Frank Rich is exercised by the imminent and timely release of the remade "The Manchurian Candidate," which will open this Friday. It's a movie made by confessed Democrats that plays "far dirtier" than F911:
The original "Manchurian Candidate" was both anti-Communist and anti-joe McCarthy. It theorized that the Chinese and Russians could try to overthrow the American government by using covert Washington operatives disguised as commie-hunting American demagogues. The new "Candidate," which takes the first gulf war instead of the Korean War as its historical template, finds a striking new international villain to replace the extinct evil empires of Mao and Stalin: Manchurian Global, a "supremely powerful, well-connected, private equity fund" that is in league with the Saudis and eager to scoop up the profits from privatizating the Amercian Army. Think of it as the Carlyle Group or Halliburton on steroids, just as its primary fictional political beneficiary, the well-heeled "Prentiss family dynasty," with its three generations of Washingon influence, is at most one syllable removed from the Bushes.
In addition to what Rich considers a partisan slant, he's upset by the movie's trucking in fear:
The new "Manchurian Candidate" plays by the same nasty rules as the administration it attacks, stoking fear for partisan advantage by making the demagogues of fear almost as scary as the terrorists themselves. Though the terminally cautious Kerry campaign would never make this argument, its cultural surrogates are bringing it to an expanding variety of venues, high and low."
There's a lot wrong with Rich's analysis, but the biggest problem is calling the producers of this film "Kerry's cultural surrogates." Linking the Kerry campaign to the producers of the film simply because it's openly opposed to the policies of the BushCo adminsistration and Kerry is running against that administration isn't logical and it isn't fair. When Rich does something like this I remember that he used to be a frequent guest on the Imus radio show. He seems to enjoy the "hate" as much as the next guy.
The other big problem with Rich's outrage is its bitter sanctimony.
You will, of course, see nonoe of this at the Democratic convention , where "optimism" will be the default setting and even Mr. Kerry will once more, heaven help him and us, attempt to smile. [that crack is particularly contemptuous and off-topic] That's why the networks, not to mention most viewers, are staying away. But starting on Friday at a theater near you, fear will be back in the driver's seat of a ruthless campaign in which the battle over our nightmares about Al Queda will be bloody and decisive whether Al Qaeda itself is heard from or not.
If the film focused on BushCo's alleged cocaine habit, or his alleged alcholism, or the behaviour of his daughters, or his wife, I'd agree that it was "ruthless". But in fact there's nothing wrong at all with a studio rolling the dice on a film that explores the fictional possiblities of current events. The film is only connecting dots that the right wing has been laying out since 9/11. We are told endlessly that The War on Terra is the new Cold War. Most of the terrorists involved in 9/11, the event that kicked off the very profitable War on Terra, were citizens of a country that has been linked financially to the current president's family for generations. Friendly corporations , some linked closely to the president and vice-president, are profitting from a war of choice. We were lied to by these people in the run-up to the war. The media was complicit by their obeissance. The movie even ties in an eVoting scheme a la Florida. Facts, it seems, are again biased against BushCo. The left didn't make up any of them to tar BushCo's crew unfairly and they are all certainly fair game for producers of fiction to investigate. "The Manchurian Candidate," a classic Cold War film, is an obvious vehicle to remake in the current climate. Dr. Strangelove also comes to mind, but why bother when it still makes it's point so well?
Whenever there is a debate about balancing the value of civil rights in the face of fighting terrorists, the pro-rights side is always forced to concede that yes, terrorism is a frightening and dangerous thing that needs to be stopped. All this movie does is ask the corallary to that admission to be conceded as well: yes, suspension of our civil rights and the enriching of the corporate cronies of public officials in the name of endless war is wrong and needs to be stopped.
Note: I can't link to the piece yet, but I will when it makes it online.
It's already been on the International Herald Tribune site since Friday.
Posted by: Dimmy Karras | July 24, 2004 at 11:51 PM
Look, you can link to the IHT. I link to the NYTimes directly.
Seriously - is the IHT always ahead on the Sunday paper by two days? And do you know of a site that picks up WSJ stories?
Posted by: eRobin | July 25, 2004 at 10:49 AM