Talk:The Manchurian Candidate
|WikiProject Novels||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Condemned by the American Legion
The source for this information gives no reason why it was condemned and unless someone can find it, I would suggest removing it.
- Since the source for the American Legion claim is the same as the claim that it was banned in unnamed communists countries, should that be removed as well?--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I came to the talk page to suggest the same for the first part of that sentence. "has been banned in communist states" is simply too sweepingly broad to mean anything, and the source is some minor library homepage. A quick google search yields nothing conclusive (it was fun to find a starry-eyed blog about "the freedom we have in this country to read books", though, hrmph). If noone objects, I suggest removing the entire thing and replacing it with "the book has raised some controversy" or something similar. I know the suggested phrase is close to (if not) weaseling it, but the phrase used right now is slanted soapbox weaseling, and hence worse, IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I too suggest removing the "condemned by the American Legion" bit. The Tacoma library webpage given as the citation is the only reference I found online to the book being condemned by the American Legion. On the other hand, I've found two other references online dealing with the American Legion and the 1962 film version of the Manchurian Candidate specifically.
From the book What Have They Built You to Do?: The Manchurian Candidate and Cold War America:
The Inglewood, California, district of the American Legion, for example, declared in a resolution that "Communist infiltration in motion pictures has accelerated since the last investigation," citing The Manchurian Candidate as a vivid example of a cinematic attempt to "undermine congressional committees."
The book references multiple news articles from 1962, none of which I checked. I think the information on the Tacoma library webpage given as the reference was stretched and added to expand their "banned books" list without any research. It also appears a few people from the American legion in Inglewood saw the film or heard about it from friends, didn't get it, and published a condemnation, which was ironic given the anti-Communist message of the book and film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
On 8 August, the description "satirical" was removed with the comment "(THIS FILM IS DEFINETLY NOT satirical)". As this page refers to the book, not the film, there seems to be confusion.
Is the book satirical ?
-- Beardo 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the film's intent when it was made was not satirical; it was a 1960s melodrama. But in today's world, we are apt to smile, or even laugh at the world-view in which it was created. Doctor Strangelove was satirical; this film was not meant to be. 22.214.171.124 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
- This isn't the film, it's the book. Which includes an extremely thinly veiled McCarthy character as the cowardly vice-presidential candidate (and Shaw's stepfather). Condon goes to some lengths to highlight the ridiculousness of his claims about 'card-carrying communists'. Condon, let's not forget, was a satirist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with this?
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico in 1940, by Ramón Mercader. Mercader, who had been raised by his mother to be a Soviet agent and assassin, was visiting in Trotsky's home as a sleeper agent when he killed him with an ice axe in the skull.
I know all you latter-day wikians don't believe in putting anything in the pedia just because you know it, but this paragraph states plain facts without drawing any conclusions. It is not in the least "original research". Every word of it is justified by other articles in the pedia and there is not a single unwarranted conclusion. This sort of editing is why I don't do much here anymore despite being around near the beginning, when pedia was more fun and the squares hadn't found it yet. Ortolan88 15:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Putting it back in. No response. Ortolan88 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
True it may be but it has little to do with the novel. One could find parallells with The Manchurian Candidate and any number of assassinations if one wanted to. Unless the writer actually intended the plot points to refer to the Trotsky assassination this bit of trivia has no place in this article, I think. --Sus scrofa 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the things that needs redoing is the statement that "a remarkable plot twist" foils the assassination. Ignoring the fact that a plot twist cannot, in and of itself, "do" anything, what happens is hardly a plot twist. (I won't explain that statement, because to do so would spoil the film for those who haven't seen it.)
I normally feel that the Wikipedia lords and masters are too conservative in objecting to (what they consider) overly subjective articles. But in this case, I concur. This article is both shallow and not particularly neutral. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)