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. BENJAMIN FRANCIS PURTELL says:

    This is a fairly twisted film that delves not only into politics but also the psychology of the human brain. An interesting question is posed, is it good to elect an idiot, or a genius. The first instinct would to go with the genius and I think that this is obviously the right choice for the democratic system where there are plenty of checks and balances to keep the whole system running smoothly, however I think that an idiot would be better off running the country in some situations when it comes to dictatorships. An idiot would have a harder time keeping the entire country under his thumb while a genius we can assume could do it with relative ease. However I still think that the genius would be better for most situations, because if they have good intent for the people than they will be much more inept at keeping the country in good hands. The only time where a genius at the helm doesn’t benefit the country over an idiot is when the genius is power hungry or has some sense of paranoia, such as Hitler. This movie shows just how easily paranoia can set in on people, and how easy it is for one to become psychologically mangled so to speak. At the time that this film was made Communism had a bit of a different meaning than it did back in 1962. Those were the days at the height of the Communist scare and people feared Communism infiltrating there government, as you can see by the politician say “there are 92 Communist in congress” or some different number every time. Today there is no real fear of there being a communist party within the United States, and the fear of Communism back then gives the film very much of its meaning and shows just how fearful people were of it.

  2. ANDREW JOSEPH BELLWOAR says:

    In the Manchurian Candidate, Raymond’s relationship with his mother is a very complicated one. The most obvious aspect of their relationship is the highly publicized hatred Raymond has for his mother. This is extended to Senator Iselin, too, but that development is more recent and not as consequential for the film. Raymond’s hatred of his mother started when he forced him to separate himself from his fiance at the time, a rival Senator’s daughter Jocelyn. Because of Senator Jocelyn’s apparent (and facetious) ties to the Communist party and Senator Iselin’s staunch stance against anyone even remotely associated with the party, the pairing couldn’t work. Since then, Raymond has become more unlikable and his hatred of his mother has seemingly increased.
    Still, Raymond did sign the letter his mother put under is nose separating the two. He also still maintains contact with her. It is details like these that raise flags about Raymond’s true relationship with his mother. For as much as he says he hates her, Raymond needs his mother. He constantly returns to her and jumps at the social pairing that his mother organized. Jocelyn obviously still had feelings for Raymond, he could have started the relationship up again if he had wanted to, but he didn’t. This was true, anyway, until Jocelyn had gained his mother’s approval. Raymond is still just as dependent on his mother as ever, despite his apparent rebellious side.
    This is a pretty good allegory for people who advocate change in the political system: for as much as they whine about the state of things, very few people actually do any serious action that could result in change. The USA government is our mother, and we are ever hesitant to truly let it go. I’m not saying we have to shoot the USA at a national convention, but actions should mirror words when it comes to speaking out against something.

  3. ANDREW JOSEPH BELLWOAR says:

    In the Manchurian Candidate, Raymond’s relationship with his mother is a very complicated one. The most obvious aspect of their relationship is the highly publicized hatred Raymond has for his mother. This is extended to Senator Iselin, too, but that development is more recent and not as consequential for the film. Raymond’s hatred of his mother started when he forced him to separate himself from his fiance at the time, a rival Senator’s daughter Jocelyn. Because of Senator Jocelyn’s apparent (and facetious) ties to the Communist party and Senator Iselin’s staunch stance against anyone even remotely associated with the party, the pairing couldn’t work. Since then, Raymond has become more unlikable and his hatred of his mother has seemingly increased.
    Still, Raymond did sign the letter his mother put under is nose separating the two. He also still maintains contact with her. It is details like these that raise flags about Raymond’s true relationship with his mother. For as much as he says he hates her, Raymond needs his mother. He constantly returns to her and jumps at the social pairing that his mother organized. Jocelyn obviously still had feelings for Raymond, he could have started the relationship up again if he had wanted to, but he didn’t. This was true, anyway, until Jocelyn had gained his mother’s approval. Raymond is still just as dependent on his mother as ever, despite his apparent rebellious side.
    This is a pretty good allegory for people who advocate change in the political system: for as much as they whine about the state of things, very few people actually do any serious action that could result in change. The USA government is our mother, and we are ever hesitant to truly let it go. I’m not saying we have to shoot the USA at a national convention, but actions should mirror words when it comes to speaking out against something.

  4. KAITLYN ANITA SPANGLER says:

    The Manchurian Candidate by Frankenheimer begs the audience to question the roles and motives of authority. Mrs. Iselin is the perfect example of a total submission to the greater cause, a relinquishment of the individual for the collective. She does not have a specific name; she does not think for herself; she gives orders that are given to her. Similarly, Raymond Shaw is equally as mindless, under a brainwashed spell to do as he is told with the right trigger. Under this hypnosis, Shaw and, arguably, Iselin commit acts of violence, cruelty, and malice without “fear and guilt” that would normally come with it. These acts, such as Shaw’s murder of Senator Jordan and even his lover, Jocelyn are, in the moment, detached from emotions. Not until after the act has been committed can Shaw feel the consequences of what he has done. This is the ultimate separation between mind and body, a lack of control and lack of consciousness. Shaw is essentially a vessel, a manipulated puppet to carry out the orders of his mother and the communist authority. Yet, the root of his evil cannot be directly pinpointed. This is, perhaps, Frankenheimer’s finest accomplishment with this film in that the evil that engulfs the entire story cannot be laid on one person entirely. The hypnosis, the manipulation, the thoughtless acts committed by each character are not simply motivated by one force. It is clear to the viewer that these people are not thinking for themselves, that in order for any or all of these acts to be committed without that natural “fear and guilt”, one must be incapable of experiencing them; the acts must be committed under inadvertent coercion. Thus, without each character being presented as a fully aware and thinking being, we, as the audience, can see that no character is completely “evil” or “innocent.” Each loses control of their thoughts. These political leaders become faceless, emotionless, and untrustworthy. I found as an audience member that I could not trust any character in the film, which is telling to the state of the political arena in the 60s and even today. In the public eye, the people see a form of an automaton, reciting what the people want to hear in order to win their vote. No words are spoken from a place of true honesty or sincerity, but always attached to an ulterior motive. Similarly, the “evil” or hidden agenda cannot be placed upon a single source or person. Yet, it consumes the aura of the government until things become out of control for nearly everyone.

  5. GWEN K FRIES says:

    Raymond Shaw has a very cold, very hateful relationship with his mother. He came to hate her after she destroyed his relationship with Jocelyn—the only happy time in his life and time when he was lovable. But he hadn’t always hated her. Why, as a child, he only kind of disliked her. The only two things we can claim as our own in life—the one we truly love and our self-control—she took away from him. There is not even one tiny part of her that loves him.
    This film from the year 1962 is obviously prophetic as it talks about assassination and constantly features the image of Lincoln, up until that point the most famously assassinated President. The national felt comfortable as it had been 61 years since the last assassination. That would be like if the year is 2024 with no assassinations since Kennedy. But the very next year, the invincible, young President with the thatch of chestnut hair who ran along Hyannis’s shore playing touch football with his clan was gunned down in Dallas. Though it’s most likely sheer coincidence, it is eerie indeed.
    The film is relevant to today’s political scene because fear is the tactic used to win elections. Obama is telling Americans that under Mitt Romney, America will become a feudal state which burns gays and every woman will be raped by a family member and made to keep the child. Romney is saying that under Barack Obama we will tear down the successful, send all our jobs overseas, make sure that whites have no rights and our country will self-destruct due to this debt crisis. While the Romney/Ryan campaign is starting to steer more towards an optimistic message, the message comes with a catch—you have to elect us or everything you fear will come true.
    Does it make sense to elect an idiot? Does it make sense to elect a genius? 2 excellent questions. Idiots are basically harmless with few exceptions. An idiot makes us feel safe because we feel like he/she could be our neighbor from down the block or a co-worker from the next cubicle over. They’re predictable, safe, they don’t make waves. Unfortunately, they don’t do much at all. They leave the country exactly as it is—flaws and all, or they make it worse. Could a genius fix our country? Maybe! Or they could become a dictator. Smart people are scary. Most of us don’t know too many geniuses, and if we know one, we most likely don’t enjoy being in their company. Geniuses have notoriously poor social skills (not as asset for getting elected/international relations) and because we don’t think like them, they are completely unpredictable to us. What may be best is to elect someone in the middle, but every time you do (e.g. Kennedy or Lincoln) they have their lives taken away by someone who feels threatened by their ideas.
    The three female leads—Rosie, Josie & Mrs. Iselin—very much resemble one another. The connection they share is their ability to control and change a man in the movie. Rosie seems to completely bewitch Ben. He calls her when he is put in prison though they had only had one conversation (and a strange one at that!) She seems to calm him down when he’s upset, and I believe he’d do just about anything she asked him to. Josie has complete control over two men in the movie—her father and Raymond Shaw. She’s very obviously a daddy’s girl, and he takes in Raymond though his is a Montague versus their Capulet because he can see how happy Raymond makes her. Raymond made it very clear to us throughout the film the kind of power Josie has over him. She made him happy, she made him elope, she made him joke (!) and for just a little bit of time, she made him lovable. Mrs. Iselin also has control over two of the men in the film, those in her family. Whatever John Iselin does, he does because Mrs. Iselin has directed him to do so. She made it perfectly clear to him that she was to do all the thinking, he need only sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. He wouldn’t have done anything against her wishes. Also, in a very real and hypnotic sense, Mrs. Iselin has a power over her son Raymond. She got him to break up with the love of his life before his military service, and once she displayed the queen of diamonds card, she could get him to commit murder.
    The first meetings between Josie and Raymond and Rosie and Ben are very similar. Both times girls are happening upon men who are emotionally suffering. While Raymond has the added pain of a snakebite, his deepest pain has to be the pain of losing his father and having to live with his mother and the Senator. Josie takes him away from that world and into the warm and loving world of the Jordans. Ben is so distressed he cannot even light his own cigarette. Rosie swoops in and takes him under her wing in a truly motherly-figure. She lights a cigarette and sticks it in his mouth, she listens to him, she believes him, she bails him out of jail, she cooks for him, she cuddles him. She just generally takes care of him. Both Josie and Rosie come in just when they’re most needed and take care of their men.

Leave a Reply

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

Skip to toolbar