That was the vote in the end. There would have been 100 senators in 1962, minus the one who had died.
So how was that total possible? Did the story take place before 1959, and only 48 states? Still would be missing a vote.
I believe it did take place after 1959, as in one of the committee scenes we see an Asian looking Senator from Hawaii. It would be unusual for there to be so many absent Senators for an important vote, but the Majority Leader was trying to push through the nomination after Brig's death.
shareThey did reference a few not presents. Also Brig was dead and Van Ackerman walked out before his turn to vote after he got reprimaded by Muson. Those two plus four just random missing senators explains it.
shareThe missing Senators are named prior to the roll call vote. One of them was "Mr. Velez" of New Mexico who appeared in the Committee hearing scene.
sharePoster xxx_zzz got it right: one dead, one walk-out, plus a few absents, left just 94 senators. Still, for such an important vote, you'd think the leadership would have done everything to get a full contingent present. Even Danta remarks to Munson that they should've waited until after the vote before confronting Van Ackerman, since as he says they might have needed his vote (as, in fact, they did; had Van Ackerman stayed and voted Aye, Leffingwell would have been confirmed 48-47).
In the book, the Governor of Utah had made a hasty appointment of an interim Senator to succeed Brig Anderson. But there the vote wasn't close at all: I don't recall the exact figures, but the Nays were in the 70s and the Ayes in the 20s.
One odd thing about the roll call--they seemed to be going to slowly through the alphabet for a list of 100 names. Toward the end there were about six senators whose names began with 'W', two 'Y's and one 'Z' (none of whom figured in the main cast). Did anybody take notes?
shareYou're exactly right, and at the start there was an overabundance of senators whose names began with A and B. Between both ends of the alphabet, it seemed as though there'd be very few senators with names starting with anything from C through about S. The roll call was very badly staged.
Also, Van Ackerman's name wasn't called when they hit the V's. Even though he had walked out, the rules require that his name be called.
One other thing: if you listen carefully to the roll call when they're on the S's, you hear the name of Senator Strickland (the minority leader) called, and he replies "No". Strickland was played by Will Geer, who had a very distinctive and recognizable voice. But the voice heard when "Strickland" replies isn't Geer's. Instead, you clearly hear Geer's voice replying to the next senator after Strickland (whose name I don't recall; not someone seen in the film). So they didn't even get the right voices in sync with the names being called. (I got this put in the Goofs section some time ago.)
SPOILER WARNING TO THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE BOOK. I'LL SCROLLDOWN A BIT BEFORE MY POST.
In the book, the vote was not a tie. The vote was strongly against Leffingwell.
The change was made, I think, to allow Peter Lawford's character to express his
outrage at some Senator's blackmailing of his good friend. Also,it should be
noted that Drury's novel had decidedly Conservative view and portrayed Leffingwell
as dangerous and unfit. The movie was more Liberal in tone and pro Leffingwell.
I'd already mentioned the result of Leffingwell's confirmation vote in the book in my post of June 18, 2011, above, so I guess it's long since been ruined.
I think they made the change to a close vote, first, to generate suspense (lacking in the novel) over the outcome, and second as you suggested to provide an extra bit of drama regarding Lafe Smith's (Peter Lawford) unexpected switch to "No".
Drury was a conservative and his novel did have a modest rightist slant, though he did take care to knock some conservatives as well (such as Anderson's inept GOP colleague from Utah). Leffingwell was indeed made out to be much worse of a person than in the movie. (And, let us not forget, in the book the President is complicit in the events that drove Anderson to suicide, which he is not in the movie.)
But I disagree that the movie is "pro-Leffingwell". It's not anti, but while Leffingwell isn't depicted as the unfit extreme leftist he is in the book, and he's shown as being mostly a sympathetic character because of the dilemma in which he finds himself, neither is he made out to be a hero. He's just a man, with strengths and flaws. Actually I find the more complex characterization of Leffingwell in the movie much better than the rather two-dimensional caricature described by Drury. It certainly more accurately depicts the problems faced by many people of that generation (in universities just before the war, succeeding in government afterward) who had once flirted with Communism but were never hard-core Communists or, certainly, traitors (as Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and others were).
As for the movie being more liberal in tone, by comparison with the book maybe, but the main villain is still an ultra-liberal senator from Wyoming (a highly unlikely venue for an ultra-liberal) and even the liberal President comes off badly. And while the conservative South Carolinian Seab Cooley (Charles Laughton) behaves unscrupulously and gets his own hands dirty, in the end he is redeemed, a fate not afforded Van Ackermann, the President or, for that matter, Robert A. Leffingwell. Overall, even in the movie the conservatives come off better than the liberals. Otto Preminger, a liberal, was actually criticized for this by some people back in '62.
Off-topic, I do regret that there's no Soviet moon landing in the movie, as there was in the book. That incidental plot point is a hoot, especially given the year (1957) and the fact that that bit of projected history, at least, didn't pan out as expected!
It's interesting about the "liberal" from Wyoming. The book is based on a situation that arose in the 1950's where a Wyoming liberal (Lester Hunt) was presented with the choice of having his son prosecuted and exposed for soliciting or dropping his support for some liberal bill. He did not drop his support and the son was prosecuted. When told that his son's situation would be used against him if he ran for another term he eventually killed himself. Wyoming "liberal" just seems incongruous in this day and age. Maybe it was all the oil money.
shareAll of which I wrote about, in detail, on the other thread you replied on, d-q, called "Really, Otto?", etc. But you have some of the details wrong.
Hunt's son had been arrested in Washington, D.C., for soliciting gay sex. The police routinely hushed up such matters when they involved someone powerful like a senator, but Hunt was blackmailed by two extreme right-wing Republican senators, Styles Bridges of New Hampshire and Herman Welker of Idaho, into announcing his immediate resignation. (Joe McCarthy also had a hand in this.) Hunt refused, so the pair forced the D.C. prosecutor into taking the case to court, something rarely done for a first offense of this type, and Hunt's son was convicted. Hunt eventually announced he would seek reelection in 1954 but again came under threats from Bridges and Welker to announce his retirement or face widespread publicity across Wyoming about his son (the arrest and trial had actually made little news). Hunt, whose health wasn't great, eventually caved and announced his retirement, but when his colleagues continued their threats if he didn't resign at once, he shot himself, hoping to end the controversy. But the news was subsequently published in the old Washington Times-Herald, a far-right newspaper which would shortly be bought out by the Post.
Ultimately this did the GOP little partisan good: though Wyoming's Republican governor appointed a Republican, Edward Crippa, as interim senator, a former Democratic senator, Joseph C. O'Mahoney, won the seat back that fall. I never understood why the governor didn't appoint the Republican candidate for the seat, the state's only Representative, William Henry Harrison (great-great-grandson of the President of that name), to the Senate, giving him the advantage of incumbency in he election, instead of an interim appointee. Maybe the budding scandal was too much.
Lester C. Hunt was not really a liberal. Like most Wyoming Democrats of that era he was more accurately a moderate, conservative on fiscal issues and cautious about extending federal power, but liberal on bread-and-butter issues. He was, however, a bitter opponent of McCarthy and this was the real reason behind his colleagues' efforts to blackmail him. Later in 1954, when senators gave the traditional speeches honoring retiring or deceased senators, both Welker and Bridges gave tributes to Hunt, which was seen by those in the know as a shameless piece of hypocrisy. Although way too late for those concerned, fortunately these two pieces of human filth have long since been exposed in this corrupt and evil act. Meanwhile neither lived much longer to create mischief: Welker was defeated for a second term in 1956 and died the next year at 49, and Bridges died suddenly in 1961 at just 63. Hopefully both are burning in hell.
Hunt's son, meanwhile, has had a long and productive life and is very much still around.
I'm reading the book now-though I haven't gotten that far-but I was reading about the differences between book & movie-one Item listed that in the book it was 74-24 opposed-certainly a lot more decisive vote against Leffinwell than as it was in the movie.
Conspiracy therories are cleverly thought out to evade the real truth
Jay
True, one of a number of differences between the movie and the novel. Still, from a cinematic point of view, it's much more suspenseful to have the roll call going down to the wire than the lopsided vote in the book. That outcome works well in print but wouldn't have been as suitable in the film. When it comes to filming a movie version of a book, the respective natures of each medium lend themselves to different interpretations of the same story.
I always thought the novel was one of the best-written books I've ever read. (Guess that's why it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction!) Hope you enjoy it.
I agree with you-books & movies are different things. I'm enjoying the book. I also enjoyed the movie.
Conspiracy therories are cleverly thought out to evade the real truth
Jay