A great thriller, but one that is pretty even-handed. Sure, the anti-Communist characters are portrayed as evil and idiotic...but there are also incredibily sinister Communists.

Laurence Harvey is incredibly unlikeable as Raymond, but he's supposed to be. Frank Sinatra plays a more tightly-directed version of his usual character, and does very well (from the looks of this, he [and Harvey] would be terrific in Hitchcock). Angela Lansbury smashes any "Murder, She Wrote" conceptions of her character, and James Gregory is a hoot as the McCarthyish character.

SPOILERS

Now, for my take on the most common criticisms.

"What's the point of Janet Leigh's character?"
Like some critics, I think she is Frank Sinatra's American controller. The Chinese found out that the Iselins were betraying them, so they used Leigh to control Sinatra, having him deprogram Harvey, so he could eliminate the Iselins (and likely kill himself), destroying all evidence.

"The left-wing characters are as unlikeable as the right-wing characters"
This is intentional. The film is trying to portray, I believe, that politics is just a facade. The only truly good character in the film is Frank Sinatra's. Hmm...

I read Richard Condon's original novel some ten
years ago. I don't recall who, in the book, was
Sinatra's controller, but it wasn't Janet Leigh.
Judging by the novel (and my recollection of it,
lousy as that might be), the purpose of Leigh's
was to have a humanizing effect on Laurence Harvey's character. Throughout movie and book Harvey's character is protrayed as unemotional and
detached. He does not connect well with his fellow
human beings. Janet Leigh was one of the exceptions. Sinatra, the other.

Also, it is the fact that Harvey kills her, the one person he truly loves (he finds Sinatra tolerable), that causes him to go against his pro-
gramming and kill his step-father, James Gregory.

I love this movie. I recorded it off AMC last night but I haven't had the chance to watch the
tape. I also recommend Condon's novel.

Happy New Year and Happy Y2K everyone! ("It's the end of the world as we know it./It's the end of the world as we know it./It's the end of the world
as we know it./And I feel fine.")

Oh yeah! A little trivia I forgot to post: Angela
Landsbury wasn't that much older than her son,
Laurence Harvey.

I do think that Janet Leigh is Sinatra's handler, but let me offer another, less attractive theory. Remember that for most of the movie we don't know that the Commie Mommie is behind the plot. Maybe Leigh is just a plain old red herring.

Waitaminnit! Was Janet Leigh Sinatra's girlfriend,
or Harvey's? Because if she's Sinatra's then I really feel like a complete and total idiot and
most definitely should be taken and shot, just to put me out of my(and everyone else's) misery! (Now I have really got to watch that video before
I shove my foot further down my throat. Sheesh!)

Yeah, I thought that's what you meant. Leslie Parrish played Harvey's girlfriend, I believe.

Yeah. I've started rewatching it. Janet Leigh has
just appeared. For some reason her role reminds me
of Piper Laurie's role in "The Hustler". It may be
that just as Paul Newman meets Laurie at the bus
depot, so too, does Sinatra meet Leigh in connection with a mode of transportation. Of course, bizarrely enough, the fight scene between
Marco (Sinatra) and the Korean translator reminds
me of those fights Closeau used to have with Cato.
I have no idea why I make those associations.

Of course, the description of Shaw that Marco and
the black guy (can't remember his name) recite
brings to mind an episode of "WKRP" where Herb
Tarlek and his family go on that show "Real Families". Herb had the staff memorize a description of him they can recite for the program. Of course, they all say it in a perfunctory manner. It brings to mind a possible nit. Was Captain Marco the only one debriefed by
the Army about their "rescue"? If not, then would
not the other members of the squad have given the
same description verbatim? Wouldn't, shouldn't that have struck someone as strange? And that may
be something's not quite right? Morever, I would
imagine that Raymond went through basic training
with other recruits, under other officers. Surely
they did not describe Shaw as "the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful man (they) know".

Also during the flower lecture/demonstration dream
sequence Dr. (Professor? Mister?) Chen tells Shaw
to sit by him. Raymond automatically begins to mime the playing of solitaire. Yet throughout the remainder of the movie, Shaw plays solitaire only
when specifically commanded to. I hate pointing out this nit, because these scenes are among the
best in cinema. Director John Frankeheimer bounces
the scenes back and forth between the reality (Chen is giving a lecture on how the American sol-
diers are brainwashed) and what Marco and his com-
pany think they are experiencing (a group of old
biddies listening to a lecture on horticulture)very smoothly.It's very, very well done.

I also like the scene where Iselin (James Gregory)
accuses the congressman of having Communists on
staff. Frankenheimer use of the TV screens is ex-
cellent. There are a lot of nice shots such as those. It's a shame this movie hasn't been given
more respect.

By the way, I know Leslie Parrish was on "The Wild, Wild West", (as was James Gregory) but wasn't she on STAR TREK, too (as was James Gregory)?

I still feel like a dork for forgetting about Janet Leigh.

Ach! I just found out another error I've made. An-
gela Landsbury was YOUNGER than her fictional son,
Laurence Harvey. Not the other way around. I knew
there was something unusual about their age differ
-ences.

I pointed it out on the ST:VI board but I'll do so again here. The ending of STIV HAS to be a rip off/tribute to this movie.

Actually, the assasination scene reminds me of the
one at the end of "The Parallax View". And the bit
with Raymond jumping into the lake is reminiscent
of a similar scene in Hitchcock's "Vertigo". That
is not to take away from this movie at all. I think it's great.

I don't think Janet Leigh's character is meant to
be Maj. Marco's operator. She knows what Ben (the name has familiar ring to it. Very familiar as my
full first name is also Bennett. Anyway...) she
knows what Ben is up to (stopping Shaw). Yet, she
does nothing to prevent it. Apparently she does not report it to her superiors either as they do
nothing to stop Major Marco from tampering with
Shaw.

From all appearances, Chen had brainwashed Marco
and his men as much as they could: that they were
attending a flower lecture in New Jersey while
waiting for the rain to stop and that Shaw had
saved their lives and was "the kindest, bravest,
warmest, most wonderful human being" they ever met in their lives. Raymond's the one the Communists need. Marco and company, by insuring that Shaw would win the Congressional Medal of Honor, had fulfilled their mission. The Commies needed an assassin and Shaw was it.Marco was no longer useful to them.

So what was Janet's character's purpose? I'm a bit
fuzzy on this and haven't fully fleshed out my theory, but my guess is she's meant to mirror Les-
lie Parrish's character and help draw parallels be
-tween Marco and Shaw. Both are blondes. Shortly
after Raymond meets her, he asks Leslie Parrish's
character to marry him. Marco does the same with
Leigh. What made me think of this mirroring theory
is the characters' names. Leslie Parrish's character's is Josie, short for Jocelyn. Janet's is Rosie, short for Rosilyn.

Anyway, it's just an idea. (And yes, I have finally watched all of it again.)

In "I Am Spock", Nimoy comments that as producer, he wanted to explore Klingon culture in STVI a bit more, but Nick Meyer as director overrode him, and since NM was the director, he won. Nimoy coments that the resulting movie was essentially a "Manchurian Candidate in outer space".

Don't remember that line in Nimoy's book, but I
should point out a major (and obvious) difference
between "The Manchurian Candidate" and Trek VI;
Scotty stopped the assassination from happening.
No one was killed by the assassin. Marco does not
succeed in preventing Raymond from killing, even
if it is only his mother and step-father. In "The
Parralax View", Warren Beatty also fails to stop
the assassination at the end of the movie. That's
why I draw the parallel between the two. Trek VI
may be similar I agree, but not quite the same.

Some have pointed out that Gregory is basically playing an evil Inspector Luger from "Barney Miller" in this film. Whatever--his rather blatant Joe McCarthy character is probably the funniest in the picture. Either that or the one black soldier who has the funniest delivery of "Raymond Shaw is the warmest, kindest..."

*Raymond Shaw's accent seems to change as the movie goes on.
*Another reason why Janet Leigh is in the movie. Perhaps for a star draw? And if only a spooky hotel clerk menaced her...then, all three of her most highly-regarded films would have something in common.
*The guy playing the Chinese scientist is fantastic. It's a shame that these top-notch Oriental actors were only used in dramas--the ones used in the comedies of the time were pitiful.
*And yes, that fight did remind me of the Pink Panther films...either that or "Monty Python". I mean "What was Raymond doing with his hands?" and "How did the old ladies turn into Russians?" sound kind of ludicrous, outside of the film.

Yeah, I see a touch a touch of Inspector Luger in
James Gregory's portrayal of Johnny Iselin. What's
amusing to me is at the costume party, Iselin is
dressed as Abraham Lincoln. Years later he would
be one of the actors to play Ulysses S. Grant on
the "Wild, Wild West". At least he did 'em in chronological order.

In case anyone is interested, my webpage has a bunch of new things on it. http://welcome.to/brianwebber.com

The thing that always struck me odd about the fight scene was the dialogue. Watch it closely, you never see Sinatra saying the words until his mouth is covered or his face is out of the picture. The only time you see him saying any of the lines is at the very end where he's kicking the guy on the floor and a couple other guys come bursting in.

I always wondered if those lines were looped later to help explain to the audience why he was beating the **** out of the guy.

I just wanted to clear one thing up before I give my nit. A lot of people are wondering why Janet Leigh is in the movie because of the lack of both cemistry with Sinatra and plotting with her character in this picture. The reason is at this time it was felt that for a lead male character to not have a girlfiend/wife that the character must be gay. I know it sound silly but remember Disney had to deal with this during the Lion King because Scar wasn't seen with a mate.
Anyway on to the nit. Why doesn't Sinatra just tail the other character. He promises not to knowing full well what is going to occur. The only reason I can think of is that the movie might end right there.

Derek: I've thought about what you've said was the
reason was for Janet Leigh's presence in this movie and I don't think it makes that much sense. I mean, it IS possible, but then when you look at
films like "The Great Escape" (another early '60's
movie) or any number of westerns, there were a lot
single men in them with no romantic attachments.
"The Great Escape" in particular has no women in it. Besides, how many Americans in those days would even dream of thinking of Ol' Blue Eyes as
being gay. I would think his rep alone would go far to abolish that idea. Still the romance angle
does have it's merits. It was common pratice in those days (and to an extent nowadays) to throw in
a romance to bring in the female movie goers. It
happened a lot to the Marx Brothers.

Flipped through Kitty Kelley's bio of Sinatra, "My Way". In the index I looked up "The Machurian Candidate" and "Janet Leigh". The closest it comes to giving an explanation for Leigh's presence in the film is when JFK asked someone if Ol' Blue Eyes was dating Janet Leigh. If this is true, then the reason Janet Leigh's in the movie is because The Chairman of the Board wanted his girlfriend in it.

Speaking of Peary, try to read his Cult Movies books. The essays are fantastic.

Love 'em!! They're three of my favorite movie reference books. (John Eastman's "Retakes" is another.)(But I tend towards things that have a cult following anyway.)

Hmm... I seem to have posted this on the wrong board? Wasn't somebody talking about Alternative Oscars somewhere? No matter. I've never found Cult Movies 3 - what's in it?

Ah, it was for Strangers on a Train. I guess I had both windows open at once and left a message on the wrong one. I won't bother fixing it.

Yeah, Murray, I was the one talking about "Alternate Oscars". "Cult Movies 3" has in it "American Werewolf in London", "Annie Hall", "Blade Runner", "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", "Dr. Strangelove", "Easy Rider", "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!", "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes", "Glen or Glenda?", "The Gods Must Be Crazy", "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", "Miracle on 34th Street", "Monsieur Verdoux", "New York, New York", "Night of the Hunter", "Now, Voyager", "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "One-Eyed Jacks", "Over the Edge", "Psycho", "The Quiet Man", "The Road Warrior", "Seconds", "Sons of the Desert", "The Terminator", "The Thief of Bagdad", "The Thing" and "Touch of Evil" among others.

My regret is that there isn't a volume 4.

Just re-read Condon's original novel. I can tell you, that going by the book, Janet Leigh's character, Rose Cheyney, was not Ben Marco's American operator.

It is worth reading the book incidentally. The movie took a good 90% of the novel as its source, changing a scene here and there, yet it does retain most of the book's dialogue.

I also got this movie on DVD and noticed an interesting nit. In the scene where Marco is being showed pictures to identify the Commies of his dreams, he stops one (Berezovo, I believe)on the right side of the screen. A few more, then he stops another on the left. The camera cuts away to a coupla close-ups, then you get the shot of Sinatra in front of the photo-projections. Look carefully, the one on the left, the Commie with the kids around him, was originally facing towards the right. It now faces left. The flopped the transparency.

Just saw this for the second time last weekend. Unfortunately I watched it "live", not taped, so I'm working from memory and I believe I found a couple nits!

When Marco is playing Solitaire trying to figure out how it affects Shaw, the black officer tells him to put the black 6 on the red 7. Trying to watch the movie and remember how Solitaire is played, apparently in that version you go from higher to lower. Yet later in the scene he says something like "The red 7 goes on the black 6", which is the opposite, counting up.

I saw one shot that made me laugh, unintentionally. There is a scene where Shaw is eating dinner with Senator Jordan and his daughter. They are laughing, and he takes a piece of steak (or whatever) and sticks it in his mouth. At this point, they must have needed a few more seconds for a transition in the film, because the film reverses, and it looks like he horfs up the food, puts it back on his fork, and back on the plate!! (Shades of Red Dwarf's Backwards episode).

Another scene that gave me a big laugh (intended this time). Isling is bugging his wife to just give him a specific number to use of communists in the government. There is (what I thought) an odd shot of him putting ketchup on his steak. I thought it was just to show how much of a buffoon he was (ketchup on steak?). Cut to him on a podium in the Senate, belligerently shouting, "There are exactly 57 known Communists..." If you don't get it, look closely at a bottle of Heinz sometime.

Reading some of the above, I have a suspicion that Janet Leigh may have been an American operative after all. Some of the information she gives in the train conversation is suspect, and I remember at one point she made a (joking) allusion to growing up in China, or some such.

This is an amazing movie --I love the long, uncut scenes, the way a lot of them are shot, etc. I enjoyed it even more the second time, I think. Unfortunately, the first time I saw it -- the preview right before the movie showed a quick clip of the climactic scene at the convention, so the major surprises were all given away.

Rumour has it that the reason this movie wasn't shown for so long is that Frank Sinatra locked it away when his good friend, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated. The subject matter was just too close to home for him at that time.

Not sure if this rumour is true or not.

Pretty sure that rumor was debunked.

Oh