The Manchurian
Candidate (2004) (***1/2)
review by Jon
Waterman
The
quick thinking and good fighting of one man, Raymond Shaw,
save a group of American soldiers fighting in the Gulf War.
He returns to the US and is awarded the Medal of Honor for
his work. The other men in the platoon return to the US with
swirling confused thoughts in their heads. They, including
commanding officer Major Bennett Marco, are having dreams where
Shaw doesn’t save them all, but in fact kills the two
soldiers lost in the mission. Maybe the “heroic” mission
actually never happened and there’s some bigger political
conspiracy in the works – there is an election coming
up after all. Can the difference between paranoia and truth
be pieced together before it’s too late?
This is a film best viewed in theaters. Director Jonathan
Demme uses many frame-filling close-ups to show the building
tension and imposition the characters face and/or emit. The
shots are looming, but not claustrophobic. In order to get
the full effect of this, the theater works best, because you’re
looking up at this giant figure that’s essentially staring
you down and getting into your head as if you were in the film.
Watching on television would allow less connection and more
distancing. With most movies it doesn’t matter, because
they know it’ll be shown on a smaller screen at some
point and so they don’t consider the large-scale venue.
Demme and cinematographer Tak Fujimoto know how to utilize
every tool at their disposal (including projection) to its
fullest potential. This was made for the big screen only. Without
a doubt.
I also admired how visual effects were used to impact the
audience. When the subject goes under hypnosis, there are no
flashy computer graphics involved. There’s nothing flashy
about this film at all, actually. Instead, the screen quickly
gets overexposed as the sound gives us an aural cue. It’s
not the subtlest thing in the world, but it’s far from
obnoxious.
Even though this is a remake of the 1962
film, it does have
some differences in the script and the way everything goes
down. Stuff I can’t really talk about here without giving
anything away. I can say that they replaced brainwashing for
implanted controlling devices, which sounds worse than it turns
out to be. So, with no direct brainwashing, they get rid of
any cover story. The flower presentation in the original was
so enthralling and perfect that maybe it is best this effort
didn’t try to recreate it. The script still conveys a
lot of the same elements and core emotions of the first even
after omitting or drastically changing crucial characters.
It’s tough to believe that writers Daniel Pyne (“Doc
Hollywood”) and Dean Georgaris (“Tomb Raider 2”)
put together something so strong and nearly as intense as the
classic version.
Lastly, I’ll say that the acting is great, but to some
extent, it’s just playing the roles already established
40-plus years prior. Denzel Washington as Marco plays the somber
Sinatra part with more fanaticism and frustration, but he’s
the only one that really differs. Liev Schreiber and Meryl
Streep, while still amazing actors, don’t give us anything
in terms of change from their 1962 counterparts. Jeffrey Wright
continues his hitting streak as a standout supporting character.
Demme does a great job of keeping the movie non-partisan by
taking jabs at both sides, seemingly without favoritism. After
all, the movie isn’t about one side being better than
another. It’s about decent human beings fighting back
against powerful, corrupt human beings. The election is essentially
a side note when you think about it. I doubt I’ll ever
understand the desire to remake classic films. At least this
time the movie was still worth watching.
respond to jon@filmbrats.com
|