The Manchurian Candidate - some thoughts (yes, they are relevant)

[question everything]

1. Some tried to say that the Meryl Streep character is based on Hillary Clinton. Of course, there is nothing in common between the two, except that both are strong women senators. How sad that the field for comparison is so limited.

2. When the first movie came out, the villain was a foreign governrment. Now, with the bodyguard clearly in the loop, I could not help thinking of Oklahoma City and of Ruby Ridge and to realize that there are too many Americans who would not hesitate to participate in a coup, or, at least, to facilitate one.

3. The villain there, a multinational Manchurian Global was described by the WSJ movie critic as: "bears an unmistakable resemblance to Halliburton," and is said to want to have the "first privately owned and operated president of the United States."

Well.... I think that Haliburton, and the rest of the chemical industry already has one...

[physioex]

1. I haven't seen the movie...

But it seems to me that you don't need "high technology". A low tech approach by psychological profile and mind control drugs along with a cabinet that is loyal to the company would suffice. And it is quite possible that the candidate doesn't even have to know that he is being manipulated...

[question everything]

3. I am quite sure that Bush does not know that he is being manipulated

He is certain that he won the presidency on his own, that he is in command of his administration, the way he is certain that he gained entrance to Yale on his own, on not based on "legacy."

[physioex]

5. I tend to agree, after all the man doesn't even read....EOM

[liveoaktx]

2. Meryl Streep has said repeatedly she based this on Karen Hughes

[searchingforlight]

4. I thought Meryl's character was based on Barbara Bush.

[liveoaktx]

6. Link

http://www.providencephoenix.com/movies/top/documents/04011850.asp

The media targeted by Jonathan Demme’s remake of The Manchurian Candidate have already targeted the movie. Case in point: is Meryl Streep imitating Hillary Clinton in her portrayal of Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw, the ruthless matriarch played unforgettably by Angela Lansbury in John Frankenheimer’s 1962 original? Was the resemblance so close that the filmmakers felt compelled to reshoot and re-edit? So went a recent news item on the Internet Movie Data Base (it has since disappeared). Many journalists seized on it, myself included. Was it true?

"No, that’s something that came out of the newspapers," says Demme. "Which I was happy to see because it sounds kind of spicy, but no, there was nothing like that."

"I don’t see anything Hillary Clinton, except maybe bangs or something," Streep adds. "That hairstyle is shared with quite a few people, and everyone mentions Hillary because I think there’s a special venom reserved for certain people. The politics of this character couldn’t be further from her, but it’s Hillary people go after. It’s really interesting. You should go and search down that story. Because I did yesterday. I was in an interview with Katie Couric, and she mentioned it. It’s easy to find — you can go on Google, you can find who this is that did this. You would not want to be associated with this person — a crazy person who has a Web site in Los Angeles. Every reporter has mentioned it to me because nobody searches down who it is — go there! I think his Web site’s called ‘Death to Liberals.’ Now this is your source — now this is somebody who has an agenda to attack Hillary Clinton."

Oops. In fact, Streep insists, if she was imitating anyone in her performance, it was Bush aide Karen Hughes.

[glitch]

11. thanks for posting

Good for Meryl Streep - actually taking the time to search down a nasty rumor. Now that is just another example of why she is the TOPS? (I have Cole Porter on my brain, but she fits doesn't she?)

[JerseygirlCT]

15. She is, hands-down, the best actress we have today. Amazing ability. nt

[emulatorloo]

16. Have also heard that Peggy Noonan served as "inspiration" n/t

[question everything]

17. And did you like De-Lovely? I did. A wonderful movie

but I have been having Day and Night, Night and Day playing in my head.

[glitch]

18. Not yet! But I was listening to 'Red Hot and Blue' while I wait for

Future Soundtrack for America (association: they both have Tom Waites and David Byrne)!

[AmericansFirst]

7. It reminded me of this situation and...

Ike's goodbye speech in 1961. He warned us of a possible military power and if it gets too much power, it could be disastrous. This can be read as an erie prediction of JFK's assassination depending on what your theory is about who and why he was killed. Certainly, this situation could apply to the war in Iraq and any future war depending on who is president. The military has a major say in things behind the scenes and it may have cost a president his life and of course the soldiers of war now.

About the movie, it had some good points but I was a little disappointed. It's a good movie and worth the money, but after hearing about all the hype it didn't quite live up to it.

[klook]

10. See the original, if you haven't

It's excellent.

[klook]

8. Just saw Manchurian Candidate also (WARNING: SPOILER)

The Meryl Streep character is based on the Angela Lansbury character in the original movie. Hillary Clinton was in HIGH SCHOOL when that movie came out in 1962!! Despite the Freepers' paranoid obsessions with all things Clinton, I doubt seriously either the novelist (Richard Condon), the director (John Frankenheimer), or the writer had an unknown teenager in mind when they created that character!!!

***WARNING: SPOILER ZONE - DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE NEW MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE YET!!***

There are some interesting differences between the two movies. For one thing, the original has only one assassin, and he's not the candidate. Maj. Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra in the '62 version) does uncover the plot, but he hasn't been programmed like the new Marco (Denzel Washington). Also, the killing in the original took place during the party nominating convention, not the election night victory celebration.

Eugenie/Rosie, the mystery lady on the train in the original movie (Janet Leigh) was basically decorative, while in the new version (Kimberly Elise) she's a law enforcement officer (FBI agent?).

In the original, Mrs. Iselin (Angela Lansbury) was a Republican power broker, with a Joseph McCarthy-like husband who was the candidate. In the new movie, this character (Sen. Eleanor Shaw, played by Meryl Streep) seems to be a conservative Democrat, and is a senator herself rather than just a behind-the-scenes player.

In the original, Sen. Jordan (John McGiver) is a liberal Democrat. That's the same this time around (Jon Voight). One big difference: in the original, he's welcomed Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) into the family as the future husband of his daughter (Leslie Parrish). In the new movie, the romance between the two youngsters isn't rekindled, and before Shaw offs the Jordans, Sen. Jordan presents the Shaws with evidence of a plot to brainwash the young candidate. (Big mistake!)

As you pointed out, one of the huge differences is that in the original, it was Communist Chinese and North Koreans who did the brainwashing, while this time around it's a global megacorporation.

The character of Delp in the new movie (played by Bruno Ganz, memorable as an angel in Wings of Desire), doesn't exist in the 1962 Manchurian Candidate--mainly because there wasn't the same technological explanation for the thought control.

It was also fun to note that Henry Silva's 1962 character, Chunjin, has been updated as Laurent Tokar, played by rock musician Robyn Hitchcock.

Liev Schreiber was a good choice for Raymond Shaw. Similar to Laurence Harvey, he projected a kind of asexual, robotic quality that worked well for the role.

The other thing that's really different between the two movies is humor. The Frankenheimer 1962 version achieves some of its menace, strangely enough, through humor. The Mayberry garden party / brainwashing scene was truly odd and funny, keeping the viewer off balance and building an atmosphere of psychological dread. Also the jocular attitude of the cold-blooded mastermind Dr. Yen Lo (Khigh Dhiegh) in the original was a way of asserting dominance, another psychological tactic.

All in all, I think the 1962 movie (which I just saw recently for the first time) is better, but the new one is good also.

I'm going to have to think some more about similarities and differences between the 1962 and 2004 movies, and will be interested to read your and others' thoughts.

[klook]

9. Another interesting contrast (SPOILER)

*** WARNING - SPOILER - DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE ***

The 1962 Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is a journalist, while the 2004 Shaw is a politician. Also in the new one, there are two assassins, politician Shaw and military officer Bennett Marco (Denzel Washington). What does this say about who's running (and ruining) our country?

[Julien Sorel]

13. ***More spoilers***

I'm curious about why they let the Bennett Marco character through the security check point near the end of the film, when they had no way of knowing who he was going to assassinate. It made no sense to me. Also, I thought there was something a little bit sinister about Jon Voight's character when he says "You're right, I do have a strong personal interest in this." I began to suspect Voight's character itself was a tool of some other interest, and not the liberal good guy he seemed.

[Radio-Active]

12. Some republicans are saying... (SPOILERS)

that Raymond Prentiss Shaw's character is based on John Kerry. In other words, a war hero who is only seen that way because his unit was brainwashed. Do they mean the men on Kerry's swiftboat were brainwashed into seeing him as a hero????

I doubt Kerry was even a consideration in the script, since the remake was written long before Kerry was even close to getting the nomination.

Both liberals and conservatives will claim that the movie criticizes the other side, or possibly their own side. However, the comparisons to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton just don't stand up under scrutiny. I think this remake has enough obvious digs at Halliburton and the political rhetoric of the past 3 years to warrant a closer similarity to the Bush Administration.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Dh and I just laughed out loud during the movie at

that line. And flashed 2 fingers...

And the only resemblance to Hillary is the hairstyle, so far as I can see.