Thought provoking as usual. I watched the original "Manchurian Candidate" movie the other night. The parallels are chilling 60 years later. A little more civility in politics would be welcome.
Thank you for the kind words and support, Ed. For those of us who haven't seen the movie, "Manchurian Candidate" can you offer the parallels you noticed? And fully agree on your call for more civility in politics. It's long overdue and badly needed.
It takes a longer reply to explain what prompted me to leave the comment.
The plot of the "Manchurian Candidate (1962 version)" is complicated, and I will try to distill it down to the parts that were eerily ahead of their time and pertinent to today. The movie was released in 1962 when the Soviet Union was our major enemy, and its threat was real. (Sadly, it is again today.) The movie centers around Raymond, a young soldier, whose domineering mother, unbeknownst to him, is an undercover Soviet agent. Mom is married to a Senator, Iselin, who says and does anything she wants. He is the mouthpiece for the mom who is always manipulating things behind the scenes at the behest of the Soviet Union. The mother is played with chilling effectiveness by Angela Lansbury.
She continually encourages Iselin to say and do things that create chaos, division and disruption, with no facts to back up his claims. (Think Trump’s outrageous claims about the border, corrupt Hillary, Obama citizenship, etc. with no facts to back them up along with the skillful management of the media cycle is a natural parallel.) Initially few take Iselin seriously, but his outrageous claims gain the media’s attention and eventually that of the general public. (Again, early Trump and still now.) He becomes popular enough that he is added to the Presidential ticket as Vice President. (I assume President is even better.) Mom’s goal, and the goal of her Soviet superiors, has always been to have Iselin become President and undermine America from within. She has plans to finalize Iselin’s ascension from Vice President to President at the convention, as I will explain in a minute.
One of Iselin’s most popular and strident claims is that government is corrupt and run by Communists (Trump’s “swamp” and the deep state), but never offers any concrete proof. Ironic given that his wife is a Soviet agent. (There has been much analysis from Russia/Soviet experts that the best friend Russia has in America is Trump, especially with respect to Ukraine. See this link to a PBS interview with Fiona Hill, an expert on Putin and Russia about this perception.) [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fiona-hill-reflects-on-impeachment-testimony-trump-presidency-and-opportunity-in-america ]
Back to the son, Raymond. He was captured in Korea and brainwashed into being an assassin who can kill without remorse and remember nothing of having committed the act. Mom, who is his American Soviet controller, orders Raymond to shoot the current Presidential Nominee at their convention while making his acceptance speech, making him a martyr. After the presidential nominee is shot dead, Iselin, who is next to him on stage, is planned to make a rousing speech about bringing the country together, to root out evil, fight a common enemy, etc. The emotion of the moment and the theatrics associated with it will “Sweep him [Iselin} into the White House,” according to Mom. In the movie, things don’t quite work out as planned, thanks to the diligent efforts of Army Intelligence Major Marcos (played well by Frank Sinatra) who discovers that Raymond has been brainwashed and disrupts the plans.
It is hard to count the number of times, while watching the movie, that I thought about what has been happening around Trump over the past 8 years or so, and what is portrayed in the movie. Then when Trump was nicked last week on the ear, and the alleged assassin was killed and unable to answer questions, it just seemed uncanny.
I have never thought of myself as a conspiracy theory guy, but there is so much alignment between the initial “Manchurian Candidate” movie and current events, I felt prompted to leave my comment.
As an aside for the movie itself, I think it a very good movie in its own right. It was nominated for two Academy Awards and many others. I saw it as a child and the iconic way it was filmed really stuck with me until I saw again in the 1990s. Two thumbs up!
For someone who has not seen the movie, this was fascinating to read, as was your historical, political analysis. Thank you for making time to write in such detail.
Thought provoking as usual. I watched the original "Manchurian Candidate" movie the other night. The parallels are chilling 60 years later. A little more civility in politics would be welcome.
Thank you for the kind words and support, Ed. For those of us who haven't seen the movie, "Manchurian Candidate" can you offer the parallels you noticed? And fully agree on your call for more civility in politics. It's long overdue and badly needed.
It takes a longer reply to explain what prompted me to leave the comment.
The plot of the "Manchurian Candidate (1962 version)" is complicated, and I will try to distill it down to the parts that were eerily ahead of their time and pertinent to today. The movie was released in 1962 when the Soviet Union was our major enemy, and its threat was real. (Sadly, it is again today.) The movie centers around Raymond, a young soldier, whose domineering mother, unbeknownst to him, is an undercover Soviet agent. Mom is married to a Senator, Iselin, who says and does anything she wants. He is the mouthpiece for the mom who is always manipulating things behind the scenes at the behest of the Soviet Union. The mother is played with chilling effectiveness by Angela Lansbury.
She continually encourages Iselin to say and do things that create chaos, division and disruption, with no facts to back up his claims. (Think Trump’s outrageous claims about the border, corrupt Hillary, Obama citizenship, etc. with no facts to back them up along with the skillful management of the media cycle is a natural parallel.) Initially few take Iselin seriously, but his outrageous claims gain the media’s attention and eventually that of the general public. (Again, early Trump and still now.) He becomes popular enough that he is added to the Presidential ticket as Vice President. (I assume President is even better.) Mom’s goal, and the goal of her Soviet superiors, has always been to have Iselin become President and undermine America from within. She has plans to finalize Iselin’s ascension from Vice President to President at the convention, as I will explain in a minute.
One of Iselin’s most popular and strident claims is that government is corrupt and run by Communists (Trump’s “swamp” and the deep state), but never offers any concrete proof. Ironic given that his wife is a Soviet agent. (There has been much analysis from Russia/Soviet experts that the best friend Russia has in America is Trump, especially with respect to Ukraine. See this link to a PBS interview with Fiona Hill, an expert on Putin and Russia about this perception.) [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/fiona-hill-reflects-on-impeachment-testimony-trump-presidency-and-opportunity-in-america ]
Back to the son, Raymond. He was captured in Korea and brainwashed into being an assassin who can kill without remorse and remember nothing of having committed the act. Mom, who is his American Soviet controller, orders Raymond to shoot the current Presidential Nominee at their convention while making his acceptance speech, making him a martyr. After the presidential nominee is shot dead, Iselin, who is next to him on stage, is planned to make a rousing speech about bringing the country together, to root out evil, fight a common enemy, etc. The emotion of the moment and the theatrics associated with it will “Sweep him [Iselin} into the White House,” according to Mom. In the movie, things don’t quite work out as planned, thanks to the diligent efforts of Army Intelligence Major Marcos (played well by Frank Sinatra) who discovers that Raymond has been brainwashed and disrupts the plans.
It is hard to count the number of times, while watching the movie, that I thought about what has been happening around Trump over the past 8 years or so, and what is portrayed in the movie. Then when Trump was nicked last week on the ear, and the alleged assassin was killed and unable to answer questions, it just seemed uncanny.
I have never thought of myself as a conspiracy theory guy, but there is so much alignment between the initial “Manchurian Candidate” movie and current events, I felt prompted to leave my comment.
As an aside for the movie itself, I think it a very good movie in its own right. It was nominated for two Academy Awards and many others. I saw it as a child and the iconic way it was filmed really stuck with me until I saw again in the 1990s. Two thumbs up!
For someone who has not seen the movie, this was fascinating to read, as was your historical, political analysis. Thank you for making time to write in such detail.