It's very interesting to compare this movie to the original novel (published a few years earlier) written by Irving Wallace. Wallace's novel was very good but also very long - almost ponderous at times, in fact - offering a much more thorough and very detailed account of Douglass Dilman's experiences as an "accidental" black president at a time when racism was not only alive and well but still very much openly promoted by many politicians in the USA. Wallace's novel revolves to a great extent around Dillman navigating relations with the Soviet Union over an issue in Africa and then defending himself against an impeachment trial pushed by an extremely racist Congressman.
The movie (adapted from the novel by Rod Serling) is quite a contrast. It moves very quickly, almost at a frenetic pace at times. A happy medium between the two might have made for a better movie. The movie is less explicitly racist (especially in its language) and there's no effort at impeachment in this hearing. Instead, the movie's resident racist legislator (played by Burgess Meredith and in the movie a senator) takes the position that Dilman should essentially be left to hang himself politically by being allowed to fuinction as president (which he assumes will happen because he figures Dilman, as a black man, isn't competent enough to be president.) The primary issue here isn't relations with the Soviets but rather relations with apartheid-era South Africa over their requested extradition of a black man accused of an attempted assassination in that country. (Whether in the book or the movie, having the main policy challenge for the first black president focussed on Africa seemed a bit too convenient for pushing forward the racist commentary.) The book leaves it ambiguous whether Dilman will seek the office in his own right in the next election; the movie has him actively seeking his party's nomination.
They both work in their own ways. They're both an interesting reflection on racism in America at the time. The movie has decent performances from its leads - James Earl Jones as Dilman, William Windom as Secretary of State Eaton and Martin Balsam as Chief of Staff Talley, along with the aforementioned Meredith. I would have liked to have seen Windom made better use of. He's an extremely good actor but Serling didn't really develop the tension (and rivalry) between Eaton and Dilman particularly well. (Racism aside the movie also serves as an interesting reflection on a president assuming office who had been elected as neither president nor vice president - which Gerald Ford would do a few years later.)
I thought the most powerful and meaningful scenes were the scenes of Dilman's early presidency, when important discussions are happening in the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room around him, but in which his presence is barely even acknowledged by those present. Jones did a very good job of portraying Dilman's frustration with the dismissiveness Dilman was being treated with.
I liked the novel (although it's a long time since I read it) and I also liked this movie (although I haven't seen it for many years until I happened by accident to find it on You Tube this morning.) I do think it could have been better. Apparently Jones himself expressed some misgivings about it, particularly over the limited budget it had (which does give it a kind of lacklustre feel) and felt it could have been stronger. Still, given the times in which it was made it was a fairly courageous move on the part of ABC, who made it at a time when networks were still very squeamish about tackling controversial social issues and who, interestingly, apparently released it in the theatres instead of on television, although it did end up as a movie of the week on the network. (That's the version I saw on You Tube but I have no idea how long after it was released in the theatre it took to be broadcast on the network.)
The movie (adapted from the novel by Rod Serling) is quite a contrast. It moves very quickly, almost at a frenetic pace at times. A happy medium between the two might have made for a better movie. The movie is less explicitly racist (especially in its language) and there's no effort at impeachment in this hearing. Instead, the movie's resident racist legislator (played by Burgess Meredith and in the movie a senator) takes the position that Dilman should essentially be left to hang himself politically by being allowed to fuinction as president (which he assumes will happen because he figures Dilman, as a black man, isn't competent enough to be president.) The primary issue here isn't relations with the Soviets but rather relations with apartheid-era South Africa over their requested extradition of a black man accused of an attempted assassination in that country. (Whether in the book or the movie, having the main policy challenge for the first black president focussed on Africa seemed a bit too convenient for pushing forward the racist commentary.) The book leaves it ambiguous whether Dilman will seek the office in his own right in the next election; the movie has him actively seeking his party's nomination.
They both work in their own ways. They're both an interesting reflection on racism in America at the time. The movie has decent performances from its leads - James Earl Jones as Dilman, William Windom as Secretary of State Eaton and Martin Balsam as Chief of Staff Talley, along with the aforementioned Meredith. I would have liked to have seen Windom made better use of. He's an extremely good actor but Serling didn't really develop the tension (and rivalry) between Eaton and Dilman particularly well. (Racism aside the movie also serves as an interesting reflection on a president assuming office who had been elected as neither president nor vice president - which Gerald Ford would do a few years later.)
I thought the most powerful and meaningful scenes were the scenes of Dilman's early presidency, when important discussions are happening in the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room around him, but in which his presence is barely even acknowledged by those present. Jones did a very good job of portraying Dilman's frustration with the dismissiveness Dilman was being treated with.
I liked the novel (although it's a long time since I read it) and I also liked this movie (although I haven't seen it for many years until I happened by accident to find it on You Tube this morning.) I do think it could have been better. Apparently Jones himself expressed some misgivings about it, particularly over the limited budget it had (which does give it a kind of lacklustre feel) and felt it could have been stronger. Still, given the times in which it was made it was a fairly courageous move on the part of ABC, who made it at a time when networks were still very squeamish about tackling controversial social issues and who, interestingly, apparently released it in the theatres instead of on television, although it did end up as a movie of the week on the network. (That's the version I saw on You Tube but I have no idea how long after it was released in the theatre it took to be broadcast on the network.)