MovieChat Forums > Seven Days in May (1964) Discussion > the great 8 minute scene

the great 8 minute scene

posted 11 years ago by jnatch
13 replies | jump to latest

one standard part of script writing is to never waste screen time (tv or film) showing characters explain things to one another that the audience already knows. I can understand that thinking, but this staunch rule has resulted in a lot of awkwards scenes where people mysteriously dont answer questions posed to them. Or we as the audience are not quite sure what all the other characters are aware of. Then you have the cliche fades or edits to move on from what we dont need to see. But Seven Days has an 8 minute scene, 1/3rd into the film, where Kirk Douglas explains everything to the president. There is nothing revealed in that scene we dont already know. Yet the scene is very powerful and dramatic and serves to catapult the rest of the film (not the mention helps if anyone was not following to that point). If I made films I would do this more often, not all the time (after all later in this film they fade to the next scene when it is about to happen again). And if I taught film I would show this in class. Great scene.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 11 years ago

Great point!

I'd never thought of that before, even after seeing this film numerous times.

But in the hands of the great genius Rod Serling, I think he could get away with just about anything in a film script and make it work--as long as he was committed to its necessity.

Guess it shows a true genius can break the rules and it works beautifully in the film!

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

I couldn't agree more.

This scene rather breaks the rules for movie stars, too.

My understanding is that stars like Cary Grant and Steve McQueen didn't like to deliver plot exposition, preferred to listen while lesser supporting actors did it.

And yet here's Kirk Douglas laying out every detail with methodical calm and occasional emotional power.

Fredric March is fine as the President, and the scene makes the point from time to time that Douglas' military man, no matter how high ranking or how much he needs to tell his story...really shouldn't be allowed to take THAT much time to talk with the All Mighty President of the United States. Thus March occasionally chides Douglas: "Do you have a problem with the English language? Say what you mean!"

Martin Balsam is there, and for once the character actor listens(intently) as the star delivers the exposition.

Balsam is so hungry for a line that when he gets this moment:

Douglas: You were there at that party, Paul..

Balsam: Yes!

Balsam says "Yes!" with deep throated authority and power and snaps his head towards President March to underline his single word.

We've already seen everything that Douglas is describing to March, but in the tradition of good thriller plotting, now is the time for Douglas to "weave it all together" not only for March, but for the audience, leading to his big sentence "I believe that there is a coup planned to take over the Presidency"(or something like that.) And I love the emphasis that Douglas has to put on the rubbery acronmym "Econ-com." Say THAT eight times fast. And yet it is the key to the conspiracy. Other characters say "Econ-com" throughout the movie, and it becomes a rather puckish bureaucratic MacGuffin.

"Seven Days in May" is "an action movie where words provide most of the action." Surely in this scene setting things up, and then much in the climactic confrontation between President March and the self-satisfied meglamaniac of the piece, General Burt Lancaster(whose arguments in support of his coup make a certain amount of right wing sense --- you can't trust the bad guys and waiting for an election will be too late if the bombs drop...but whose madness belies his arguments.)

Great movie actors delivering great lines. Exciting and satisfying.

[–] movieghoul 11 years ago

Just goes to show that for good filmmakers there are no hard and fast rules.

In North by Northwest, Hitchcock cleverly avoids this type of plot exposition in the scene for the Professor is bringing THornhill up doto date with the jet engine noise and compressing time. THen again, he did have the often criticized psychatirst monologue at the end of Psycho, albeit there it is a supporting actor giving the exposition and the audience does not know beforehhand everything he says.

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

Yep, "exposition" is its own elastic thing...sometimes useful only for plot purposes, sometimes exciting in and of itself, either because of the information being imparted(horrific information by the shrink in Psycho) or because of the magnetic force of the actor delivering it(Kirk Douglas in Seven Days in May -- he earns his movie star pay, here.)

The information in North by Northwest didn't need to be heard by the audience for we already knew it(from the Professor's briefing of his staff in DC earlier.) But THORNHILL needs to hear it, and Hitchcock compresses the process. And we are SO relieved -- some of the suspense is finally over -- when Thornhill reacts to the news that George Kaplan doesn't exist.

"Seven Days in May" makes a direct comment on famous exposition in "Psycho," and uses the same actor to do it: Martin Balsam.

In "Psycho," Balsam's detective Arbogast goes to a rural gas station phone booth and calls Lila Crane with vital information: he has found where Marion was last seen, its the Bates Motel on the old highway, she stayed there last Saturday night. This is VITAL exposition(pretty much the whole reason Arbogast exists) that "speeds up the investigation" and gets Sam and Lila out to the motel when Arbogast "disappears."

Hitchocck lets Arbogast talk -- with no cross-cutting to Lila -- at great length, mainly re-stating things we already know, but then chilling us as he reveals that he is going BACK to the motel.

In "Seven Days in May" Balsam's White House Chief of Staff goes to a phone booth near Gibraltar and calls President Fredric March with vital information: he has proof of the coup conspiracy (a signed letter from US Navy Admiral John Houseman) and he is bringing it with him back to DC.

In this phone booth scene, "May" writer Rod Serling makes a bit of fun of the phone booth scene in "Psycho" for here: WE NEVER SEE BALSAM SAY A WORD. He doesn't talk on and on as in Hitchcock's film. Rather, Serling and director John Frankenheimer cut back to President March GETTING the information: "You have that proof! That's wonderful! Get back here immediately."

Of course, in both movies, Balsam gets killed right AFTER his phone booth scene: by Mother's knife in Psycho, in a suspicious plane crash in Seven Days in May. Memo to Martin Balsam: don't make calls from phone booths.

Which phone booth scene is "better"? Neither. Hitchcock may have had Balsam say too much, but there is suspense and mood in how Balsam is lingered on in that phone booth in darkness(has Mother followed him? Can she drive?) And a bit of sadness in realizing how nice Arbogast really is.

But the "May" phone booth scene is four years down the road(1964), and Serling is saying: "Enough. You know what Balsam knows. No need to hear it again."

---

Hitchcock noted of "Torn Curtain" that he moved the "usual James Bond exposition scene"("Here is your mission" as usually given by "M") to much later in the movie(when the "farmer" gives Newman HIS mission) to "avoid the cliche." Of course in Torn Curtain, this mission discussion reveals that Paul Newman isn't REALLY defecting to the Commies(which we never much believed anyway.) And of course the "farmer" was Mort Mills, the cop from Psycho and the only Psycho player to ever get another Hitchcock movie.

--

Perhaps the more clever use of exposition in modern media history was on TV, not in the movies:

Mission: Impossible.

Each week, the hero(Steven Hill for one season, Peter Graves thereafter), would find a hidden tape recorder somewhere and play it and listen to his mission("Good morning, Mr. Phelps, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is as follows:....") , with the famous final words:

"As always, should you or any member of your IMF team be captured, the government will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

And then the tape recorder would steam, sizzle and mini-explode, destroying evidence of the mission on the spot!

Now, THAT's exposition!

[–] movieghoul 11 years ago

"As always, should you or any member of your IMF team be captured, the government will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

------------------------------

I recall the word "director", not "government". Surely, a TV network whose president was a close personal friend of LBJ wouldn't suggest that the US government was devising these legally dubious missions?

[–] connorarroyo-1 11 years ago

"As always, should you or any member of your IMF team be captured, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions"

That's the quote I recall from the TV series. The "secretary" in question is presumably the Secretary of State

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

I appreciate the corrections and the precision of them in focussing on "the secretary"...but hey, since I was reciting it from long ago memory, I will give myself props for getting most of the OTHER words right.

It was great exposition -- if you concentrated on it. Snooze and you lose.

And right after the tape recorder burned or blew up...didn't they cut to the kick-a "music video" with the hand lighting the fuse, that exciting Lalo Schfrin song and "clips from tonight's show"?

I recall as a youngster often just watching that opening "video" (and its lead-in to the cast of the season)...and turning the show off.

And that blankety-blank Tom Cruise pretty much got rid of that kick-a opening in every "Mission:Impossible" movie except the first one, by DePalma.

[–] Aticusfinch 10 years ago

I wouldn´t consider the scene a breaking of the rules; yes, we have already seen everything that Douglas is telling, but by that point in the movie the viewer or most of the viewers are not really sure as to what all those things really mean. The viewer senses that there is something foul going on but doesn´t really know what. When Douglas retells everything he is putting all the pieces of the puzzle together, so that their true meaning becomes evident for the president, for the viewer and perhaps for Douglas himself. That´s how I see it.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 10 years ago

Good point.

[–] Schmoozette 10 years ago

I agree with what most people are saying about Jiggs' "exposition" to the President regarding the plot. However, there's one aspect of this scene that I haven't seen mentioned, and that's one of character.

Yes, the scene does clarify the main plot points, but it's also one of great agony and self-reflection on the part of Jiggs. He knows he doesn't have absolute proof, and he has to go on his observations and gut, but it's also about his moral sense of duty. Of course, one might say his "morals" were shaky, at best, when he grabbed Ellie's letters. But he felt he was doing it for the right reasons, and that makes Jiggs a little more complex, which is interesting.

The script is classic Serling; presenting different points of view, but coming down squarely on the side of what he believed to be just. Frankenheimer knew how to keep the tension going--did you notice that the movie didn't need disruptive, maudlin music to keep telling the audience how to feel? Regarding Frankenheimer's work, someone in this discussion mentioned "Seconds," and that person is so right: It's a great thought-provoking movie, which also made silence and ambient sound work for it.

SDIM is a gem worthy of showing in schools as a springboard for discussion of what patriotism means (and doesn't mean), and the moral choices and dilemmas people in high office are often faced with.

On a fun note, wasn't it a hoot to see the "three networks," and the "ancient" TV equipment? As someone who worked in TV in the 1970s, I love seeing that stuff!

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5960) 4 years ago

Yes, nothing has been made explicit until this scene.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 10 years ago

Some script writing may be necessary to explain some basic concepts that may not be known by the viewing audience, but some should be left to the imagination of the audience.

[–] roger1 (2277) 10 months ago

I suppose Kirk Douglas was fine with all this "expository" dialogue, even as a star of the picture, because the scene is all about this man showing off his investigative skills and weaving a dramatic story to tell no less than the President of the United States. Its all very dramatic and even moreso as the President starts to get impatient about how long Douglas is taking to get to the point(I hear the voice of Rod Serling here.)