The Man

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.)

.....then by all means let me know directly at the above e-mail address so that I may arrange for a copy for you. An outstanding undiscovered classic originally made for TV, but whose controversial content resulted in a theatrical release at the 11th hour. James Earl Jones has never been better, nor has Rod Serling's writing, proving he was just as much a genius working outside of the fantasy milieu (as though he hadn't already demonstrated that with "Requiem for a Heavyweight," etc.). Burgess Meredith excels as a white supremacist trying to stymie the new prez at every turn, and Janet MacLachlan is very good as the concerned daughter whose natural opposition to the Oval Office has her torn over her dad's new presence there.

The premise of this film is about a man appointed to be President under unusual circumstance. The current President and Speaker of the House tour a building in Europe, which colapses and kills them both, the vice-president is ill and can't fullfill the office.

The Presidency falls to a surprizing fourth in line.

It's a great story and I don't understand why it isn't on video yet.

The only small flaw is that it is time dated with the premise of Apartied in South Africa. Everyone write to the studio and get them to put it out on video. It has appeared on TV but they cut it to ribbons and destroy the continuity. -ARBY

The President of the US is killed. So is the Speaker of the House. The Vice President is ill and cannot accept the presidency.

Enter US Senator Douglass Dillman, who is president pro tempe of the senate. He is also black. He accepts the presidency to the discontent of many cabinet officials, especially the secretary of state. He would be president if not for Dillman.

Racial feelings are revealed among several politicians as Dillman sits in the oval office, determined to overcome the bigotry of those around him and to be as good a president as he can be.

An early vehicle for James Earl Jones, who as Dillman, is brilliant. Excellent performances by the supporting cast. Hopefully, this film will one day be on DVD or VHS. It's also a good potential historical lesson to be absorbed by Americans if this situation should ever happen.

I was interested in reading the comments on the message boards at the base of the IMDb listing for THE MAN.

This is only one of several novels written by Irving Wallace that has been transferred to "the big screen." Irving Wallace did NOT like the treatment that THE MAN received in the translation from his written words to the screen. In that I agree.

I have read ALL of his books and found each one to be a "page turner" regardless of how many times I have read them over the years. He was a superb writer and I'm only one of a legion of his fans.

I was very disappointed in the screen adaption of THE MAN. The novel was approximately 800 pages in length and the screen version covered about the first 150 pages. The other 650 pages were lost to Rod Serling's abilities. Very unusual for Serling and I find it very disappointing to say the least.

I agree, this movie should be released on DVD. It's an excellent movie even taking into consideration the "adaption" to the screen. I also happen to be a great fan of James Earl Jones and for that reason alone I think it should be released.

As a side point, every novel written by Wallace had been opted for screen or mini-series treatment. Unfortunately, he died in 1990 and I do recall him saying that as a result of ABC's treatment of THE MAN he would not allow any of his novels to be made into motion pictures unless he was in control of the process. He died - unfortunately. I was so looking forward to the CBS mini-series on his novel THE MIRACLE! If you can find any of his books I highly recommend that you buy and read them. Every one of them was a "page turner" and you won't be disappointed.