The Manchurian Candidate October 16, 2007
Posted by clydefro in : Classic Films, 1960s , trackback
It’s easy to forget just how good John Frankenheimer’s 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate is. Despite the director’s lofty accomplishments, especially throughout the 1960s, he’s most remembered for this film and, perhaps, decades of struggles afterwards, probably reaching a low point with the Marlon Brando abomination The Island of Dr. Moreau in 1996. Sure The Manchurian Candidate ranked #67 on AFI’s initial list of the greatest American films ever, but it got bumped off completely the second time around this past summer. Before re-watching the film recently, I remembered that I had enjoyed it quite a bit the only previous time I’d seen it, but a new viewing found that my judgment has greatly matured since then. Where I looked mostly at plotting and story the first time, I now had my eyes opened to a bit more of what Frankenheimer was doing.
A good example of what I mean is when James Gregory’s Senator Iselin, the Joseph McCarthy stand-in who’s married to Angela Lansbury’s evil incarnate character and the stepfather of Laurence Harvey’s Raymond Shaw, spews anti-Communist venom by declaring an ever-changing number of Department of Defense members to be reds. I’ve never seen anything like this that I can recall. Frankenheimer puts Lansbury on the left of the frame, with Gregory behind her, and also on the technology-challenged television to the right. This is a scene to swoon over, to marvel at, and appreciate with everything I have to give. Not only is the McCarthy comparison spot-on, but it’s recreated in the same old-television look that countless news programs have recycled even in the decades since this film was made. And he’s got Lansbury on the screen too, giving as strong and complex a performance in such a hideous role as I can recall.
I don’t think that’s even the most impressive aspect of the film though. That honor would belong to the superb editing work done by the Oscar-nominated Ferris Webster. Early on, in flashback, Frank Sinatra’s Bennett Marco and Harvey’s Shaw are shown to have been brainwashed (or dry cleaned, if you will), along with the other members of their platoon, by a conspiracy of Communists. This scene alone should have secured Webster’s little gold man (alas, he lost). The soldiers think they are in a hotel lobby listening to a New Jersey ladies’ garden club party, when they’re actually surrounded by Communists of various nations. The seamless cuts between the innocuous women of a certain age dressed in their Sunday best to venal Communist military leaders is on a plane of brilliance all its own. It’s the kind of filmmaking you want to run up to a stranger in the street, give them the DVD, and beg them to watch. (Or maybe that’s just me.)
There’s at least one other moment in The Manchurian Candidate that’s good enough to be worthy of jawdropping disbelief. It’s the quite famous portion of the film when Sinatra is on a train from Washington, D.C. to New York City and he’s wracked with nerves, a victim of nightmares induced by the very real Communist brainwashing. He goes to the space in between two train cars and is followed by Janet Leigh. “Maryland’s a beautiful state,” she says. “This is Delaware,” replies Marco. “I know. I was one of the original Chinese workmen who laid the track on this stretch. But nonetheless, Maryland is a beautiful state. So is Ohio, for that matter.” Viewers of the film know the conversation doesn’t get any less strange from there, as both inexplicably ask each other if they’re Arabic, among other things. Normally, I wouldn’t endorse absolutely senseless dialogue that’s never explained, but it completely works here. Janet Leigh’s character is an enigma to end all enigmas, but it plays perfectly in the context of the film.
I can just imagine Leigh reading her script and being completely clueless as to anything about her character. This is a woman who makes zero sense throughout the movie. She makes a connection with Marco that the audience cannot understand on any level, picks him up at the police station, and breaks up with her fiance so that she can be with Marco. There’s absolutely nothing this woman does that can be rationalized in the normal world we live in. Leigh, who persuasively adds to my long-held theory that women often look their best when in their mid-thirties, plays it completely straight, never giving away anything about the character or letting on at the absurdity of the situation. You can watch that scene between her and Sinatra on the train as many times as you want and it never gets old because there’s no definitive explanation anywhere in the film for what takes place.
The easier to understand portions of Frankenheimer’s film more than make up for what’s inexplicable. The movie was closely adapted from Richard Condon’s 1959 novel by George Axelrod and his screenplay is a gem of a screen puzzle. The larger plot, of Shaw as a brainwashed Communist zombie commanded by solitaire and, specifically, the queen of diamonds, is executed with near perfection and culminates exactly how it should. Has there ever been a creepier kiss in the movies than when Lansbury plants one directly on Harvey’s mouth? That entire speech from Lansbury leaves the viewer feeling uncomfortable and confused. It’s easy to comprehend what she’s saying, but the revelations of how she says it send the audience’s collective heads spinning. And who did Angela Lansbury lose the Best Supporting Actress to in 1962? America’s sweetheart, Patty Duke, for her portrayal of Anne Frank Helen Keller. (Note: Lansbury has been nominated for 3 Oscars and 15 Emmy awards, losing every time.)
So back to my original contention, that it’s too easy to undervalue The Manchurian Candidate, I believe that what Frankenheimer did after this film maybe has lead people to believe his work here was a fluke or possibly even overrated. Firstly, it wasn’t and it’s not. Second, Frankenheimer was a key director this decade and highly influential as a controlling auteur for the Hollywood renaissance of the 1970s. His “paranoia trilogy,” consisting of this film, Seven Days in May, and Seconds, are all brilliant, essential works of the decade. Seconds, in particular, still looks innovative and daring, as well as giving Rock Hudson his greatest role, as a man who chose to leave his middle-aged existence in favor of a more youthful life as an artist who ends up looking like Hudson. Frankenheimer would, several years later, hit a resurgence with television work like Andersonville and the excellent miniseries George Wallace. His career still looks like a bit of unrealized potential, but nearly all of his films are worth watching.
As most people know, there was a remake of The Manchurian Candidate directed by Jonathan Demme a couple of years ago. I saw it in the theater once, and haven’t watched the film since, but I did like it. Why a film the caliber of Frankenheimer’s original needs to be done again is a question I can’t answer, but I thought Demme and, especially, Denzel Washington put everything they had into the effort. If the new version works at all, it’s because Washington brings an actor’s chops to the character of Marco. Sinatra was a good actor for a singer, but otherwise his abilities were limited. Washington added the depth, that quality of being on the brink of unhinged craziness, that Sinatra and the 1962 film just missed. As good of an actress as Meryl Streep is, though, she didn’t really approach Lansbury’s characterization. The least you can ask of a remake is that it doesn’t disgrace the original and certainly Demme’s movie accomplished that. Actually, after watching Frankenheimer’s film, I was anxious to watch the remake again. Whether that’s a compliment to the original or the second version, I don’t know, but I’m sure I won’t undervalue the former again.
The current MGM special edition DVD available in both R1 and R2 is outstanding. Picture quality is very good and the extra features are everything one could ask for. Older interviews with Frankenheimer, Axelrod and Sinatra, as well as recent pieces with Lansbury and admirer William Friedkin (who seems to think Lee Harvey Oswald was definitely brainwashed like Raymond Shaw), are highly worthwhile. There’s also a commentary with Frankenheimer. It’s a great value at only $15 retail and any self-respecting film fan should probably own the disc. There’s even a little booklet, a facet of DVD collecting that too many companies overlook, in my opinion.
Comments»
I haven’t watched this in far too long; the last time, I remember, was shortly after Frankenheimer died, which must be four or five years ago. I’ve got a renewed appetite to see it again now. The only thing I’d disagree with you over is Sinatra being a limited actor. He was certainly capable of giving lazy, phoned-in performances when he didn’t care (most of his 60s Rat Pack movies spring to mind), but I’ve always regarded him as a fine actor when he felt he was working on something decent: Man With the Golden Arm, Von Ryan’s Express, FHTE, Some Came Running, The Detective, etc. Admittedly I’m not the most impartial judge, being an ever so slighly huge fan of the guy.
And on Frankenheimer, I have to get off my chest that I’ve got a major soft spot for “Reindeer Games” too …
I have to agree; a ‘good actor for a singer’ does him a disservice in my opinion too.
Good stuff however clydefro; I still haven’t seen the remake (though I have it), I reread the novel a couple of months ago and it’s still buzzing around my head.
Fair enough. I like Sinatra, as a singer and an actor, but I also find him a bit awkward and mannered when he’s obviously trying to “act” outside his persona. I have no problem with that and very much enjoy his work here and in The Man with the Golden Arm. I just think he’s outperformed by Harvey and Lansbury in the original film, and Washington in the remake. I also question whether he would have an Oscar, another nomination, and some of the high-profile roles had he not been such a famous singer. If Sinatra had just been an actor during his entire career then I doubt he’d have been so recognized and given so many opportunities in movies. I definitely don’t begrudge him that, nor do I harbor any dislike.
Patty Duke never played Anne Frank. I think you must mean Hellen Keller.
Thanks. I tend to get those movies mixed up for some reason.
You are missing a lot here! The dialog between Sinatra and Leigh is Masonic program language. When she gives him her address and phone # and asks if he remembers them he answers yes ma’am both times … just like all the other programmed people in the film. Look for an interview of Robert Oxnam on 60 minutes about his multiple personality disorder. He was the son Drew university president Robert Fisher Oxnam and the grandson of World Council of churches president G. Bromley Oxnam. He was sexually molested from the age of 2 years old to create multiple personalities. In MKULTRA files you will find that that is the real key to creating real Manchurian Candidates. The movie is showing you that there are multiple levels of mind control being used like russian dolls. Layer, after layer, after layer. I’m sorry … did you mean to take the red pill?
You very well could be right there, but it’s basically just a theory since we’re never let in on any of Leigh’s motivations. She’s a giant question mark who could be or represent any number of things. I think multiple interpretations are possible and probably encouraged, since there isn’t an explanation laid out in the film.
Yes, the dialogue on the train only makes sense if Leigh is Sinatra’s controller and he’s being “activated”, but then the film doesn’t follow through with that. It’s quite peculiar.