The Manchurian Candidate--A Critical Look At Institutions

The Manchurian Candidate, a film which encouraged viewers to take a critical look at their governmental officials and the legitimacy of the Red Scare, radically differed from Frank Sinatra's earlier films such as From Here to Eternity as well as Kings Go Forth which held political messages. The plot of The Manchurian Candidate could have caused viewers to fear the government and see corruption which not only existed in the government but also through the ranks of the military. Surprisingly seldom in many earlier wartime movies are soldiers shown as what they can be at their most basic--killing machines. By having the main character be brainwashed into being an assassin who murdered people without guilt or fear, viewers saw the government and the United States as being more fragile and much more easily manipulated than they may have believed. From Here to Eternity also takes a deeper look at military life and highlights the corruption which could occur with higher ranking officers, yet the corruption and the injustice is shown as being from an individual person rather than the institution. Therefore, From Here to Eternity addresses the flaws in an organization and the organization's failure to recognize corrupt leaders, but the institution is not called into question and isn't subject to manipulation. Kings Go Forth reveals very little about the military and the government; instead, Kings Go Forth highlights the social issue of racism and how much it can impact one's decisions with relationships. Of all three films, The Manchurian Candidate was the most radical of the three films. Introducing the possibility of conspiracy theories in the government and the military during a period of heightened tension and the fear of nuclear attack would be the most likely to scare the population at the time.

In regards to the politics of the film, The Manchurian Candidate would qualify as a more leftist film because it called into question the institutions of the government and the military which citizens would hope was far less corrupt than portrayed in the film; however, it did demonize the woman who sought to control the government and institute radical changes which may have been similar to Communism. Sinatra's character played the role of the seemingly psychologically troubled and critical major in the military. If one were to determine if his character had leftist overtones, it would be necessary to define "leftist". If it were defined as wanting the radical changes in the government and wanting change, then no, he would not be considered leftist. He wanted to preserve and protect the institutions, riding them of corruption--which seemed to be coming from the newer politicians. If being critical of political leaders and rebelling against his being sidelined for apparent mental issues designated him as more leftist, then Sinatra's character could be considered leftist. Since many good films which would be considered dramas provoke questioning of the status quo and institutions, most controversial films could be considered more leftist.

Sinatra's acting in his war films depends more upon his ability to convey meaning through calculated pauses and body movement than his ability to sing or his ability to crack jokes. In all three of the aforementioned war films, he talks less and does not seem to have a dominant personality. His ability to understand and win a woman is not integral to his role like it is in his musical roles. Perhaps because of the nature of musicals, Sinatra tends to come across as more of a character and more exaggerated than he does in his war films. Interestingly, he often is seen as a man in uniform in his earlier musicals yet his previous time in the service does not seem to change his temperament. He still retains his innocence in the musicals. In contrast, Sinatra's roles in his war films carry psychological and emotional burdens of being in the service. There is a much darker mood and an infusion of realism in Sinatra's war movies.

None But the Brave

SKIP FOR NOW...TWO MIDTERMS TOMORROW

Kings Go Forth: Addressing Racism

Before tackling the issue of race in this film, I want to first look at Sinatra’s role as Sam and how he seems more or less appealing with regards to masculinity in this film due to his relationship with Monique. Monique (played by Natalie Wood) fell head over heels for the much more dynamic yet dishonest Britt Harris (played by Tony Curtis). Even though Monique chose Britt over Sam (played by Frank Sinatra), the audience does not feel she made the better choice. The scene in which Britt breaks up the date between Sam and Britt gives the audience a glimpse of Britt’s flawed character. Britt literally steals the girl as if he had snatched the prize from his superior’s grasp. Sam seemed helpless to the situation yet skeptical of Britt’s intentions from the start. While one could interpret that Sam was portrayed as less attractive in this film because the film did not finish with his romantic future sealed, I believe that the audience was rooting for him throughout and his character seemed that much more attractive when situated next to Britt. Sam was a catch despite putting himself down, but Monique was naive. Perhaps contributing to the appeal of Sam’s character was how he was highly respected amongst his male peers for his leadership and honesty. Sam also showed a more sensitive side by such small things as stopping to take a drink from the old woman in the beginning of the film to show gratitude and acknowledging that he wept after hearing he was promoted during a conversation with Monique. Sam’s masculinity was much more complex because he was a sensitive and caring individual yet he had the strength to lead others when faced with death. His role seems like it would fit most closely to the ideal sensitive yet strong man that many women desire today.

In regards to the issue of race, I found Kings Go Forth to deliver the message with much more honesty and emotion than The House I Live In. This could be partly because Sinatra’s character in Kings Go Forth actually encounters the issue of race in his life and how he reacts to it could alter his life path. In The House I Live In, Frank Sinatra preaches about race to little kids. One film admits that racism is deeply ingrained in society and letting it go would be life-altering. The other short film however mentions racism under the larger umbrella of unjust discrimination and asserts that it is irrational; then, people are led to believe that they can just decide with a snap of their fingers that racism can just be undone, ignoring society’s racist ingrained beliefs at that period of history. The House I Live In reminds me of some Disney segment attempting to address racial inequality and racism; the message seems more commercialized and cheapened—less real. In both films, no characters were noticeably of color. The children were all white and were fighting over religion and racism got little mention in The House I Live In. Monique, who was supposedly half-black, had porcelain skin and dark eyes as well as hair. She apparently represented a hidden blackness; whereas all other characters were playing the parts of whites. Perhaps the casting of actual black actors or actresses would make the issue seem too real for the audience. In both films, Sinatra either mentioned or referred to his Italian American identity and how it gave him a different perspective on race. In Kings Go Forth, it added complexity to his decision to overcome his racist feelings towards Monique; Italian Americans pitted themselves against African Americans where he had grown up. In contrast, Sinatra reflected on his racial background and how it helped him understand how hurtful and unnecessary racial divides were in The House I Live In.