Talk:The Manchurian Candidate (1962 film)/Archive 1

Dispute
This article should be about the REAL Manchurian Candidates from the Korean War, not the film. 70.125.43.99 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the movie Zoolander is sort of based on The Manchurian Candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.72.245 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 10 August 2004

Sayeth the article:


 * The film attempts to adapt itself to the modern world by having the brainwashing conducted by Manchurian Global, a multinational corporation based closely on Halliburton.

How is Manchurian Global "based closely" on Halliburton? If someone believes this, can you provide some evidence for this alleged similarity? Otherwise I'll remove the Halliburton reference in the interests of NPOV. Neilc 19:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why Manchurian Candidate?
Why is it called The Manchurian Candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.33.196 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 April 2005
 * In the original, it was because the brainwashing was performed in Manchuria by Red Chinese scientists with the involvement of Soviet Russia.
 * In the remake, it was simply to keep the same name, and the story devices had to be changed to fit the name (!). - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 00:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Merkels' edit
I dispute the relevance of Robert Merkel's recent edit, taking out some of the text explaining what a "Manchurian candidate" means, and replacing it with a statement about its scientific impossiblility. This edit doesn't serve the relevance of the article to its subject matter; it makes sense to explain the movie's version of the world, and makes less sense to launch into a short diatribe of the movie's divergece from current theory. That discussion belongs in Brainwashing. We don't, for example, add such comments to the article for every movie or cartoon that entertains "fuzzy physics".

Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 00:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

"Eugenie Rose" is "red queen" in French?
My French isn't that good, but isn't red queen "reine rouge" in French? — Bash 07:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. "Rose" means "pink." And Eugenie doesn't mean anything — it's a name which Eugenie shares with a French empress from the 19th century (a very conservative one, BTW, see Eugénie de Montijo). john k 05:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The name "Eugenia" (of which "Eugenie" is a variant) is derived from a Greek word meaning "well-born". — Diamantina 03:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Acclaim
This sentence didn't seem to make sense: The film won acclaim for its political themes and the exploration of the connection between the far left and far right in cold war America.  (Presumably Iselin is meant to be "far right" here.)  But the "far left" connection was a plot twist in the movie, not a reflection of some event "in cold war America." Bluey 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The novel—and its plot—was a satire. To some extent, Frankenheimer followed.--Buckboard 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Links
Removed an external link; it contained very little about the film. The other links are better. Bluey 16:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oswald speculation
It seems to me that this is speculation and should be removed, or at least the source for the claim that Oswald passed by the theater every day while it was playing for four weeks should be substantiated:


 * Only recently has it been established that, in 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald daily walked past a downtown Dallas movie theater where the film played for four weeks, November 14 to December 12. This raises the very real possibility that he saw it or was otherwise influenced by it. Ironically, the theater was on Elm Street, the same street on which President Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald one year later (see Oswald's Trigger Films).

--babbage 22:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oswald Facts

On the subject of Oswald and The Manchurian Candidate, I was the one who added the sentence describing how Oswald, in late 1962, daily walked past a Dallas theater where The Manchurian Candidate played for four weeks. I added that in about 2005. I'm surprised to see that someone removed that sentence in 2006, allegedly for lack of a source citation. The passage I added had even included the source in parentheses. That source is my own book, Oswald's Trigger Films. Perhaps I should have added the precise page numbers that relate the proof. I didn't because the book is so short, and the relevant pages so easy to find. Anyhow, those pages are 8-9. I'll even quote that text now, or enough of it to prove the point for anyone who doubts it:

"Oswald's workplace [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall], moreover, was at 522 Browder, five blocks south of Main Street in downtown Dallas, while the Palace Theatre was at 1625 Elm, one block north of Main Street in downtown Dallas and indeed only seven blocks away. Oswald definitely knew where the Palace was located.... The Palace ... was a major downtown theater bearing a huge sign spelling out its name in vertically-running capital letters.  Moreover, on October 9 Oswald had rented a post office box in the main post office at Bryan and North Ervay Streets, which he thereafter checked regularly, necessitating a ... crossing of Elm, passing close by the Palace, during the very weeks that The Manchurian Candidate played there in November and December.  With that, the once vast gulf, in our knowledge at least, between Lee Harvey Oswald and The Manchurian Candidate is narrowed to the short space of a mere thirty-second walk. And, though not documented, it is also not difficult to imagine him at least occasionally making that thirty-second detour to gaze at the movie posters displayed by the theater. Remarkably, Oswald's proximity to the Palace Theatre during the very weeks that The Manchurian Candidate played there can even be documented to the extremely short distance of about ten yards. It is all a matter of bus routes. Elm Street, with one-way westward flowing traffic, was the street on which Oswald caught his daily bus back to the Oak Cliff neighborhood where he lived in late 1962.... He is not known to have gotten a ride home from work with anyone during that late 1962 period, and he neither owned a car nor could he drive one. Two buses serviced the Oak Cliff district at the time, the "Marsalis" one and the "Beckley" one, the latter of which Oswald typically rode, since it passed just a few blocks away from his Elsbeth Ave. apartment. In any case, the buses had identical routes along, and stops on, Elm Street, from St. Paul down to Houston. Those stops included St. Paul, Ervay, Akard, and Field. These four points on Elm were the closest to Oswald's workplace six blocks south on Browder.... It is not stretching things to assume that, when riding past [the Palace], he also looked at the ... marquee and noticed at least the title of the movie playing there, especially a title like The Manchurian Candidate. Such repeated exposure to the movie's title, its content being already known, may well have stimulated militant thoughts in a mind like his" (Oswald's Trigger Films, pp. 8-9).

So, that lengthy quotation should suffice as a source. In the book, I discuss Oswald and The Manchurian Candidate on about ten pages in all, so there is much more information and evidence presented there. I have gone ahead and reinserted the removed sentence into the main Wikipedia page, with slight changes. I further invite all concerned readers to scrutinize a map of downtown Dallas so as to see the streets in question and their relation to each other, in order to better understand the evidence presented above. The bus stops at Akard and Field, by the way, are ruled out as stops that Oswald would have used regularly, because the quickest walking route from his workplace to the post office was up Ervay Street. Moreover, that "thirty-second" estimate I made in the book was mistaken. At the time that I was writing the book, I did not know precisely where the Palace Theatre had once stood, because it was torn down in the 1970s and replaced by a huge skyscraper which today takes up half of the entire 1600 block on Elm. After the book was published I discovered that the exact location of the Palace was actually quite close to the corner of Elm and Ervay, making it merely a ten- to fifteen-second walk from that corner. Anyhow, the theater's marquee was so huge that it could be seen, and the movie titles on it clearly read, by anyone walking even on the east side of Ervay Street. Oswald must have walked up Ervay, on whichever side, at least three to four times per week to check his P.O. box, since he was receiving two or more weekly periodicals there, among other mail. He may even have checked his P.O. box every day. The post office was so very close to his bus stop that the additional walk to the post office would only have taken him a few extra minutes. And he may well have walked up Ervay to his bus stop on Elm even on the days when he did not go to the post office. That seems a probability.

I'll close here by saying that I somewhat doubt it was any (alleged) lack of source citation that motivated the removal my passage from the Wikipedia article. Instead it was probably a movie fan's obsession with The Manchurian Candidate, an obsession which led to psychological denial that the film could have partly prompted the assassination of President Kennedy. Such denials are commonplace within the film world and among its fans, but to many of us others they are not convincing. So I'll hope that most people, and hopefully even the film fan in question, will "see the light" in this case. By the way, I admit that The Manchurian Candidate is a great film. I just wish the assassination scene had not been so explicit, even instructional, in all its details.

I might also add that I think some people are a bit gullible in accepting what Hollywood has recently claimed about the "unrelated" disappearance of The Manchurian Candidate and the "unrelated" disappearance of Suddenly (another presidential assassination movie) in the years and decades after the Kennedy assassination. Surely the word "spin" comes to mind. Should we trust that Hollywood people are telling the truth in this matter? Sorry, but I can't.

John Loken, May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.125.200 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have again removed the reference to Oswald since it is based on so much speculation from such a spurious source. I can find no other reference to the idea that Oswald's ideas or actions were influenced by the film. The theory is a nonsensical distraction from the flow of the article. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Film noir
Is it ? It's not what I think of as film noir.

-- Beardo 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A trivia section?
Shouldn't there be a trivia section? The "Eugenie Rose" in-joke and the various references in other films/books/etcetera would fit there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.88.229 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 May 2006
 * There shouldn't be. Trivia sections are discouraged, on the grounds that the information there is either important enough to be organized under their own sections, or the information is, well, too trivial to be included.  If you look at the movie articles to become featured articles- Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Halloween (1978 film), all have done away with their trivia sections. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Supposed 2007 film version
There was a heading for a 2007 film, with a single unsourced line saying that there might be. It was spurious, so I cut it. --TallulahBelle 17:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Banned ?
This has just been added to the category banned films. It is not clear that it should be.

Roger Ebert says "The film has become so linked with the Kennedy assassination that a legend has grown up around it. Frank Sinatra, the film's star, purchased the rights and kept it out of release from 1964 until 1988, and the story goes that he was inspired by remorse after Kennedy's death. In fact, the director John Frankenheimer told me, Sinatra had a dispute with United Artists about the profits, and decided it would earn no money for the studio or anyone else. The DVD includes a conversation by Sinatra, Frankenheimer and writer George Axelrod, taped when the movie was finally re-released. Sinatra says it was the high point of his acting career; nobody mentions why it was unseen for 24 years." http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031207/REVIEWS08/40802006/1023

-- Beardo 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned in other countries, it seems. -- Beardo 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

References during the early "nightmare" sequence
It should be mentioned somewhere in the text whether any of the references on brainwashing and hypnotism that are cited in the scene are real. I'm guessing they're not, in which case we can simply say so in a single sentence; however, if they are, then it might be worthwhile to have a small section discussing this. I came to the article tonight in part to see whether there was any mention one way or the other. For example, Khigh Deigh's character says that it's a myth that hypnotized subjects cannot be trained to betray their consciences, but I was always told it was true; I'd have liked to see a mention here. --Lawikitejana 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trotsky murder "parallells"
I'm removing the Trotsky section in a while if there are no objections. Mercader was not brainwashed and didn't gun down his mother instead of his intended target either. Unless someone can show that Condon made an intentional reference to the murder of Trotsky it's just a vaguely similar event.--Sus scrofa 03:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Communist Agent?
This isn't an edit...just a comment.

In the article, the quote, "A bizarre conversation on a train between her character and Marco has been interpreted by some—notably film critic Roger Ebert[3][4]—as implying that Leigh's character, Eugenie Rose Chaney, is working for the Communists to activate Marco's brainwashing, much as the Queen of Diamonds activates Shaw's. It is a jarringly strange conversation between people who have only just met, and almost appears to be an exchange of passwords. Frankenheimer himself maintained that he had no idea whether or not "Rosie" was supposed to be an agent of any sort; he merely lifted the train conversation straight from the Condon novel, in which there is no such implication." mentions Roger Ebert...a man. Then there is the ephemeral "some" who might also be men. As a woman, I found the conversation perfectly innocuous and understandable from the viewpoint of a woman suddenly attracted to a strange man.

I've had similar "bizarre" convos with men and look upon a man who is able to keep up with them as a sign of the man's intelligence...a strong point in his favor, with me. Rosie is attracted by Marco's smell, (in the book) which is pheromonal and not intellectual, so she's working from an instinctual level. The Eugenie Rose/Rosie sequence is just what a woman would say to prolong a conversation and interest the man. The "Are you Arabic?" comes from the earlier reference to Marco having read a book about the culture of Arabs. The "Maryland is a beautiful state." is just a mistake from which Rosie recovers...brilliantly. The "Chinese coolie" remark is a common meme that railroads in the old US were built by imported Chinese laborers, not a reference to Communism. The whole train passage shows that Condon either really understood women or had a similar convo in his own experience. From my POV, it's a brilliant tour de force.

Keep the reference, by all means, since you have the Ebert quote; I just thought that you'd want to know that women may look upon that sequence differently. Tredzwater (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though I agree that the exchange came off to me as light banter between the characters I have to remind you that WP:NOTAFORUM, this isn't really something of use unless it can be grounded in reliable sources (original research etc.)--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why I said I didn't edit it and that it was just a comment. I'm aware of Wiki's conventions. To be more blunt than my original comment, however, I found the idea of Rosie being a Communist agent to be ludicrous and can't help wondering why it was even mentioned. "Venus vs Mars" isn't encyclopedic in this instance, as it adds nothing to the understanding of the film, IMNSHO. Ebert's comment wasn't terribly intelligent. Tredzwater (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE---LINCOLN LEITMOTIF.
WHY hasn't anyone discussed the almost omnipresent theme of Pres. Abraham Lincoln in the movie??? Is it in the novel as I have not read it??? This is very important subtext that is completely left out of the "MC" article.--johncheverly 17:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/21/12/1:15pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, John. In a nutshell, this article has not received much attention. You can see that there are not many references in it right now. If you want to read what others have said about this topic, you can go to Google Books Search and search for the keywords "manchurian candidate" "abraham lincoln" lincoln. That should show some results of use to you. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia editing guideline that runs something like this... WP:SOFIXIT and that has an additional parameter of 'with civility, please'. I think proceeding to edit with all that in mind is a good thing when adding new material and proposing editorial changes to pre-existing Wikipedia articles. Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Stupid Question: Who is responsible for the content on the "Manchurian Candidate" 1962 movie page???--johncheverly 05:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/22/12/1:15am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

INFO TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF A LINCOLN SUBTEXT SECTION.
"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) http://www.imdb.com/media/rm977372160/tt0056218

Dude, http://www.filmsite.org/manc2.html

Senator Iselin is reflected off the glass covering a portrait of Lincoln - juxtaposing the ghostly-thin, anti-Communist with a stalwart American from another era, as he fixes himself a drink. As a spineless puppet, Senator Iselin complains to his wife that he can't keep the number of Communists straight in the Defense Department: "I mean, the way you keep changing the figures on me all the time. It makes me look like some kind of a nut, like an idiot." She holds up a newspaper and proclaims:

Raymond's vicious, overly-smothering mother - sitting next to a bust of Lincoln and in front of a fireplace portrait of Lincoln - sabotages his relationship and potential marriage plans with the daughter of one of his step-father's political foes - she labels Jocie "a Communist tart." She interprets his romance as dangerous to her own plans, and maternally 'brainwashes' him to give her up:

http://www.filmsite.org/manc3.html

The celebration opens with images of American patriotism gone mad - there is a closeup of an American flag - a hand reaches out and defaces the flag with a trowel-like shovel. It scoops up the caviar from the star pattern onto a cracker to be devoured. The hand belongs to Johnny Iselin, who is dressed with a tall stove-pipe hat and fake beard as Abe Lincoln. He excuses his desecration: "It's all right, it's Polish caviar." Mrs. Shaw, who appears as Little Bo Peep (or Mother Goose?), reaches out with her long staff and pulls his arm - an apt metaphor for her controlling nature. Raymond, who is costumed as a Spanish gaucho, is extremely nervous about meeting his long-lost girlfriend.

The scene in the study between Raymond and his mother begins with a close-up of a black bust of patriotic father figure Abraham Lincoln - one of many such witty image compositions and motifs in the film (visually linking Iselin to Honest Abe). Raymond's mother divulges that she is his American controller - an agent for the Reds: "Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?" When he comes upon the Queen of Diamonds, she is unexpectedly called away and takes the card as a precaution. Jocelyn, however, finds Raymond in the study and is reunited with him - she is coincidentally (and improbably!) dressed as the Queen of Diamonds - the most appealing costume possible for him! After embracing, they depart to elope, and leave behind her card costume.

--johncheverly (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/21/12/7:23pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

Man Shooterin' Kennedydead
Laurence Harvey plays "an unwitting assassin whose actions are triggered by a Queen of Diamonds playing card." Should this article note certain correspondences (aside from the name) with the life of Lee Harvey (O.) whose favorite opera during his time in Minsk (according to Priscilla McMillan Johnson, Marina and Lee, 1964) was P. I. Tchaikovsky's The Queen of Spades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talk • contribs)


 * That's a stretch even for conspiracy theorists.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * More stretch: 1. the Pushkin story on which the opera is based, "Pikovaya Doma" or "Queen of Spades", has as hero an "engineer" named Германн, or "Germann" with a hard G; Lee Harvey Oswald's first girl friend in Minsk, before Marina, also had the last name Германн. 2. WP coverage of "Suddenly", 1954 film starring Sinatra as an assassin who prepares to shoot from a hidden high place, has at times contained disputed claims that Oswald saw that film either in 1954 or 1963. 3. A leading character named "Shaw" appears in both films.  4. It is alleged that Oswald bought the assassination weapon in March 1963, five months after "Manchurian Candidate" was released.Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Even if all this is true it means nothing, you could make all sorts of connections between two random events if you just stretch the material enough.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Production Error
Early in the film when Sergeant Raymond Shaw is descending from the airplane to an awaiting crowd, the placard holder on the left (when seen from camera) is holding the placard onto the pole as it has come away during shoot.Ash :) (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Ashnazgul


 * We generally don't note trivial errors in film articles, more suited to the imdb "goofs" section.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Stars in the lead paragraph
I have undid a couple attempts to flip the actors Janet Leigh and Angela Lansbury in the lead paragraph (reducing Leigh's star billing to co-star and increasing Lansbury from co-star to star. The billing seems clear from the poster even if one does not look at the film credits. Leigh is above the title, Lansbury is after the title in smaller text after the word "Costarring". If you want to change the order please justify, but it has to get past the primary source of the film credits as well as the sec source of the film's poster...AbramTerger (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Leigh must have had something on the producer. Her part did nothing to advance the plot, and would barely rate a co-star's billing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.183.23 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Two versions of the movie?
"Regardless of which version of the movie you prefer, they both do a very good job of portraying ..." http://movies.allwomenstalk.com/movies-about-international-politics/showall#page2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.177.40.11 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

an ignorant question...
From just reading the article I am assuming that this movie was released in 1962 in Black & White, not in color. But looking all over the article to find some confirmation of this assumption, I couldn't find any clear indication that would confirm it beyond a doubt. Since I know of some other 1963 films that were released in color, I am curious as to the question of when films in the US started being released mostly in color, as opposed to black & white. Also, I am wondering if Wikipedia should have some place in its movie pages that would indicate what type of technology was used to film the movie and to release it for public viewing. I'd appreciate any clues as to these rather ignorant questions and suggestions. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 21:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After almost half a year without a reply to my question, I am able to now finally answer it. By going to the link at the bottom of the page to the TCM Movie Database, I was able to confirm my initial suspicion. The 1962 movie was still in Black & White. Color movies started to be released in the US only in 1963. I would still be interested to know what month, and what movie, was the first US release of a color movie. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 22:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Color did not simply replace black and white in American movies. For example, both Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz were released in color, I believe in 1939.  For a period of over 20 years both technologies were used.  In many cases black and white was chosen simply because it was less expensive.  Jayscore (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional detail. I was not aware of it. The subject in general is an interesting study, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The train conversation
I sure hope some day somebody finds a RS that explains the meaning and purpose of the train conversation. While it isn't jibberish, it appears to contain some odd words and sentences, that presumably are some kind of code. But for what? What is the point of the Rose character? Notice that she meets a complete stranger, and even though behaves very strangely, she goes out of her way to make sure that Marco remembers her phone number and address. What woman does that? She has to be an agent, but for whom? If she is supposed to look out for Marco, why does she do so little in the film? Surely somebody somewhere can find the answer to this question. __64.82.141.78 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)