389. The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Running Time: 126 minutes
Directed By: John Frankenheimer
Written By: George Axelrod, from novel by Richard Condon
Main Cast: Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Angela Lansbury, Janet Leigh, James Gregory
Click here to view the trailer

"OL BLUE EYES" GETS BRAINWASHED

It seems that each and every time I'm nearly ready to make a TOP 20 list, I come across one last gem that makes making the list even more difficult. Last time around it was "Body Heat", the time before that, "Brokeback Mountain" and this time, "The Manchurian Candidate".

The film starts out during the Korean War, where a platoon of American soldiers, including Raymond Shaw (Harvey) and Major Bennett Marco (Sinatra), are captured and taken to Manchuria. We find out later that the reason for their capture was to brainwash the men, most notably Raymond, who would later serve as a killing machine for his "American operator". When the men return home, Raymond is decorated with the Medal of Honor and his fellow soldiers have nothing but niceties to shower him with, even though when they really think about it, they remember heavily disliking Raymond. As the film progresses, we find out that Raymond and his new washed brain can be triggered by the phrase, "why don't you pass the time with a game of solitaire" and he is put under further hypnosis when he sees the Queen of Diamonds. All the while, Major Bennett continues to have dreams about being in a room with a group of elderly ladies who transform into Korean agents. He soon realizes that there is more to the dreams and that he is actually remembering the day that he and Raymond were initially hypnotized and brainwashed. Later, he is put on assignment to get closer to Raymond, so that the Army can find out exactly what happened to him.

SPOILER ALERT!

Actually, I had SOME problems with "The Manchurian Candidate", so lets tackle the bad before we get to the good. First and foremost, what in God's name was Janet Leigh doing in there? When she enters the picture it's under seemingly mysterious circumstances, rattling off her phone number as if she's trying to slip a hidden code to the Sinatra character. Beyond that she only pops up a couple more times and it's for nothing scenes, that have absolutely no ties to the main plot. Why hire a big name like Leigh, only to give her a pointless character like the one she had. I wonder if her character was more integral in the novel and in the film, they simply demoted the character to barely a supporting status. Or perhaps, she was simply placed in the film to keep the audience on their toes. Two years prior Leigh appeared in "Psycho" and surely everyone at the time knew she was a big star. You place a big star into a film about paranoia and brainwashing and you keep the audience constantly trying to predict what happens and guess her purpose. Of course, the letdown is that she has no purpose. I can't say I was all that thrilled with Sinatra either. I've seen two of his films now and I can honestly say I enjoy him better as a supporting player, instead of the main man. He's not a terrible actor, I just don't think he's good enough to be placed into a starring role.

On the other hand, who knew Angela Lansbury was that good?! She was absolutely fantastic here and what a heel she played! I quite enjoyed Laurence Harvey too, as I don't think I had ever seen one of his pictures for or even heard of him for that matter. I really thought the film was great, as is, but I can't help but thinking how much better it could have been if they had only capitalized on more opportunities for suspense. In fact, I can't help but think what Hitchcock would have done with this material and how much louder we'd be singing his praises had he gotten a hold of it. For instance, we, the audience, shouldn't find out who Raymond's American operator is until the exact moment that Sinatra's character does. Instead, we find out first and it's meant to still, somehow be a big reveal when Bennett hears Raymond talking to his mother on the phone, putting two and two together. Also, there were too many detours getting from Point A to Point B, with the inclusion of the Jocelyn and Senator Jordan characters. Were they really of vital necessity? Too many pieces were put into place, when the film was more than capable of standing on it's own merits and had a good enough plot to be left untouched and not tinkered with. I can't help but wonder the differences between the film and the novel.

But, really, I'm just nitpicking (because it's what I do best) and this is actually a superb picture. There are a truckload of memorable scenes and shots and the intrigue and suspense is quite gripping. The scene of the "dream" sequence is outstanding and THE BOOK recalls it's reminiscence to the French New Wave. Also, THE BOOK seems to think that there was some subtle hints toward an incestuous relationship between Raymond and his mother, which I too kind of picked up on. Lots to unravel with this one and it's one that I think will suit a lot of tastes.

RATING: 7.5/10 That's a knee-jerker, but I'll sleep on it and come TOP 20 time (which will hopefully be tomorrow), maybe it will rise a notch or two and get a spot.

MOVIES WATCHED: 399
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 602

January 15, 2012 4:18am