MovieChat Forums > The Man (1972) Discussion > prime for a re-make on the silver screen

prime for a re-make on the silver screen

posted 20 years ago by mdole72
10 replies | jump to latest

I read this book a few years ago, and all I could think of is how perfectly suited it is for a motion picture. I haven't read a book tailored for the big screen-other than Clancy & Grisham who obviously write the movie contracts at the same time as the books.

I knew there was a version made-but I am disappointed to read that it was made for TV and that it did not stay to the values of the book.

In the book-the President invites the Secretary of State to Germany for the meeting with the Russians because the V.P. is already dead. Thus, when the collapse happens-there isn't a choice-Dillman is President.

I haven't seen the movie, but I can't imagine this being done differently-the tone & anger would have been directed at the V.P. for LETTING someone like the President Pro Tempore take his place, and the entire premise of the succession act not being taken seriously (Dillman 'given' the Pro Tempore position as a token for following the party line) cannot be played out to the degree in the book.

And one more thing-Jones may have worked in 1972, but today you would need sort of an unassuming person to play the role. It couldn't be Washington, Jackson, or any other "a list" African Americans. Someone like Forrest Whittaker or Benson would be good.

So who owns the movie rights?

[–] PRHill100 20 years ago

The book by Irving Wallace on which this movie is derived was an excellent read. I've long been a fan of Irving Wallace and read every book that he has ever written. It's a shame that death took him from us. However, I also notice that some of his books, that have been unavailable for many years, are now being reissued...hopefully, THE MAN will be one of them.

As for the movie, I was very disappointed with the final product. The book is about 750 pages in length and the movie covers about the first 150 pages. It leaves a lot to be desired though I really did appreciate the performance of James Earl Jones.

I would love to see someone remake this book but only this time concentrate on the Dillman character and the many sub-plots that Wallace wrote into the original novel. As with ALL of Walace's books they were all "page turners" and this was one of his better books.

[–] sonny_1963 19 years ago

I would like to see a re-make with Morgan Freeman in the title role.

[–] hawleysmoot2 19 years ago

Morgan Freeman might be a bit old for the part now. In the book, anyway, Dilman is referred to as being young and strong (young in the presidential sense, anyway). How about a good lesser-known actor like John Amos, who played the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on The West Wing?

[–] waywardastronaut 18 years ago

Maybe Don Cheadle or Danny Glover. I think Cheadle's demonstrated how well he can act, and Glover needs a good vehicle (his role in "Manderlay" was great, but incredibly short).

Nevertheless, I'd still like to see Freeman as the president. Maybe even James Earl Jones in a cameo as an elder Senator or something.

[–] zopop119 18 years ago

I read this book back in the 70s as well and I think it would have to be presented much differently than it was back than. In 1972 the concept of a Black President was beyond unheard of. For that time, as most of the South was still knee deep in breaking out of segregation, the concept bordered a wide stretch. I am not saying that today, the country is any more ready to accept a black President, however there have been a number of public figures, namely Colin Powell, who have been mentioned as viable candidates. If you were to set the movie in 1972.. yes, it would play well to the flavor of the novel. But I dont think it would have the "shock value" that Wallace and Serline were aiming for in their presentation.

Having said that, I see Danny Glover as the most realistic person to play the role. Maybe in 5 years or so, Denzel might be good too. Morgan Freeman would be the most Presidential. but thats the problem... the Douglas Dillman character had some vulnerability and I see Glover or Forrest Whitiker doing a better job at that. I see Kevin Spacey as the Burgess Meredith Character...

[–] robertjm 17 years ago

You don't think Denzel, with his amazing charactor range, would be great in this part?

I definiately agree on Cheadle though. Forrest Whitaker, though a fantastic actor, can't shake that baby face of his and you have to be 35 to be president. :-)

[–] pacholeknbnj 17 years ago

Well, we could always go with Samuel L. Jackson. As Richard Nixon himself would've said (on his tapes), "My fellow Americans, I have had it with these (expletive deleted) snakes in this (expletive deleted) Congress!"

Another possibility: Reggie Hayes, who plays William on "Girlfriends." He's the right age, and if he's as Republican as his character on that show (a.k.a. "The Fifth Girlfriend"), it'll really upset the Southern Republicans.

Another possibility: Ernest Thomas of "What's Happening!" Or maybe I'm just remembering that, like James Earl Jones in the original film, "Rog" wore glasses. He certainly looks like he could be a former Dartmouth professor, as was Dillman (and, if I'm not mistaken, Jed Bartlet in "The West Wing").

Keeping in mind that, in the original book and film, Senator Dillman was made President Pro Tempore of the Senate as a gesture of reconciliation. This broke what was then a not-very-old tradition of making the longest-serving Senator of the majority party the President Pro Tem. Perhaps they could write in an unfortunate incident that awards the Dillman character the office as a similar gesture... and make the Trent Lott, I mean Jesse Helms, I mean Strom Thurmond-type Senator, the one who would otherwise have been next in the line of succession.

To play him, who else but Texas' own Tommy Lee Jones? He's got a connection: He was Al Gore's roommate at Harvard. (No joke: He was also a guard on the Harvard football team that "beat Yale 29-29" in 1968.)

Kevin Spacey was chilling as Lex Luthor in "Superman Returns," so let him be the Secretary of State. To play his wife, well, Ann Coulter would never appear in a Hollywood movie, but wouldn't it be a hoot to see Kate Bosworth, so soon after being terrorized by Spacey as Lois Lane, and also after playing his wife in the Bobby Darin/Sandra Dee story "Beyond the Sea," play the Secretary of State's wife? She's certainly skinny enough to play a "Coultergeist" (as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann calls her).

President Dillman's daughter is a tough call. Maybe the elder daughter on "The Bernie Mac Show." Is she (the actress, I mean) old enough now?

[–] andrewwjohnson 15 years ago

............"The Man" would be difficult to remake now that an African American has been elected President in real life. Firsts can only happen once after all. Also apartheid, a major part of the plot line in the movie, has ended in South Africa and I can't think of any major country that still officially practices racial discrimination. It might be possible to do a movie about a black President who is trying to stop a genocidal war in Africa and is opposed by Congress and the media who accuse him or her of acting for personal reasons. Other that I can't see how it could be remade............If the plot of the 1972 movie seems dated the 1964 Irving Wallace novel seems prehistoric. While the novel was projected, based on the length terms of the fictional Presidents following Linden Johnson, between 1980 and 1984 Washington was depicted as still exactly like it was in the early sixties with southern Congressmen fighting to preserve segregation which was still in existence. They were led by a Strum Thurmond in his prime like figure named Zeke Miller. A subplot involved a black militant group called the Turnerites, named for slave revolt leader Nat Turner, who had killed a southern Judge who had sent black convicts to work camps where the often died, because of brutal conditions. President Dillman's daughter, described as light skinned in the novel, is in hiding passing for white (I'm not joking). The book ends with a racially motivated impeachment trial, not even hinted at in the 1972 movie version, that violently divides the country...........Though dated the novel is an depiction of early sixties racism if you stll can find a copy.
True genius is a beautiful thing, but ignorance is ugly to the bone.

[–] lastmidnite2 15 years ago

This movie was originally made for TV, but was released in theaters instead. I saw it when it first came out in a theater.

[–] movieghoul 15 years ago

That's correct, which explains why there are movie posters for it. However, if you watch it and are familiar with the look and style of TV movies at the time, you can see TV movie written all over it. You can even figure out where the commercial breaks were planned.

One curious thing about the original print ads is that they showed Dilman being sworn in before a big crowd on the steps of the Capitol, implying that he was actually ELECTED president. Very different premise. Also interesting that the movie and book both came shortly before Gerald FOrd became president, since they both question whether a president of any race who had never been elected either President or veep would be considered legitimate.