story - war games, counterinsurgency training, etc.

Soldiers can disobey illegal orders, but they do so at their own peril. In other words, they better know for sure that what they have been ordered to do is illegal before they refuse.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I agree with Peter. There would have been some plausible cover story - war games, counterinsurgency training, etc.

Soldiers can disobey illegal orders, but they do so at their own peril. In other word, they better know for sure that what they have been ordered to do is illegal before they refuse.

You mention two things that come under training. I've never heard of any training that includes physically taking by force American television networks, newspapers, and other means of communications. It would smell to high heaven and the troops down to the privates would smell it.

Doesn't the constitution itself forbid the military from conducting actual operations on US soil? At lease some of the troops would know that too.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

You mention two things that come under training. I've never heard of any training that includes physically taking by force American television networks, newspapers, and other means of communications. It would smell to high heaven and the troops down to the privates would smell it.

Doesn't the constitution itself forbid the military from conducting actual operations on US soil? At lease some of the troops would know that too.

The plan didn't require the taking by force of American television and radio stations. Do you remember the Emergency Broadcast System? The government owns the airways, and it could use the Emergency Broadcast System to order TV and radio stations to cease regular programming and broadcast the alert of a national emergency, which is exactly what General Scott had in mind. Newspapers were of little concern to Scott, because he expected his operation to be a fait accompli by the time newspapers were able to report on it.

The answer to your question is no. The U.S. military has in the past conducted military operations on U.S. soil. For example, the 12th Cavalry and the 12th Infantry Regiments under Douglas MacArthur were put into action to clear to the so-called "Bonus Army" of World War I veterans and their families from D.C. in 1932. And of course there was the Civil War, plus U.S. troops were used to maintain order in the south during Reconstruction. And the Indian wars. And the many times the National Guard has been used to quell riots.

You may be thinking of the CIA, which is in fact prohibited from conducting operations in the United States.

 

[Douglas_H]

I far prefer 7 Days to Manchurian.
Kirk Douglas' dressing down of Burt, riveting.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but is Edmund O'Brien THE most under-rated actor?
Every film I've seen him in whether the lead or supporting, he's consistently perfect for the character.

Hey, I never meant my opinion about Edmund O'Brien to be carried over to or to be used as a comparison to any other actor(ess).
There are many under-rated actors imo, Robert Ryan comes to mind, Dana Andrews is another. Perhaps one reason that Ryan never got the accolades he deserved is that to my memory, he played very few "sympathetic" characters. While many were fully drawn, a lot were bad guys. that doesn't diminish his talent in any way but even in some of best roles he was a tortured soul. No doubt I would have loved to buy him dinner & drinks but the roles he chose\got weren't in the period when he was active, ones that got actors awards. I stay away from comparing\rating actors against each other because it's impossible to me to do so in any meaningful way. Sure I have my preferences but they're only mine.

 

[RMajidi]

Hey, I never meant my opinion about Edmund O'Brien to be carried over to or to be used as a comparison to any other actor(ess).
There are many under-rated actors imo, Robert Ryan comes to mind, Dana Andrews is another. Perhaps one reason that Ryan never got the accolades he deserved is that to my memory, he played very few "sympathetic" characters. While many were fully drawn, a lot were bad guys. that doesn't diminish his talent in any way but even in some of best roles he was a tortured soul. No doubt I would have loved to buy him dinner & drinks but the roles he chose\got weren't in the period when he was active, ones that got actors awards. I stay away from comparing\rating actors against each other because it's impossible to me to do so in any meaningful way. Sure I have my preferences but they're only mine.

Classy post, Douglas... and not that it matters, but I'm also a big fan of the underexposed Dana Andrews, who mainly came into my orbit with the rise of home video.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hey, I never meant my opinion about Edmund O'Brien to be carried over to or to be used as a comparison to any other actor(ess).
There are many under-rated actors imo, Robert Ryan comes to mind, Dana Andrews is another. Perhaps one reason that Ryan never got the accolades he deserved is that to my memory, he played very few "sympathetic" characters. While many were fully drawn, a lot were bad guys. that doesn't diminish his talent in any way but even in some of best roles he was a tortured soul. No doubt I would have loved to buy him dinner & drinks but the roles he chose\got weren't in the period when he was active, ones that got actors awards. I stay away from comparing\rating actors against each other because it's impossible to me to do so in any meaningful way. Sure I have my preferences but they're only mine.

I'm a big fan of all three actors. Yes, they were all underrated in their respective careers.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

The HTF review is up.

Seven Days in May Blu-ray Review

 

[Matt Hough]

I watched this tonight and thought it looked splendid and a BIG step up from the DVD. The movie, of course, is superlative.

I can't believe John Frankenheimer wasn't more celebrated in his day than he was.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I watched this tonight and thought it looked splendid and a BIG step up from the DVD. The movie, of course, is superlative.

I can't believe John Frankenheimer wasn't more celebrated in his day than he was.

As a big Burt Lancaster fan, Frankenheimer will always be one of my favorite directors.

 

[haineshisway]

Great movie, great transfer - in fact, a home run of a transfer. They just don't make actors like these anymore, they don't know how to write scripts like these anymore, and heaven knows they don't know how to direct movies like these anymore.

 

[sonomatom1]

Just my opinion, of course, but I don't agree that they were alike.

I enjoy Edmond O'Brien in several roles, but I don't find his performances anywhere near as riveting as Robert Ryan's, although I agree both were underrated.

I'd blind-buy a movie just because Robert Ryan appears in it. I wouldn't with Edmond O'Brien.

I totally agree that Ryan was an underrated actor. Just watch "Billy Budd" or "The Wild Bunch" (in particular). Remarkable performances, both.

 

[Dave B Ferris]

Classy post, Douglas... and not that it matters, but I'm also a big fan of the underexposed Dana Andrews, who mainly came into my orbit with the rise of home video.

It seems that Dana Andrews inexplicably fell so far below the radar (before the rise of home video), that even some film buffs are surprised to learn that Steve Forrest is Dana's (younger) brother.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Watched it tonight for the first time and loved it. It made me very happy that Frankenheimer persevered with black and white cinematography into the late sixties, because there's something about a Rod Serling script that just works best in monochrome.

I found the performances in this movie to be all around top-notch. I do find the Ava Gardner sub-plot a bit unneeded. Pretty sure her character was in the novel, but they could used the running time for other things.

Her character was very loosely based on Isabel Rosario Cooper, Douglas MacArthur's mistress. While General Scott in the movie seems like a very heightened and exaggerated amalgam of Curtis LeMay and Ted Walker, an unpopular president (Truman)'s firing of a popular war hero general (MacArthur) for insubordination undoubtedly served as one of the inspirations for the book and the movie.

I thought her inclusion was thematically important. Senator Clark and Secretary Todd were ready to take down Scott by using the letters to compromise the public's view of his character. But the president knew he needed to make the case for his ideas, to convince the public of the sanctity of the civilian democratic system to the American way of life. General Scott sought to undermine the democratic process through underhanded means. To stop him using underhanded means might eliminate the immediate threat but wouldn't address the underlying crisis, which jeopardized the legitimacy of the presidency itself.

Those letters in the president's desk drawer added another layer of complexity to that electric scene between Lyman and Scott in the Oval Office. It wasn't just about the clash in philosophies between the president and his top general, it was also about the clash between Lyman's desperate pragmatism and his idealistic faith in the American people. Not using the letters was the riskier move. But it makes his performance at the press conference all the more powerful. Even though the embassy attaché comes through with the smoking gun from the wreckage of the plane, Lyman doesn't know that when he first steps up to the podium.