In a shift towards complete paranoia, binary narrative prevalent in previously viewed class films is dropped as the nuclear family turns on itself. This film marks a transition into the 60s where social movements began to questions to the demonology seen in 1950s film. Manchurian Candidate has fear without a side to trust. Brainwashing, political assassination, and conspiracy are at the forefront of this film, all at the hands of an over bearing mother.
The representations of women in this film were striking. For obvious reasons, Angela Lansbury’s character, Mrs. Iselin, is a striking reflection of early 60s ideology. As the reading discusses there is an interesting dynamic between men and woman, husband and wife at the time this film was made. Men felt dependant on women for their freedom as women attended to men domestically and sexually. In return, women gave up their identity as they assumed the role of housewife and were given “substantial indirect power” in the home. As female reform movements gained attention, opponents pushed for women to return back to the home, fearing the transition of mother to emasculating force. Angela Lansbury’s character illustrated this fear on a grand scale, going as far as portraying a conspiracy that the far right is controlled by the Russians.
Mom is clearly the demon in this film, plotting assassinations and mind control. But I found Leslie Parrish’s character, Jocelyn Jordan, equally as perplexing. She is really the only major female character in this film yet her role is more or less obsolete and certainly passive. Most of her presence in the film is through memory, giving her much less importance than Angela Lansbury’s character for instance who is affecting the action in the present narrative. The memory of her helping Raymond Shaw when he gets bite by a snake could have been a very romantic tender moment; instead she can’t stop rambling about her father. She sits on the arm of her father’s chair in her bathing suit as they speak with Raymond, showing the ideal of a women’s sexually controlled by her father then by her husband. She could have been a progressive character, with her knowledge of cleaning snake bits and pants apparel but she is still held back by 50s womanhood ideals. I thought this was visually obvious in the scene when Jocelyn and Raymond are watching Raymond’s father convict Joceyln’s father of high treason on television and her face is completely blocked out by his shadow, concealing any reaction from her face. She is present yet passive, and therefore attractive and desirable. I found it particularly interesting how in a strange turn of events, Raymond kills Jocelyn, preventing her from ever becoming the emasculating force his mother was.
What do these parallel representations of womanhood represent? How do you see these representations and the shift in the demonizing of the “other” changing as we move from the 50s and into the 60s?
(6 minutes 40 seconds into this section of the film you can see the scene I mentioned)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaT91QZ2DCk&feature=related
Naturally I agree that this depiction of women was very, very striking. The creepy make out/kissing scene with Raymond and his Mother, terrible, and Jocelyn's character, good point, I didn't exactly pick up on that myself. For me though, after seeing the movie and reading you post, I think it comes down to nothing more than a specific Male felt insecurity. The way I took it, was with the whole situation of women having to leave the factories and become house ridden, there was obviously an issue. Woman didn't want to go back to the kitchens, they liked bringing home the paycheck and all that jazz, and I think the Men of the time were scared of this, scared because if they had a wife who brought home the paycheck it might reflect on their own masculinity, which is ridiculous. So what does the scare male society do? They latch this sense of power for the lack of a better term, that the women get from from going to work, or better yet, actually having a voice, directly to something else scary, something even more threatening, which in this case would be Communism. Communism is more than a threat to the Male ego, it was a threat to Americans all together, and an association of this sort, as we saw in the movie lead to bad, creepy things like Mothers necking with their Sons. So when it comes down to it, I guess what i really think is that this whole Mommism thing is really stupid, that the men of the time were just deeply, deeply insecure.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your thoughts on the representation of women in this film. It was clear that Jocelyn wouldn't have any sort of power in her relationship with Raymond. Originally, I didn't catch the shadow on Jocelyn's face when we are supposed to see her reaction. When I re-viewed it though it was very clear. I'm sure for most of the film camera angles and lighting play a huge part in knowing the female character's role in relationships. I thought Rose's character was interesting too. When she met Marco she immediately invited him to stay with her and ultimately left her fiance for him. The relationship between the two was really odd to me. It happened really fast and made her seem kind of desperate. A bit of topic but why was Janet Leigh third billing in the credits? She wasn't in it nearly as much as Angela Lansbury.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Iselin is a perfect example of Momism. her overbearing ways lead to ultimately kissing her son in an a incestuous way. I also found a disturbing bit of trivia on IMDB that states that in the novel there was a "bed scene" with mother and son. The relationship was completely disgusting to me as I'm sure it was intended to be. Angela Lansbury was fantastic in the film, She plays a great crazy mom. Although it was distracting for me to try and guess her age. Funny that she's only three years older than Laurence Harvey, who played Raymond.
NicNicosia I agree that definitely a male insecurity is prevalent here. I think it harks back to the reading when it addresses how male independence was dependent on women. With women distancing themselves from the home, this threatened the male status quo.
ReplyDeleteEllen: I'm incredibly glad the bed scene was not included. I didn't really consider Rose until you discussed her. She does represent yet another type of woman separate from Jocelyn and Mrs. Iselin. She is the most separate from a family structure, yet she is still attached to a man. Yes she decides to leave her fiance but only to be with another man.
After watching this film you have to have a little sympathy for Raymond Shaw. Being brainwashed to follow commands after someone says “Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little Solitaire?” has to really be the worst. I hate solitaire. Angela Lansbury’s character and the “momism” theory within the reading is very interesting considering that she is the over-protective, dominating figure within the family. She has supreme control over senator Iselin and Raymond to what seems to be a certain extent in the beginning of the film. When we find out that she is actually a Russian agent it is clear that her overprotective and tyrannical characteristics towards her family are a method to bring forth a greater evil to America. At this time in America woman were completely domesticated and relied on the male figure to make a living. This was extremely different from the previous war generation in which women were working in factories, independently making a living on their own. The women characters in the film as most of you have already commented on were dependent on either a father figure or their husband. Janet Leigh’s character pretty much threw herself at Sinatra in the train scene, even though he was pictured to be instable with a lot on his mind. This dependency on the male figure with the theory of “momism” reflects a negative portrayal of women during this time in history.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all of your comments, I am seeing an interesting contradiction with the way women are portrayed during this time period. On one hand, we have the seemingly weaker female characters like Rose and Jocelyn, who appear to need a male to leech off of and sustain a way of life. On the other hand we have Raymund's mother, who is quite possibly the most powerful person in America at the time, as Raymund points out when he tells Sinatra's character that nobody could stop her and Mr. Iselin, not the army, not anyone.
ReplyDeleteOne might say to that claim that Mrs. Iselin is really not all that powerful, and that she also required the male character of Mr. Iselin for her to complete any of her plans. While this is true, Mr. Iselin is simply a figure head, and so we are faced with the question of which is more important, to have power, or to appear to have power. And once we ask ourselves this, we need to wonder what was more important to the men of the 1950's, to have power over their domesticated female counterparts, or to appear to have it.
Your ongoing posts and comments have tracked really nicely, Anne, the involutions of America's free-floating anxiety of the Cold War era. I agree that Jocelyn's characterization was odd, and your observation that she was oddly father-bound (a parallel to Raymond's mother-bondage) is interesting and original. I'm also surprised you didn't mention Rosie at all though, whose interactions with Sinatra's character were completely strange and stilted enough to cause some people to wonder if she was his handler the same way that Mrs Iselin was Raymond's.
ReplyDelete