The Manchurian Candidate

Rating:
Summary: Possibly the Worst Entry in an Excellent Series
Review: Griel Marcus is so out-of-sync with "The Manchurian Candidate" that he has absolutely nothing interesting or informative to say but manages to make his fifty-five page essay sound like one long run-on sentence. Each chapter is further padded with desperate introductory quotes -anything vaguely referencing the film- as Marcus belaboredly tries to build a case for - What? He has no point of view other than "The Manchurian Candidate" is the single best film between "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather"; though is knowledge of film is questionable. He wildly overpraises the casting of a black actor as a psychiatrist, a professional, and asks, "How many other American movies use a black actor to play what audiences expect to be a white character without patting themselves on the back to congratulate themselves?" I guess he never saw Sam Fuller's 1951 film "The Steel Helmet".

This book isn't so much a commentary as it is a rant. Rob White, the series editor, seems to have let this slip into print with no concern for it's complete lack of content and deleriously circuitous writing "style". It's a shame because, as usual, the book is generously illustrated with stunning B&W stills from the film.

I have over two dozen commentaries from the BFI Modern Classics Series, each filed along side the DVD or VHS of the film itself. This book has no place in anyone's library. The definitive analysis of this classic has yet to be written, and but Marcus and BFI have misfired with this one.

Rating:
Summary: Possibly the Worst Entry in an Excellent Series
Review: Griel Marcus is so out-of-sync with "The Manchurian Candidate" that he has absolutely nothing interesting or informative to say but manages to make his fifty-five page essay sound like one long run-on sentence. Each chapter is further padded with desperate introductory quotes -anything vaguely referencing the film- as Marcus belaboredly tries to build a case for - What? He has no point of view other than "The Manchurian Candidate" is the single best film between "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather"; though is knowledge of film is questionable. He wildly overpraises the casting of a black actor as a psychiatrist, a professional, and asks, "How many other American movies use a black actor to play what audiences expect to be a white character without patting themselves on the back to congratulate themselves?" I guess he never saw Sam Fuller's 1951 film "The Steel Helmet".

This book isn't so much a commentary as it is a rant. Rob White, the series editor, seems to have let this slip into print with no concern for it's complete lack of content and deleriously circuitous writing "style". It's a shame because, as usual, the book is generously illustrated with stunning B&W stills from the film.

I have over two dozen commentaries from the BFI Modern Classics Series, each filed along side the DVD or VHS of the film itself. This book has no place in anyone's library. The definitive analysis of this classic has yet to be written, and but Marcus and BFI have misfired with this one.

Rating:
Summary: Greil Marcus is the best writer I've ever read
Review: Rarely has a book so slim managed to be so wordy. Then again, the excess verbiage nearly conceals the utter lack of insight, unless the subject of this book was supposed to be how darned smart Greil Marcus is. His breathless prose when discussing movie scenes becomes simutaneously irritating and laughable -- the movie were as overwrought as the words he uses to describe it, it would hardly be worth writing a book about in the first place. Moreover, his attempts at putting the movie in an intellectual perspective are often undermined by the fact that he continually falls back on comparing the movie to great moments in music history. OK -- Marcus is a hallowed rock critic, and 'write what you know' is generally a good philosophy, but I was left with the feeling that trying to provide a thought provoking analysis was beyond his grasp here.

I'm particularly perplexed by his need to devote an entire chapter to denigrating the cast and director of the movie -- Marcus marvels that no one in this movie came close to producing art at this level. Yet, what is remarkable about this? A substantial number of great movies are a result of special convergences that one might not expect. Furthermore, maybe Frankenheimer, Sinatra and Lansbury never hit this height again (though Marcus is extremely disingenous to Lansbury -- to cite Murder She Wrote and not note her distinguished stage career [Sweeney Todd, for example]) -- so what?

Marcus utterly fails to evaluate this work in the context of film in general. And his take on its societal effect is inaccurate (this movie is known in some circles, but it's not very pervasive). His token effort to add an academic lense to view it through is ineffective.

In the end, if you've seen and loved the movie, you will come away from this wondering what the heck Marcus was talking about. If you've haven't seen the movie, heaven knows why you'd want to after reading this.

Rating:
Summary: Hopeless entrant in fine series
Review: This book contains bad writing and has absolutely no focus, The Manchurian Candidate is an important film and the BFI film classics should be the highpoint of film criticism. This book wanders all over the place and cannot focus on the film. Coupled with some of third rate writing and muddled thinking, the book should only be bought if you must have all the books in the series. Don't buy it.

The BFI editors should be embarassed for having released it.

Rating:
Summary: A surprising ... in the classy BFI Film Classics series
Review: What a waste. Whoever thought Griel Marcus had anything of value or merit to add to the lexicon of film artistry - much less one of the great works of film artistry - completely missed the boat - or doesn't care to see this film get the passionate discussion it deserves. BFI Film Classics have issued an incredible set of books devoted to individually worthy films - such as this one. But this must be the worst book in a truly great series. Honestly, this must be a joke. It's got to be. I don't care if Griel Marcus is a professor, esteemed or respected, outré-hip or passé-hip. This guy has no business talking about, reflecting on or wasting anybody's time with his useless commentary on film. He was the wrong man for the job. This is a book about film as cultural signifier - and little else. Kennedy and Oswald. Columbine and George Bush. Kennedy and Sinatra. Who cares. The book, the film, and ultimately, the meaning of "The Manchurian Candidate" has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin or any of the endless quotes Marcus pulls from a library trip's worth of newspaper articles that refer back to the film. If you had no other point of reference other than this book, Marcus may convince you that this film is more symbolic than meaningful - and even hollowly symbolic. This is not a book about film, the art of film, the art of this particularly magnificent film or the artists who had anything to do with this film. It's about Marcus and the way he views the world - or the way he views the world through the lens of this film. Again, who the hell cares? This film is far too important to be left to someone whose trite aphorisms are as meaningless as those of Griel Marcus - an alleged writer who seems awfully damned confident to write his subject off so easily. Proof that you just can't hide behind other people's quotes - or your own cleverly-worded turns of phrase that have little to do with the subject at hand.