The Manchurian Candidate, 2004
This was the weekend for watching remakes of old movies that were originally adapted from novels.
The Manchurian Candidate (2004), falls short of the brilliant Manchurian Candidate of 1962 which I reviewed here long before seeing the new version.
The 2004 version is very suspenseful and entertaining at times, but it is long and convoluted. It lacks the sharpness and focus of the original.
Angela Lansbury was more demonic in the role that is now played by Meryl Streep. The character, who was originally a U.S. Senator’s wife, is now the Senator herself. In making the lead female character so overtly powerful, the movie lost the sinister power of the woman who pulled all the strings from behind the scenes in the original.
Indeed, the subtext of the original was the emotional pull that mothers have on their children and husbands and how it ultimately effects the course of human events.
Denzell Washington is very strong in the lead role and the acting is generally good throughout. The film’s failures lie in the script and the chaotic directing, editing and imagery. There are tricks that were complete unnecessary in the 1962 version because the story was so powerful and unified that it could carry itself without the use of gimmicks.
I think that political correctness doomed this movie from the start. It is impossible to be provocative when the writers and actors are all afraid to offend. In the original the evil was effectively distilled into the Angela Lansbury character, whereas the evil in the new film is more the Manchurian Global corporation.
Streep’s Senator Shaw is some strange cross between Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush. It is unclear why she needs to have her son become so powerful when she can have so much power herself.
The Angela Lansbury character achieved her power by manipulating others particularly her son. She could do evil without ever being at center stage and without getting any blood on her own hands.
At one point, Streep’s Senator Shaw laments that there are no men left in the world, nobody who will just get the job done without first asking for permission. (She’s never met George Bush.) But if she’s such a powerful Senator, she could do the job herself, she wouldn’t need men to do it for her. I mean, that’s presumably why she became a Senator in the first place. She thought she could do a better job then a man.
Yet, once in a position of power, she still denies her own power, sees herself as the victim, and longs for stronger men.
I’d suggest that people watch both of these versions of the story. I think it says a lot about where we’ve gone as a society between 1962 and 2004.
| Go to Home - Most Recent Posts