Was there some point to Janet Leigh’s character? She was only in, what, four or five scenes, none of which really did anything to drive the plot. She developed Major Marco’s character a bit but considering the subject matter the character didn’t really need developing.
It’s been a while since I read the book and I have no recollection of the character. Is there some additional significance to the character from the book that’s lacking in the film?
I always assumed that she was in the movie because Hollywood movies at that time almost always had a love interest. From that I derived that the screenwriters so didn’t like having to add her in the film that they decided to pen the one of the most bizarre pick-up scenes in cinematic history. 
It’s been a few years since I’ve seen the film, but in my memory there was always kind of an air of menace or unease around her. To me, she seemed to add to the air of paranoia that suffused the whole picture, since I was never quite sure if we could trust her or not.
Of course, I could be misremembering the whole thing.
I think, in the context of the movie, she’s supposed to a Red herring. 
I think the film needed to have one female character people would like (somewhat) and wouldn’t get killed either.
The other two women with important roles get shot.
And in the remake coming out this summer, Kimberly Elise gets the Janet Leigh role.
Meryl Streep gets the Angela Lansbury role.
Denzel Washington will be Frank Sinatra
Liev Schrieber will be Laurence Harvey.
Was the character even in the book?
I just saw this recently, and I was rather curious about that myself. The introduction scene seemed really awkward and forced, and made me think for a good chunk of the movie that she was a commie spy. I mean, what woman meets a crazy man on the train, sweating to high heaven, who throws a shit fit and storms out of the car, then dumps her fiance for him six hours later? Just didn’t seem right to me.
Maybe she was in it because Sinatra just wanted to have a dame to make out with. He was a pretty powerful guy, you know.
I read a review once (it may have been by Roger Ebert) which theorized that Leigh’s character may not only be a spy, but a “controller” for Sinatra’s character, who was himself programmed by the reds. This would explain her bizarre dialogue when they first meet: she’s feeding him preprogrammed phrases to initiate some sort of behavior on his part, or ensure he complies with his programming. It’s an interesting idea, but I haven’t seen the movie since I read about that, so I don’t know whether it holds up through the rest of the film. It definitely adds one more level of creepiness, since at the end of the film she’s still “in control.”
(And by the way, why the freakin’ HELL would you want to remake such a perfect movie??? But I digress . . . :smack: )
I was looking through the ProQuest database for stories leading up to the film.
In a Hedda Hopper column several months before the film began shooting, Janet Leigh was already listed as being in the cast. The person Sinatra was trying to convince to join the film was Jackie Gleason, but Gleason begged off.
Not sure what role he would have played. Presumably he would have been the evil senator instead of James Gregory.
I found her character creepy from the git-go. Since she’s otherwise completely superfluous, it only makes sense to me if she’s really Sinatra’s Controller. Of course, once you get into these paranoid fantasies, there’s no end to it.
Great movie, and also a period peace. No good reason to remake it. (One of the first DVD’s I bought. Angela Lansbury was only five years older than Lawrence Harvey, which really enhances the incest angle. I wonder how they’ll handle that in the unnecessary remake; in some ways movies are actually less daring than they were decades ago.)
Wanted to add, at the end of the movie it appears that Sinatra doesn’t hesitate to talk to Janet Leigh (sorry, I can’t recall the character names right now) about the recent events in his work, which surely would be classified. I guess one of the essential points of real brainwashing (if it worked) would be that the victim would always feel that his behavior was not only normal, but his own idea.
Think I’ll watch that movie again. It also had what I think was the first karate fight in an American mainstream movie, with Sinatra and Henry Silva really goin’ at it.
Spare me the garbage about Janet Leigh’s character being yet another control agent for the reds. That makes absolutely no sense.
As for her behavior when she first meets Sinatra’s character, I don’t find it odd or out of place at all.
Baldwin, during the fight with Silva, when Sinatra smashed the table, he actually broke two fingers as he hit the solid part of the table instead of the part that had been pre-made to break.
Well, the movie as a whole doesn’t make a lot of logical sense; it’s more like a bad dream. If Janet Leigh’s character isn’t really a Red, then she’s a red herring, because there’s no other reason for her to even be in the movie.
Sinatra in his prime did look like he could seriously eff-up a guy if he wanted to.
I read some where that the dialogue on the train is exactly how it is in the book.
Oh and one more thing.
Meryl Streep is the Senator.
Meryl Streep as the Senator! That’s a great twist. Saves a character and in this era, makes more sense. You don’t need to need to have an evil wife using her husband as a puppet as in the first.
And no the Clintons aren’t comparable!
Jon Voigt is cast as the “good” Senator.