Too Many Flaws To Be a Great Movie
-
DD-931 — 17 years ago(October 09, 2008 03:43 PM)
Judging the behavior of people in 1962 by the standards of 2008 is just one of your many problems, OP. Forgetting that Shaw was a war hero admired by the public and known by those whose houses he entered, that Intelligence Officers are not the same as the Secret Service, and that the movie clearly showed the sympathy that Marco had for Shawreally, OP, it seems you have too many flaws to be judging this or any other movie.
-
AhaVanuR_24 — 17 years ago(November 01, 2008 11:53 PM)
Actually, the biggest contrivance I found was when Josy comes to the Halloween party as a queen of diamonds.
"Oh, I didn't know what to wear, and then the writers had a deadline to finish and couldn't think of anything more convincing, so I thought I'd"
Also, if he was going to kill his (step) parents, why would he point the damn gun at the presidential candidate for all but the last two seconds?
Also, I would have thought that in his regular state Shaw would be hypnotized to think that everyone thought he was the warmest, bravest human being in existence. In the film, it's perplexingly the other way around.
The most disturbing one for me was this: I assume the point of the film was in part a subtle dig at blind, rabid McCarthyism. But then the film also says we shouldn't trust people simply because their credentials check out ("He's the son of a senator!")which is McCarthyism. Contradictions abound in this movie. Maybe by the end I was looking for them, but they're still there.
5/10. It's a shame too, because the acting is uniformly magnificent.
Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head." -
rayshaw44 — 17 years ago(November 03, 2008 03:28 PM)
Good comments. I was fortunate enough to see this movie 30 years ago at the age of 19 with no preparation.
Point by point
Josie's costume is symbolic of Raymond's inner struggle to seperate his allegiance to his mother from his love for Josie. The irony is it is the symbol of his mother that temporarily frees Raymond from his mother to be with his love. Yes, it's also a coincidence but 90% of movies would be dull were it not for coincidences. Same as the novel.
Your second point has bothered me on subsequent viewings although the first time I was so mesmerized it just added to the suspense. I don't think there is a plausable explanation. I think Frankenheimer did it purely for suspense. The only reason I can think of that makes any sense (although not enough I believe)is that despite having made his decision prior to aiming his rifle, Raymond's mother still has a great deal of control over him. He may be battling that control until the last instant. If you recall, earlier she had so much control over him prior to his brainwashing that she was able to force him to write Josie a letter breaking up with her and bascially confessing that he was a pervert. That's a lot of control. The novel is different.
As to your third point, they wanted to keep Raymond away from his former men lest they somehow start remembering. How better than to retain his hatred of them.
I'll respond to you last point later. There's a lot there.
I agree, the acting was magnificent. -
DD-931 — 17 years ago(November 04, 2008 11:32 AM)
The second point obviously has to do with the struggle within Raymond between his orders and his desires. The mystery to me is why it's a mystery.
I think rayshaw44 has answered the questions better than even he seems to realise. The comments weren't THAT good. -
dbre — 16 years ago(July 19, 2009 10:01 PM)
I thought the part of the wife wearing the queen of diamonds was an excellent example of 'star crossed' instinct that true lovers show for each other in order to meet each other's needs in life. She 'knew' exactly what he needed in order to break away from his mother's bondage and that is why he was attracted to her and fell in love with her. The symbolism worked well on that level for me.
I think maybe the reason he was pointing the rifle at the intended target could have worked as a ruse. After all, his mother knew he was in the arena with the rifle and had she looked up at any time and seen him pointing the rifle at them she would have known the game was up and thus been able to duck and avoid being shot. That's the only possible explanation I could come up with -
jxh13 — 16 years ago(July 07, 2009 10:02 AM)
Returning to some of AhaVanuR's points:
Also, if he was going to kill his (step) parents, why would he point the damn gun at the presidential candidate for all but the last two seconds?
It's one thing to decide to kill your mother, it's another to sight in on a rifle and pull the trigger. The brainwashing had a real hold on Shaw, and his mother also had a psychological and implied physical hold on him. That's a lot to overcome; I think the idea is that he waits until the last moment to fool his conditioning.
The most disturbing one for me was this: I assume the point of the film was in part a subtle dig at blind, rabid McCarthyism. But then the film also says we shouldn't trust people simply because their credentials check out ("He's the son of a senator!")which is McCarthyism. Contradictions abound in this movie. Maybe by the end I was looking for them, but they're still there.
I don't know - you may be right. Iselin is a McCarthyesque figure, to be sure. Still, I've never seen it quite this way. McCarthyism had an influence, but so did Cold War paranoia, which would soon produce the phantasmagoric Dr. Strangelove and the gritty Fail-Safe. American party politics were ugly at the time, as well, as Gore Vidals' The Best Man would show in 1964. Again, you may be right, but I don't think there is a simple one-to-one correlation between Manchurian and McCarthyism, so I'm not sure the contradictions you see would be clear to the writers and director.
5/10. It's a shame too, because the acting is uniformly magnificent.
There are other good things about the movie, too, including John Frankenheimer's inventive camerawork. The movie has a lot of thought behind it - when the Liberal Senator is shot, what runs out on the floor? The milk of human kindness. These are smart people trying to entertain while they make a point; I think it's an 8 or a 9, depending on how much the Janet Leigh subplot annoys you. -
markrsutcliffe — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 02:41 PM)
I assumed the costume choice was an idea of the mother - she invited Jocelyn and I can imagine her saying Shaw would like it. It was surely planned so that he would do what Jocelyn suggested - the shotgun marriage etc in order that he would have easy access to the senator.
-
movieghoul — 15 years ago(November 11, 2010 07:16 AM)
That's not really a flaw, because it wouldn't have been credible for the platoon to be missing for an extended period of time. Remember, the idea was that the platoon went out on patrol and returned with everyone proclaiming Raymond the hero.
-
wargames83 — 13 years ago(May 07, 2012 07:09 AM)
Its only contradictary if you take the events of the movie literally. I think that the events of the movie are too over the top to take literally. To me, the real meaning of the movie is that losing freedom due to anti-Communist red-scare mongering is just as bad and dangerous as losing freedom to actual Communists.
-
gnolti — 17 years ago(December 22, 2008 04:47 AM)
The only thing I always find implausible and a little cringe-inducing is Janet Leigh's character. I know women are supposed to be the kinder, gentler sex and all, but I don't think most women will identify with a woman who would be instantly attracted to a "wounded" and possibly even mentally disturbed man, no matter how good looking he is.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star?