The Manchurian Candidate: A Play

by John Lahr

Sgt Raymond Shaw is a hero of the first order. He's an ex-prisoner of war who saved the life of his entire outfit, a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the stepson of an influential senator ...and the perfect assassin. Brainwashed during his time as a POW he is a "sleeper", a living weapon to be triggered by a secret signal. He will act without question, no matter what order he is made to carry out. To stop Shaw, his former commanding officer must uncover the truth behind a twisted conspiracy of torture, betrayal and power that will lead to the highest levels of the government...

Genres: Audiobook, Plays, Drama

72 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1998

About the author

John Lahr is the senior drama critic of The New Yorker, where he has written about theatre and popular culture since 1992. Among his eighteen books are Notes on a Cowardly Lion: The Biography of Bert Lahr and Prick Up Your Ears: The Biography of Joe Orton, which was made into a film.

He has twice won the George Jean Nathan Award for Dramatic Criticism. Lahr, whose stage adaptations have been performed around the world, received a Tony Award for co-writing Elaine Stritch at Liberty.

He divides his time between London and New York.

Reviews

[Brad · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll admit that listening to the L.A. Theatreworks staging of The Manchurian Candidate was not the best method of engaging with John Lahr's stage adaptation of Richard Condon's book, but having seen both film adaptations and read the original, I did have enough foreknowledge to navigate what was otherwise a confusing mess (my teenage son listened with me and he was utterly lost, so I know of what I write). There are so many threads to the story, so much jumping in time and space, so many characters, so many actors playing multiple roles, that even folks familiar with listening to old radio shows will struggle to keep up (again, my son is an old hand at radio shows, so ...). I managed, but only just.

That aside, I can't say that I was terribly impressed by Lahr's adaptation. I suppose his choice of villainous nation would have made sense (despite its xenophobia) if his adaptation had come in the early '90s, but by the late nineties the Japanese were far from the USA's bogeyman -- even economically. His writing of Senator John Iselin felt utterly ridiculous, but we've since had Donald in the White House, so it shouldn't have felt that way (odd that it did. Perhaps I should simply blame the performance of Doug McDade. I'm not sure). Lahr left some things untouched, like the use of solitaire and the Queen of Diamonds, that I think he should have updated given his other changes; and updated some things, like shifting from the Korean War (why not make it a period piece?) to the Gulf War, that I think would have been better left untouched. And it all added up to a couple of questions I couldn't shake: why bother remaking this at all? Why not write something new?

I'm starting to feel that way more and more, about stage and screen and novels. I want new stories, new ideas, not retreads. I know they're out there, the fresh tales. I just need to be better at tracking them down, and I need to stop getting sucked into the stories I already know.

[Yourfiendmrjones · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ultimately, like the Jonathan Demme-directed film remake of the original Cold War thriller, the play misses the black humor of George Axelrod’s adaptation of Richard Condon’s novel. An adaptation that shows the true horror of people played like yakety sax to commit murder in the service of power-hungry fascists. And the paranoia of knowing something seemingly fantastic is being perpetrated on you by those who you think you can trust.

Beyond that I don’t know what else to say except that, of course, Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

I’m sorry. What were we talking about?

[Jeff · Rating 2 out of 5]

So completely unnecessary. And what a bizarre decision--to update this to 1999 and then substitute the Japanese for the Russians. Not sure what Lahr was thinking.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had just read Don DeLillo's Libra, a novel about the killing of JFK, and was reminded of the fine 1959 novel by Richard Condon, adapted very well by John Frankenheimer in 1962, just before JFK was killed. Since it is about the killing of a (liberal) of a US President by a brainwashed Korean War hero, you can guess it fed some of conspiracy hysteria. The idea is that a Joseph McCarthy-type is in charge of getting the guy to kill. I really liked the book and the film, but this 1991 adaptation misses both the satire and the suspense. But it reminded me to at the very least see the film again. The mind-control and paranoia and sinister political tone just might have something to say to someone today.

[Relena_reads · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a really strange adaptation of the source material. I never understood the motivation of the nation doing the hypnotizing. I wasn't clear on why Shaw suddenly *wasn't* the candidate. The end scene with Shaw's Mom was awkward and seemed to misuse delicate childhood traumas. The performances in the version I listened to were fantastic, but between the weird plot choices and the gratuitously racist language, my brain would probably like me better if I hadn't finished it.

[R.K. Cowles · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 1/2 stars