Kraft Suspense Theatre (TV Series) Leviathan Five (1964) User Reviews

Great Adaptation of Speluncean Explorers

[italtrav · 9/10 · 13 May 2006]

This was a playlet based more or less on Harvard law professor Lon Fuller's article, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Fuller's article dealt with explorers trapped in a cave who resort to cannibalism-by-lottery in order to survive until rescued. In this version, five scientists and a security guard are trapped in a scientific installation deep underground when the only elevator shaft collapses. Having calculated their air supply, they find that survival is only possible if one of their number dies. All agree to a lottery: each will draw a computer knob from a basket (?) and withdraw to a private office, having first placed the security guard's gun on a table in the central office area. Whoever gets the black knob will have the choice of either killing himself or one of the others. If he decides to kill one of the others, the gun is to be wiped of prints and replaced on the table. After the shot, all will wait for some minutes before coming out to see what has happened.

As he himself predicts, the security guard gets it. Following the rescue, the five survivors are put on trial jointly for murder. Somewhat like the law article, the attorneys and the scientists argue over the legal issues involved. The title refers to Hobbes' Leviathan and his description of the social contract, the object of which is to ensure survival; in any case where survival is threatened, men can be said to leave civil society and to have returned to a state of nature where civil law simply does not apply.

Time is the breath of life...Don't waste t!

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 7 November 2011]

***SPOILERS*** Like a number of people stuck on a lifeboat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean with just enough fresh water for all but one to survive that's what was on the minds of the five men stuck some 1,500 feet underground in what looked like a reinforced nuclear fall-out shelter after a earthquake hit it. Who of the five man are to voluntary give up their life in order to preserve enough oxygen so that the rest would survive.

It's the guy in charge the brilliant Dr.Taylor, Arthur Kennedy, who's forced to make this very difficult decision. In that Dr. Taylor's colleagues with him Dr. Winters, Andrew Duggan, Dr. Kaufman, Horald J. Stone, Dr. Lenzi, John Von Dreel, and just plain, he doesn't seem to have any doctorate, Arthur Jensen, Frank Maxwell,don't seem to be up to the task of making it. We already know at the beginning of the "Kraft Suspense Theater" episode who was the "lucky" guy who was blown away in order to save those with him in the fall-out shelter. What we don't know is who blew him away. And it's up to the jury to find out and decide who did the guy in. Was it either one or all the people in the shelter, except the dead guy, who killed or, as the court has charged them, murdered him!

***SPOILERS*** It's when the quartet is found guilty of second degree murder that the person who committed the crime stepped froward and admitted his crime. He also admitted that he in fact was the one who drew the red cap, among the four white caps, that gave him the right to either do himself in or one of the other four trapped along with him if he so choose to! In order to save his own neck he took the cowardly way out and shot and killed person whom he considered, in his superior way of thinking, the least valuable of the five so that they, including himself, would have enough air in the chamber to survive until help arrived!

You don't know just what to think about what happened in that underground fall-out shelter. All the persons in it, except the one who never came out alive out of it, were so full of themselves in just how important they are to society that it was hard to sympathize with any of them. Sure it was vital that in order for them to survive one of them had to die but I seemed to get the feeling that the person whom they considered to not be their equal and not up to their status in both education and scientific achievements was going to be he one, one way or another, who ends up paying the ultimate price, his very life, Without him having any say in the matter! And sure enough that's exactly what happened!

Four well respected and otherwise decent doctors are up on murder charges....

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 6 October 2015]

The show begins with four doctors on trial for murder. Why and what it's all about is something you learn from a long flashback sequence. It seems that five people are stuck underground after a cave-in. Over time, it seems less and less likely that help will come in time. The possible stop-gap solution so that they all don't asphyxiate is to kill one of them--as these scientists figure out that there just isn't enough air for them all. Naturally, like the viewer would expect, help DOES eventually arrive and they've got some 'splaining to do since one of them is now dead! The second half of the show is the trial for these surviving men.

This show features a really nice cast of familiar faces--actors whose names you might not know but who VERY commonly appeared on TV and movies in the day. Arthur Kennedy, Harold Stone, Andrew Duggan and Robert Webber all appear here--and all were really good actors who brought a lot of talent to their roles. The show is tense and very interesting throughout. It also poses some interesting dilemmas and is well written and acted.

Another Plot Interpretation

[houdini-11 · 10/10 · 26 August 2007]

I don't think this is necessarily a spoiler, but after carefully watching this video twice, I remain unconvinced that the viewer will ever know who actually committed the execution.

As testimony from the survivors is being taken, we are shown a visual dramatization of the events as they are relating them. I feel it would be a mistake to think we are witnessing anything other than a Roshomon effect, which may or may not have any relation to reality.

When it becomes clear that the court will be unable to determine who the perpetrator is and thus will convict all five survivors of murder/conspiracy, one of the five changes his story and admits he committed the killing.

So, at first we have six people voluntarily agreeing to become five so that they might live. Now we have an admission of guilt so that four people might go free.

Was the perpetrator the one who admitted his guilt, or is that person among the other four?

We have no way of knowing for sure.

Larger than life story

[drystyx · 8/10 · 23 June 2014]

There are a few different types of classics. One of the most telling, and most effective styles is the "larger than life" style. It's where people are in over their heads. In music, it's the saga of ordinary men like Chapin's taxi driver, the dirt band's Mr. Bojangles, and Fleetwood's Rhianon.

Here, we get the larger than life story of five men trapped underground presented with the "lifeboat" choice. Four are scientists and one is a security guard. This actually predates the Star Trek episodes which made this a sort of comedian's Paradise. Not saying the security guard gets it, but he's certainly vulnerable.

The four scientists figure there is enough air for four to survive, not five, and they decide to choose by lots who will stop breathing, via the security man's gun.

There are a few dramatic points here, but unfortunately only three of the five men really have any dramatic input. The other two seem to be just "filler" as far as the theatrics goes. Arthur Kennedy almost gets a one man show here, with a few interjections here and there from the others.

Still, it's a classic story, and was meant to be memorable. It's a top of the line story, with a twist ending.

Not pictured: a quintet of sea monsters

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 3 August 2013]

Four people are on trial. Accused of looking far too alike for the audience to tell apart these middle-aged white men in suits unless they're already familiar with them(with that said, all the acting is strong in this). Oh, and conspiracy to commit murder, and going through with it. That, too. Through a flashback we're given the situation, which I won't spoil here - I'll merely give you the tease that the defendants start it by insisting that the victim and they had all agreed to what took place(!).

Throughout, this raises interesting ethical questions, and mostly leaves it up to us to decide on them(the ending does get a tad preachy, and the late twist, while not at all being of the horrible "gotta have a surprise at the end", ruins all that came before it, type, it seems to think it's presenting one heck of a closing argument, and, well, speaking only for myself, it felt heavy-handed and unpersuasive. I suppose it's because of the time this was made, but I feel the widow had so little to do, character-wise(it doesn't help that she's solely a gender stereotype), that they should have excluded her entirely.

The various developments feel organic and fit what came before. This is the only episode I've seen, so I can't compare it to other ones. It's 45 minutes not counting the end credits, or 46 with. The pace is good, with this mostly dialog-driven(well-written and delivered) courtroom drama not losing our interest - even though the main suspense the series title alludes to, in this case, can only really apply to what we next find out about what transpired between the group, and the eventual sentence.

There is some disturbing content and a little non-graphic violence in this. I recommend this to any fan of having their views challenged by the TV they watch. 8/10

Multi issue drama

[cbmd-37352 · 9/10 · 23 December 2022]

It's never made clear why this group of scientists need such security as to work in a vault 1500 feet below ground, but they all have a sense of self importance, making themselves and their work irreplaceable. As scientists they are comfortable thinking in terms of data, facts, measurements. They correctly conclude the oxygen will run out before they can be rescued. Their dependence on probabilities leads them to conclude the odds of surviving improve if one dies now. They again depend on probabilities that most of them will not have to kill anyone, and that they will not die. There is no overt decision that any individual should live because of spouse or family. Their only moral value is individual survival.. But they ignore the obvious fact that the largest man will use the most oxygen and should be the one to die- of course that's one of the scientists. Then there is the gun, properly of the security guard. If there was no gun-why is one needed 1500 feet below ground in a locked vault?-its unlikely anyone would have been killed. That bunch would not have worked together to beat one man to death. But this is the USA, don't go anywhere without your gun.

The trial scenes are worthy of Reginald Rose, with Robert Webber as a very aggressive DA, and Frank Overton equally passionate as the defense attorney. You can see why Gene Roddenberry developed a series starring Frank as a defense attorney. Those two actors and Andrew Duggan and Arthur Kennedy dominate the show. Frank Overton had worked with all three in other shows, and likely that strengthened their scenes. There was an unexpected confession at the end, but nonverbal cues suggest even that was not fully truthful. As the defense attorney asked the jury-how would you feel, what would you do?

Five Characters In Search of An Exit

[richard.fuller1 · 6/10 · 11 January 2014]

William Maxwell Gaines' Vault of Horror comic books did a story in which occupants of a sleigh pulled by horses thru the Russian countryside are attacked by a pack of ravenous wolves. To survive, one of them must be sacrificed, but which one? Tyrone Power would appear in Abandon Ship (1957) remade with Martin Sheen in '75, in which lifeboat occupants are put out into the ocean.

We also have William Windom in the Twilight Zone episode, Five Characters In Search of An Exit (1961). Will they work together to escape?

And there was the '62 Twilight Zone, One More Pallbearer, in which a rich man wants an apology from three people he feels did him wrong before he'll allow them to enter his bomb shelter.

There was also to come The Severed Arm (1973) and the Uruguayan rugby team stranded in the Andes in '72, made into the '93 movie, Alive.

And completely lost unless you can find it is a '75 episode of Insight, entitled Class Reunion, with Robert Foxworth and Ron Glass, in which four men at a reunion are taken hostage by a gunman who seeks revenge on an unseen old friend yet to arrive. Should they try to stop him to save their friend? Since this one is unlikely to ever be seen, I'll spoil it that it was bartender Ron Glass who dove for the gunman before the door opened, sacrificing his life to stop the man.

How do each of these compare to the Leviathan Five? L5 is a different version, not so much a whodunit or a what-would-you-do? (Which is how Abandon Ship ended)

As someone else noted, L5's suspects all looked too much alike. If this were made today, it would be much more culturally diverse with women and racial minorities present.

Even still, no one sported glasses and no one was of a thin build (where was William Schallert?), no one had a moustache or beard.

I had to watch the beginning about three times to sort out what was decided and what stand was taken from each (truthfully, there was no distinction).

The ending confirmed what was basically thought about the characters; each thought he was much too deserving to live. The problem is in an hour program, you have to throw human flaw into the characterization. We won't be visiting these guys come Christmas.

In the end, the program was hinged on . . . a performance, but unless you were impressed with these guys as intellectuals, the revelation, whether the actual killer or not, was rather lacking.

We were given a bit of a twist, but this only works if you believe one of the characters HAD TO die. It all but shoots (no pun intended) for the impression the greatest sacrifice here was the one who had to perform the killing to save the others, not the one who died.

There really wasn't a phenomenal exploration here. Nothing came of the note that was written.

The biggest miss was truly the removal of a possible suicide. Three shots were heard, so clearly the victim didn't end his own life.

Definitely a better watch along with the mentioned Twilight Zone eps, the Alive movie, Abandon Ship, the Severed Arm.

Doesn't stand on its own at all.

Survival Of The Ruthless?

[telegonus · 10/10 · 14 August 2010]

This exceptionally thoughtful, intelligent episode of the Kraft anthology show is as much a think piece as anything else. It's dramatic up to a point but in the end it deals with the topics of morality and law, as five men trapped in an underground research facility must decide who is to live and who is to die based on the scientific calculation of how much time they're likely to have sufficient oxygen to breathe. As they sit around the table they,--actually one man, but they all consent--come to the terrible conclusion that one of them must be killed. Four of the men are scientists, the other is a security guard, thus he is deemed the least valuable to society, though it's not clear that the guard shares this opinion.

The episode shifts back and forth, from the trial of the four scientists for murder to the events described by one of the four, which are shown in flashback. There's a lot of food for thought in this one. I couldn't help but let my mind wander a bit while watching it as I pondered "what makes these four scientists more valuable to society than the security man?", and "the arrogance of these men, their assumption that just because they're scientists with doctorates means that they literally deserve more air, special treatment, should be set apart from other people,--the very notion is repulsive to me". Indeed, a good deal is made of the credentials of the scientists early on, their assumption (never challenged) that because of the work they do society needs them more than other people. I challenge this. Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the kind of research they're doing, and even then, does this justify cold-blooded murder?

Social Darwinism ain't pretty, and it's fully on display in Leviathan Five. As to the survival of the fittest business, is this something mere humans can ever determine with any accuracy,--as to who decides who can stay and who "goes"? More to the point: aren't there many variables to take into consideration even if one accepts some aspects of Social Darwinism as valid? Are scientists worth more than clergyman? What do we need more of,--doctors or nurses?--and who's to decide? Aren't four good, honest, reliable garbage collectors worth more than four brilliant physicians who cheat on their wives, molest small children, don't pay their taxes and write prescriptions for medication their patients don't need because they on the payrolls of large pharmaceutical manufacturers? For those who are interested in such issues this is a fascinating episode. In the end I felt lucky to not be a believer in Social Darwinism,--the other kind, yes--but not Darwinian theory as applied to social policy, and certainly not to the law. Amen, to that, brother!

Courtroom drama

[ctomvelu1 · 6/10 · 23 March 2013]

Five men trapped in an underground research lab decide one of them must die so the remaining four may live. It has do with how much oxygen remains over a specific period of time before they can be rescued. Later, the four survivors are put on trial for murder. A number of ethical questions are raised during the trial. Distinguished cast keeps this talky episode from tanking. The ending holds a surprise, which was par for the course with episodes in this series. Arthur Kennedy and Andrew Duggan are two of the four men on trial. It's kind of funny to think of Robert Webber playing the quartet's lawyer as the fresh face among the cast. While air is the focus here, apparently cannibalism was the issue in the case history on which this episode is based. Imagine a remake today!

Disappointing ethical drama

[lor_ · 30 October 2023]

Despite its several intriguing elements and issues raised, this suspense drama misses the boat, sacrificing true suspense in its flashback structure and ultimately copping out. In addition, the casting is quite weak.

True courtroom classics, ranging from "Witness for the Prosecution" and "Inherit the Wind" to the more recent favorite "A Few Good Men" rely upon sharp writing and superlative dramatic acting to maximize their impact. "Leviathan" is merely gimmicky and more intellectual rather than emotional -more like a debate than a movie.

Once the flashback begins, it remionded me of "The Andromeda Strain", a classic I loved when I saw it theatrically several times upon release six years later. There the issue of survival was for the Earth, not just the scientists in an underground lab/bunker similar to that of "Leviathan". Both shows have in common the avoidanc of stars in the cast,

But stars are a key factor to success, whether it be Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men"., Laughton and Dietrich in "Witness" and Tracy and March in "Inherit the Wind", all unforgettable characterizations.

The ethical dilemma in "Leviathan" recalls great survival stories, but less involving for the viewer. The Donner Party trying to survive the winter cut off from society and leading even to cannibalism is far more compelling than four scientists out of five men doing quick calculations on oxygen consumption rates to determine that one of them must die so that the others live. The final twist reflects simplistic writing that sidesteps the real issues.

Arthur Kennedy does an okay job as the main scientist, but the others are poorly developed characters and both Robert Webber and Frank Overton as the opposing attorneys are milquetoasts.