Hidden meaning of montage sequence?

The montage seems to be a gravitation away from traditional values of family, love, and country. It accomplishes this task by juxtaposing the "trustworthy" images with images that are disturbing or outright horrific, such as Kennedy with Hitler (or was it the Pope and Hitler?--I just saw this movie so my specifics might be fuzzy). Mother becomes a disturbing image when shown after children that have obviously been neglected. Father becomes a predator in the picture of the naked (nakedness symbolizing helplessness) boy. Love becomes cheapened into sex as the images of nudity become more graphic and less pleasant (I recall a black and white picture lineup of burlesque type dancers, the effect being not pleasing but rather disturbing). Overall, traditional values are undermined and shown to actually be their sinister reflections.

Politically, I think this undermining relates to the general expansion of political awareness in the 70's (thanks to the one-two punch of Vietnam and Watergate, although i hear Watergate was just starting when this film was released so I don't know how much influence it would have, but regardless the film certainly fits in with the cultural milieu at the time). Surface values of a trustworthy government and American moral superiority began to be doubted as people began to wonder if their own country was perpetrating the same evils that have always been ascribed to the enemy (nazis, communists, etc).

The image of Thor in the montage relates to the parallax corporations desire to find an "antisocial" person who does not fit in the traditional political/social landscape. Thor is a nordic god, above mere mortals, and calls to mind Nazi visions of Aryan superiority and Nietzche's concept of the "ubersmensch," literally "over man" or superman. The parallax company needs men who disregard traditional values if they are to be able perform the work that they do, men that find tradition contemptible or outdated. In this way they are like the filma vision of the government; not representing the traditional values of American honesty, freedom, and ingenuity, but being above such things and using them only to manipulate the public. The assassin test/montage can be seen as a test for politicians, to see whether they have the antisocial tendencies to do the work they need to.

One last point, I think I remember the lineup of scantily clad burlesque dancers being comparable to a disturbing black and white lineup of faceless police officers (or at least their eyes were covered). Could this be an attempt by the company measure the viewers association of sex with power? It seems that the more a viewer equated sex with power (the opposite of equating sex with the love seen in the beginning of the montage), the more detached they would be from the social values that would inhibit an assassin. Sex is a method of domination as opposed to being an expression of caring and connection in the assassin/politicians mind. This relates deep personal psychology with political behaviour; essentially the desire for political power becomes a primal desire to sexually dominate. This interpretation admittedly might be a stretch, but what do you think? I seem to also remember some Freudian imagery in the montage, relating sex to both the "mother" and the "father", and some sort of sexual tension between child and mother, and competition between child and father?

I think they (The Parallax Corp) caught him during that montage, him not showing elation but disgust in the pictures showed, as we did. Which lead to his eventual end.

I'd like to agree with jhml, but I simply can't because arguing with off-screen material (that is not even referred to in the movie) is pure speculation. Still there is this gaping plot hole of how Parallax got to Frady. (One OT-sideline on this: I find it easy to accept the hole. There is a reason, or maybe a symptom, for paranoia: enemies know everything and appear everywhere. Works efficiently in the movie and surely is creepy enough for me)
But back to the montage:
Thanks and complete agreement with the interpretations of the montage. I also thought about Freud after having seen the Mother-Father-Me-Love sequence. I'd like to add some more thoughts:
- about the juxtaposing: the enemy section is very widespread. It not only refers Hitler and the pope, but also to Mao and the KKK. All of them are used against the American ideas of value in the quick crosscuts done later in the montage (culminating in a Lincoln-Hitler combination). Therefore I think that the montage is not a politcal instrument for one particular wing of power (neither left nor right) but the over-heightening of the assassin-to-be into a godlike position of superior. The Reason:
- The second half of the montage introduces weapons (shots of shots, so to speak. Single bullets, gunfire and I think one or two other similar images) Though these are not signified as Relief, they are connected to the solution of the pictures seen as most of them contain death or the possibility to change the course by brute force. All it takes is the person behind the gun... In comes Thor. The montage uses the quick shifting of values by reconnecting ideas (simple e.g, from Mother-good to Mother-bad). Only one picture has a stable connection. Thor (who is frequency of appearing rapidly increases towards the end) is always connected to Me, often directly after the word 'Me' on screen. The rise in frequency matches to the appearances of the bullets. The final two images connect guns and Thor, the selfdeclared Superhero-Me (or maybe brainwashed Me ?!?) and violence. To be honest: this is frighteningly effective but should not produce a controllable assassin but an amok-running vigilante. How can Parallax control such a character?
In Addition:
Another post tried to clear up the ending of the movie by having Beatty as the killer. This might be possible by him becoming an unreliable narrator after the brainwashing. Here comes the question: Brainwashing cannot be done in ten minutes and not in 'one show'. Still the montage sequence is seperated or even excluded from the rest of the movie by the on-screen perspective. It is radically unmediated as the audience has the same perspective on the montage as Beatty has (the only sequence that uses him as a point of view). And yes, it most definitely refers to brainwashing. But what do you think about this excluded position of the montage in the movie and second, do you perceive this as a test (like Pacula wanting the audience to test itself, or even feel a bit of the impact) or as a 'simple' (at least for the plot) brainwashing device?

Cheers
dropstring

[deleted]

I am wondering if the montage was a red herring, and was just a way of obtaining his fingerprints. Although there might have been other ways to do that.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

Criterion just released this movie on blu-ray, and it includes great interviews with the director and his assistant. They go very in depth on the sequence you're talking about it. Good stuff.