Film Review by Columbia Jones
From Korea to KorporateAmerika:
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
Directed by Jonathan Demme
…Unfortunately, Demme gets a littletoo carried awaywith other, less inspired revisions, subjecting this "Candidate's"A-list cast to B-movie machinations such as secret labs behind bedroomwalls,credibility-stretching sci-fi brain implants, villainous mad scientistswithvague accents and Nazi comb-overs, and gimmicky, overly convenient plotdevicesthat defy common sense.1
The 2004 remake of JohnFrankenheimer’s 1962 Manchurian Candidate leapfrogs over thecomfortableold Cold War conception that “brainwashing” was something foreignersdid to“our boys,” then lands on both feet in the boardrooms of corporateAmerica.Implausible? Hardly. In an era wherein corporations rule nations andcreatewars to fill the coffers of weapons manufacturers and reconstructioncontracts,buying mind-controlled killers and leaders has only awaited thetechnology.Science fiction? Not at all. And while The Manchurian Candidate isfictional, what it alludes to is not.
First of all, the choice of directorindicates more than entertainment fare. Jonathan Demme’s award-winning,insightful documentaries such as SwimmingtoCambodia and the recentlyreleased TheAgronomist, coupled with thoughtful films such as Beloved, Philadelphia, andThe Silence of the Lambs, indicate that he is interested in probingboundaries, including (one might assume) the boundaries betweencorporations,politics, and the covert technology of mind control. Not a sciencefiction filmin the bunch.
Secondly, contraryto the fluff that passes for film reviews (such as the review the quoteaboveis from), films that shape public opinion about hot topics areexceedinglyinteresting to governments. Heinrich Goebbels, Hitler’s propagandaminister,understood this tenet of social engineering well and was a master atimplantingrepetitious words and symbols in film and newsprint that would stir theemotions he was after. Reach into the memory hole and pull out the BBCarticle,“Army turns to Hollywood for advice” (October8, 2001):“American intelligence specialists are reported to have ‘secretly’soughtadvice on handling terrorist attacks from Hollywood film-makers.”2George W. Bush sat on the board of Silver Screen Management, ColinPowell onthe board of Time-Warner. Since 1991, the CIA has had its ownEntertainmentLiaison Officer.3 And remember the release of Black HawkDown,the blatant re-write of American involvement in Somalia? The film’sWashingtonpremiere was attended by VP Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Oliver North,and adivision of generals.4
The truth is that Hollywoodand thePentagon have been tight since long before 9/11:
Hollywood film-makers havefrequentlychanged plot lines, altered history and amended scripts at the requestof thePentagon, according to recently released military documents. Producersanddirectors have often agreed to changes in order to gain access toexpensivemilitary hardware or to be able to film on military property.
On manyoccasions films have been changed so that the US armed forces are shownin amore heroic fashion. Film companies agree to the changes because doingso savesthem millions in production costs. If film-makers do not agree toalterations,assistance is withheld.5
Filmsthat have won Pentagon approval are Armageddon, Air Force One, TheJackal,Top Gun, Pearl Harbor, Bad Company; films that haven’t, TheThin RedLine, Apocalypse Now, Sergeant Bilko, Platoon, Independence Day, SpyGame.
I wonder how the new ManchurianCandidate stands.
The Institute for CreativeTechnologies is even scarier. An interactive virtual-reality warfaresimulationcenter and think-tank in Marina Del Ray, operated by the University ofSouthernCalifornia, ICT has been contracted by John Rendon, a “strategiccommunications” firm hired by the Pentagon, to come up with ways bywhichHollywood might help the present antiterrorist war effort – to the tuneof $45million. At its 1999 inaugural banquet, Jack Valenti, president ofMotionPicture Association of America (MPAA), was keynote speaker. His openingvolleywas, “Los Angeles is not the entertainment capital of the world.(Pause.)Washington, D.C. is the entertainment capital of the world!” (Laughter.)6Much food for thought here.
Thirdly, this remake of TheManchurian Candidate is not just entertainment because – well,because ofLiev Schreiber.7 In The Sum of All Fears (2002), aTom Clancyspinoff in which the nation and its leaders are caught off guard by aterroristattack, Schreiber [which means writer in German] played CIA agent JohnClark.Completed before 9/11, the film was however not released until thefollowingMay. Its premiere in Washington, D.C. was attended by the vice chair ofthe JointChiefs of Staff and secretaries of the Navy and Air Force. – In otherwords, TheSum was one of the first films to come out of the post-9/11 jointventurebetween Hollywood and the Pentagon and was probably therefore on the“approved”list. Schreiber’s character – whom many believe was stronger than BenAffleck’sJack Ryan – was coached by (who else?) the CIA. Schreiber: “We also had an actual Agency officer, a guynamed ChaseBrandon, who was a field op for about 20 or 30 years. He was ourtechnical consultanton the film and he would show me some things.”8 This is howthingsare done now. The Pentagon and CIA wisely follow Goebbels’ lead.
In essence, the new Manchurian Candidate is a fictional plot that attempts toenvision thedanger that powerful global interests – amalgams of economic andpoliticalinterest – might represent for nations. Ever since ancient Greek drama,goodfiction has attempted to reflect probable realities so that the bodypoliticcan emotionally experience and examine their complexities. Demme seeksto dojust this in Manchurian Candidate while treading a delicate(Pentagon?)line.
Frank Sinatra and the influences behindhimrecognized how real were the concerns brought up by novelist RichardCondon’svision of a Cold War truth, which may be why, after John F. Kennedy’sassassination – an assassination engineered by several crosswires ofManchurianGlobal-like interests, an assassination that made use of a “lone nut” –Sinatrabought up the rights to the film he had starred in and shelved it for aquarterof a century.
Though still labeled a “political satire,”the 1962Manchurian Candidate was for a long time in a category all byitself. Now,it has been joined by its present reincarnation. Both may be politicalthrillers, but because they are about the ultra-secret “psy-ops”technology ofmind control, they are in a small club, indeed.
Now, forty years after Sinatra did hismilitary andintelligence friends a favor by burying the greatest role he everplayed untilthey deemed the American people “ready” to see it, even a remake hasbeenallowed. Why?
Because the public’s ability to readfiction’s imagesand symbols is finally disabled after years of “entertainment,” sothere is nolonger any danger in revealing the truth, as long as it is revealedin theguise of fiction. Turn the truth into entertainment and watchliteralistcritics like Blackwelder interpret a director’s bold attempt tochoreographsophisticated mind control technology and its side effects of lost timeanddreamscapes as mere sci-fi “B-movie machinations.” No, Mr. Blackwelder,it isyour perception that is B-grade. Arthur C. Clarke’s sageinsight nowfalls on deaf ears: “Any sufficientlyadvancedtechnology is indistinguishable from magic.”
This public processof mindcontrol – perception control – is what Michael A. Hoffman explores inhisexcellent little book, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare9.The remake of The Manchurian Candidate goes further than itspredecessorin revealing just how this magical technology is done becauseno onewill take it seriously today; everyone will just watch and think it’ssciencefiction. Now you see the truth, now you don’t.
Whether Demme intended it or not, severalfeatures ofthe new Manchurian Candidate’s plot beg to be noticed:
(1) A connection between the 1991 Gulf War andSouthAfrica? The evil SouthAfricandoctor (played by Simon McBurney) has been hired by Manchurian Globalto kidnapand program both Major Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) and SergeantRaymond Shaw (LievSchreiber) during their tour of duty in Kuwait 1991. One is to beprogrammed asa “lone nut” expendable for one hit only, the other for President ofthe UnitedStates. While it is now public knowledge that the U.S. government andU.S.-based corporations colluded on biological/ chemical warfareresearch withSouth Africa, I wonder: did some of their “research” end up as the GulfWarsyndrome?
(2) Childhood is when we are politicallyprogrammed. In theelementary school where the voting polls havebeen set up, children are on stage, dressed up as Abraham Lincoln,MartinLuther King, etc., and enacting a patriotic American drama verydifferent fromthe one we are viewing. Despite the fact that both versions of Manchurian Candidateindicate that Marco’s and Shaw’s programming occurred only during theiradultyears in a war abroad, those familiar with mind control programmingknow thatthe stage for adult programming is set during childhood.
(3) The necessity of incest or sexual abuse tomindcontrol programming. TheOedipalscene between Raymond and his mother, Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw(MerylStreep), during which he sits like a young Adonis being groomed by her,impeccably reveals the incest bond essential to exploiting innerviolence andturning it outward. Though the film would have us believe that SenatorShawonly recently sold her son’s mind – and freedom – to Manchurian Global,thetruth is that it occurred long before in order to create thepsychologicalprofile that the South African doctor could properly exploit.
(4) Two programming tracks. Raymond’s programming was total andthereforerequired a lifetime overhaul of everything he would have been but wouldnow notbe allowed to be, whereas Major Marco’s programming was the typicaltorture-hypnosis-drugsprogramming that all expendable “lone nut” assassins undergo. Demmehinted atRaymond’s innumerable “tune-ups” in the scene in which he is triggeredby aphone call to enter a dreamscape self-abduction from his hotel room viamirrorprogramming (symbolized by the magnificent wall mirror within a mirrorwithin amirror over the bed) and make his way magically to the operatingtheatre.Demme’s portrayal of Raymond as the programmed victim who has learned,afteryears of such “procedures,” to be obedient and smile at every horror,wasaccurate and heart-rending. Major Marco’s programming, on the otherhand, wasnot nearly as comprehensive because he would be used only once and thendispensed with, as are all “lone nut” assassins.
(5) Corporations and governments. This unhappy courtship has been going onsincebefore outgoing President Eisenhower tried to warn the nation about theincreasing power of the military-industrial complex. Now that themarriage hasbeen consummated and we have been screwed, mind control technology isbecomingbut another commodity available on the world market to the highestbidders.This reality endangers all governments and their citizens. TheManchurianCandidate sets this problem squarely before us. The future hasarrived,science fiction be damned.
(6) “Fortunate Son.” Not only was this the title of a 1999biography on George W. Bush10– the author, James Howard Hatfield, 43, purportedly committed suicidetwoyears after the book came out – but it was also a 1970 song by JohnFogerty.The film closes with this song blasting:
Fortunate Son byJohn Fogerty
Some folks areborn made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red,white and blue.
And when the bandplays "Hail to the chief"
they point thecannon right at you.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't nosenator's son.
It ain't me,
it ain't me.
I ain't nofortunate one…
For those in the know about the greattechnicalstrides mind control programming has made in the past decades, Demme’s ManchurianCandidate gets closer to the truth than any film so far –so close,in fact, that those who have been its unwilling guinea pigs would bewelladvised to see the film with a friend, given that it is loaded withtriggers,particularly telephone and mirroring triggers. After viewing it thefirst time,I came out shaking and wondering if subliminals had been used. Thesecond timewas easier and I was able to be more objective. Caveat vidor.
Though many moviegoers will notgrasp the politicalimperative hidden in the nightmarish folds of The ManchurianCandidate’splot, others will. Do not be deceived by the sheen of the incredible.(Rememberthe Arthur C. Clarke rubric.) This technology exists and is now passingfrommilitary and intelligence agencies to global corporations andconsortiums. It’sa brave new world in which everything is for sale, evenfortunate sons.
Notes
- From“Conspiracy Dreary,” film review by Rob Blackwelder
2.
3. Alex Constantine, “CollateralBrain Damage: TheHollywood Propaganda Ministry,” High Times, July 2003.
- Ibid.
- DuncanCampbell, “Top Gun versus Sergeant Bilko? No contest, says thePentagon,” The Guardian, August 29, 2001.
- JamesDer Derian, “9.11: Dreams, Lies, and Videotapes,”
- Schreiber’sbiography and family background are intriguing. (Is he an MK himself?)See .
- .Chase Brandon originally worked for the CIA’s Public Affairs Office(PAO), then became Entertainment Liaison Officer in 1996. He is alsoTommy Lee Jones’ cousin. (See Constantine, footnote 3.)
- MichaelA. Hoffman II, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare(Independent History and Research, P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene ID83816; 1989).
- JamesHoward Hatfield, Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of anAmerican President (St. Martin’s Press, 1999; Soft Skull Press,2001).