"To prefer evil to good is not in human nature; and when a man is compelled to choose one of two evils, no one will choose the greater when he may have the less." ~ Socrates
It's the day of the 2004 presidential election. People swarm into public school gymnasiums, fill the voting booths, and escape a while later into the crisp autumn air. The trees have turned and the streets are covered in reddish-brown debris and yet, America is tense today. Today, the day when many people find out whether all of their efforts have been in vain. Today is the day when the future of America is decided. Today is not just any day; it has the power to change Tomorrow.
With so much riding on the 2004 election it is not surprising to find that presidential campaigns have gone to a whole new level. People are using media that has never been used before to express their opinions about the election.
The Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 about the September 11th attack and the war that followed was a big step in using popular media to present political issues. That film was intended to swing votes away from President Bush by examining closely many of the mistakes he made during his presidency.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is the first example of a movie trying to have a direct impact on an election. It is a documentary which was made to articulate Michael Moore's feelings on certain political issues for the general public. Because it is an independent film it is not so surprising that it is also biased. Unfortunately political propaganda has invaded mainstream movies as well, where people are not prepared for it and the messages are more subtle and difficult to discern.
I was shocked and appalled to see a mainstream movie filled with political messages where there didn't need to be any. After watching the 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate the only question that I am left with is whether the movie was meant to reflect the way Americans feel about terrorism or instill in us a fear of terrorism which would cause the election results to lean favorably towards George W. Bush.
The original 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate starred Lawrence Harvey, Frank Sinatra, and Angela Lansbury. People Magazine acclaimed it "The most poundingly suspenseful political thriller ever made". It is the story of a patrol kidnapped during combat in Korea. The men who are captured are hypnotized and made to believe that one of their men, Raymond Shaw, is the "kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being" they've ever known. One of the men, a Captain Bennett Marco, is responsible for recommending Raymond Shaw for a medal of honor. The Communists use these men, especially Raymond Shaw, to infiltrate the American government. Powerful and chilling, this movie makes us recall that Communism was a widespread fear of that time. One of the interesting things about this movie is that the Communists aren't the only enemy. Senator John Iselin, Raymond Shaw's stepfather, is a feeble-minded man whom the Communists use to instill fear the the community. He, although working with the Communist Party himself, points his finger at other members of the government and calls them Communists. By doing this he draws the attention away from himself while instilling fear in the American public. Fear is a kind of power; if you can frighten people then you can control them, and John Iselin knows that.
The new version of this film was released this past summer, July 30, 2004. Having seen and loved the original, I ventured out to see the modern interpretation of Richard Condon's novel. Although Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep both did well in living up to their predecessors, Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury respectively, the film itself failed to even approach the level of the original. It was an atrocity; its origins were hardly visible. The story had been altered so that modern audiences would find it easier to relate to. The once powerful and moving script was changed, and suddenly much of the compelling magic of the original film was lost. The makers of the new Manchurian Candidate changed the war in the movie from the Korean war to the Gulf war and changed the criminals from Communists into Iraqi terrorists! The first thing I thought was "How could they do this to a classic?" It all became clear, though, as I thought about world politics today.
President George W. Bush is up for re-election this November, and one of his biggest praises as well as criticisms is the war he started. America is torn between a fear of the Middle-East and a yearning for a benevolent image. The media has decided to capitalize on this split in American culture. By making a movie about terrorism and the government Hollywood can easily capture the attention of citizens across the country. This movie reveals a basic fear of cultures different from our own.
After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia American's were terrified that a similar thing was going to happen in the United States. The remake of The Manchurian Candidate focuses not on the at least understandable fear of Communism but instead on a fear that terrorists are trying to infiltrate the American government. While somewhat topical this fear is completely unfounded if only because terrorists don't attack subversively.
The Iraqi people in The Manchurian Candidate are represented in a very stereotypical fashion, and of course in a frightening manner. They all wear turbans, and the American officers are tortured and brainwashed on a desolate island. Fear often decides for us, and it is beneficial to the media to play on such fears. After the September 11th attack people became afraid of anyone who wasn't European or American, although many were afraid before that, and the media took advantage of our fear to make The Manchurian Candidate . The Iraqi people don't want to control our government; they just don't want us to control theirs.
Returning to my original question of whether this film was meant to reflect the opinion of American society or change it, I believe the answer to be both. I think the writers had in mind that the film would please people who believed in the war's causes because it would justify their arguments. People who already fear that societies in the Middle East plan to infiltrate America and bring us down would find it chilling but also pleasing in that it would show how right they are. Finally, the film was meant to convince people who were against the war of its purpose. By showing a conspiracy amongst the Iraqi people to infiltrate the American government, the film focuses on America's relationship with Iraq. Suddenly the war doesn't seem like such a bad idea, almost necessary in fact.
We have to take into account the fact that the movie is just that, a movie. It wasn't meant to brainwash society and it wasn't produced by the Republican National Committee (to my knowledge). I realize that Hollywood probably thought it would be easier to relate to if it weren't about Communism because the Red Scare of the nineteen-fifties took place before most of the audience were born. The original movie worked so well because it involved communism, which was a serious concern in America for many years. When the original movie came out, blacklisting was still an important thing and people were just getting over the McCarthy era. The way the movie made fun of Senator Iselin is interesting because it was the first movie to challenge the McCarthy methods.
I personally have never had any fear of Communism, but I've never been afraid of Iraq either. The change in theme, although understandable, removed a lot of the verisimilitude that the original work had going for it. Thus the new film seemed only to propagate the idea that the people of the Middle East are not to be trusted. It is a shame that Americans are not more open to different cultures because times like these are times for understanding and accepting other cultures, not alienating them. In fact if we understood more about the way the rest of the world worked and thought, perhaps we could have avoided some of the hatred that was aimed at us on September 11, 2001.
There is no way for America to bridge the gap between itself and the rest of the world if it cannot learn about other cultures, and by doing so accept them. The Manchurian Candidate doesn't emphasize the moral obligation that America has because of its power, which is to learn about the people around us.
Socrates raises an important point in the quotation I've used as an epigraph. He explains that people are not inherently evil and that all men will choose the path that they see to be the lesser of two evils. This is important because Americans have a tendency to think of countries and cultures which disagree with us as evil when the fact is that they just have a different outlook on the world. It is wrong for the media to propagate the idea that the people of Iraq are evil. It is wrong to try to change the opinions of the masses through dishonest means. Integrity is an important thing and I felt personally let down by Hollywood when they destroyed this classic. The media's urge to cash in on current events produces movies which are morally reprehensible and lacking in quality.
|