HERE THERE BE SPOILERS

I recently watched Jonathan Demme's 2004 remake of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. I've seen the original 1962 version several times and it's a film I hold in high regard. The remake updates the basic plot with a few new wrinkles for the 21st century and is, generally speaking, a slick, well-made political thriller.

But I have a major problem with the key plot device of the narrative and I'm going to have to discuss in detail the end of the film here in order to make my point.

In the film, Bennett Marco (Denzel Washington), a veteran of the Gulf War, has been brainwashed to act as a political assassin. In the original film, Frank Sinatra played the part of Marco but he did not act as an assassin. That duty fell to Sgt, Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey). Here, Shaw, as played by Live Schreiber, is another war hero who is positioned to be the vice-presidential nominee on an unnamed political party's ticket. Meryl Streep plays Shaw mother's (Angela Lansbury played the part in the original), a U.S. Senator, who will stop at nothing to see her son propelled into a strategically vital political position.

Shaw receives the nomination as vice president for his party at the convention and he's joined on stage by his mother. They stand alongside the presidential candidate whom Marco has been brainwashed into shooting. Instead, Marco overcomes his programming and shoots both Shaw and his mother with one bullet, effectively eliminating the real threat to the country.

It's a neat twist ending but I'm left wondering, what was the point of Marco shooting the presidential candidate in the first place? We're only at a political convention. The men have just been nominated. The ticket hasn't won a general election and neither man has taken an oath of office and been sworn into their respective duties. So why shoot a presidential candidate at this stage of the campaign?

Would Shaw automatically become the presidential candidate by default? Or would the delegates at the convention have to place into nomination another candidate for the position? Even if Shaw was somehow placed at the head of his party's ticket, it doesn't guarantee that he'll be elected in November. Wouldn't it make far more sense to wait until Shaw and the presidential candidate are elected and sworn in, before killing the new president? That's the only way I know of to put Shaw into office through a legal, constitutionally mandated succession of power.

If anyone has any insight into this question, I'd like to hear from them. Sure it makes for great political theater and high drama to stage an assassination at a major convention but from a logistical point of view, if making sure that the brainwashed Raymond Shaw ends up in the highest office of the land, it just wouldn't accomplish that goal.

Still, Demme delivers a well-crafted and very well acted film. Denzel Washington is superb as a broken man slowly uncovering the truth about his past, Schreiber is a stolid war hero, a blank slate upon which the evil schemes of others have been imprinted and Meryl Streep is almost-but-not-quite over-the-top as the power hungry mother who dominates her son in every way.  

As a rule, I don't think remakes are necessary. Certainly not in the case of this material. The original MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE was an excellent film, superbly directed by John Frankenheimer. It's very much a product of the Cold War era in which it was made. Demme's film doesn't make any noticeable improvements on the material, merely some cosmetic changes. The plot is still essentially the same.

So, why spend all of that time, talent and money to redo something that was damn near perfect the first time? Couldn't all of that effort been put to good use on something new, fresh and original? The argument in favor of remakes like this used to be that the majority of today's moviegoers aren't familiar with the original, that it's an old movie in black and white with actors and actresses who are all dead and the material needs to be freshened up for a new generation.

That may have been true at one point but it's not true any longer. Anyone of any age who has any interest has access to the original version of THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. They don't have to wait to catch it on television or to see it at a revival house. In 2014, the 1962 MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is a click away, ready to be downloaded or streamed wherever and whenever anyone wants it.

So, the film is more accessible today than it has ever been. That eliminates the argument that today's audiences don't have access to the original film. The question (and problem) becomes, do they want to become familiar with it or will they prefer this new iteration which itself will probably be redone yet again in another twenty-odd years.

All I know is that while Demme's film is well made and entertaining, I still prefer the original version.

MAJIC MAN

I finished reading MAJIC MAN by Max Allan Collins the other night. This 1999 mystery novel is the 11th Nate Heller adventure.  The latest in the series, ASK NOT, was published 2013.

Nate Heller, for those who don't know, is a private detective who gets involved in several of the most high profile real life murder/mystery cases of the 20th century. Throughout the series, Heller interacts with almost everyone who was anyone in America between the 1930s and the 1960s. Politicians, gangsters, movie stars, cops, government agents, presidents, cabinet members, newspaper columnists, military officers, etc. Heck, you name 'em and if they are in any way connected to a famous crime or unsolved mystery, Heller's met 'em. He's a gumshoe Forrest Gump investigating the seedy underbelly of the twentieth century in novels that are film noir meets The History Channel.

I've read four of the Heller novels. The first, TRUE DETECTIVE was published in 1983 (I read it way back when). It involves the assassination attempt in Miami on President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chicago's Mayor Cermak. BLOOD AND THUNDER (1995, Nate Heller #8) is about another political assassination, this one that of Louisiana governor Huey P. Long. And FLYING BLIND (1998, Nate Heller #10) reveals what really happened to legendary aviatrix Amelia Earhart.

MAJIC MAN  finds Heller involved with the near-mythic "flying saucer" crash that occurred in Roswell New Mexico in July 1947. The bulk of the novel takes place two years later, in 1949 with Heller interviewing as many witnesses to the "crash" as possible. The more people he talks to, the more it appears that there really may have been aliens involved in the incident. Or were they?

Heller interacts with Secretary of Defense James D. Forestal, President Harry Truman, columnist Drew Pearson, Air Force officer Jesse Marcel and about a dozen other real people. He also discovers a secret organization within the U.S. government known as Majestic Twelve. The truth about Roswell is finally revealed but not before lives are lost.

MAJIC MAN is a first rate page turner. Collins has done his homework well and he sticks to the historical facts of the case. His portrayals of real people are accurate, as are his descriptions of period clothes and cars. Heller wisecracks his way through a twisted case of government cover-ups, ex-Nazis, a beautiful femme fatale and more. If you love mysteries, if you love history, check out MAJIC MAN. You'll love it. I sure did.

GOING CLEAR

"I can't get with any religion that advertises in POPULAR MECHANICS"-Woody Allen, ANNIE HALL (1977)

You didn't have to be crazy to be a pulp fiction writer in the early twentieth century but it didn't hurt if you were. Consider the life and career of Texan Robert E. Howard (1906-1936), creator of Conan the Barbarian and other sword and sorcery heroes. Howard was, by all accounts, crazier than a shit house rat but boy, that sum bitch sure could write. He's one of my all time favorite yarn spinners and it's a shame that he took his own life at the astonishingly young age of thirty.

L. Ron Hubbard, another pulp writer, was apparently crazy too. Crazy like a fox. A prolific wordsmith of marginal talent, Hubbard hacked out (figuratively and literally) a career in the pulp jungle of the '30s and '40s. He wrote a few novels in addition to the hundreds of stories he churned out in a variety of genres. But Hubbard's career really took off when he wrote DIANETICS and subsequently founded the Church of Scientology.

Scientology's "theology" is based on a story told by Hubbard that wouldn't have appeared out of place in the pages of  the pulp science fiction magazine AMAZING STORIES. But this yarn along with other writings by Hubbard, became the basis for a worldwide church that is staggeringly wealthy and powerful.

All of this and more is meticulously detailed in GOING CLEAR: SCIENTOLOGY, HOLLYWOOD & THE PRISON OF BELIEF (2013) by Austin based writer Lawrence Wright. I finished reading this one about a month ago and it's one helluva read. Wright, a Pulitzer Prize winner for THE LOOMING TOWER (2006), bends over backwards to present as fair and balanced a portrait of Hubbard and Scientology as possible. He conducted dozens of interviews and offers a revealing peek behind the scenes of this highly secretive religion.

What emerges in the pages of GOING CLEAR is the story of Hubbard, who appears to have been a pathological liar and control freak with delusions of grandeur. Those delusions were ultimately fulfilled however by the creation of his church of Scientology which brought him untold wealth and power. Scientology comes off as a group of not-so nice people doing extremely questionable things. The leaders of the church seem obsessed with courting such Hollywood stars as John Travolta, Kirstie Alley and, most importantly, Tom Cruise. Having a big name actor serve as the public face and spokesperson for Scientology seems to lend an air of credibility and respectability to the church and the leadership will go to any extremes to keep Tom Cruise front and center. And happy.

The leadership also indulges in punishing members for mistakes, subjecting them to treatment that some frat houses wouldn't condone during pledge week. Members are made to suffer and suffer some more when they don't pass their "audits". The church is also extremely vindictive and litigious when it comes to any negative portrayal in the media. The church leadership has filed countless law suits against their "enemies" and have resorted to other strong arm tactics including blackmail and coercion.

Criminal acts and terroristic behavior abound in the pages of GOING CLEAR. Wright and a small army of attorneys (most of them from THE NEW YORKER magazine) faced off against the current church leader David Miscavige during the writing of this book. Screenwriter and director Paul Haggis, who spent years in Scientology, is now out of the church and served as one of Wright's main sources of information. There are many other people, former church members, who speak out in the book as well.

GOING CLEAR is a fascinating book. It reveals everything you ever wanted to know about Scientology and then some. It's not a pretty picture although, to be fair, many people have benefited from the religion over the years. It's the people who have been abused by the church that make up this extremely compelling, eye-opening, page turner of a history of a man and his followers. GOING CLEAR was a finalist for the National Book Award for Nonfiction and was shortlisted for the 2013 National Book Critics Circle Award. The book is currently being adapted into a documentary by HBO and is slated for release at the Sundance Film Festival in 2015.

 HBO had 160 lawyers review the film out of fear of litigation by the Church of Scientology.