My Favorite Films, Plague Edition (Volume 28): Election Special Edition #2

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Directed by John Frankenheimer
Starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Starring Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, and Meryl Streep

The 1962 classic film The Manchurian Candidate points out that no matter how anxious we feel about the present era, it’s better than living in 1962, when nuclear missiles were being installed nearby and the world seemed on the brink of destruction. This edgy, tense film ably reflects its era, and projects a nervous forward motion that few films succeed at. And that includes the 2004 remake, quite nicely done with a director skilled in action and suspense movies (e.g. The Silence of the Lambs), and an all-star cast including Denzel and Meryl. But it just cannot quite make us as nervous as that earlier version did.

The plots of both versions are very similar. A soldier is kidnapped in battle, and is released as a hero, winning the Medal of Honor for valiant action. But it turns out that the whole thing was fake news, since the enemy had actually captured the soldier and his colleagues, brainwashed them all, and turned them loose in the US under their mind-control. This was done so the hero could help the enemy place their own candidate in the presidency, gaining control of the US government. So what are the differences between the two versions? The war is Korea in 1962, and Kuwait in 2004. The enemy is Cold War China/Russia in 1962, and big international business (Manchurian Global) in 2004. The plot of the 2004 version is tighter, since there the released brainwashed hero is maneuvered so he can actually become  the president (rather like the later series Homeland), whereas in the earlier film he just is programmed to shoot the president so the Russian-lackey VP can succeed to the throne. The acting is well done in both. Both Frank Sinatra and Denzel Washington play the earnest ex-solder that uncovers the truth, acting with appropriate mixtures of befuddlement and outrage. Both Laurence Harvey and Live Schreiber play the brainwashed ex-solder with mixtures of psychosis and brainwashed autism. And two fine actresses, Angela Lansbury (of the Broadway stage and Sweeney Todd) and Meryl Streep dig into the role of the manipulative enemy agent who pull the strings to get her son into power. Lansbury was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her role.

So why does the earlier film work so much better? It’s a black and white film with fast cuts and an often-shrill modernist score that make you feel like you are watching a documentary, not a dramatic film--there is a feeling of reality that bursts out of the screen, lacking in the later movie. The director and writers do a better job at keeping you on edge, reflecting crisper editing and dialogue. Frankenheimer gets his actors to be more real.  As good as Streep is, she feels like Meryl Streep portraying a nasty woman, where Lansbury is a nasty woman who I wanted off the screen, quickly. Frankenheimer borrows from some of the innovative camera work going on in Europe at the time (e.g. Jean-Luc Godard), with an angled, kinetic, almost deranged camera and wild shots that add expressionistic energy. For example, as the tension builds when we are waiting to see if the assassin will succeed or not in his long range shooting of the president we are in the middle of a presidential convention. In the earlier film we are right on the floor of the convention, amid the crazy delegates, and the convention pandemonium really builds the tension without artificial close ups or conventional horror film music. It reminded me of how a circus can seem surreal and scary if seen in a certain immersive way. This is one of those films where the director figured out just how to build up unbearable tension.

But perhaps the most brilliant thing about this earlier version is its prescience (rather like Election, reviewed last week). A long-distance rifle assassination of a president by an ex-soldier--one year before the Kennedy assassination in 1963? Not to mention foreign nations meddling in US elections—that one took another 54 years to occur. This may be why the film never became a popular favorite in the next decade—it was just too real. In retrospect, it was not a great idea to do the 2004 remake, despite all the big stars present. Because, as much as I fear the influence of Big Business, it cannot quite match the fear and anxiety of the Cold War at its peak. For that reason, the original Manchurian Candidate is a timeless classic.