Was he himself brainwashed in to attempting the assasinaton? - The Parallax View (1974) Discussion

Nonsense.

reply

[–] www.wedd 17 years ago

Yes, that's a completely invalid theory. Beatty isn't armed at the climax at all. And he never fires a shot.

"You get tired of your own obsessions, the betrayals, the voyeurism, the twisted sexuality"

reply

[–] theskylabadventure 17 years ago

Bettie? Who's Bettie? Bettie Humpter? Ha ha ha.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 16 years ago

I don't know WHY I'm laughing at this...

I was gonna post 'Hey, he REALLY doesn't like it when you call him 'Betty'!!!

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

[–] EdHenrik 17 years ago

I could be, although only for the murder of the second senator. The sequence of shots is:

1. shot fired at senator
2. confusion all around
3. pan from Beatty POV to gun.

Another argument for this would be that we never actually see the gunman. But I have to say the last 10-15 min are the worst of the film. Beautiful photography, but very confusing.

reply

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

True, and it's one of Pakula's shortcomings: He's so obsessively minimalist that the film almost doesn't really "end," it just evaporates. This was true of Klute, too. Otherwise, Parallax is a superior piece of 1970s paranoid filmmaking.

"As Balzac said, There goes another novel."

reply

[–] www.wedd 17 years ago

The presence of the gunman seems deliberately vague to me. Is it not the one in the brass band, the guy who can't play a note? Or could it not be the person who actually terminates Beatty?

reply

[–] dukeofauge 17 years ago

No one answer must arise, all possibilities are valid, in paranoia, truth is subjectivized and seemingly spread out into the hands of many, or the powerfull few.
It is a strong possibility Beatty is the gunmen, only bc of the rainwashing he does not know it.
We never see another gunmen but we see that Beatty is near the gun.
He has all the characteristics thata Parallax assasin needs, great in a crises, ready to see it through (in the trailer, they play this line of dialogue over the shot of him thwarting the sherriff, enforcing the validity of such a claim).
He was anti social, he was pissed off at the system, and most importantly, he did sit through the brainwashing system, which means we can not trust his pov, as opne of the most successfull brainwashing/hypnotizing tricks is to get the subject to believe it did not work (some movies come to mind, Manchurian Candidate, Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Cypher...).

Great film, superbly done, tight script.

reply

[–] bhungwell 17 years ago

Very good points. Puts a different spin on it for me.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 16 years ago

Not bad... Makes it even creepier...

And 'CYPHER' is a DAMN good film too, BTW!

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

[–] brianwhite5 8 years ago

Great film, remember though he's pretending to be this Paley guy.
The Parallax corporation realise he's pretending to be Paley since his 'records' don't match. They realise he knows to much about the corporation now so they have to bump him off by setting him up. They arrange for him to start a security job, when he's looking for the sniper, the senator is shot and then Richard Partun ( Beatty's new alias ) is spotted by the inept band member (who obviously works for parallax) and shot dead believed to be the sniper. Love this film, the Conversation and All the presidents Men.

reply

[–] JohnnyFontane 16 years ago

i disagree, i loved the ending. for me there's no debate as to what happened - the conspirators knew who beatty was from the beginning, and set him up to be the fall guy. the gun by his feet was a plant. beatty saw the gun after the shooting and knew this - takes off running - but is shot by law enforcement. the end.

i thought the ending was very well-handled by pakula, tying in to the themes of paranoia and shadowy details that permeated the entire film.

reply

[–] nferr 16 years ago

I guess this is a very interesting question.

Actually after the shot we see Frady´s face and then the gun. This last image (the gun) is it Frady's vision or our vision.

It seems the gun is near him, so he may have been the assassin.

At the end of the film we saw the comitee concluding that he was the killer.

Were we (the viewers) manipulated in believing that he was the killer?

Or he he was not and he is innocent?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lathe-of-heaven 16 years ago

DAMN! Now you've spoiled 'NAKED GUN' for me!!!

J/K

Actually, if it WASN'T him, he was supposedly right up there WITH the assassin, right? And yet, it shows him almost IMMEDIATELY after the shots and he is just standing there looking sorta confused. Wouldn't he have been running after the assassin...??? He certainly wouldn't just be standing there looking confused would he...?

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccr1633 16 years ago

Interesting thread guys, but I see only one way to interpret the ending. It's clear that the Parallax Corporation was on to Frady's game before the assassination of Senator Hammond. Parallax purposefully put Frady into that situation in order to place him at the scene of the crime. They could then kill the senator and then Frady, as they did, and then feed to the press the lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald theory. It worked. I think that's about all there is to it. Frady was neither brainwashed nor the assassin. He was just what Lee Harvey Oswald proclaimed himself to be: a patsy.

That said, I agree with everyone else that the way Pakula shot it was unnecessarily vague and murky, and somewhat tedious. There should've been more shots of Frady up in the rafters, showing an ever increasing realization that he was being set up.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 16 years ago

At first, I felt the same way...

... until the LSD wore off! Just kidding there...

Seriously, I did think the same thing, but examine what you yourself said there at the end, 'They should've shown more shots of him in the rafters clearly getting suspicious', right? But, also as both you and I stated above, the seemingly deliberate vagueness in the way it was shown and the obvious look of confusion on his face when the assassin was SUPPOSEDLY right there next to him practically... THAT is what makes me REALLY wonder... Remember too, it shows him CLEARLY looking at the rifle... TWICE. You mean to tell me that the shooter, if it wasn't him, was RIGHT THERE clearly in his line of sight who then apparently retrieves, uses, and then puts back the gun, RIGHT IN FRONT ON HIM...???!! And THEN it shows Beatty IMMEDIATELY afterward just standing there looking kinda blank and confused, when this shooter just did ALL THAT right in front of him!!? Huh uh..., no way...

you know what's really funny is that this idea NEVER would have occurred to me without reading this post! But, examining the way it was 'shot' sure seems to suggest strongly that maybe he was brainwashed and used and at the same time was being set up to be eliminated.

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

[–] ccr1633 16 years ago

"you know what's really funny is that this idea NEVER would have occurred to me without reading this post! But, examining the way it was 'shot' sure seems to suggest strongly that maybe he was brainwashed and used and at the same time was being set up to be eliminated."
----------------------------------------

The main reason I disagree with this is that Pakula didn't even give the slightest hint of this possibility, that Frady was even capable of being brainwashed. In fact, the movie seemed to go to great lengths to establish the counter-cultural aspects of Frady's rather unconventional personality, which to me makes it unlikely that he would turn to the dark side out of the blue. It's a possibility of course, but not one suggested by any events preceding the assassination.

reply

[–] lathe-of-heaven 16 years ago

Well, the guy in 'THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE' wasn't exactly predisposed to the 'Dark Side' either; brain washing is brain washing. This particular point is unrelated as to whether all these other 'Bad' guys were being recruited either to be killers or patsys. I think what the fellow above was suggesting is that they specifically chose to do this to him both to fulfill the 'Contract' and also to set him up at the end (Notice who shot him as he ran out of the door; I believe that it was one of Parallax's security people who had just gone out before - thus suggesting a setup) But, it's not really the point whether Pakula was alluding to that or not; the WHOLE idea that this stems from is primarily (as I tried to spell out above) that last sequence where it seems that Pakula DID most deliberately go out of his way to be vague. He shows us the gun CLEARLY in view of Beatty. He showed that he was RIGHT THERE in full view of it the whole time, AND yet the shot was fired, the gun was back in place and he was just standing there looking dazed and confused immediately afterward.

Granted, that alone is not conclusive; but after this other fellow brought up the possibility (which as I said wouldn't have even crossed my mind I think) it dawned on me the VERY specific way that that last sequence was constructed. It honestly, to me anyway, seems like Pakula was very much indeed leaving it open to make us wonder. I personally cannot see otherwise how to explain the mechanics and logistics of where Beatty was in realation to 'The Shooter', the things we were shown, the specific time frame in which everything happened, and Beatty's expression right afterward. Like I say, NOT totally conclusive, but I believe it was deliberately shown that way to make it uncertain and ambiguous.

Believe me, Pakula's painfully minimalist style does NOT go out of it's way to 'Show' anything; so to comment that he did not show us any clear or direct 'Hints' about Beatty being the assassin would certainly not be out of character for him. I'm thinking that the whole ending of the film was put across that way to make us wonder and think about it; and if that was his intent, boy oh boy, it sure worked!

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Optimus-Prime 16 years ago

I really saw no other way to look at it. Beatty isn't shown at all during this final scene, until after the Senator is shot, then we see him standing above the gun, like he doesn't realize what just happened. I think that he went there with the intention of stopping it, but once he's there, his brainwashing kicks in. The other gunman, the same guy from the beginning of the film, is there to kill him and wrap-up any loose ends. I think that the Parallax Corp. is on to him the whole time, but they see him as such a perfect assassin candidate that they use him anyways.

Great film, very underrated. Read my full review here: http://whatiwatchedlastnight.blogspot.com/2008/02/parallax-view.html

-Ross Williams

reply

[–] colejamie 16 years ago

Very interesting theory. I just don't see enough in the film to justify it. I think it's a conspiracy movie, but that's it. They used Frady and manipulated him, but there's just not enought to suggest that they controlled him completely.

One thing that I did see as a hole in the logic of the movie, though, does support the brainwashing theory. Frady should have suspected or known that the visual testing - along with whatever bio-electrical readings they were measuring - would have given him away as not being the same person who filled out the written test. So you can certainly make the case that once he entered that testing, he lost control and was brainwashed.

reply

[–] JohnnyFontane 16 years ago

that's inaccurate. there are several shots of beatty up in the rafters before the senator is shot. we see a shot of the gun by his feet, but it's not from his POV it's showing the audience the gun is there. then there's the shot, and he looks down and sees the gun and realizes he's been framed.

for him to be the killer would go against the ENTIRE theme of the movie. it doesn't make any sense, imo.

to each his own, i guess.

reply

[–] jwalsh67 16 years ago

I must admit, this has to be the most enjoyable thread I have read for ANY movie! It is also testimony to the thought provoking nature of the film itself. I had never considered Frady as having actually pulled the trigger, but now I'm not so sure. Thank you, Mc_chives, for starting the thread and initiating what I consider to be a fine dialogue of film analysis.

reply

[–] kdk7 16 years ago

i've seen the parallax view" several times, and i've never gotten anything from it other than frady was played right down the line. the shot goes off, the candidate killed, frady looks down, sees the gun (which isn't even all that close to him), is chased and runs, and is shot by the "authorities".

there doesn't seem to be any room for interpretation there (to me, anyway).

regardless, it's a great example classic seventies cinema.

reply

[–] Castor-29 16 years ago

I agree with jwalsh, this has been quite possibly the most intelligent -- and maturely on-topic -- thread I've ever come across on imdb. What a beautiful application of the internet.

I concur that the climactic sequence is tedious and frustrating to watch, but boy, it does inspire analysis. For that matter, we never see Beatty actually get shot nor is there any mention of his death at the final hearing; I'm not saying that Beatty's still alive, but it's just testament to how open-ended Pakula's making everything.

Thank you to everyone for your thoughtful, enjoyable insights.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doctorbiobrain2005 15 years ago

Well one thing that I thought might be telling is the length of the brainwashing scene. What was that all about? That WAS brainwashing, right? And the whole point of brainwashing is that it works, or at least in the logic of this film it works. And I'm of the opinion that everything that happened after that scene was suspect. And again, part of the reason I say that is because the brainwashing scene was so long (relatively speaking) and should have had more significance than it seemed to. Why have it at all if it didn't do anything to him?

And am I wrong for saying that the shooter had to be up there with Frady? How could he have not seen him? But if the guy was killed from a significantly differently location, it's unlikely the commission would have pinned it on Frady. The killer must have been located near Frady and using the same type of gun. And if they're in the business of brainwashing people into being assassins, it'd be a lot cleaner if they just brainwashed Frady into doing it. So if I had to guess, I'd say he was the killer without knowing it, because he blacked out when his training kicked in.

reply

[–] jonathanmoffat 15 years ago

I used to think that brainwashing was Parallax's game, but to be honest, I think this movie steers well clear of actual brainwahing in the plot.

Possible spoilers below:
.
.
.
.
.
As I understand it, Parallax Corporation hires anti-social misfits, and places them at these political functions. Then their actual assassin (who Frady follows) does the business, and the outcast is set up as the patsy, and conveniently killed, leaving a 'lone gunman' killer and no apparent conspiracy. Frady has been set up from whatever point Parallax is on to him, and walks into the trap, and is killed. No brainwashing necessary.

What I found interesting (though I may be wrong, as I haven't seen it for a while) is that when Frady is on the plane, and sees the senator (and realises about the bomb), we see in a newspaper the senator who is shot at the end. I always assumed that they were political rivals, and it shows that Parallax will work for the highest bidder, not necessarily for their own interests, which, for me anyway, adds to the feeling of paranoia.

Apologies for rambling on a bit there. Better get back to work!

J

reply

[–] doctorbiobrain2005 15 years ago

While I agree that Parallax was recruiting patsies and not assassins, I still think brainwashing was involved. The main reason being that it was just too unlikely that they could so completely count on Frady doing what he did for them to have created such an elaborate scheme around him. There were just too many alternate paths for him to take. For example, if he had enlisted a friend to help him directly and be with him, everything would have changed and their plan would have been foiled. Or if he had started shouting a warning before the assassination, he could have blown the whole thing. As it was, their plan really only worked if he did exactly what they needed him to do, and that's just too many coincidences for them to count on for such an important plan.

That's one thing about foolproof plans: They've got to be foolproof. Without some sort of brainwashing involved, they simply couldn't trust that he'd do what they needed him to do. Hell, if he had just decided to not follow the bad guy, they'd have been left without a patsy and a lot of planning would have gone down the drain. I think brainwashing was involved. And again, how could they have shot someone from his location without him seeing it? And why was the brainwashing film he saw so elaborate if it didn't really have anything to do with the plot?

Besides, brainwashing is cool and creepy. I just like the idea that they brainwashed this guy without him knowing it. Even better, I like to think that he was brainwashed without the viewers realizing it, and therefore got a distorted picture of what he was really doing. We saw things as he saw them, but if he was brainwashed, the viewers were too. I think that's the better ending, whether or not it was intended.

reply

[–] snazzyjer 15 years ago

Well, here's the thing about the whole "brainwashing" theory--

I think he was very subtly MANIPULATED, which isn't quite the same thing as brainwashing, but it's in the same ballpark. He's manipulated into wanting badly to follow the guy, which he does twice, both times leading him into trouble he doesn't quite see until it's too late. Does that mean the same thing as brainwashed? Not quite. I think the tests and the creepy filmstrip had no real effect on his actions, so much as the sly way Parallax manipulates him while he thinks he's manipulating them.

The ending scene wasn't that unclear to me, although it is very selective in what it shows us and how. As someone mentioned above, we are shown the planted rifle before Beatty even notices it. The audience is in on him being set-up before he is. He follows the real assassin (most likely) to the rehearsal, but is generally unsure of what is happening--in fact he follows the guy into the rafters, I think, before he even understands where he is or why he's followed him there. He's not necessarily trying to stop anything, he's simply following the guy. Then the senator is shot and the tuba player who can't play fingers Beatty as the assassin. He tries to run, but it's too late.

He was lead directly into position to be caught for something he didn't even know was happening. He was a patsy, set-up for who knows how long, and the Parallax corp's plan worked like gangbusters, just as it did in the beginning of the movie...

reply

[–] idverser 15 years ago

I don't know whether Frady was the assassin or not, but there are a couple of points that argue against that theory which haven't been brought up:

lathe-of-heaven wondered why he wouldn't be running after the assassin after the shooting (if he wasn't brainwashed). The assassin had exited through a door that was locked after him, so Frady couldn't get to him. Maybe he looked confused because he didn't know what he could do.

lathe-of-heaven also said: "Remember too, it shows him CLEARLY looking at the rifle... TWICE. You mean to tell me that the shooter, if it wasn't him, was RIGHT THERE clearly in his line of sight who then apparently retrieves, uses, and then puts back the gun, RIGHT IN FRONT ON HIM...???!!"

First of all, it's not clear to me that he saw the rifle the first time we see it. And when he sees it after the shooting, he seems surprised. Second, how do you know that was the gun used in the shooting? Notice that we see the gun before and immediately after the shooting, and it's in EXACTLY the same position both times. If Frady had been the shooter, would he have put the gun down in exactly the same position? Not that it isn't possible, but why would he bother? It would only be significant to the viewing audience, not to any of the characters. I think this strongly indicates he didn't shoot.

Here's one thing I'm confused about: why did Frady follow the guy from Parallax to the convention center? Who was he?

reply

[–] jwalsh67 15 years ago

This has been a highly intriguing thread to read (thanks, OP)! I am a huge fan of this underrated film, and every time I see it with other people, it always leaves us debating what really happened. Here are my thoughts...

Frady was not brainwashed but was cleverly "played" by Parallax, Inc. His over-enthusiasm for solving the mystery was what led to his ultimate downfall. Parallax knew of his weakness for sticking to the story and set a trap based upon it. Frady's true identity was known to Parallax much earlier in the film than people realize.

Frady was NOT the assasin at the end, and the gun he sees was NOT the actual murder weapon. It was a gun that most likely had been planted with Frady's fingerprints on it. His fingerprints were lifted from the chair he sat on while watching the montage ("please make sure that all of your fingers are firmly placed inside each of the provided circles"). The actual murder weapon was probably an identical rifle (so ballistics would match) carried by one of the several Parallax agents.

Frady followed the Parallax agent to the convention center due to his aforementioned weakness. Frady's attempt to divert his assigned "partner" to the island of Maui was completely inconsequential and was probably anticipated by Parallax. The Parallax agents were the "security" staff and thus had the authority to shoot anyone posing a threat (an easy way to justify killing Frady at the end). The bumbling "tuba player" who arrived late was a Parallax agent assigned to identify Frady in the rafters to steer attention away from the actual shooter.

He who conquers himself is mightier than he who conquers a city.

reply

[–] Pearl_Jade 14 years ago

posted by doctorbiobrain2005:

While I agree that Parallax was recruiting patsies and not assassins, I still think brainwashing was involved. The main reason being that it was just too unlikely that they could so completely count on Frady doing what he did for them to have created such an elaborate scheme around him. There were just too many alternate paths for him to take. For example, if he had enlisted a friend to help him directly and be with him, everything would have changed and their plan would have been foiled. Or if he had started shouting a warning before the assassination, he could have blown the whole thing. As it was, their plan really only worked if he did exactly what they needed him to do, and that's just too many coincidences for them to count on for such an important plan.

I had read the many posts that stated that Frady was recruited as a patsy who would be framed for the assassination. That rings true, but what bothered me were the same factors that doctorbiobrain mentions: how the Parallax Corporation could be sure that Frady would ditch his assigned partner, see someone he thought was present at an assassination that occurred three years ago, and be compelled to follow that person to the convention centre, where he would sneak around in the rafters. It sure leaves an awful lot to chance.

doctorbiobrain's explanation ties it all together and makes the most sense to me. It was not chance and plan luckily converging. Parallax knew that Frady would follow the paths he did because he had been psychologically manipulated by them to respond to the triggers they planted (much like The Manchurian Candidate). It even clarifies the episode on the airplane, which I now see as their "test run." They observed how Frady focused on the sighting of someone he thought was related to Parallax and went to great lengths to follow that person to the point of putting himself in the line of danger.

The very definition of the word "parallax" alludes to brainwashing when read in the context of this film. Parallax is the apparent change in the position/direction of an object caused by a change in the viewer's position. Joe thinks (as do we the audience) that he has the Parallax Corporation in his sights: he's outside the conspiracy, observing, about to uncover it. After the battery of visual tests, he's no longer observing from his same vantage point: he's within the conspiracy, a part of it -- although he doesn't realize it until it's too late.

reply