The Manchurian Candidate (Widescreen Edition) | Jeffrey Wright, Pablo Schreiber

The Manchurian Candidate (Widescreen Edition) | Jeffrey Wright, Pablo Schreiber | A new incarnation that works well

DVDs:

The Manchurian Can...

	The Manchurian Candidate (Widescreen Edition) Jeffrey Wright, Pablo Schreiber Paramount, 2004 average customer review:based on 203 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

A Gulf war hero is brainwashed and used as a tool in a political conspiracy.
Genre: Feature Film-Drama
Rating: R
Release Date: 30-JAN-2007
Media Type: DVD

The Manchurian Candidate, an updated political thriller

The political importance of The Manchurian Candidate, a movie based on the novel written by Richard Condon, is excellent because it teaches us how power corrupts and absolute power has the ability to corrupt people, process and society absolutely. Lina Navarini and I set out to see the version played by Frank Sinatra in 1962, followed by this remake by Denzel Washington.

The first movie takes place during the aftermath of the Korean War, but now the plot takes place after the Gulf War. Now played by Denzel Washington, Bennet Marco is an infantryman who experiences recurring nightmares because he was kidnapped and through an implant on his back and another in his teeth, the enemy is able to plant false memories in his mind and in particular, in the mind of Raymond Shaw. Mr. Shaw, candidate to Vice President of the US, upon receiving a phone call that triggers his mind to do whatever he is told, is capable of murder, without "guilt or fear" therefore, little risk of being discovered.

The purpose behind altering the neuron connections and re-wiring the brain of these Americans is a desire to place a man in the White House that would do anything the enemy desires. Imagine the power the enemy would have if they were to control the United States of America.

But Bennett Marco is haunted by dreams with images that make him question reality. The platoon told the world that Sergeant Raymond Shaw, played by Liev Schreiber had rescued the platoon soldiers, to the exception of two who perish. He has told the world that Raymond Shaw saved them, when in his dream, he remembers Shaw murdering one of the soldiers.

Shaw is decorated as a war hero, given the medal of honor, a distinction that is rarely awarded, but his dreams make him question whether they have been brained washed to believe Shaw had saved them. At first, Sinatra feels that he may be going mad and goes to see military medical personnel in search for help and support. They too believe he is experiencing post traumatic disorders, and they remove him from any duty, asking him to go on vacation and to rest.

But another member of the platoon is also having the same type dreams and soon they realize that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Denzel Washington becomes Mr. Shaw's nightmare as he gets close to him and unravels a rather sad personal story, where we learn that Shaw's mother has manipulated her son's life in search for fame and glory for she has plans for him, to transform him into the President of the United States. The mother's role is masterfully played by Meryl Streep, now a Senior Senator who took over the vacant seat left by her husband. She is ruthless, displaying a Machiavellian attitude that the end justifies all means to get her son elected and we soon find ourselves hating this manipulative, controlling, and mad woman. As with the first version, this movie is simply a magnificent political thriller, don't miss it!

for more information click here

A new incarnation that works well

Manchurian Candidate is closer to the original, at least in spirit, than might be expected. But it's not the exact movie, and it hardly could have been. The relevance of the original to today's events counts little to an audience with little sense of history, and that has a hard time drawing meaning from any social context out of its experience. One glimpse of black and white films stock, men in felt brim hats, and cinematic conventions from an earlier era, and most teenyboppers under the age of thirty grab for the remote. Since they will only sit through a first run, it is good that they have one. Fortunately, the update stands on its own.

The new is less dialog-driven, which tends to make it less literate. But this film runs more on mood than on dialog, and Jonathon Demme's just-barely-odd framing and pacing provoke discomfort on a subliminal level. It is not cozy, and is laid out with less detailed explanation. The resulting sense of uncertainty may also be part of why the film is not universally liked.

The remake does solve some of the problems of the first. Gone are the swarthy, vaguely foreign-looking actors standing in for Russians and Chinese agents. Gone are the poorly choreographed ju-jitsu moves that might provoke giggles in a present day audience, used to world-class martial artists on screen, and the multi-racial world commonly reflected on film now, vs the early 1960's.

The new film retains the acting strengths of the original. Every performance is fine. Liev Schrieber's work is worthy of Laurence Harvey's original, a gut kicking performance, though Harvey still holds the edge. Washington's craft is more than a match for Sinatra's unevenly inspired work. (One of the wonders of the first is realizing that Sinatra -could- act, that he did things with rhythm and cadence because those were his only tools, and it worked. He was no method actor, but he very much had something going on.) Streep's scenery chewing is, frankly, perfect. Because unfortunately, really disgusting people actually do exist, and in positions of power. And unlike an actor's performance, criticism of real public figures whose behavior is over-the-top are rarely heard. Seen any Fox commentators recently? Streep's Senator Shaw may well be over-the-top, but the only thing that distinguishes her from the real thing is that she is only playing the role, not embodying it every day of her life.

Make no mistake, both original and remake are thrillers in the paranoid vein, and the overly literal person will likely say of either, "preposterous" -- though the original is a classic. But the literal representation of reality is not what movies are ever about, and such criticisms fail to register with me.

So is this as excellent a film as the original, adjusting for the times in which each was made? No, but it is a good film. It hits in the right places, horrifies us with an incredibly cynical vision of what our nation is becoming, and yet it is offset by the thinnest sliver of a wild, earnest Patriotism.

for more information click here