FAQ

This is a subject of debate among fans, and cuts the heart of the film.

Everyone seems to agree that the second part of the film, after the montage sequence, has a distinctly different feeling. (Although there is some continuity of mood and film technique between the two halves, alienating filmic elements, including lengthy distance shots that emphasize Frady's smallness, take on a greater prominence.)

The short answer is that the film appears to be deliberately ambiguous about several key questions regarding Parallax Corp, and precisely why and how it does what it does. Arguably, this may include the question raised here, of Frady's autonomy during the second half of the film.

Frady pretends to be a sociopath, and even has a real-life psycho fill out one of Parallax's application forms. But just what does the Parallax Corp know about him, and when do they know it? And of course: just how powerful are their techniques?

It seems unlikely that they could so readily brainwash a relatively healthy individual. Then again, Frady is portrayed as erratic and impulsive, a former heavy drinker, etc. Just how distant is he from the violent troublemaker persona he takes on? Certainly, in the bar fight, he acquits himself well against a dim-witted but experienced brawler. Do we see everything that happens to him in the Parallax building?

The straightforward perspective, of course, is that he was not brainwashed. The montage sequence is simply a test designed to provoke different reactions in those that see it. These reactions are monitored - a faster heartbeat during the violent images, for example. Parallax is looking for sociopaths, whom they can blame for their assassinations.

Perhaps the test proves that Frady is a normal, well-adjusted individual, or at least not who he claims to be, but Parallax chooses to frame him for an assassination anyway, as a convenient way of getting rid of him.

Our understanding of Parallax's motives is complicated by the fact that the two Senators menaced at the end of the film are described as rivals. Would Parallax really be trying to assassinate both of them? We learn very little about the company. It could just be a ruthless, profit-seeking business, or a cover for something else.

Some have suggested that Frady was successfully brainwashed to the extent that he blacks out his real role in the climactic assassination and that we, seeing the events from his perspective, also have no "memory" of those moments. (Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, an event that was one of the primary inspirations for the film, was reported to have made claims along these lines.)

Parallax may simply be confident that they can manipulate Frady to some lesser degree, which may or may not involve some kind of brainwashing. Parallax handler Jack Younger tells him that he's just the kind of man they need: "In a risky situation, I believe you would go right down the line. Youre invaluable." This is, in fact, just what he does: he goes all-out, headless of risk to himself, trying to stop two assassinations, and ends up playing into their hands.

Younger also tells Frady that he's better than any "former FBI" man, casually offering a precise description of Will, the man who helped Frady create a two-layer false identity. This can be seen as implying that by that point Parallax has full knowledge of who he is, which makes some sense: early on he was in contact with Lee, whom they were monitoring and planning to kill.

The plane sequence is critical, but what does it mean? One of Parallax's prime assassins watches the plane take off, and probably observed Frady boarding. It's conceivable, then, that Parallax planned for Frady to thwart this assassination, and was using a near-disaster to intimidate that Senator.

Of course it's still possible that Frady was simply predictable, rather than brainwashed. The bomb could have been remotely controlled, leaving Parallax an out in case Frady lost his nerve and they needed NOT to kill that particular Senator.

The film as a whole, and in particular the 2nd half, can be regarded as deliberately murky, paralleling feelings many had in the mid-70s trying to make sense of political events in the US.