The Manchurian Candidate is a satirical film. Nevertheless, Matthew Frye Jacobson and Gaspar González write: “The Manchurian Candidate may lampoon many of the sexual, patriarchal, and political beliefs peddled by Hoover, McCarthy, and others, but so does it rearticulate them and, in doing so, uphold them.”
What do you think? Do you agree with Jacobson and González’s assertion that the film upholds Cold War “sexual, patriarchal, and political beliefs”? Or, in lampooning those beliefs, does the film effectively undermine them?
Mrs Iselin does not fulfil the stereotypes of women during this time. Instead of being a housewife, she engages with politics through her husband, and she is basically controlling his life. Furthermore, she also gives up on her maternity, and she uses her son to achieve her political goals. Raymond can’t do anything against his mother’s will because he gets hypnotised, thus he is fulfilling the stereotype of (Mama) boy, which the American government was against as well. Even though it is satirical, this all seems like a warning against not following the model of the traditional and good family. On the other hand, there is senator Thomas Jordan, who is a widow, and he seems to be capable of living a good life with his daughter without a big need of his wife. His political views also seem much more reasonable than the ones of Mrs Iselin. Therefore, I agree to some extent with Jacobson and González’s assertion that the film CAN uphold Cold War “sexual, patriarchal, and political beliefs”