The MoFo Top 100 of the 60s: Countdown

The Manchurian Candidate stars Frank Sinatra and is fairly popular on this forum. I know I've been saying this a lot lately, but I feel it deserves another watch. I feel like it might be like the film I watched earlier for this challenge, Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, which improves anytime I think about it. The film was released five years after the second red scare, but has it's share of anti-communism propaganda. But it was presented in such a wholesome way, that I loved it. The scene where Raymond (Laurence Harvey) was hospitalized was talented in a comical sense. The ending was also terrific, but I think it's the only twist I didn't predict beforehand. The film handles the idea of brain wash and communism, and it doesn't feel dated! That's perhaps its greatest accomplishment. Which is odd since it was only released a year later than The Young Savages.

Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it

The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer, 1962) +
Why don't they make awesome trailers like this anymore?

I've only recently learned that there are a few serious movie lovers who apparently believe this masterpiece is undeserving of what I consider its well-merited praise. This is one of those films which I gave a perfect 10/10 the first time I watched it (I believe I may have done that 25 times or so in my entire life), and although I love it just as much now as I did the first time, it's helped me to develop my rating system (which I realize you guys don't especially like, but remember about the +1 and -1 I've mentioned around several times).

Anyway, this is where I'd usually waste a paragraph detailing the plot, but if you know the plot, you know that's heresy, and if you don't know the plot, I accept your thanks here and now. How about I talk about various details. First off, let me discuss what "genre" this film belongs to: political satire, thriller, science fiction, black comedy, film noir, tragedy, mystery, family drama, and that's just a start. Second, what about the acting in this flick? Laurence Harvey only got one Oscar nom for Best Actor (Room at the Top), but even using Holden's criteria, he should have received one for this. Frank Sinatra may have never done a better-acted scene than the finale of this film. Sinatra and Janet Leigh have always been singled out in the past for having crazy scenes together. In the past, that usually meant bad, but today, it most certainly better mean good. Angela Lansbury is mind-boggling as Harvey's mom who really propels the plot along. If you're a straight male and you don't fall in love with Leslie Parrish, I don't know what to say... John McGiver, who was so memorable in George Axelrod's previous script (Breakfast at Tiffany's) is equally wonderful here, and James Gregory is a hoot and a half as Lansbury's Senator husband and Harvey's stepfather who does his best Joseph McCarthy as an Idiot impression ("There are exactly 57 card-carrying Communists in the State Dept.")

Third, I personally call John Frankenheimer's direction "visionary and epic" since that covers most of the other words I want to use. The novel by Richard Condon is brilliant, so if you're the director, it's just such a juicy chance to try to match it with your own personality. Frankenheimer immediately begns the film in utter mystery. Although we know we're in the Korean War in 1952, what happens in the first five minutes throws the audience for such a loop that maybe they'll fall out of the plane. Frankenheimer uses day for night and incredible lighting to get across something bad happening involving the Commies. It's only later, in one of the wittiest visual scenes ever conceived (with awesome production design by Richard Sylbert) that we understand that the plot involves brainwashing. Lionel Lindon's circular photography is incredible here, and later on, his deep focus lensing kicks in just to show you that there are others besides Gregg Toland who are experts at the technique.

Two other things which highlight why Frankenheimer was robbed of a Best Director nomination (he never got one!!) are his use of live video feeds and his incredible work with film editor Ferris Webster. In this film and Seven Days in May, Frankenheimer went out of his way to be one of the first theatrical feature directors to utilize video/TV monitors to its fullest. The press conference in this film, where Gregory first announces that there are Communists in the State Dept. is a perfect example but it's used again during the nominating convention at the film's conclusion. Another thing which Frankenheimer (and his fans) can be proud of is his use of slow fade-out pan shots to transition between scenes. He used this technique quite well in his previous Birdman of Alcatraz, but no one I know of has ever used the technique more-powerfully than he did during the scene where the Harvey character transitions from being loathsome into someone we can all feel sorry for, and that's the scene where he meets the Parrish character, who becomes the love of his life. A director has to be a magician to turn someone you want to hate into someone you really care about.

Other things of note include that this movie contained one of the first martial arts fights in a big American film. Yes, it's true that Sinatra broke his hand when he chopped through that coffee table, but he kept on fighting anyway. I have so much more to say but I'm trying to keep it spoiler-less. The only other thing I'll say is that I love David Amram's musical score, but I can't find a good example of it unfortunately.

Peeping Tom (1960) +



Visual storytelling genius Michael Powell teamed up with scripter Leo Marks to make this audacious film which predated Psycho by months and was lambasted by the British critics as a "sexual snuff" film at the time of its release. In fact, after making one more film in England, this film's notoriety basically exiled the Master to Australia. Today, many of those same critics call it a masterpiece, and whatever you think about it, it's one of the most original and bizarre flicks ever made. Peeping Tom almost ranks up there with The Red Shoes as Powell's most-all-encompassing fever dream. When I say fever, I mean that the entire film is embued with red lights and it undoubtedly inspired such directors as Mario Bava and Dario Argento in the use of their color palette and their subjective camerawork.



The thing about this Powell movie which got him into so much trouble was that no matter how cinematic his images were, the critics only saw prostitutes, murder, sick-and-twisted father/son relationships, unhealthy preoccupation with sex and death, and here's the kicker: the fact that Powell himself played the twisted scientist father and had his own son play his son at an early age as a victim of his father's abuse. The psychological underpinnings of the main character's actions, which are far more developed than those of Norman Bates, didn't count for much for the lynch mob critical community, even though Hitch came along a few months later and made them come up with excuses for him. The problem is that no matter what Powell accomplished in his film, he didn't film the flourishes that Hitch did with a far-more unexplainable story (even though some "psychiatrist" tries to explain Norman's motivations at the end of Psycho). Norman Bates is a sympathetic character, but there's no way he's more sympathetic than Mark Lewis in Peeping Tom. Even so, it's quite an accomplishment for both Powell and Hitch to put out such films so close together in the prehistoric year of 1960. It's just sad that the proven genius Powell was turned into a pariah while the proven genius Hitchcock became a millionaire.

Manchurian Candidate is boring.