The Manchurian Candidate Thread

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,6761,754309,00.html

you so so need to. it's from the BFI guide.

hillariously, last week on the 'sinatra' episode of the biography channel's hour-long puff-pieces it was summarised v briefly thus :
"it flopped at the box office".

luckily greil marcus sees the bigger picture.

How good is the Sinatra-Leigh meeting on the train?

Very, very good. Its strange awkwardness is appealing (and I also liked the fact that I immediately assuming Leigh was part of the plot, and that ultimately nearly everyone was -- even if not true, it is hopefully something the film is trying to encourage you to do, ie trust not one person). I also liked the fact that though I had a guess at the end I didn't have the whole thing figured out.

It doesn't QUITE flow as a successful film through and through but a lot of it is sheer context. Marcus in the link provided above gives a bit of that sense of the difference then and now, while things like the brainwashing set just seem utterly out of place, a Ken Adam design wrenched from a Bond movie and redressed. In some ways, though, perhaps the brainwashing is (to borrow a term) a plot Macguffin, something needed in order to make/let everything else happen -- not something someone wants a la Hitchcock, but a narrative device without which etc. And to be fair that was Condon's creation rather than Frankenheimer and Axelrod's. Suspend disbelief just enough and it works...and I did like many of the subtle details as well that I picked up, the brief one-sided phone conversation in Spanish, the nod to the ACLU, and so forth.

valid, Ned, valid. But if anyone can pull it off, Demme can. Going out on a limb here, but Demme = member of top 5 directors of all time... (((((((((((((ducking.....)))))))))))))))

Considering how badly he botched his remake of Charade, I doubt this will be much better.

wtf demme?

Yer bold.

I'm trying to think if he can pull off that same kind of icy restraint-and-collapse that L. Harvey did in the original -- and he might, he just might. But will it mean as much?

-- CeCe Peniston (anthonymicci...), July 24th, 2004.

OTM.

Yes, it is a political movie, but its politics were all about Hollywood masturbating to its own self-reflection in the Capitol. The moralistic "war profiteering is bad" theme was so weak, and without any support from the actual events in the story.

As for Al Franken? I'm fine with the man himself and his politics, even his radio show -- but WHAT THE FUCK is he doing in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE? I mean, other than to capitalize on an excitable electorate during the campaign?

Mediocre comic slam-poet Beau Sia also shits all over a rather psychologically heavy scene with his inane irony and whining iconoclasm by being on screen for a good 10 seconds in the background.

This movie was a spineless turd. That we don't even find out WHICH political party the Shaw family is affiliated with is all the evidence you need to see the film for the treacle it is.

fuck.

i mean, it really sucked.

really.

The Demmecrats?

the movie wasn't about war profiteering? well, i got nothing else to say for it in terms of theme. the movie was a trite one-man-against-all-odds tom clancy pulp, except the "big bad" in this movie was manchurian global instead of communists. "big money funding bad science to put a sleeper in the white house" blah blah

to call this sort of insipid puppetshow a "political allegory" kind of galls me. (where you get the idea that allegories are _subtle_ also escapes me.)

the lack of explicit party affiliation only bothers me so much because the film simultaneously tried to make itself so relevant to our current election cycle, what with all the broadcast chatter hammering that point home. all the hot key issues of the day were mentioned over and over again. the "war on terror" is actually given credence as a coherent military operation (stupid).

the intention was obviously to entrench the audience in this sort of 10-seconds-from-now political landscape. i think to use legitimate political concerns as window-dressing for a 'thriller' is pretty awful, even for hollywood.

demme should have been watched more greek drama instead of cable news networks.

however, if you have a different interpretation of the remake, i'll hear you out. it's just that my first reaction to the film was such strong repugnance, i may have overlooked something. i doubt it though.

Orestes avenges his father's death by killing his mother; Oedipus rids Thebes of the blight by assuming exile for his own incest and patricide. It's even in the comedies, really -- the women of Athens halt a war by refusing to fuck their husbands.

the original manchurian candidate really developed the relationship between raymond shaw and his mother. he _hates_ her, yet submits to her. eleanor shaw not only uses her charisma and sexuality against her senator husband, but also against her son. when we find out that raymond's "american operator" is actually his mother, the dramatic reversal is huge.

the motif of the queen of hearts (also excised from the remake) was perfect at tying it all together. The symbol of Raymond's love/hate for his mother is _also_ the trigger for his mind control.

not to belabor a point, but i find the original manchurian candidate to play out like greek tragedy. the greeks invented theatre. and also politics. i'd say all that makes it relevant. it's not about the context.

Did they invent politics or just talking about and conceptualizing politics? Also, many of the Chinese philosophers were as much political philosophers as anything else.

antexit: not trying to be nasty to you just really pissed off by the movie.

ned: inasmuch as our current political systems derive from an occidental philosophical tradition, yes. the separation of the private (oikos) from the public (agora) specifically, and the institution of a fundamental democratic space.

*NB: I have not seen the original.

Actually, I was thinking a bit about the original film on the way back from the bar where I was for a chunk of this evening -- catching up with some friends about things -- and thinking about how Lawrence Harvey's performance (the Liev Schrieber role, if you like) in the original is best defined not by his priggish essence, his robot killer mode or the collapsed wreck at the end of the film, but the scene where he is essentially crushed and listening to Angela Lansbury's character laying down the law about everything and explaining what is left to do and what will be done to achieve vengeance afterwards. He doesn't DO much in the scene, but that's important -- it's the air of someone so completely mentally eviscerated that all he can do is react almost dully to what has happened and what is still yet to happen. It's quite striking stuff.

i don't understand this line of argument, and surely it undermines your defense of the 1962 film, which was just as 'cynical' in this respect? the key concept you have to explain is 'window-dressing': is political corruption 'window-dressing' for a straight whodunnit plot in 'z' for example? or does that film have an authentic political charge? open question.

From Roger Ebert's review. He's OTM there, there is something uncanny, and much as I like the original, I really thought the conspiracy would be bigger and more complex, and ultimately more surprising.

very good work.

i agree; whoever wrote this abortion just couldn't come up with a subtle / textual presentation of the incest. meryl streep knelt in front of a half-naked schrieber, kissed and very nearly fondled him.

the movie suffered from a systemic LACK OF RESTRAINT all around.

fortunately, i already saw it, and enjoyed it. it's a fun movie, and i'm not so in bed with the (sorry to say it but kinda boring) original that i had to spend my whole time being rockist about it, which is how you and paul isaacs come off: 'oh the original was so perfect, so true, so absolutely scrumptious'. well, even if it was, so what? and, i'm sorry, the 'queen of hearts' thing was not exactly subtle, symbolism-wise, and not so gender-neutral either.

this is not meant to be mean, so sorry if it seems like it--this remake isn't my favorite movie or anything. just, y'know, chill out, and engage with us rather than just marking your territory. your points may be good ones but damn who wants to argue with the screamer?

i still maintain the remake, despite being 'political' by genre, had no real 'politics' -- despite the tempting similarities to real life news. i understand that many people will connect manchurian global to halliburton, but i think it's even more influenced by the trend to cast the antagonist as an "evil corporation." to frame the problem of the military-industrial control of politics in this sort of thriller story seems cheap; not only cheap, but very near reprehensible, because it distorts the issue for the public -- and for no other purpose than being 'timely'.

as an example --

if i wrote a political thriller about one epidemiologists' struggle (against all odds, of course) to fight aids, who then comes to discover that, say, the government invented aids... would i, in setting forth a conspiracy theory, be helping the cause against aids? doubtful. would i be making a quick (if morally questionable) dollar? definitely

a) they are scary
b) they 'own' (vice)presidents
c) they're rich and smug

do you wish it was
frankenheimer's china still?
('twas racist, facile)

plus the bonus twist ***CLOSE YR EYES HERE SPOILERS BE***
by making the army good
(corporation bad)

demme avoids the
trap of 'oh those democrats
they hate their country'

Fuck underutilizing Dean Stockwell, you can't just put "Trem Two" into your soundtrack and then fade it out five seconds later!!!

Plz point out worse abuses of cast & source material so that I might Netflix them and replace this horrible taste in my soul with perhaps a little levity. Gus Van Sant has already been covered.

Schrieber was also better in Sum of All Fears. He's far too personable, too human for that role. He looks more "stupid, poss. drunk" than "hypnotized by ruthless evil bitch" when he's killing Jordan and his daughter, plus he just comes off as a simpering boob, crying all the time in front of Denzel. You couldn't possibly convince me he upstages Harvey's performance.

I agree the Jordan murder scene was maybe the worst (milk-bottle tribute from '62 version is in Munich btw!).

Jeffrey Wright: one of best single-scene perfs in recent American movies.

I'll defer to you on Congressional Baronesses, but at least Schreiber didn't have an inexplicable Brit accent.

The most gripping and exciting moment in the whole movie was when Denzel was being questioned and that chubby assface kept pushing it until he got his nose broken. POW!

Caught this from upthread...I kind of think this is disingenuous of Ebert's review to state this? I mean, in reference to the current version of the film. They do make the point explicit.

That was my main problem with the film really was that it seemed to take much easier, less ambiguous turns than the original did, it lost its edge so to speak. I haven't got the faintest idea which is closer to the book but I guess I don't really care. I certainly didn't hate this version of the film at all, just thought it was kind of...blunt, I think.

Though I do gotta agree that you do not cast Bruno Ganz and Dean Stockwell in films and then have them just simper around for 5 minutes each. WTF? That's a terrific waste!

punching fat guy = funny gag

"Oh Mrs. Lady I'm sorry to shoot you OHHHHHHH DEEAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!"

I'm not talking about the changes in theme and whether or not the film should or shouldn't have been modernized as I think that is perfectly ripe for picking and could've been done VERY well, it's the changes in details and storytelling that have nothing to do with whether or not we're skewering Halliburton or taking the communism angle.

"Why don't you play some solitaire to pass the time" is orders of magnitude more scary than people saying your name over the damn phone and the room lighting up. That was so,so,so dishearteningly... I don't know, I was going to say lame but I'll just use "Bode Miller" instead.

The whole dramatic device of brainwashing is so effective because it doesn't leave hard physical evidence. What's the point if you can just bite the mind-control implant out? Shheeesh.

Also: Fuck Al Franken for showing up in this movie.

What I like about the Queen Of Hearts coincidence in the original film is that its the kind of coincidence that never happens in fiction, but could fuck up a perfect plan in reality. And of course it is another Denzel Goody Two-Shoes film which always annoys me.

(I would have taken it more along the line of The Parallax View - which is in a lot of ways a remake too).

x-post AGREED!!!

Fer Chrissakes, I don't like it anywhere as much as the '62, but compared to contemporary action-lobotomies?

He's generally pretty good, but the two films of his I like most, The Mighty Quinn & Devil in a Blue Dress, succeed more from their supporting cast than from him specifically.

Criterion blu out

http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/the-manchurian-candidate-1962

haha how weird is it the reason i want to see this movie is liev schreiber?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, July 24, 2004 6:35 PM (11 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
oh man his brother (nick sobotka!) is in it too! demme's got schreiber fever!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Saturday, July 24, 2004 6:42 PM (11 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i liked the remake well enough (see above), but somehow it feels as dated after just over a decade than the first film does after over 50 years.

I recommend the film of Condon's Winter Kills to see his sensibility done as a paranoid comedy rather than a satirical thriller.

John Huston does a delightful Pop Kennedy riff ("Take these brass knuckles, but don't lose em; they have sentimental value"). Liz Taylor in a great 2-minute performance as a Mob pimp for President Kennedy, er, Keegan! (She has one muted line.) Also befuddled Jeff Bridges in the lead, looking great naked.

It was reassuring Super Tuesday doomwatching.

The production history is amaaaazing (38m history on the Kino Lorber DVD)... producers, from the Emmanuelle series, tried to go legit; production shut down THREE TIMES, someone was killed...

also Vilmos Zsigmond used a special lens to make Liz look... smaller.

Only saw this for the first time today. Nothing really to add. Lansbury is incredible; Sinatra is good. Wtf at the train conversation with Janet Leigh?

Decent podcast: https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/the-great-political-films%3A-the-manchurian-candidate

Trigger warning: presented by academic & melt-in-chief David Runciman.

Wtf at the train conversation with Janet Leigh?

If I don't enjoy it for its sweet wtf-ness, I theorize that Leigh is Sinatra's control.

I mean she has to be, right? I can buy that she would be attracted to him, despite his weird layer of sweat (it's a common enough trope. I mean how many times has it happened to Cary Grant alone?). Still, her first line is so weirdly out of context and she doesn't seem to have a particular role, beyond grounding Sinatra. That might be enough but...

I would respond but I feel a compulsion to jump into a Central Park pond.