Isn't it beguiling how adult this movie is? Now, when I say adult I don't mean raunchy or explicit-- I mean, it treats the audience like they are intelligent, reasoning adults who can be captivated by a clash of political values with little in the way of chase scenes, sex scenes, or explosions. There's a lot of talking and debate, and if you're the type that thinks "cinema= constant camera movement and fancy editing," SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is an open challenge to such an assumption.

Furthermore, it's amazing how this movie treats its central conflict. It's not framed as "this side good, that side bad" the way it undoubtedly would be today, where ideological purity overrules any sense of moral or political inquiry designed to make the audience think. Both Lyman and Scott have fair reasons concerning the treaty: Lyman feels a world dominated by distrust and war will inevitably lead to mass destruction, while Scott feels distrust is reasonable given the character of the Soviets. Both men want what is best for the country. What makes Scott wrong and Lyman right is not their views on war, but their views on the Constitution. Lyman believes in democracy. Scott does not and thinks ditching democracy is reasonable-- the ends justifying the means. This makes him a fascinating antagonist, and a chilling one.

While not as bizarre and stylish as THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY still showcases director John Frankenheimer in top form. It's definitely one of the great political thrillers of all time, let alone the 1960s.