This week’s installment in the Ethical Dilemmas on Film Series at the State Theatre is the 1962 John Frankenheimer classic The Manchurian Candidate. The film is sure to raise all kinds of questions for viewers who are primed to reflect on its portrayal of politics with an ethical lens.   

   

Here are some questions to get the discussion started:
How is the garden club scene shot? How are individual characters shot? Are they consistently shot from particular angles or against particular backgrounds? 
What is the significance of “always with humor”? 
Is The Manchurian Candidate theatrical as well as cinematic? Does it allude to other literary, dramatic, or cinematic works? What does the film gain from being shot in black and white? 
What is Raymond’s relationship to his mother? Do we know when he came to hate her? Has he always hated her? 
How prophetic is this film made in 1962? Is the film relevant to today’s political scene? 
How does the film perpetuate or reject racial and gender stereotypes? 
Is the film misogynistic? 
Why doesn’t Mrs. Iselin have a name?  
Are the three female leads meant to resemble each other? Why?
Are there parallels between the first meetings between Josie and Raymond, Rosie and Ben? What is Janet Leigh’s (Rosie’s) role in the film? Is she an important or peripheral character? 
Is the plot ever deliberately unbelievable and kitschy? 
Why is the garden club discussing hydrangeas? 
What does Johnny Iselin know? 
Consider how particular words or institutions are used in The Manchurian Candidate – treason, freedom, the American Civil Liberties Union, patriotism, heroism, liberty, Communist. Are these words used differently today? 
Does it make sense to elect an idiot? Does it make sense to elect a genius?
Tagged with →  
Share →
Buffer

20 Responses to The Manchurian Candidate: Questions for Consideration

  1. JESSICA RAE DEITZER says:

    In an end-of-job evaluation of my performance, I was once told never to lose my sense of humor. The way he said it, with so much emphasis. My sense of humor? Why is that so important? What does it have to with anything? I always regarded a sense of humor, albeit so important to my personal life, as an expendable, unnecessary trait when it comes to “serious” things. It’s clear the characters in this movie do not feel that way, especially the villainous Dr. Yen Lo.
    Humor is synonymous with happiness—at least that is what it always seemed to me. Even the supposedly miserable Raymond Shaw cracks a joke at the time he is the most happy—as he puts it, “Me! Ha! Big day! Mark that down in your book. Raymond Shaw got married and he made a joke.” However, during the majority of this stern, ambitious film, humor means something quite different.
    The haunting “garden club”/soviet union meeting/brainwashing scene portrayed with a dark, eerie humor gives a different meaning to the statement “always with a bit of humor.” It is as if Dr. Yen Lo transcended the screen, knew the audience and times—communism witch hunting and all— and spoke directly to them. The movie and it’s political significance had to be treated “always with a bit of humor” in order to be endured. The ridiculousness of the scene, juxtaposing hydrangeas with homicide, made it bearable. The “humor” in this tale was meant as a means to an end, a light-hearted attitude amongst bitter destruction, an avenue of dealing with brainwashing and murder.
    Humor can be happiness, but humor can be a coping mechanism, a way to keep us sane in an insane world. Or a way to keep us in line and control. A way to keep us happy when we simply shouldn’t be.

  2. CHRISTIAN HARRISON FAKE says:

    Manchurian Candidate

    I can honestly say the garden scene in the beginning of the movie was one of the coolest scenes I’ve ever scene. The scene shows juxtaposition between a flower seminar and a discussion at what looks like a world conference. Soldiers sit in the front of each scene and they’re the only things that remain constant. The scene goes back and forth between the two sets but each set seems to adopt something from the previous shot. It’s a really interesting concept that I’ve never done before. It really made me question what was going on, which was great because it helped me out later in the movie. I also liked that they shot in black and white. It made the movie seem stale and cold, which is exactly the feeling the movie was trying to portray.
    The movie obviously alludes to what was happening during the fifties with the Mccarthy communist hunt. While this allusion does hold significant weight in the movie, there was something else that held a little more. What really caught me off guard was that this movie was shot before the JFK assassination, Robert Kennedy’s assassination, and the civil rights movement. Scenes and elements from this movie are scarily similar to many of these events. For example, JFK is believed to have been sniped from a window, which is exactly what Raymond does to his mother. Another scene is when Frank Sinatra runs through the kitchen, which bares similarities to Robert Kennedy’s death. I also believe that many of the films political elements still hold weight today. The basis of Iselin’s campaign is fear. While I don’t believe fear to be the foundation of our current candidates campaign they both use it to their advantage. Every commercial focuses on the other candidates flaws and doesn’t talk about their own personal goals. This instills fear in the public by saying this is what’s going to happen if you elect, “him.” So while fear may not be as much as a component it is still heavily used today.

  3. ALEXANDRA LEE SCHNEIDER says:

    One of the most interesting—and shocking—scenes in The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is the garden party scene at the beginning of the film. I found it to be particularly interesting because prior to viewing the film I had no idea what the plot was or the structure of the film would be like. Although shocking, I did find it incredibly interesting and I very much enjoyed the methods used in the film.

    The first garden party scene is almost revolutionary in the way that it is filmed—cutting from scene to scene, using different angles and backgrounds, and symbolism. The dream sequence begins with the camera panning across the group of men and passed a sign that reads “Fun with Hydrangeas” and then on to the woman attending. When the camera completes the circle and gets back to the group of men they are now at the communist stronghold. The camera then cuts instantly to a view from behind the men and up at the communist attendees. It then instantly cuts back to the woman lecturing about hydrangeas and then back again to the stronghold. After a few cuts, the background changes and is inconsistent with the situation and speaker. This method not only demonstrates the mental confusion of the characters, but also helps the audience relate and experience some of the mental anguish and complexity.

    There is the more obvious symbolism of the hydrangea. In Japan, the hydrangea is a symbol of heartfelt feelings, whether they be positive or negative. Using it in the garden party of the film is a way demonstrating the distress and mood of the men in the scene, even though they are physically in a zombie-like state.

  4. ALEXANDRA LEE SCHNEIDER says:

    One of the most interesting—and shocking—scenes in The Manchurian Candidate (1962) is the garden party scene at the beginning of the film. I found it to be particularly interesting because prior to viewing the film I had no idea what the plot was or the structure of the film would be like. Although shocking, I did find it incredibly interesting and I very much enjoyed the methods used in the film.

    The first garden party scene is almost revolutionary in the way that it is filmed—cutting from scene to scene, using different angles and backgrounds, and symbolism. The dream sequence begins with the camera panning across the group of men and passed a sign that reads “Fun with Hydrangeas” and then on to the woman attending. When the camera completes the circle and gets back to the group of men they are now at the communist stronghold. The camera then cuts instantly to a view from behind the men and up at the communist attendees. It then instantly cuts back to the woman lecturing about hydrangeas and then back again to the stronghold. After a few cuts, the background changes and is inconsistent with the situation and speaker. This method not only demonstrates the mental confusion of the characters, but also helps the audience relate and experience some of the mental anguish and complexity.

    There is the more obvious symbolism of the hydrangea. In Japan, the hydrangea is a symbol of heartfelt feelings, whether they be positive or negative. Using it in the garden party of the film is a way demonstrating the distress and mood of the men in the scene, even though they are physically in a zombie-like state.

  5. TAYLOR MARIE MCCARTY says:

    The Manchurian Candidate is a political thriller that calls into question a variety of controversial topics: the psychological effects of war, the role of women and the the corruption involved in politics. While these issues are far different than what they were fifty years ago, they are still relevant to discuss. It is full of symbolism and powerful rhetoric instilling fear into the characters, and also those in the audience. One of my personal favorites in regards to the symbolism in The Manchurian Candidate is the constant reappearance of Abraham Lincoln in a variety of forms, whether its a porcelain bust, a lamp or a costume at a party. The most obvious form of this is the foreshadowing of the assassination of Senator John Iselin at the end of the film. After all the political tension throughout The Manchurian Candidate, when John shows up at the costume party dressed as Abraham Lincoln, the director is practically spelling out for viewers that is assassination is inevitable. Another display of symbolism I found intriguing is a parallel between the brainwashing scene at the beginning of the film, and the inauguration at the end. During the brainwashing scene, two banners featuring Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung are hung from the ceiling on each side of a podium; at the final scene, two more banners hang featuring the two candidates of the election, including Mr. John Iselin, suggesting that the current two candidates are tyrannical, perhaps even communist. When it comes to the women in The Manchurian Candidate, they are far from your typical 60s housewifes. Between Eugenie Rose throwing herself at Major Marco, Mrs. Iselin single handedly running her husband’s campaign and Jocelyn Jordan standing up to her superiors, there is no room for stereotypes here. I think the Manchurian Candidate is telling the audience to not trust our political leaders, to always question things and to not turn a blind eye when we know something is ethically wrong.

  6. MELISSA AMY says:

    Throughout the movie there is the interplay between the ignorant and the intellectuals. The movie portrays ignorance as comforting, while intelligence carries the idea of fear. The committee chooses Senator Iselin as the Vice Presidential candidate – not for his intelligence, but rather for his ignorance. Like his wife, the committee must have realized that he could be controlled to do what the party asked of him.
    Looking at the political framework of today the debate of ignorance versus intelligence still rages on. Presidential candidates downplay their Harvard law degrees and instead try to emulate “the people.” Political advertisements show candidates playing with dogs, walking in parks and grocery shopping. While as a voter, I am happy that they can play with dogs, walk in parks and grocery shop, shouldn’t I be more concerned with their abilities that would qualify them as a leader of the free world? However, voters simply don’t want to see a candidate sitting behind a desk and reading over documents, they want to see a candidate they can relate to – likability matters maters more than the capability to lead a nation.
    In some ways the phenomenon of voting for someone based on anything other than intelligence is a Western idea. In Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism, political leaders are chosen precisely because of their intellectual background. Citizens wanted people intelligent to run a country, but outside of the past corrupt political system. Thus, naturally they turned to the intellectual community. Examples of this include Václav Havel, a writer and the first president of the Czech Republic and József Antall, a historian and the first Prime Minister of a democratic Hungary.
    Perhaps, our comparatively less volatile governmental past, accounts for this phenomenon. Throughout the last two hundred odd years, our country has seen relatively little in terms of political upheaval and this has allowed the citizenry to remain complacent in elections. However the movie nicely illustrates that complacency allows the possibility to placing those in power to come under the influence of someone, more intelligent, then they. Something to think about at the polls this November.

  7. ELIZABETH ALIEH MASGARHA says:

    Our class discussion brought up how Frankenheimer was able to demonstrate the influence that fear and paranoia can have on people in a stressful situation. Dr. Yen Lo states that the importance of the hypnotism technique was its ability to allow subjects like Raymond Prince, to commit an act without being able to remember the “fear and guilt” associated with it. When I heard these words, I couldn’t help but remember the typecast forced onto Penn State when the Sandusky event unfolded this past fall. The media was so quick to create a villain out of everyone associated with the university, especially when we as a community, did not abandon the traditions and people whom built this school. We were all labeled as “blind followers,” and accused of being just as immoral as the acts committed against the victims. It was as if this community had become the hypnotized soldiers, unable to see what we had done wrong. All the while, it seemed that everyone on the outside forgot to blame the person actually responsible for the crimes committed.
    I applaud Frankenheimer for being able to convey manipulation and confusion as an invisible force to facilitate an environment of paranoia, engulfing everyone within its reach. Do we blame Ben for the death of Senator Jordan and Jocelyn? Or do we blame the United States Military for letting Raymond walk around freely? The movie establishes a positive connotation for these characters, but if we look closer, Ben and the Military resisted from arresting Raymond so they could catch a bigger fish. Therefore, shouldn’t we blame them just as much as the people responsible for killings and unleashing the “Manchurian Candidate”? As the movie ends, the audience hears Raymond’s justification for killing his mother and Senator Isle: “You couldn’t have stopped them, the army couldn’t have stopped them.” This quote demonstrates that it is not a situation of good v. evil that determines who holds the most power.
    The State College Police, the Board of Trustees, the President of Penn State, the Football Department, Coach Paterno, and even the Governor of Pennsylvania, were all blamed by those inside and outside of the Penn State community for not having done enough to stop innocent children from being attacked. It is clear that the stain of what happened to those children will never be scrubbed away and efforts to prevent similar instances from happening have become a top priority to this community. However, I only ask for people to take a step back and look at another picture. Was it really the case that all of the people involved, stood back and let a monster loose? Was it apart of a bigger plan? Or could it be that the true culprit, undetected by his surroundings, was the only person who could have pulled the trigger and put an end to all of the violence?

  8. KATHERINE ELIZABETH MURT says:

    I have wanted to watch this film for a very long time, and never really got around to seeing it on my own. I could not be more grateful that I never quite found the time, because seeing it for the first time in a majestic venue like the State Theatre was well worth the wait.

    I consider myself to be a movie buff, and I love nothing more than discussing film with like-minded individuals. Having seen my fair share of movies, I have to say that I was utterly blown away with the garden club scene. Never have I seen anything in classic or modern cinema that even comes close to how well directed that scene was to me. The changing camera angles, as well as settings, made me start to wonder what about a ladies garden club (specifically one meeting to discuss hydrangeas) was significant enough for the men to imagine they were present at such a meeting.

    In the scene, the woman speaking discusses the conditions in which hydrangeas thrive, first explaining that the hydrangea plants in the sheltered valleys blossom’s were inferior to those plants that were grown on the exposed mountains and hills. After a little online research into mind control and brainwashing, I found that one prominent technique when attempting to reprogram someone’s mind is to remove and semblance of privacy or shelter to discourage private introspection or thought. Just as the hydrangeas who are exposed on the hills fare better than the ones in the sheltered valleys, the exposed and vulnerable mind is more susceptible to brainwashing than the sheltered and private mind.

    Additionally, the woman mentions that two varieties of hydrangeas do not have the quality of producing blue flowers in mineral-rich soil. I found this a particularly interesting point. Could these particular breeds of hydrangea represent the two men among the group who become the pawns in the film? Perhaps Major Marco and Raymond Shaw possess qualities that make their minds easier to mold, or perhaps just easier to erase. As the garden club woman mentions, the hydrangea seems a simple plant, but is rife with complications. This particular flower seems to be a metaphor for the mind (not to mention it’s physical resemblance to a brain!)

    Finally, and these are more afterthoughts on the scene than anything else, the woman giving the presentation is named Mrs. Henry Whittaker. Whittaker Chambers is the name of an American man who became a Soviet communist spy and later denounced his participation in the communist party of the US and helped to testify against other American communists accused of espionage, which I think is an important coincidence to consider.

    Also, according to IMDB, Senator Iselin’s full name is John Yerkes Iselin. Robert Yerkes was a famed psychologist and primatologist who did research with intelligence testing and eugenics. This is an interesting point considering the idea we discussed after the film that Senator Iselin is not particularly intelligent, so perhaps his namesake alludes to the idea that intelligence testing is, in a way, useless? Is knowing a person’s intelligence quotient beneficial to their well-being or ability to lead? Just because someone is intelligent, SHOULD they lead over someone who is less intelligent (consider the brilliance of Robert Yerkes and then consider his obsession with eugenics)? Just a few thoughts that are still bouncing around in my mind. My apologies for rambling.

  9. PHILIP BURCH ZONA says:

    The Manchurian Candidate highlighted several key issues that remain important even in modern politics. The biggest of these issues was propaganda and the cultivation of fear. Johnny Iselin’s accusations of communism are similar to today’s rhetorical attacks on terrorism. One modern day comparison who comes to mind is George W. Bush and his “with us or against us” mentality. The idea is in itself, entirely based in emotion, which is why I believe it to be so effective, both in the film and in real life. When Iselin makes the bold claim that there are hundreds of communists operating in the American government, people are skeptical, but they are intrigued nonetheless. After some heavy revisionism with regards to the exact number, people begin to doubt his credibility. However, he has effectively planted the seed of danger and fear in their minds.

    Similarly, during his presidency, Bush propagated a mentality of “fear the terrorists.” To support this, he played on fear of another September 11 attack. While there might have been some legitimacy to his arguments, he undoubtedly played up the dangers in order to further an agenda. Because fear is such an instinctual, primal emotion, people respond to it. Right or wrong, he created an effective message.

    The use of fear in politics is not a new theme. Of Aristotle’s three components to rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logos, I would argue that pathos (emotional appeal) is the most universally effective. Some people have a limited capacity for logical argument, some people are able to look past appeals based on personal integrity, but everybody has feelings. Because of this, I have to place fearmongering in the realm of unethical behaviors for a politician. Something about playing on people’s most basic emotions just doesn’t sit well with me. I recognize the importance of an emotional component in delivering a message, but I just think there are too many better ways to do it. In addition, a lot of political rhetoric lacks components of ethos and logos when pathos is the prevalent element. I believe a balanced message is an ethical message, and when fear is the center of the argument, there is little room for good to prevail.

  10. JAKE ANTHONY PELINI says:

    Before viewing Frankenheimer’s “The Manchurian Candidate,” an immediate question is posed simply by the film’s title: Who is the Manchurian Candidate? Although it would seem that a clear answer would present itself by the end of the film, I was left hanging in suspense. Also, this film perfectly illustrated the art of manipulation. It was unclear who was in control of whom, or if any individual did have power at all.

    In an attempt to secure for a representative a position of power, the communist Manchurian government contracted Mrs. Iselin as its American operator. While her son Raymond was at war, it extended “control” over her by conditioning him as an unconscious assassin. When they return from war, sleep-shattering nightmares continue to haunt Raymond and the other soldiers. However, Raymond soon begins his lethal mission to assist the Manchurian’s political choice, his step-father John Iselin, take office. These are only some examples of the control held by the Communist Regime.

    In the most literal political sense of the words, Senator John Iselin would be the Manchurian Candidate. But what was Frankenheimer’s intention behind using a word with so many different meanings in so many different contexts? With such a twisted plot, I do believe that the senator was A Manchurian candidate, but not necessarily THE candidate.

    I suppose a stronger case could be made that Raymond was the candidate. He was an innocent man giving his life for his flag, and he was brainwashed simply because of his mother’s. His life ultimately became disposable, and he lost it in the end. Also, why not think that Mrs. Iselin was the candidate? She was involved from the beginning and was, despite her loyalty, forced to sacrifice her son, for whom she did show some love. She was under a spell, brought on by glorious visions of power and control. She, too, lost her life in the end.

    The candidate could be any of these people, or it could be those who became close to Raymond during this time. His comrades-in-arms, wife, father-in-law, and boss all lost something invaluable to them, whether it was their lives or sanity. However, I think a more general group was targeted.

    We cannot forget that the Manchurian government spent at least eight years attempting to infiltrate the United States government. Based on the actions of contemporary society, perhaps the Manchurian government chose an unguarded, trusting, and frankly unintelligent American people as the Manchurian candidate. Regardless of the true victim, in the end, the darkest commentary of the film remains that those who orchestrated the deceit, degradation, and deaths of all those involved emerges unscathed. The Manchurian government remained an international powerhouse ready to attack another unsuspecting victim. It is a warning to viewers of what will come if we remain so uneducated that we willingly elect a man with the potential to terrorize our nation and its people.

  11. NATHANIEL JAMES HOLLISTER says:

    In the film The Manchurian Candidate, we are able to investigate the development of many different characters and the influence of communism on the American political system. When we first learn about the relationship between the protagonist, Raymond, and his mother, we are able to see that it is not a good one. After receiving his medal of honor, Raymond finds his mother has organized quite the show for his return from war. It is here that we can see that Raymond is very short and disappointed with the way his mother uses him for her husband’s political gain. In my opinion, this is a great scene of foreshadowing, given that by the end of the movie we learn that Mrs. Iselin has been using her son the entire time in order to further her personal agenda. I don’t think that we really know why Raymond hates his mother so much, what particular event lead to his feelings about her, but we do know a couple of instances that have added up to these feelings for her (like the instance with the slander against Jocelyn’s father).

    I think that this film is very analogous to Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. The main allusion to this work is the way in which “communists” are called out, or rather the sheer uncertainty of how many there actually are. The same idea occurs during the Salem witch trials in Miller’s play. The complete uncertainty of who is a witch and who is not leads to pandemonium among the citizens of the community and, likewise, this chaos explodes in the election campaign of Johnny Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate.

    Finally, I found many lines in the dialogue of this movie that would not go over very well if they were put in a movie today. For example, after getting married, Raymond says to Jocelyn something to the effect of “Why don’t you fill your role as a housewife and make us some drinks?” My jaw dropped at this because a film today could never get away with that. What struck me more was how Jocelyn didn’t even react to that statement and did what she was told. I think that this scene really highlights how substantially a culture can change, even within a relatively short span of 50 years. Additionally, there are many instances where politically incorrect racial comments arise. One such instance is when Mrs. Iselin guesses at Raymond’s butler’s name; she estimates that the man’s name must be some conglomeration of sounds. Today, such a remark would be considered offensive and this further demonstrates a change in our culture’s understanding of the world.

  12. JESSICA RAE DEITZER says:

    My first, most honest reaction to The Girl in the Café was this—why is Gina doing this? Does she realize she is being rude to Lawrence and the political leaders? Does she really think she will make a change? Is she aware that she may sound ignorant, annoying, and unimportant to people who are actually involved in these decisions—people familiar with the reality of these issues, these politics, these group decisions?

    Upon taking a step back, however, I realized the true reasons for my surprise and the harsh reality of the ethical dilemmas in the film. I think, at the heart of The Girl in the Café, is a question of empathy and social deviance. How much empathy is appropriate? When do we have too little or too much? Moreover, at what point is it “allowed” to breach social norms and throw away conventional proprieties in order to address a question of empathy?

    I realize that all this is a lot of questions and no answers. This is because I, myself, experienced a lot of questions and not many answers. It seems, although Gina did inspire some political leaders to take a stand, in the end, the systematic emotionally controlled decision won in the end. The system, and not the feelings, seems to win most battles in this day and age among our political systems. We strive for level-headedness, not emotiveness. We strive to control our empathetic reactions, lest we break down in tears every time we see an animal abuse commercial or read a sad book. There is a certain psychological benefit to being able to close our hearts and open our minds. But there is still the moral issue—when do we speak out? The truth of the matter is, Gina was a deviant. People like Gina are outliers in today’s society, they are not the norm. There’s something a little tragic about that—and unfortunate in the fact that I was automatically uncomfortable with Gina’s deviant emotional response in standing up when no one else would.

  13. KYLIE KATHLEEN CORCORAN says:

    After viewing the film “The Manchurian Candidate”, one scene in particular stuck out in my mind: the scene in which the American soldiers are hallucinating that they are guests at a flower club meeting. I could not stop wondering about the symbolism of the hydrangea flower which was constantly being mentioned.
    I found that the hydrangea flower is native to eastern Asia, especially in Korea and the region of Manchuria, where most of the battles of the Korean War took place. In fact, during the war, some of the largest Chinese military bases were in Manchuria, and prisoners of war were often taken to these bases for holding. Since the brain-washing experiment was so important to the Party, the soldiers in the film were most likely in one of these stations. In addition, the hydrangea flower contains hallucinogenic properties, and can be smoked as an intoxicant, reflecting the effects of the experiment and the soldiers’ view of the meeting. Finally, when consumed as a whole, the flower is moderately toxic, because it contains cyanogenic cells in the petals. The meeting’s leader refers to this property, mentioning the seemingly pleasant scene which the soldiers’ are imagining and the ‘hidden’ dangers it holds for them. The idea of the flower’s hidden poisons could be interpreted simply as foreshadowing the soldiers’ dooms, but I believe it is also meant to represent the Americans’ fears of Communism, and how the resulting paranoia will destroy them.

  14. ANASTASIA RICHEAL says:

    Since this film was released fifty years ago, politics have undergone a great deal of anguish. With unprecedented events like the assassination of JFK, the civil rights movement, and the attacks on the world trade center decades later, the government has had to continually piece together a nation that is constantly ready to shatter. However, while most Americans go on with their lives like the government is maintaining national peace, they are strongly mistaken. The sheer idea that the political scene in our country is not corrupt is perhaps the most naïve thing one could believe. This movie clarifies that even half a century ago—in the midst of the cold war—when our country was divided in fear over the threat of communism, the government was just as corrupt as the so-called “communists” in our country were. In fact, the US government was using (an undoubtedly still does use) blatant demagoguery in order to brainwash America, as Manchurian Candidate criticizes so often. This film predicted the worst that can come from a government powerful enough to show the public only what they want them to see, and that is something that will most likely never change about American politics.
    It doesn’t help that our country is being run by people who are incompetent to do so. It seems as though politicians repeatedly make the same mistakes, and while America is so fast to criticize the government, it’s the citizens that are at fault for putting idiots in office. However, I don’t think that anyone consciously chooses the worse candidate. I think it’s part of human nature to want to feel above others, and subconsciously, people would rather live in happiness than fear. In this day and age, knowledge is power. By putting someone into the White House that is smarter than you, it automatically gives them more power. Due to man’s frantic need to feel superior to all other beings, America would rather elect a president that they can laugh at, and bond over the authority figure’s notoriety for being less intelligent than the US population. Fear is perhaps the strongest emotion one can feel; it controls people. In the land of the free, it makes more sense to elect and idiot for own personal gain, and less sense to elect someone who can outsmart you and threaten the freedoms Americans desperately cling to.

  15. COLLEEN ANNE BOYLE says:

    The Manchurian Candidate is filled with symbolism and questions, sometimes subtle and sometimes very obvious, and these different aspects kept me thinking about the film long after the final credits.

    Raymond’s mother, Mrs. Iselin, is an especially interesting character and is introduced to us from the beginning as an evil person. Raymond tells Marco that he strongly dislikes her, and we see that she is manipulative and calculating. Later, the audience learns to dislike her even more after she breaks up the love affair between Jocelyn and Raymond. Her demeanor is cold and frightening throughout the film.
    However, despite being spoon-fed the details of her questionable actions, I wonder if we as an audience can be content with simply labeling her as an evil person. It seems unrealistic to me that any character can be totally amoral, and I think that this film is too advanced to simply give her that trait as an excuse for her wrongdoing (creating an assassin, plotting murder). We are not given much information about her before Raymond’s return home, and this seems to further prevent us from sympathizing with her. However, I think that her background goes deeper than pure evil, and I think that The Manchurian Candidate challenges us to evaluate how we initially view her.

    When reflecting on why Mrs. Iselin was motivated to take such drastic measures to ensure Johnny’s election, I wondered if the reasoning goes beyond a simple thirst for power and instead also lies in her fear. If Mrs. Iselin is plagued by a fear of the communist powers that she says will bring the United States to its knees, then (in her mind) are her actions justified? Instead of only seeking power, is she driven by the idea that she is saving the country and rooting out a source of instability, unrest, and even evil? If this is her motivation, Raymond’s mother cannot be viewed as an amoral character but rather must be seen as a character with misguided motivations.

    Is Mrs. Iselin a terrorist figure, or is she a patriot? I think that this movie is asking viewers to reconsider their ideas about motivation and political action in regards to her character. Just as historical men and women, including heroes like George Washington, have been congratulated for their rebellion, perhaps we should consider Raymond’s mother in a similar way. But that is shocking and unnatural, considering that she was plotting the murder of an innocent man. Here, I think lies the key. Perhaps The Manchurian Candidate is asking us to reevaluate the soundness of our defenses for men like Washington. Just as we gawk at the idea of Mrs. Iselin as a hero, so too should we take pause before awarding a hero’s status to someone who killed in pursuit of their goal.

    Furthermore, as for Raymond, should he be condemned in the same way as his mother for his murders? I think that this movie purposely juxtaposes the two characters of Raymond and his mother as well as the attempted and actual murders. The movie forces us to ask whether we are fair in our condemning of Mrs. Iselin and our support of Raymond’s actions. How can we excuse one’s crimes without excusing the other’s?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar