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.
No comments:
Post a Comment