It's interesting to me how books and movies can come, go, and come again in relevance. In 1964, with the sound of Kennedy's assassination still lingering in the air, the Vietnam War on the horizon, and the nation erupting in violence as the Civil Rights movement hit the streets, the idea that drives SEVEN DAYS IN MAY probably seemed much more realistic than it did some decades later, when a weak remake of this film was made just after the Cold War ended. But the way things are going today, in 2019, the premise of SEVEN DAYS -- that the President might be deposed by the U.S. military -- has once again edged back into the furthest realms of possibility.

SEVEN DAYS takes place during the darkest days of the Cold War. The nation's deeply unpopular president, Jordan Lyman (Frederic March) has just signed a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union, a move angrily opposed by the Joint Chiefs, most notably their charismatic Chairman, General James Matoon Scott (Burt Lancaster), who feel this is a sign of weakness that will provoke, rather than prevent, a nuclear war. Scott's able and loyal aide, Marine colonel Martin "Jiggs" Casey (Kirk Douglas), also opposes the treaty, but irritably fobs off suggestions from Senator Fred Prentice (Whit Bissel) that the military should take a more "active" role in opposing the president's plans. The constitution is sacred to Casey, as is the chain of command, and he assumes this feeling is universal throughout the military. A series of strange events, however, soon make Casey wonder if some of his fellow officers share that feeling, and before long he finds himself reluctantly confronting President Lyman with the seemingly fantastical idea that General Scott is planning a military overthrow of the government. The President is of course skeptical, but when his best friend, Senator Ray Clark (Edmond O'Brien) disappears while trying to locate a military base that no one seems to want to admit exists, Lyman's attitude changes. The President is desperate not only to abort the coup before it can take place, but to do so in a way in which the wider public, and the Soviet Union, never know of its existence. Unfortunately, he has few allies: Scott has the military leadership, an elite airborne unit led by a fanatical neo-fascist officer, the support of Prentice, and -- most importantly perhaps -- a Rush Limbaugh-style demagogue with a loyal audience of ten million, who plan to help him legitimize his coup. Lyman's hasty plans hinge on blackmail, in the form of Scott's embittered former mistress, Eleanor Holbrook (Ava Gardner), but Lyman may not have the stomach to stoop so low even with all the chips on the pass line. And yet me must find a way to stop Scott fast, because the day of the planned coup is fast approaching.

SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is a rare sort of film -- a military-political thriller that employs almost nothing in the way of violence or bloodshed. Everything which occurs does so in a single week, hence the title. The tension is achieved first through Casey's growing unease and suspicion (Kirk Douglas does a great job of acting with his face as he stumbles on some of the clues of the coup's existence), then by a plot twist which gives and then takes away the President's advantage over Scott, then by Clark's adventure in the desert (complete with capture, escape, and possible re-capture) and finally by a terrific all-dialogue confrontation between Scott and Lyman, during which March and Lancaster rise to sublime levels as actors. I confess I wanted to see just one scene in which the army of the plotters comes into conflict with soldiers loyal to the President (think the combat sequences in "Dr. Strangelove"), but such a sequence would have run contrary to the spirit of the film. The fact is, the talent pool on this film was very deep, and the direction by John Frankenheimer is crisp and assured, never flashy or distracting. To be perfectly honest, DAYS is one of those rare cases in which the film is better than the book upon which it was based, a novel by Fletcher Knebel whose tone was not appropriately serious enough for the subject matter. A lot of this falls at the feet of the great Rod Serling, whose screenplay is full of gems, including some great exchanges between Douglas and Gardner that would fit perfectly into a Film Noir movie ("I'll make you two promises: a very good steak, medium rare, and the truth, which is very rare.") It is possible to deliver a thriller with little physical action, but only if you have the right script, and the right actors to act it out.

We live in strange times, and the fact that SEVEN DAYS IN MAY has crept quietly into relevance again after 50-odd years is depressing and cause for anxiety. But it certainly makes an old black and white movie feel as relevant as today's news.

The movie presents the possibility of a military coup within the United States. The coup's basis is the mutual suspicion generated within the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union of the early 1960s. The climatic scene in which Burt Lancaster as teh general leading the plotters confronts Kirk Douglas as the colonel who discovered the plot is dramatically compelling and technologically prescient. When confronted by the general with his jingoistic authoritarian vision of patriotism the colonel replies with a compelling defense of deference to the rule of law. This confrontation takes place in front of several monitors in a Pentagon hallway all showing Frederic March as the president speaking to teh US nation about the need to defend democracy from the certainties of ambitions men. The technology of the electronic media to spread interaction without regard to distance is presciently shown throughout the movie.

been waiting for 7 Days in May to go to Blu-ray!!! I lived though those days that came close during Cuban Missile Crisis. The movie was shot in White House,,,, JFK,,, gave film crew/ Director access to W.H. ..,, went to Hyannis Port, Massachusetts for 2 weekends,, to allow the filming... // he thought it was an important movie,, even said thought it was a real possibility of military Coup d'état in U.S. before he died after the Bay of Pigs,,,,,,, met JFK once,, in Chapel Hill. NC-- took a pic..

I loved this movie from back before many who could benefit from it were born. It is becoming an all too plausible scenario in today's world - not just a military take over but a usurpation of power by a political elite. One should watch the movie and think about it in today's terms.
Good performances by all the principals. I can watch it over and over.

Director John Frankenheimer, master of the Cold War paranoia thriller, tells a story in less histrionic fashion than in his best-known film, "The Manchurian Candidate." The screenplay's by Rod Serling, though, so there's some moralizing that borders on moral hectoring, but what's good about the film—its sense of suspense, crisp, stark photography, and solid performances—makes up for these deficits.

The plot (against America): It's 1970, roughly five years after this movie was made. President Jordan Lyman is preparing to sign a unilateral disarmament treaty with the Russians. For a small, educated, and morally superior number of Americans, this pursuit of peace is seen as a good thing. To redbaiting troglodytes, especially those in the Army brass, this looks like a disaster in the making. For belief among this group is that the Russians aren't acting in good faith, and will renege as soon as the Americans lay down their arms.

To avoid this contingency, and allay the fears of the hawks, the President has okayed a program to react to a double-cross, should Ivan prove to be duplicitous. This program involves a lot of drills and a complicated sequence of orders and communication between a command center and those with boots on the ground at various sites. The drilling is overseen by General James Mattoon Scott, a warmonger with a messiah complex and ambitions of entering politics after he's done with the military. His righthand man is a one Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, whose loyalty to the Constitutional order and civilian oversight of the military won't allow him to join any junta.

The movie follows the conflict between these men, and their race against the clock, that fateful hour when the treaty goes into effect and either peace will reign or nuclear annihilation will hold sway. The general is played by Burt Lancaster with a smoldering, self-righteous intensity that makes this an against-type, but effective role for the leading man. We're used to seeing him as tough but sensitive, and here he is cold, fixated on his sense of duty to the point of sociopathy. He came off as more likeable as Ernst Janning in "Judgment at Nuremberg," which is saying something.

Kirk Douglas has a more familiar role to play, one he perfected in Stanley Kubrick's "Paths of Glory." He's the man oriented by his moral compass, which is always pointing due north, willing to sacrifice his career and even his life for what's right. There's a scene in "Seven Days" involving a potential blackmail scheme that shows the colonel as conflicted, and thus more human, but aside from this he's a plaster saint, and a cipher for Rod Serling's soapboxing. That he makes it sound good while spouting it is a testament to Douglas's skill for rounding two-dimensional characters into three. It hardly matters, though, as the movie sort of forgets him in the third act anyway, and his final standoff with the General is abrupt, truncated, mostly an afterthought (I was looking forward to a big "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!" denouement).

The best performance, ironically, goes to character actor Edmond O'Brien as a boozy Southern senator whose bibulousness can't quite drown out his sense of what's right and wrong. With his paunchy, jowly face and his unlimited store of sayings, he really charms whenever he's onscreen to chew scenery. He reminds me a bit of South Carolina's Lindsay Graham, if he had a penchant for rye instead of amorous dalliances with his own sex.

Ultimately, "Seven Days in May" is good, but not great. As an artifact from a previous time, a previous mindset, and heck, a previous country, it's an interesting and respectable specimen. If you've got to watch one Cold War picture, though, make it "Strangelove."

There is a plot to take over the government of the United States by the Joint Chiefs if Staff. The movie then moves through the events leading up to intended coup. The message of the film is that we really don’t think it can happen here.

This is one of the best films addressing issues during the Cold War. Something of an all star cast for the time. There are no special effects, musical numbers or comedy. This is serious human drama where the fate of United States hangs in the balance. All of the actors give outstanding performances. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas Show why the are leading men of the time and are dominating in the film.

But the people who give the film depth and make it unforgettable are Fredric March, Edmond O’Brien, Ava Gardner, Martin Balsam, George Mcready, Andrew Dugan, and Whit Bissell. They are not famous with today’s moviegoers but their faces are recognizable. The performance of Fredric March as the President makes the movie. His acting seems so natural and effortless that we believe he is the President. He goes from quiet confidence at the beginning, to feeling all is lost, to alone confronting the traitors. It is obvious why he was nominated for Oscars in the past and won for best actor. This is one his last films.

Edmond O’Brien, another Oscar winner, is brilliant as a hard drinking no nonsense senator from Georgia. He can be charming to his friends and fiery with rage to his enemies. He won’t back down to anyone threatening the President.

This is an actors film. It was filmed in black and white in 1964. Many younger people won’t want to watch it because it’s not in color. That is unfortunate. Those of us who grew up before color television and were raised on black and white movies of the 1940’s and 1950’s may sometimes wish the old classics were in high definition color. But we look past that and enjoy the films that let us see great actors of long ago who were masters of their craft.

The central crisis is eminently credible. A hawkish general believes a controversial Cold War treaty negotiated by the President is likely to leave the USA victim to belligerence by the Soviet Union. With fellow senior military officers, he hatches a plan to overthrow the President.

The intelligent narrative generally develops well. The acting is good, the cinematography also good.

I am a tad reluctant about the fourth star for three reasons. (i) Alcohol plays too large a role throughout the film and the leading 'good guy' senator is an alcoholic. The President's trusting of that senator in such a sensitive role defies credibility. (ii) The subplot involving Ava Gardner comes across as a low credibility irrelevance shoehorned into the film. (iii) The final outcome is secured by a Deus ex Machina.

Seven Days in May is one of the finest films made in this genre. Kirk Douglas, and Frederic March gave outstanding performances. The film keeps you on the edge of the seat, and the writing is outstanding. This is one for the ages.