Talk:The Manchurian Candidate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article needs an infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
Tasks you can do:
|
|||
[edit] Satire ?
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 ?
That same user also removed "Condon lampoons both McCarthyism and brainwashing as the primary targets of his wit." and See also satire.
-- 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. 66.108.105.21 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
[edit] What is wrong with this?
[edit] Trotsky parallels
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)
