Album Reviews
Movies
Concert Reviews
Movie Resources
Concert Reviews
Book Reviews

Top 10
Resources
Contact Us

Fear and freedom are two ideas that have been bandied about a great deal lately. So have conspiracy theories regarding war, business, and their unholy intersection. It makes sense, therefore, that a remake of The Manchurian Candidate would be released in the middle of this election year. Though the original has only grown in reputation in the 40 years since it was released, it doesn't mean that a new, updated version couldn't offer something important and relevant.

If you haven't seen the original, you should get to your video store, but not necessarily before you see the remake. Enough things have been changed that prior knowledge isn't necessary. In this version, a group of soldiers on reconnaissance during the Gulf War encounters heavy enemy fire. Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) apparently saves almost his entire squad. A decade later, helped enormously by his war record, he's a Congressman who's about to become a vice presidential candidate.

One of his war buddies is Ben Marco (Denzel Washington), who's been having nightmares about Shaw, nightmares that involve kidnapping, brainwashing, and even murder. It turns out that Marco isn't the only one having those dreams; in fact, every soldier in the unit has eerily similar experiences. Marco decides to confront Shaw and see if there's something real in the midst of these figments. But what he finds goes a lot deeper than he could have ever imagined.

This isn't the first remake for director Jonathan Demme. His last film, The Truth about Charlie, was a thinly veiled update of the '60s classic Charade. In that movie, he made the decision to cast Thandie Newton, an African actress, in the role that Audrey Hepburn originally held. This time around, Denzel is stepping into the shoes of Frank Sinatra. It's fascinating that Demme would take two of the most iconic performers of the 20th century and replace them with black actors.

In both cases, the decision works. Though The Truth about Charlie is a mediocre movie, Newton is fantastic. And no one will be surprised when I write that Denzel is up to the challenge as well. The acting in the 2004 version is brilliant, as you would expect from a cast top-lined by Denzel, Liev Schreiber, and Meryl Streep. Schreiber is one of my favorite lesser-known actors. I still remember his touching turn as the husband of Diane Lane in A Walk on the Moon. Here his stoic portrayal of a political candidate is haunting. Streep, who needs no introduction, plays a powerful and conniving politician who also happens to be Schreiber's mother. She has a couple scenery-chewing speeches which are fantastic.

Denzel, as usual, is playing Denzel. Like George Clooney and Tom Hanks, he has carved out a character for himself that resonates with audiences. In his case, it's a man of strong integrity and convictions. If he sometimes goes over the edge a bit (think The Hurricane or Man on Fire), it's only because he's been forced there and must do everything he can to bring about a just resolution. We can always trust Denzel to do what's right. That's certainly true in The Manchurian Candidate, where his character switches between coherence and apparent insanity. Unfortunately, this switch is determined more by what the plot requires than by any rhyme or reason of the character. Furthermore, we never fear that Denzel is truly insane; he's just working things out, and we know he'll get there by the end of the movie.

The plot of The Manchurian Candidate is not the film's strong point. There are a couple head-scratching moments, where characters abandon all reason just to move the story in a particular direction. One of the problems with conspiracy flicks is that the conspiracy has to be powerful enough to inspire fear and awe but vulnerable enough for one man to bring down the whole house of cards. That is, unless you take the intelligent route of an ambiguous ending, like Three Days of the Condor or the original Manchurian Candidate. But contemporary Hollywood doesn't allow for that. Today, things have to be resolved completely, with the good guys emerging unscathed and the bad guys punished or foiled. This version's ending is especially tidy.

As my friend Garth remarked, though, it's rare to see a movie actually engaged with present-day issues, so we're willing to forgive many of its mistakes. Only diehard Democrats will equate Raymond Shaw's character with our current vice president, but the movie's points about how candidates manipulate fear for their own devices is incredibly relevant. In addition, the odd pairing of security and freedom is exposed for the empty propaganda that it is. In the end, the movie's politics might be more satisfying than its story. 

 J. Robert Parks 7/24/2004

I Interviewed the late John Frankenheimer several years ago for Reindeer Games. He said one of the reasons for the success of his film The Manchurian Candidate was that it was filmed documentary-like and that made it realistic. He had remained friends with Angela Lansbury through the years, but whom would he like to work with? “If Meryl Streep wanted to do the yellow pages of the telephone directory I would work with her. I really want to work with her, I love her work, she is brilliant.” How prophetic now that Streep stars in a remake of his signature film.

If a person sees The Manchurian Candidate without having seen the first film by John Frankenheimer, the viewer will see a political thriller in which being a mother is also being part of a well-oiled political machine. If a person sees the Frankenheimer 1962 film first, the viewer can see the adjustments made to the story line to bring it into the 21st century and today’s political arena. I recommend seeing both, now easily done because the original film is finally available on video. The Manchurian Candidate will surely be on every film critic’s list of top ten films of all time. The original film starred Frank Sinatra as the troubled soldier, Ben Marco; and Angela Lansbury as the elegant and manipulative Mrs. Iselin. Laurence Harvey played Angela’s son, Raymond Shaw; James Gregory was Eleanor’s second husband, the senator; Janet Leigh was Ben’s girlfriend, Rosie; John McGiver was Senator Tom Jordan and Leslie Parrish was Raymond’s former girlfriend, Josie. The 2004 film is updated to bring the story to present-day audiences with an equally strong cast. Denzel Washington is Marco, Meryl Streep has the Eleanor Shaw role, Liev Schreiber is Raymond Shaw, Kimberly Elise is Rosie, Jon Voight is Tom Jordan and Vera Farmiga is Jocelyn (Josie).

What made the black and white 1962 a classic was innovation and that it was exploring a very real possibility. This is the story of a group of soldiers who were thought to have been ambushed by North Korean forces and then heroically rescued by Raymond Shaw, one of their own, who was awarded the Medal of Honor. Shaw’s stepfather, the senator, has ambitions for the White House and is being rapidly propelled in that direction by his wife, Eleanor. In the meantime, members of the platoon are having dreams---identical dreams---of perhaps a massive brainwashing that makes them robots where Raymond Shaw is concerned. This is harrowing because the platoon is made to believe they are at a garden party instead of a laboratory. Ben Marco (Sinatra) manages to break free of his mind-control to reveal a sinister plot involving subversives within our government and the term “mole” has new meaning. The Manchurian Candidate (2004) is basically the same plot, but this time, the platoon was ambushed during Desert Storm. Raymond Shaw is a hero and headed for a political seat, compliments of his mother, Eleanor, who is now the savvy senator. Marco has dreams and everyone thinks he is delusional or just plain nuts. However, along comes Rosie who starts to believe in him. In the meantime, other soldiers are coming forward to say they are having Marco’s dreams, too, and are dying accidental deaths. Just what is happening here? Is there a cover-up and if so, how far-reaching is it? 

Perhaps purists will weep and wail about having The Manchurian Candidate redone, even to include keeping the same title. However, this film can stand on its own. I was satisfied. The acting is way above par and one can sense a possible Oscar nomination for Streep as the mother from Hades. Streep doesn’t go for the haughty glamour of a Lansbury, who won an Oscar for her role, but instead lets un-sophistication come through in small areas like chewing ice when she is listening to someone. Denzel Washington doesn’t hit the mark all the time, but when he does (as in scenes of realization), he nails it. Liev Schreiber has a tough role. Laurence Harvey, as Raymond, portrayed an elegant snob, and Liev doesn’t have that, instead we get haughty. The character is supposed to be a loner, but we don’t really sense it and it isn’t carried through one hundred percent. Jon Voight is fine and in a short scene with Streep in which the two opposing political enemies face off the screen rings with talent. Kimberly Elise takes the role of Rosie and adds depth to it. In the first film, Janet Leigh was simply an added-on part.

The Manchurian Candidate is not a perfect film. Occasionally, it tells instead of showing; there are just aside remarks on how Eleanor Shaw got her senatorial seat plus only a few comments on the former friendship between Raymond and Josie. Whenever you see Dean Stockwell’s name on a film list, you know his character will be up to no good. Ben Marco has a convenient friendship with a scientist that is not fully explained. I have always enjoyed the intricacies of The Manchurian Candidate, which goes along the lines of Warren Beatty’s The Parallax View. (1974). The chill of what goes on behind closed political doors is still there and the idea of what constitutes an enemy and just WHO is the enemy is brought forward. One of the doctors in the film looks so like a young Roman Polanski, I had to check the credits to be sure. It is Simon McBurney.

The ability to control the mind of another has been an age-old quest. This is power of the nth degree. It can also be an erroneous assumption because, as we know, the mind sometimes has a mind of its own and then who controls whom? The Shaw family thinks it knows.

Copyright 2004 Marie Asner
Submitted 7/24/04