The machinations and paranoia that grow out of political ambition are nothing new and this may be why a movie like The Manchurian Candidate continues to feel contemporary. Although some visual elements (mainly the awful title sequence) seem dated, the story certainly does not and John Frankenheimer’s visual style does not. And the choice of going black and white is appropriate to the subject.

An American military patrol is captured in Korea. Unconscious, they are taken away – I’m not sure the film ever says where. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that while captive they undergo psychological conditioning. They are “brainwashed.” One in particular, Sgt. Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) is conditioned to be an assassin.

They are then sent back. In the United States, Sgt. Shaw is a hero receiving medals and accolades though he seems oddly put out by it.

We know Sgt. Shaw has been conditioned to kill on command but we do not know who or what his target is.

His ambitious mother (Angela Lansbury) seizes the moment to help promote her husband and political puppet Sen. John Yerkes Iselin (James Gregory), eventually for the country’s highest office.

Meanwhile other members of the patrol have returned and experience recurring nightmares, including Maj. Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra). Because of the way the film begins, we know his nightmares reflect memories of the conditioning experience he had while a prisoner. We see Marco struggling with his nightmares and eventually follow him as he uncovers their meaning.

All of this is played out against a background of Communist paranoia (McCarthyism), which Angela Lansbury and her husband are exploiting to achieve their ends.

Frankenheimer’s direction and the George Axelrod script capture the paranoiac feel of the story by interweaving the realistic and the surrealistic. There is a great early scene where the prisoners, following their conditioning, are tested by their captors. Frankenheimer cuts between what is real and what the prisoners think they are experiencing (a ladies’ flower show) in a way that jumbles your impression of what is true and what is not.

The camera also captures the movie’s theme of disjointed reality with off-centre camera angles and a claustrophobic look to many scenes. There are a lot of close-ups and medium shots where we see characters, like Sinatra, with faces gleaming from nervous perspiration.

And all the performances are excellent, including Sinatra’s confused and anxious Major Marco.

The best performances though belong to Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury. They are both riveting.

Harvey plays his mother-dominated Sgt. Shaw supremely and his transition to someone under the influence of another’s psychological suggestion is scary.

Lansbury, for her part, is also scary in her portrayal of a woman single-mindedly determined to achieve her ends. She is almost sociopathic in her indifference to the welfare of anyone else, including her own son, as she pursues her goals.

The Manchurian Candidate is that rare cinematic beast, a movie in which style and content not only coexist but inform one another to make a better film. It’s also rare in that it is a political film that is actually interesting, perhaps because it resists the desire to be didactic.

For a variety of reasons I’ve had difficulty lately getting back into my movie watching routine which used to be almost a movie a night. The reviews I’ve written account for only a small number of the movies I’ve actually watched. I had the best intentions but I never did write about a great movie, The Contender (2000). Or do that review of all three Bourne movies.

I tried to kickstart things last night by watching The Seven Year Itch (1955). Bad idea.

I was hoping to watch something fabulous to reinvigorate my movie watching habit. It didn’t work out that way. My choice was poorly made. A bad decision. Although, there is the possibility it worked in an “end around” kind of way. Maybe it will kickstart things by focusing me on finding something fabulous. God knows, I know they are there. I think I’ll try again tonight. If you’ve any suggestions on what to watch, feel free to pass them along in the comments. In the meantime …

I did post a few reviews, including one I wrote this morning on the above mentioned movie. Those reviews are:

• The Seven Year Itch (1955)
• River of No Return (1954)

A couple of notes … if you’re not aware, you may be interested to know The Seven Year Itch was directed by Billy Wilder, script by George Axelrod and Wilder. And River of No Return stars Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum.

There are essentially two reasons. The first is that it comes across as dated, very dated. It’s one of those movies that you had to see in the moment, by which I mean the mid-1950s, when it was made. It relies on a number of social and cultural touchstones (like a reference to a scene from the movie From Here to Eternity as well as to attitudes about urban life and the workplace).

The second reason has to do with the script and a device, or conceit, the film uses which is the ongoing monologue of the character Richard Sherman (played by Tom Ewell). The device is due to the fact that the script is based on a stage play, George Axelrod’s of the same name. It probably worked better, and was even a necessity, for the stage. On film, however, I found it annoying very quickly and also found it a constant reminder that I was watching a play put on film, not an original screenplay – a movie.

A lot of the humour is dependent on the monologue and the many double takes, or double thinks (as in, “On the other hand …”), of Ewell’s character. Also, as mentioned, much of the humour is rooted in the period.

While director Billy Wilder (who was also co-writer with George Axelrod on the screenplay) tries to make this a movie, as opposed to a play on film, it’s that endless monologue that works against its cinematic aspect. Wilder uses some very visual scenes, like the famous vent blowing air up Marilyn Monroe’s dress, but it remains a play on film. If it were done today, I think, the first person perspective (of Ewell’s character) would be done with much less monologue, if any, and much more visually, using the camera to express perspective. (Don’t ask me how the humour would get worked in.)

Having said all that, there are some good aspects to the movie and they are primarily Tom Ewell and Marilyn Monroe – particularly Monroe. The plot is simple and stated well on IMDb: “When his family goes away for the summer, a so far faithful husband is tempted by a beautiful neighbor.”

Ewell (the husband) is wonderfully expressive, visually, as the corporate working schmo. I don’t recall what review I read it in but some reviewer referred to it as his, “hangdog expression,” and that’s it exactly. It’s perfect casting.

Also perfect is Marilyn Monroe (the neighbour) as the summer resident who movies in above Ewell’s apartment. With director Wilder, she is really parodying her image as a sexpot. In fact, when watching the movie the only time I find it really engages my interest is when Monroe appears. She plays it dead on – that is, over the top without going too overboard.

In the end, however, it’s a period film, contemporary only when it was made and not a movie that aged well.