Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

The Manchurian Candidate Paperback – Jan 22 2008


See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Paperback, Jan 22 2008
"Please retry"
CDN$ 10.63 CDN$ 6.83

Amazon.ca First Novel Award - 6 Canadian Novels Make the Shortlist



Product Details

  • Paperback: 79 pages
  • Publisher: British Film Institute; 1 edition (Sept. 26 2002)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0851709311
  • ISBN-13: 978-0851709314
  • Product Dimensions: 13.7 x 0.7 x 19.1 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 181 g
  • Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #587,041 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Product Description

About the Author

Greil Marcus is the author of Mystery Train (1975), Lipstick Traces (1989), The Old, Weird America: The World of Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes (1997/2001) and Double Trouble: Bill Clinton and Elvis Presley in the Land of No Alternatives (2000). In 2001 he taught an American Studies seminar on 'Prophecy and the American Voice' at Princeton and the University of California, Berkeley.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
0
4 star
0
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
4
See all 4 customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most helpful customer reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful By Douglas Payne on Feb. 11 2003
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.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
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.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
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.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 11 reviews
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
"A Little Solitaire And Then Some!" April 20 2007
By Tony Rome - Published on Amazon.com
I'm not too sure what to make of some of these negative reviews of Griel Marcus' brilliant analysis of "The Manchurian Candidate"...maybe these folks were reading another tome or turned over over the Queen of Diamonds in mid page...

Marcus' contribution to the BFI film series contains one of the most insightful looks at a classic motion picture I've ever read.........

Marcus begins by explaining how John Frankenheimer's 1962 masterpiece has become part of American folklore...

His examination of the performances, Frankenheimer's direction, Axelrod's screenplay, Dick Sylbert's set decoration and David Amram's amazing musical score is right on the money...

Of course he felt obligated to discuss the "Candidate" in the context of the American history that both surrounded and followed it (ie: McCarthy, the assassinations of the 60's; coupled with the fact that for a number of reasons the film was taken out of circulation for many years).

Marcus concludes that in the case of this amazing Cold War relic, everyone involved was 'working over their heads'...propelled by the material that was given them............

A conclusion that's impossible to argue with since Sinatra, Harvey, Lansbury, Frankenheimer et al subsequently never did another project that equalled what they did in the remarkable film.
12 of 17 people found the following review helpful
Possibly the Worst Entry in an Excellent Series Feb. 6 2003
By George Hatch - Published on Amazon.com
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.
15 of 22 people found the following review helpful
A surprising ... in the classy BFI Film Classics series Feb. 11 2003
By Douglas Payne - Published on Amazon.com
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.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
"Marcus on movies" Aug. 31 2007
By Film Fiend - Published on Amazon.com
Few writers can blend American history, politics, pop culture, and "high art" more skillfully than Greil Marcus. Starting with his columns for _Rolling Stone_ in the 1970's, I have followed his writing career as he taken on subjects ranging from punk music to prophecy. He brings all his skills to bear in this lean, thought-provoking analysis of the classic 1962 political thriller.
For Academics only. May 20 2015
By Kenneth R. Von Gunden - Published on Amazon.com
Verified Purchase
I'm a bit of a film scholar myself, but this tract is just too arcane and theoretical for its own good.


Feedback