Is Jonathan Demme’s “The Manchurian Candidate” the next “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a sleeper election-year scare tactic? The filmmakers sure would like you to think so. Its release this week is even timed to coincide with the opening of the Democratic National Convention. But in typical Hollywood fashion, the mix of industry-approved politics and smack-you-in-the-face symbolism has resulted in just another late-summer thriller – albeit a well-marketed one.

“This is a movie about political brainwashing, and we’re right back there again now,” Mr. Demme told Variety. “I hope it has the potential for stimulating people to start thinking about the process, because Lord knows we could use some stimulation.”

The film, which features a Halliburton-like corporation doing extensive business in the Mideast and an ultraconservative senator obsessed with her family’s political dynasty (Meryl Streep) should give Democrats plenty to chew on as they convene in Beantown. But some may note the ironies.

“The Manchurian Candidate” concerns a U.S. soldier who is captured and brainwashed as a sleeper agent and programmed to assassinate the president. The original version of “The Manchurian Candidate” flopped after its initial 1962 release and wasn’t re-released until almost two decades later. Frank Sinatra, who owned the rights, removed the film from circulation after the Kennedy assassination. This year, as New York Magazine noted last week, “The Manchurian Candidate” is, along with Nicholson Baker’s upcoming novel “Checkpoint,” part of a mini-boom of popular entertainments preoccupied with the offing of the Commander in Chief. Even the recent “The Hunting of the President” touches on the theme with its title.

Further, when “The Manchurian Candidate” was originally released, the scare factor was the very real threat of communism. Taking its place in Mr. Demme’s remake is (the communist boogieman of) capitalism. But whereas the 1962 version has the soldier captured and brainwashed by North Koreans, the 2004 version has him brainwashed at the hands of a corporation called “Manchurian Global.”

The galling irony, of course, is that the film has replaced an actual evil – responsible for the murder of millions – with Hollywood symbols for the Republican party.

Both versions of the movie are versions of the paranoia film, according to journalist and author Stephen Schwartz, whose work focuses on Islam and the Cold War. These generally fall into two categories: psychological paranoia films (a la “The Truman Show”) and political paranoia films (such as Will Smith’s “Enemy of the State”).

In the latter category, he said, “Reality is manipulated in order to cover up the crimes of state or the Republican Party.” But, according to Mr. Schwartz, without communism at the center, the story doesn’t work. “It’s an omelet without eggs,” he said. “‘The Manchurian Candidate’ without communism is just a movie about manipulation.”

Mr. Demme wouldn’t call it paranoia. “I don’t think there’s anything more farfetched about this than what we’re reading in newspapers today,” he told Newsweek. “Whether it’s the latest article about Halliburton or Bechtel or the Carlyle Group, there’s a lot of dubious activity going on. Billions of dollars are being made and, yes, lives are being lost.” The idea of “The Manchurian Candidate” as an anti-corporate statement is undermined by the fact that it was made by Paramount Pictures, a division of Viacom, itself an international corporation whose revenues in 2003 reached $26.6 billion.

“The Manchurian Candidate” functions, jut as “Fahrenheit 9/11” does, as a haven for any and all political anger. But in the end, the attempt to turn the ideologically empty remake into a political statement depends entirely on spin.

“This is a business decision. These things are green-lit on a basis of the star first and the director second,” said screenwriter Roger L. Simon, bemoaning the fact that the storyline is so low a priority. “It’s a big-time Hollywood thriller. All thrillers are more-or-less hokum. You try to make them as realistic as possible to enhance the suspension of disbelief.”

“You have Jonathan Demme, a very safe, Academy Award-winning director who has done movies that have made $100 million,” said New York Film Academy instructor Bryan Norton. “And you have Denzel Washington, who everyone loves. The movie might be a little more controversial if not for those safe names.”

Like any other summer blockbuster, the work is intended to capture the public’s attention. And Paramount’s hope is clear. “The vote of moviegoers is box-office growth,” said Mr. Simon.