The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

You won't be disappointed!

Just what I expected

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Probably, this period piece was quite good for its times, when it was released. Now, it seems a funny overblown, too long in its running time, too boring, too cardboard cutout, too clichéd and too baloney. Frank Sinatra? No, he is not good here, he, like almost all the other characters, overplays hugely and thus creates a comical effects, which borders both on being utterly silly and hilarious. This is a mere propaganda film, made in the heat of Joe McCarthy's frenzy and it suffers from this fetid stigma. Moreover, its possible plausible merits are washed away by protruding slow pacing and awful, almost unreal dialogues that land in the realm of pure parody. IN the 50 and 60's there are far better films than this, and the recent awfully dismal remake shows that. When the basic material is poor the end result will limp along as well.

There are works of fiction whose very name can conjure up images and meaning for people who have never even experienced them. The Manchurian Candidate, the 1962 film based on Richard Condon's 1959 novel, is one such example. The film's title has entered into the public consciousness, a term for brainwashing and seemingly incomprehensible betrayal in common use. Yet how many of those who use the term have seen the film and experienced what is likely to be one of the best thrillers of its era or any other?Part of what makes the film so successful is, perhaps paradoxically, the fact its based on a novel. Having read Condon's original novel a couple of years ago and then coming back to the film a couple of times subsequently, it is amazing to see how much of it makes its way into the film. It's not just brushstrokes that make their way in but entire scenes with large portions of dialogue presented with little edits made to them (the much discussed first scene between Marco and Rosie is a prime example). Even some of the costuming choices are drawn straight from Condon's novel. Scriptwriter George Axelrod is able to take the dark comedy of Condon's novel and put it into what is essentially a thriller that satirizes the McCarthyism of the previous decade and makes it all work together. Not everything makes it into the film of course but much of what makes the film memorable (the plot and dialogue especially) is owed to its source material and the wise decision of Axelrod in keeping as much of it as possible.Axelrod's script is only part of what makes The Manchurian Candidate the film that it is. Part of it is, of course, the cast. Frank Sinatra was a solid choice for the role of Major Marco who finds himself first facing a potential phantom from his past before realizing that he, and the country he serves, is facing a much larger threat. Laurence Harvey was likewise a good choice for the always odd and never quiet normal Raymond Shaw whom is at the center of the film's plot. Though given a top credit, Janet Leigh's Eugenie Rose Chaney actually doesn't have much to do in the film except perhaps be a romantic foil for Sinatra and a bit of a red herring but Leigh shines in what scenes she does have thanks to her chemistry with Sinatra. The supporting cast is solid as well from James Gregory as the bombastic McCarthy like Senator Iselin to John McGiver as his rival Senator Jordan with Henry Silva, Khigh Dheigh, and Albert Paulsen in roles of varying villainy. There is one other name that needs to be mentioned though.Because, perhaps oddly, the real star of the film is credited fourth in the film's title sequence. Angela Lansbury's performance as Raymond's mother has become something legendary and not without good reason. Despite being not much older than Harvey was when the film was made and made to look the part thanks to what must have been some excellent make-up, Lansbury was perfect casting for the role. For those who only know her from Murder, She Wrote will be in for a shock as they see the same often quiet determination give in to bouts of conniving manipulation across much of the film's running time. Mrs. Iselin is the power behind the throne, quietly moving pieces around while those around her (namely her senator husband and son Raymond) take the credit. Yet few things will prepare the unsuspecting viewer for the revelations that pile up towards the end of the film including a scene that is every bit as recoiling now as it must have been in 1962. It is no surprise that she was nominated for an Oscar for her performance as it still stands as one of cinema's greatest villains.Last but definitely not least, are those behind the camera. The stark black and white cinematography of Lionel Lindon serves the film well with its neo-noir feel that uses shadows and interesting angles to suggest how 'off' things often are. That is especially true when combined with the editing of Ferris Webster and when the two are combined during the film's lecture scenes or with the climactic sequence at the convention, the results are truly stunning. Director John Frankenheimer brought together a fine team to help him bring Condon's novel to the screen and his work on the film stands as among the best of his long career and there is little doubt that it stands up so well as a result of his work.All of this combines to make The Manchurian Candidate both an excellent thriller and a fine film. From Axelrod's adaptation of Condon's idiosyncratic novel right down to its dialogue, the performances of the entire cast, and the direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a masterclass on how to adapt a novel to the screen faithfully and yet tell a tense and utterly enthralling story at the same time. It's no wonder that it has become not just a touchstone for films but in the culture at large for it is simply a well made and enjoyable piece of work ever after fifty-five years.

I have always loved this movie and the first time I saw it was within a year after JFK was assassinated. I wonder these days if the Army DIA assisted or consulted with the movie.Did the director get all his input from the book?Did the author consult? The post Korean War era was sprinkled with stories of Brainwashing of US POW's captured during the Korean War. Generally speaking POW's captured during WWII were interrogated ,sometimes very brutally. The other intriguing parallel is that this movie was due to be released in the Fall of'63 but was delayed for several months after the JFK assassination. I don't believe there was a connection to this movies theme but the Oswald role in the JFK killing and this storyline are more than interesting?? I wish someone who worked on the creative /production side of the movie could enlighten some of us fans.

Based on Richard Condon's 1959 book of the same name, John Frankenheimer's adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate is considered to be one of America's greatest political thrillers. Now, normally, politics, and being thrilled are two very different concepts, but Condon's book, written a few short years after Senator Joseph McCarthy's accusations of Communist infiltration of the Federal Government helped fan anti-Communist suspicions and paranoia in the US, hit a nerve. To make the story thrilling, Condon and film director Frankenheimer created a narrative that was part murder mystery, part science fiction, and all political allegory. TMC is something of a historical fiction, and a bizarre and surreal mystery. You'll find yourself wondering "what the heck is going on," but you won't be able to give up on it. You'll want to know why Marco keeps having his dreams of the Ladies' Garden Club, why Raymond hates Johnny so much, and what the deal is with "passing the time playing a little solitaire."When the movie was released in 1962, eagerly awaited by the readers of Condon's novel, including President John F. Kennedy, viewers were stunned by what was then considered brutal violence, and they were shocked by that kiss, the nauseating implications of that kiss. The Manchurian Candidate has its flaws, but they are nitpicky at best. The black psychiatrist seems out of place for the mid-1950s and the lax security at the convention come to mind, but the audience may only pick up on those upon repeated viewings. The best part of TMC is its implied message of not letting vigilance morph into paranoia. News flash: Joe McCarthy was an evil man, but even an evil man can be right once in awhile. McCarthy's tactics were so anti-American that the actual need for vigilance against Communist infiltration of government, education, and popular culture was badly damaged. Without realizing it, McCarthy's repulsive antics actually helped the Communist effort to destabilize the United States. Ol' Joe was right--there were Communists burrowing into the fabric of American governance--but using "McCarthyism" to reveal the infiltration was counter- productive.By now, the average viewer of a "political thriller" might be looking for the remote to find an old NCIS on the tube, but Frankenheimer keeps ratcheting up the pressure on the audience. He keeps putting clues, like doggie treats, in our food bowl. And we can't turn away. The performances are almost flawless. Frank Sinatra is a totally sympathetic Bennett Marco, Lawrence Harvey is superb as the emotionally whipsawed Raymond Shaw, Angela Lansbury oozes a distilled and aged evil, and Khigh Dhiegh--who would go on to be the evil Chinese agent, "Wo Fat" in Hawaii Five-0-- is a delightfully dangerous Dr. Yen Lo, who cooks up the plan to turn Raymond into the perfect killer, the one who "isn't burdened by guilt or fear."The only fly in the ointment is Janet Leigh, whose character's intentions are a mystery, but who, as an actress, doesn't seem believable, or for that matter, terribly interesting. Leigh's "Rosie" is an important part of the story, but she phones in her performance.And if that's all I have for complaints, then I should thank my lucky stars, shut up, and . . . Play a little solitaire.