Posted on 08/03/2004 6:45:26 AM PDT by Area Freeper
Are we too paranoid? Or not paranoid enough?
The key to effective fear is knowing what's real - who's really out to get you. In George W. Bush's case, it's the media culture that's on his case.
The just-released remake of "The Manchurian Candidate" spins the politics of the original. Whereas the 1962 film imagined that the Red Chinese were plotting to kill a president, in the new film the villainous would-be assassins are capitalists, not Communists.
The 2004 movie imagines "Manchurian Global" as a multinational company. Indeed, the filmmakers have imagined the company so well that Paramount Studios has even created a faux Web site, www.manchurianglobal.com. Cunningly, the site appears legit until one looks closely: the company's "CEO" says, "Creating one world under skilled management was the dream of Alexander the Great. Let's follow him."
Of course, Manchurian, in all its bloodthirsty ambition, is intended as a parody of two firms closely associated with the Bush-Cheney administration, The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. To drill the point home, one evildoer lays out the plot: to install "the first privately owned and operated vice president of the United States."
Director Jonathan Demme barely bothers to hide his political motivations. "The very notion that there are corporations that get obscenely rich off of war," he told National Public Radio, "there's something unpleasant about that in the extreme." Another hint to the filmgoer: the onscreen presence of comedian/liberal activist Al Franken.
The "Manchurian" message is, overwhelmingly, that the U.S. government is stoking fear at home - and jacking up military spending - by fighting wars abroad. An oft-heard slogan in the movie is "compassionate vigilance," an obvious play on Bushite "compassionate conservatism."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I had this one pegged as a Bush hit piece from the second I saw the first trailer. Hollywood in general is making me sick lately
How is this different from the Sinatra version, in which a drunken McCarthy clone can't decide how many Communists he knows are in the state department until a ketchup bottle makes him settle on 57?
If they had let the public know he was in it, it may have flopped even worse.
The movie cost $80MM.
It made $20.2MM its first weekend, despite starring Denzel Washington (biggest draw in the black community) and Meryl Streep (one of the biggest draws in the pretentious soccer mom community).
This means that it probably won't make more than $50MM at the box office.
I guess if the producers lobby the Academy hard enough they could get some Oscar nomination bounce.
I would bet money that Michael Moore has made more money off the war than any single shareholder of any corporation in the USA.
Damn, I forgot Al Franken was in the movie. What a piece of #$@%#!.
Heinz 57? As in John Kerry-Heinz? Coincidence?
I had it pegged the minute I saw the title. Why remake a perfect movie unless you have an agenda? If Hollywood remakes "Casablanca", you can bet it will be because they want to bash Bush. If they remake the "Wizard of Oz" it will be because they want to bash Bush. If they remake "Strange Brew"....
The acting in it was pure pastiche phoned in by the leads - only Sinatra shows hints of spark.
The plot was as boringly leftist for its day as this one is for ours, the writing was poor, and the cinematography was pretty weak.
I wouldn't know. I haven't seen the Sinatra version. But a wild guess would be mostly timing and the fact that Dems tend to place the Republicans in bed with the Evil Corporations.
My son goes at least once a week with a whole bunch of friends to the movies. After seeing "Hidalgo", they always come to me first. If I nix the movie as a liberal hit piece, they don't go.
I told them not to see this one, and they chose another one this week. Ah, the power. It's not much but there were 6 in their group this week.
You're probably right. Maybe some union pension funds made more money, but no one individual.
Funny, I thought it was Kofi Annan who said that.
Krupp, VW, IG Farbin, Mitsubishi, Dupont, Boeing, Northrup, TRW, Rolls Royce--just a few examples.
Even the guy that invented the Nobel Peace Prize made his money from the invention and sale of dynamite to all the European powers. This is so naive. The military-industrial complex (a term coined by Ike as he left office) is an important component of most developed economies. And it's the core of most developing countries.
Funny how the liberation of 50 million people, the usurping of a dictator, and the enriching of that fat tub of bile, Moore, are never mentioned as positive reasons for the war. I guess only Clinton wars are good.
Another hint to the filmgoer: the onscreen presence of comedian/liberal activist Al Franken.
Another hint to the filmgoer to just keep walking by.......
The "Manchurian" message is, overwhelmingly, that the U.S. government is stoking fear at home - and jacking up military spending - by fighting wars abroad.
From what I’ve heard, the terrorism movie from the South Park guys will have exactly the opposite message. Mocking all the liberal idiots of the world and relentlessly attacking the churlish and cowardly French. Not to mention the actual Islaminuts. I can’t wait to see it.
Must respectfully disagree - Lansbury is outstanding, and Lawrence Harvey's performance is heartbreaking.
The McCarthy stuff bothered me, but it didn't keep me from enjoying a really well-crafted Cold War thriller.
Don't let your politics keep you from enjoying great movies - there won't be any left for you to enjoy.
The movie was not a "hit piece" on George Bush. It was just not a very good movie.
Hillary was the only candidate that came to my mind during the movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.