The political spectre of Ecomcon

The result of this seven-day political game is Lancaster's four-star general Scott bitterly defeated. Under the absolute majesty of the constitution symbolized by president Martin, his fervently saving the country had to give up and watched the president disband his secret organization at the press conference. Getting into the car, the driver asked, where is the general going? The Admiral thought for a moment -- go home.

The three all-time cold War movies born in 64 are obviously Hollywood's conditioned response to the "missile crisis". Kuhl's masterpiece is a Freudian analysis of cold War mentality; Lu dao's business card reveals the absurdity of the principle of "mutually assured destruction" supported by technology theory. The two walls of "nuclear anxiety" lead to destruction at the same time, and both of their critical horizons of condemning the cold War politics are based on the bilateral confrontation structure of the Cold War. In other words, both of them are still extensions of the deep-rooted Cold War thinking. They wrapped their contradictions under the threat of the Soviet Union as an "externality". They did not focus on the internal structure of the Cold War system, but took advantage of the shadow-like shell of the Cold War to avoid thinking about American politics and directly and selectively emphasized the atomization of individual will and spirit. Code 114 was about the Nazi tendencies and sexual impulses of cold War alienated officers, while Nuclear War excused the original sin of technocracy and AI intelligence.

Frank Heimer, by contrast, is bound by the nuclear issue, but he does not deal with it by placing America in a preconceived cold War frame of superpower wrestling. Instead, the Cold War and the Soviet threat were merely seen as a trigger to enter into the internal problems of the United States -- its institutions and national principles -- and to peep into the various aspects of American democratic ideology and constitutional government in a general vision that encompsed the conflicts of the Cold War. However, in this film, Frankenheimer seems to throw out a question that is not answered (or perhaps ambiguously answered), which is also a question that Americans must face up to: what interests should American democracy and procedural justice defend behind the old-fashioned answers of value philosophy such as "human rights" and "freedom"? What kind of politics?

The plot begins with a nuclear pact between the United States and the Soviet Union. The president, played by Marche, is about to sign an agreement with the Soviet Union, in which both sides will destroy their nuclear materials and strike capabilities, and the world will return to a time before Oppenheimer and Einstein, when there was no Sword of Damocles. The Cold War, a state of communal confrontation, is nothing new in world history. But the difference is the existence of nuclear weapons -- a delicate balancing act, an almost delicate effort to walk on thin ice. Such a weapon of terror attached to both ends of the ideological scale formed the historical model of the Cold War. The disappearance of the nuclear bomb, like the Enlightenment, made justice no longer possible, and that was the liberation of mankind. It was with this understanding that the president reached this idealistic decision, which seemed to be for all humanity. General Scott, the military representative, did not believe that nuclear destruction would benefit the United States or humanity. They thought that if you trusted the Soviets for granted, you would be standing still in the extreme environment of bipolar politics. This is where the disagreement between the president and the military arises, and this is perhaps the crux of the film's problem -- American democracy, which claims to preserve universal enlightenment values, must in fact be made in the first place by the United States and its citizens. This is an awkward situation: there is no absolute universality, but American lives are more important than others. In fact, there is nothing wrong with this. It is a principle for nation-state communities to give priority to safeguarding their own interests and the interests of their citizens. But the film highlights the conflict over whether it is right for the popular Mr Lancaster to enforce military rule when the legitimate president does not uphold the principle of the national interest. Douglas's character externalizes the debate. His disapproval of the president's naivete and his absolute devotion to American constitutionalism set him on the opposite side of the general's intrigue. Under American constitutionalism, there is nothing wrong with that. If we really want to solve this dilemma, we must make clear the connotation of constitutionalism, and Karl Schmidt is the most profound critic of this kind.

Clearly, General Scott was a hero in the Schmitt sense. His actions also correspond to Mr Schmidt's advocacy of "political decisiveness". March as President Lemon, and especially Douglas as Colonel Giggs, are the absolute buffoon of the Carson-style legal positivism that Schmidt rejects. The president, who failed to make the right decisions, was even worse than a politician, who missed schmidt's "politics" because he failed to "distinguish friend from foe" and lost judgment in the humanitarian trap of playing the Game with the Soviet Union. Mr Giggs is even more to blame. He was crushed to death by legal positivism at a young age, taking sides when he should have been making decisions for the national interest.

Mr Schmidt argues that "legitimacy trumps legality". It is extremely impotent for the sovereign to be condemned to death by the constitution. Constitutional order is mechanical, and political exceptions can only be dealt with by a charismatic dictatorship, breaking the rules of order in any political form, which is the essence of politics. It is obvious that in frank hammer as a tight in a delicate posture of the cold war, Scott is the sober, he understand how the United States is in a tension, is a kind of cold war into hot electromotive force at any time, while a nuclear bomb to keep weight is to maintain their own interests, is a strong war preparations. It is as if Schmidt, who followed Hobbes in Weimar, believed that maintaining a strong decision-making state was the only justification. To defend their own interests, which is the United States as the starting point of constitutionalism and the nature, so, Scott will political decisions behind the constitution is the reasonable existence, is it with the constitution, in the final analysis is the basic interests of the two different way, when one of them (constitutionalism) face interference and shock, no longer have the determination, Scott section, the savior is entirely political maturity.

"Manchurian candidate", appears in the fear of the Soviet union's most alert in that period, frank hammer has a very high political judgment, although not directly approval in Scott's emergency decision-making, but also in there seems like without suggesting that a director's feelings to -- let has been in positive screen image Lancaster schmidt type of hero, (" the nuremberg, "he out of the tragedy but commit the banality of evil empire judge) to screen image resembles between good and evil colonel Douglas as the fence of multivariate swing (think Douglas ace in the hole" the herself, male, moral sense fuzzy image) to middle-aged spread, the screen image to a witty to area as PiPanLi secretly refers to the President (" descendants of the wind in the horse In such an actor's external reference to the character, the director's inclination quietly takes its place. Frank Heimer's superb metaphorical expression also gives a decision around the occurrence of the image.