Friday, July 30, 2004
Wait for the video
I did go see the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate," and I was a bit disappointed. Perhaps "quite a bit" is more accurate. "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original) posits that a person could be brainwashed into acting not only against his country, but against his own sense of morality. There's no magic technology causing it; just a compromised human mind. It's this personal violation of the mind that makes the story work and adds that extra level of dread. It's also the reason why this story has been retold many times. Even on Star Trek.
But in the new version, it's a chip in the brain. It's technology. And in a way it's a cheat. There's a revulsion in the idea that one's own mind could be reprogrammed--merely through the power of suggestion--to commit immoral acts. This is a violation of the self on the most intimate level. But when it's a piece of technology turning a person into an automaton, that same level of revulsion isn't there. If all I have to do is make sure no one sticks a chip in my head, well . . . that's easy. But if it's not a chip--if it's just the most subtle of suggestions that are reprogramming me at the most basic level, that's a very real and present fear. (Why did you really purchase that particular product? What subtle or not-so-subtle advertising messages played a part in your decision?)
In a way, the film contains both elements. Yes, it's a chip in the head that forces Raymond Shaw to act as he does. But the film itself uses the power of suggestion in another, more concerning way.
The film, of course, concerns a presidential campaign. Meryl Streep fills in for Angela Lansbury as a Hillary-esque Senator working for the not-so-shadowy Manchurian Global, a multinational corporation filling in for the Red Chinese of the original. Except for the fact that Streep does a better Hillary than Hillary does, and except for the fact that the film is set in the present day, one will likely assume that the Shaws and their campaign staff are Democrats. And yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat speaking so forcefully about combatting terrorism, as Streep does throughout the film? Furthermore, there are newsreports running in the background of nearly every scene. Pay attention to this background noise. Watch the headlines crawling on the bottom of the screens every time a television is shown. In this alternate version of 2004, the US is under a nearly constant terrorism threat. There have been many major attacks in cities across the country.
The message by the filmmakers, and I don't think I'm wrong in picking up on this, is that the administration is exaggerating the terrorism threat for political purposes. If they can keep people in a state of fear, they will be more likely to reelect the President who is determined to combat this threat. But the filmmakers want us to understand that real threat is not from terrorists, but from global multinational corporations--the puppet-masters behind everything that happens in the world. Or, to put it bluntly--Halliburton.
Ah, yes. It all comes back to Halliburton in the end, doesn't it?
Like the original, this film is built on the power of suggestion, though not as a fictional device, but as a real and determined method of unseating President Bush.
Except it's not very subtle.
The original still rules, mainly for that very cool and very surreal brainwashing demonstration scene cross-cut with the ladies' garden club meeting. If you're really interested in the new version, save yourself a few bucks and rent it when it's released on home video--hopefully sometimes after November 2nd.
But in the new version, it's a chip in the brain. It's technology. And in a way it's a cheat. There's a revulsion in the idea that one's own mind could be reprogrammed--merely through the power of suggestion--to commit immoral acts. This is a violation of the self on the most intimate level. But when it's a piece of technology turning a person into an automaton, that same level of revulsion isn't there. If all I have to do is make sure no one sticks a chip in my head, well . . . that's easy. But if it's not a chip--if it's just the most subtle of suggestions that are reprogramming me at the most basic level, that's a very real and present fear. (Why did you really purchase that particular product? What subtle or not-so-subtle advertising messages played a part in your decision?)
In a way, the film contains both elements. Yes, it's a chip in the head that forces Raymond Shaw to act as he does. But the film itself uses the power of suggestion in another, more concerning way.
The film, of course, concerns a presidential campaign. Meryl Streep fills in for Angela Lansbury as a Hillary-esque Senator working for the not-so-shadowy Manchurian Global, a multinational corporation filling in for the Red Chinese of the original. Except for the fact that Streep does a better Hillary than Hillary does, and except for the fact that the film is set in the present day, one will likely assume that the Shaws and their campaign staff are Democrats. And yet when was the last time you heard a Democrat speaking so forcefully about combatting terrorism, as Streep does throughout the film? Furthermore, there are newsreports running in the background of nearly every scene. Pay attention to this background noise. Watch the headlines crawling on the bottom of the screens every time a television is shown. In this alternate version of 2004, the US is under a nearly constant terrorism threat. There have been many major attacks in cities across the country.
The message by the filmmakers, and I don't think I'm wrong in picking up on this, is that the administration is exaggerating the terrorism threat for political purposes. If they can keep people in a state of fear, they will be more likely to reelect the President who is determined to combat this threat. But the filmmakers want us to understand that real threat is not from terrorists, but from global multinational corporations--the puppet-masters behind everything that happens in the world. Or, to put it bluntly--Halliburton.
Ah, yes. It all comes back to Halliburton in the end, doesn't it?
Like the original, this film is built on the power of suggestion, though not as a fictional device, but as a real and determined method of unseating President Bush.
Except it's not very subtle.
The original still rules, mainly for that very cool and very surreal brainwashing demonstration scene cross-cut with the ladies' garden club meeting. If you're really interested in the new version, save yourself a few bucks and rent it when it's released on home video--hopefully sometimes after November 2nd.
