A meditation of democracy

DVDs:

	• Seven Days in May Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas Warner Home Video, 2000 average customer review:based on 68 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

DVD-Seven Days in May

I received the product promptly and we watched the movie without a hitch.
Thank you.

Seven Days in May

Classic political science fiction. The book and the movie are favorites of mine. This is a must see. It could happen here.

for more information click here

7 Days in May

This is one of the great movies of the cold war era. The acting by Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglass et al is superb. One of the things that I rarely do is watch the director's clip on the making of a movie. This movie is one that you must do so. To listen to Frakenheimer describe the how he was able to get JFK's permission to film in front of the White House; the discussion about the riot scenes...well just buy the movie, you won't be sorry.

for more information click here

A meditation of democracy

There is much to like about "Seven Days in May" as others have noted. In this comment I focus on one long scene: the confrontation between President Jordan Lyman and General James Mattoon Scott.

It is a compelling dialogue about democracy. The general is full of himself, and realized effortlessly as only Burt Lancaster could do, an under-rated actor by all but Luchino Visconti. The beleaguered president, played with enormous conviction and depth by Frederich March, still has one thing the general does not have, an electoral mandate.

While the film seems far fetched, a coup d'état in the United States, as others have noted, the underlying tension is real. There are times when the elected government may well have lost the confidence of the electorate, but it clings on because the constitution permits or indeed requires it to do so. The election occurred in the past, by definition, and events may have wrought great changes, or the government, in this case embodied in one man, the president, may have changed course for one reason or another. That electoral mandate is then a thing of the past, or so it may seem.

There are many examples, an Australian prime minster was removed from office in mid-term as recently as 1975, Israeli governments have stumbled as changing coalitions have produced policies from pure air, the threat of coup d'état against Charles DeGaulle over Algerian independence was very real. More mundane examples likewise abound.

An elected government confronts the reality of the responsibility of office and has to change its rhetoric form the carefree days of opposition to the hard edges of government. Its supporters feel betrayed and the opposition beats the drum for a change of government. In such a situation why wait for constitutional niceties? Throw the rascals out, now! Indeed, why not? Because in the longer run this kind of mob rule and demagoguery destroys order, stability, and continuity. The voice of the mob is not the voice of the people. Why not? Read on to find out why not.

What is the worth of that dated mandate? President Lyman then makes an argument that the process that produced the mandate stands above all else, and it guarantees the continued worth of the mandate, dated or not. Process? The democratic election that yield President Lyman, that process.

General Scott claims to represent the will of the people, and just maybe he does in the film. That is the tension. He may be as much right as wrong. He may be right about the will of the people. But he certainly wrong about the voice of the people.

The voice of the people is not heard on talk-back radio, in studio audiences of public affairs television, newspaper letter pages, bars, and lobbies. The voice of the people is heard in the ballot box. That is Lyman's argument.

If he has exceeded his mandate, if the will of the people has truly changed as Scott believes, then the voice of the people will be heard at the next scheduled election. To make that happen all Scott needs to do is declare his candidacy and run for election. He can do that at any time.

Scott argues that time does not permit the luxury of democracy. The threat is real, material, and immediate. He might be right. Yes, also, this is ever the usurpers argument. It convinced Brutus to strike at Caesar. It led many well meaning people to support Adolf Hitler. Even if right, Scott is also wrong in a much more important way than he is right.

That is the great constraint of democracy. It fixes the occasions of election in one way or another in any political system. The rhythm of elections may not match the rhythm of events. But to breach democracy in accord with the rhythm of events may be a greater destruction that any that events can wreak. That is Lyman's reply.

After all, if the Soviets see a military seizure of power in the United States that alone will be sufficient to cause them to attack right now. The very thing to be avoided will be provoked by the effort to prevent it. But that kind of second guessing is just that, speculative second guessing.

The note that Lyman strikes repeatedly is that democracy is the open and endless opportunity for anyone to take to the soapbox and rally the voice of the people, and that is the one thing General Scott has conspicuously failed to do. He speaks only to those who already agree with. One of the hallmarks of democracy is that it requires those who seek office to meet those who do not yet agree with them. Though there is a lot of nonesense in electoral campaigns that essential requirement remains. To win any candidate has to get votes from that vast bulk of voters who are ideologues.

Rather than face the auditorium with it noisily but vigorous disorder, his meetings have been in closed offices, underground car parks, back rooms, and the like, all this to save democracy from ... itself.

for more information click here

Still works today

Some of the best actors in Hollywood are in this film, but the best performance, as far as I am concerned is by Burt Lancaster. When I read this book and saw the movie as a teenager, it scared me to death to think how easy it would have been to topple our government. I would highly recommend this movie for any age range, with the caveat that reading the book first would enhance the experience.

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

John Frankenheimer's follow-up to The Manchurian Candidate is as intimate and subdued as its predecessor is flamboyant and energetic. Burt Lancaster is calm and calculating as the steely-eyed military hawk General Scott, who opposes the president's (Fredric March) plan to end the cold war with a bold nuclear disarmament plan. Lancaster's longtime friend and frequent costar Kirk Douglas is his smiling, joking right-hand man, Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, whose easygoing manner is jolted by evidence of a possible plot to overthrow the American government. Scripted by Rod Serling from the novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey, the film plays much like a classic live TV drama (the medium that spawned both Frankenheimer and Serling), with the drama arising from conversations and confrontations and the action largely limited to scenes within the Pentagon and the White House. An ominous undercurrent of danger seeps through the realistic (and often real) settings of the film, conveyed chiefly through the intensity of the excellent ensemble performances. Notable among the supporting cast are Ava Gardner as a lonely Washington socialite who was once the general's mistress, Edmond O'Brien as an amiable alcoholic senator, Martin Balsam as the president's shrewd but skeptical secretary, and underrated character actor George Macready as the wily presidential advisor. --Sean Axmaker

for more information click here

hot