16-12 Seconds
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 0 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 1
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) — 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) —0
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 0
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 0 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 1
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 0
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) 0 John Frankenheimer (Seconds) 1
July 1 – Seconds 0
of course, ‘Seconds’ is stunning movie.
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) 1 – John Frankenheimer (Seconds) 0
HAHAHAHHA! WTF?? Seconds was in the lead???? Thank goodness my vote at least ties it (I think).
Seconds is just hilariously silly and stupid. One of those bad movies with a “twist ending” which when you think about it is completely absurd and doesn’t hold up in the least. Maybe this was the prototype for those other kind of rediculous movies like “The Game” and “Arlington Road”. Yeah there are some decent ideas in there, but they are pretty elementary, and the gaping absudities in the plot moment after moment just overwhelm it.
July I made some comments about already in the Omirbaev introduction thread. I’ve very excited for more Omirbaev. I’ll be excited for more Frankenheimer too if he picked some films with better screenplays. I’ve seen The Manchurian Candidate so I know he has. But now that I think about it, it’s another one of those kind of nearly unbelievable plots as well. Is this the kind of stuff he always does?
I have seen Seconds (a long time ago) and I’m certain that this “political reason” will become obvious once someone points it out, but my head is bloody from scratching it. What are you people talking about?
Strangely enough, the “political reasons” people are mentioning has nothing to do with Seconds but with Omirbaev. Check out the Omirbaev Director Introduction thread. Robert Peabody III started all of this, but I’m not too sure what he was talking about. Maybe something about the availability of films???
I loved the authenticity of July immediately, and all those small unnecessary moments are never too many for me, and a one-day span.
It’s funny that you would say that there are unnecessary moments when this arguement appears in the OP of the Omirbaev Directors Introduction thread:
Like Hitchcock, Omirbaev is devoted to a fault, to the binding action between man and world. Unlike a good portion of his fellow filmmakers, he never allows chunks of space or time to envelop or overwhelm his action. There are no excursions into the density of place or atmosphere à la Sokurov, Apichatpong, or Kiarostami.
“the gaping absudities in the plot moment after moment just overwhelm it.”
The gaping absurdities? Please elaborate :)
The gaping absurdities? Please elaborate :)
I’m truly surprised that enough of these things didn’t strike you that you apparently don’t know what you are asking for, but you did ask, so here goes. I’m going to try to just go through the film through my head in order, but I may jump around a bit.
At the address Arthur goes to that was on the paper he was given, it’s a dry cleaners and no one responds to him for a long time. He could have easily left before that guy spoke up. If that old man actually works for “the company” then he doesn’t seem to care too much. If he doesn’t work for them, then they are putting an aweful lot of stock into the chance that he might give out their new address.
When Arthur gets to the offices of the company, they are extremely intent on getting him to sign a contract before they proceed with anything. But this business fakes deaths and then actually kills people, so it is clearly an unlawful business. How would a contract be useful unless in a court of law, a situation the company would never want to appear at because their business itself is unlawful.
What is this drug Arthur was given that apparently caused him to attack this woman on a stage, both apparently aggressively but also controlled exactly in a way that the company wanted it to capture him on film for “blackmail”? The fact that such a drug even exists is absurd enough, and should warrent a whole film itself to examine because on it’s own it’s just too absurd to throw in there.
And even once Arthur or anyone else is presented with this footage of themselves attacking a woman, how could that in the end really be blackmail? If he wanted to report the situation to the police, he could tell them it was staged. If the company was going to blackmail him they would have to explain how the footage was created in the first place. There is no explination for why they would have footage of something like this. And by getting involved with the police they would be just chancing even further that they would get investigated themselves.
How did they actually stage his death? They say that it’s difficult work, but it’s really unbelievable that they never get caught. In this situation in particular, you would have had to have assumed his wife would have said something about how unusual he was acting the days before he died. It’s hard to believe they do this thing on a regular basis and never get caught.
The plastic surgery is even more absurd than the drug. No one today can even do anything with plastic surgery that looks remotely as good as what was apparently done here in the 60s. That he would look so much more hansome and heal so well? This company would be a lot safer and more profitable just getting into the legal business of plastic surgery instead of staged deaths. Also the only thing they ever talk about changing are his face, voice, and hands. But apparently he has to be doing exercises for his whole body in the montage sequence of his recovery. And it’s pretty unbelievable to believe that Rock Hudson has the same body as John Randolph. And if it was his same body and personality and everything, you’d have to imaging his own wife would have more of a sense of familiarity when he came to visit her later. Maybe some of his mannerisms or something?
The shock of having a new face and voice should have been more severe, and they hardly made that believable.
All of the people at the company who deal with Arthur are highly unsympathetic to how a person would really react in the situation they put him in. If they really do this all the time, and they really want their transformation to be successful, they should explain things a lot better and be more sympathetic and anticipate his questions and concerns.
Who is that guy at the airport who recognizes him? Is this indicating that Tony used to be a real person? If that’s so, how did he die? I was hoping that was going to be the final thread that we find out and the big reveal, but it never panned out.
And the biggest question is how is this all profitable? They say they will be getting $30,000 from him. Even in the 60s it’s impossible to think that that much money from each person could sustain the kind of operation they have. With all of the breakthrough futuristic technology, apparently hundred or thousands of employees full time playing the roles of actors and butlers. Money for houses, and painting supplies, and huge parties. If $30,000 really paid for all of this and Arthur already had it, why didn’t he just transform his own life? And working in the insurance company I can’t believe for a moment that this company would be able to fool all of these life insurance companies into some how diverting the money to their company. Insurance companies investiage that stuff and would not be fooled.
They also mention this company has shareholders. How can that be possible? This has to be a totally underground company since it’s doing strictly illegal things.
If this company is really trying to help these people out and truly wants to be successful in making people fully transform and be reborn and be content in their new lives, then they are really bad at it. They don’t have any kind of psychologist to help them transition. They just throw them into the situation and try to fool them and allow them to get drunk and freak out. For all the money apparently spent on it, it’s absurd. And if the company isn’t truly trying to help these people, but just wants to kill people and take their money, there has to be a cheaper and quicker way to get through it.
There, that’s what I can remember thinking right now.
I like “Seconds” a lot but it doesn’t ‘turn the key’ to the end.
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 0
wow – where to begin?
At the address Arthur goes to that was on the paper he was given, it’s a dry cleaners and no one responds to him for a long time. He could have easily left before that guy spoke up. If that old man actually works for “the company” then he doesn’t seem to care too much. If he doesn’t work for them, then they are putting an aweful lot of stock into the chance that he might give out their new address.
Do you think he might be dismissive of the vanity of these people if he knows? Or trying to squeeze them a bit for info if he doesn’t? A great scene among many.
When Arthur gets to the offices of the company, they are extremely intent on getting him to sign a contract before they proceed with anything. But this business fakes deaths and then actually kills people, so it is clearly an unlawful business. How would a contract be useful unless in a court of law, a situation the company would never want to appear at because their business itself is unlawful.
Does he know all that when he signs the contract? Isn’t he the type who would appreciate a contract? Way too literal a reading….
What is this drug Arthur was given that apparently caused him to attack this woman on a stage, both apparently aggressively but also controlled exactly in a way that the company wanted it to capture him on film for “blackmail”? The fact that such a drug even exists is absurd enough, and should warrent a whole film itself to examine because on it’s own it’s just too absurd to throw in there.
Alcohol? Anyway, way too literal-minded reading.
And even once Arthur or anyone else is presented with this footage of themselves attacking a woman, how could that in the end really be blackmail? If he wanted to report the situation to the police, he could tell them it was staged. If the company was going to blackmail him they would have to explain how the footage was created in the first place. There is no explination for why they would have footage of something like this. And by getting involved with the police they would be just chancing even further that they would get investigated themselves.
The guy is a responsible member of society. How many times does someone go legit and get crushed by a puritanical society – the point is the uncertainty of blackmail – would the police believe him?
How did they actually stage his death? They say that it’s difficult work, but it’s really unbelievable that they never get caught. In this situation in particular, you would have had to have assumed his wife would have said something about how unusual he was acting the days before he died. It’s hard to believe they do this thing on a regular basis and never get caught.
And King-Fu films are believable?
The plastic surgery is even more absurd than the drug. No one today can even do anything with plastic surgery that looks remotely as good as what was apparently done here in the 60s. That he would look so much more hansome and heal so well? This company would be a lot safer and more profitable just getting into the legal business of plastic surgery instead of staged deaths. Also the only thing they ever talk about changing are his face, voice, and hands. But apparently he has to be doing exercises for his whole body in the montage sequence of his recovery. And it’s pretty unbelievable to believe that Rock Hudson has the same body as John Randolph. And if it was his same body and personality and everything, you’d have to imaging his own wife would have more of a sense of familiarity when he came to visit her later. Maybe some of his mannerisms or something?
The film is not ‘real’ Riss. There is no ‘plastic surgery… apparently done here in the 60s.’
The shock of having a new face and voice should have been more severe, and they hardly made that believable.
Huh? The film wasn’t believable…..
The rest of that post is an etc. to the above.
I’m with Bob on this one (except for the reference to ‘King-fu films’—I’ve never seen one of those).
You think too much during genre films, Riss. It’s becoming a very bad habit and I think you should see someone about it.
Do you think he might be dismissive of the vanity of these people if he knows? Or trying to squeeze them a bit for info if he doesn’t? A great scene among many.
Ok, yeah. I can see that.
Does he know all that when he signs the contract? Isn’t he the type who would appreciate a contract? Way too literal a reading….
The type of person who would apprecaite a contract in general is the same type of person who would realize that a contract in this situation would be completely worthless.
Alcohol? Anyway, way too literal-minded reading.
Alchohol doesn’t seem very reliable for something they seem to have to stage numerous times. Alchohol doesn’t knock you out so instantly like that either. And if the scene isn’t literal, what is it’s purpose? It seems like the scene is put in there as a rather imporant plot point to try to show why he wouldn’t back out.
The guy is a responsible member of society. How many times does someone go legit and get crushed by a puritanical society – the point is the uncertainty of blackmail – would the police believe him?
It seems like there is just as much if not more uncertainty for the company doing the blackmail than for the person receiving it. It seems like a much riskier move to make than a company which seems so methodical and efficient in other ways would make.
And King-Fu films are believable?
This isn’t a kung-fu film.
The film is not ‘real’ Riss. There is no ‘plastic surgery… apparently done here in the 60s.’
It’s not real, but it certainly goes to a lot of effort to try to pass off a lot of parts of it as real.
You think too much during genre films, Riss. It’s becoming a very bad habit and I think you should see someone about it.
I apparently do. I didn’t realize this was a genre film though. Which genre is it??
What have I unleashed???!!! :P
Deep breaths…
“At the address Arthur goes to that was on the paper he was given, it’s a dry cleaners and no one responds to him for a long time. He could have easily left before that guy spoke up. If that old man actually works for “the company” then he doesn’t seem to care too much. If he doesn’t work for them, then they are putting an awful lot of stock into the chance that he might give out their new address.”
I’d need to see the film again to respond to this point.
“When Arthur gets to the offices of the company, they are extremely intent on getting him to sign a contract before they proceed with anything. But this business fakes deaths and then actually kills people, so it is clearly an unlawful business. How would a contract be useful unless in a court of law, a situation the company would never want to appear at because their business itself is unlawful.”
The contract might not be for the purposes of being used in a court of law, but instead is used as a kind of reassurance to Arthur. “They’re insistent I sign a contract, so what they’re doing must be defensible in a court of law, from the court of law’s perspective”.
“What is this drug Arthur was given that apparently caused him to attack this woman on a stage, both apparently aggressively but also controlled exactly in a way that the company wanted it to capture him on film for “blackmail”? The fact that such a drug even exists is absurd enough, and should warrant a whole film itself to examine because on it’s own it’s just too absurd to throw in there.”
This is sci-fi. Stuff exists in sci-fi that doesn’t exist in the real world. Plus this company has incredibly advanced plastic surgery, I’m sure they can manufacture a drug and manipulate him with hypnosis or something to that effect in order to make the video.
“And even once Arthur or anyone else is presented with this footage of themselves attacking a woman, how could that in the end really be blackmail? If he wanted to report the situation to the police, he could tell them it was staged. If the company was going to blackmail him they would have to explain how the footage was created in the first place. There is no explanation for why they would have footage of something like this. And by getting involved with the police they would be just chancing even further that they would get investigated themselves.”
As with the contract, this may well exist more for the purposes of convincing Arthur rather than holding any real power. Arthur doesn’t know for certain the police would believe him for sure, and if they don’t then he could be doing jail time and a divorce. Also, the panic could make him dismiss rationality for the time being.
“How did they actually stage his death? They say that it’s difficult work, but it’s really unbelievable that they never get caught. In this situation in particular, you would have had to have assumed his wife would have said something about how unusual he was acting the days before he died. It’s hard to believe they do this thing on a regular basis and never get caught.”
I don’t really see this as an issue. This is the 1960s, long before DNA testing or anything like that. Also it’s in a country that has thousands and thousands of people die every day, a few of them every now and then having someone act weird before they die really isn’t going to get noticed.
What I find more questionable is quite how they got hold of his money without raising suspicions…
“The plastic surgery is even more absurd than the drug. No one today can even do anything with plastic surgery that looks remotely as good as what was apparently done here in the 60s. That he would look so much more handsome and heal so well?”
SCI-FI! SCI-FI! SCI-FI! :P
There’s plenty of technology shown in sci-fi movies that isn’t that believable, and definitely couldn’t be done during the time period the sci-fi film is set. I really don’t see this as an issue.
“This company would be a lot safer and more profitable just getting into the legal business of plastic surgery instead of staged deaths.”
Yes, they would. However, I imagine the original intent of the company was to help people get whole new lives. If the company was out in the open and well known it wouldn’t be able to achieve this. And if the technology that allows them to do this advanced plastic surgery was widely known about then people might start to get more suspicious about the existence of this company which could endanger the company’s efforts to help people.
“Also the only thing they ever talk about changing are his face, voice, and hands. But apparently he has to be doing exercises for his whole body in the montage sequence of his recovery. And it’s pretty unbelievable to believe that Rock Hudson has the same body as John Randolph.”
Sorry, dunno how to reply to this one.
“And if it was his same body and personality and everything, you’d have to imaging his own wife would have more of a sense of familiarity when he came to visit her later. Maybe some of his mannerisms or something?”
Huh, I got the feeling at the time that she was kind of put off by this man’s presence in a way that suggested a possible familiarity that she couldn’t explain. I might be wrong though…
“The shock of having a new face and voice should have been more severe, and they hardly made that believable.”
I just supposed that sort of stuff was taken for granted during all the time we skip over during montages. Though yeah, it would have been nice to see.
“All of the people at the company who deal with Arthur are highly unsympathetic to how a person would really react in the situation they put him in. If they really do this all the time, and they really want their transformation to be successful, they should explain things a lot better and be more sympathetic and anticipate his questions and concerns.”
Agreed, but people aren’t perfect. Maybe they’re jaded because of how many of the seconds end up failing at their second chance at life? Seeing so many of failures could really take it out of them.
“Who is that guy at the airport who recognizes him? Is this indicating that Tony used to be a real person? If that’s so, how did he die? I was hoping that was going to be the final thread that we find out and the big reveal, but it never panned out.”
That isn’t a plot hole. That’s just you wanting to know some information the film chooses to hide from you ;)
“And the biggest question is how is this all profitable? They say they will be getting $30,000 from him. Even in the 60s it’s impossible to think that that much money from each person could sustain the kind of operation they have.”
Whilst I agree this bit of the film is stretching it a a bit, it’s entirely possible that such a huge number of the seconds fail in their second life that the actual average cost of one is under $30K (after all, each one that fails is another body that can be used for a new second and another $30K). It could just speak to the company’s failure that the costs are so low.
“With all of the breakthrough futuristic technology”
I imagine the man who started all this covered the costs of developing the plastic surgery with his own money.
“apparently hundreds or thousands of employees full time playing the roles of actors and butlers.”
One butler + one other company person to keep an eye on a second. They don’t need to be forever, just long enough that they can be sure the second is ready to cope on their own and won’t break down.
“Money for houses”
I imagine the houses are reused. One second fails, throw a new one in there.
“and painting supplies, and huge parties”
Only for the short term, whilst the second finds their feet and manages to get an income.
“If $30,000 really paid for all of this and Arthur already had it, why didn’t he just transform his own life?”
This is one of the major points of the film. Arthur would be unhappy no matter what his life is like, how much money he has, how his body changes &c. The problem lies with him, not what his life is like or how much he owns.
“And working in the insurance company I can’t believe for a moment that this company would be able to fool all of these life insurance companies into some how diverting the money to their company. Insurance companies investigate that stuff and would not be fooled.”
As I said, this is the one bit of the film that doesn’t convince me.
“They also mention this company has shareholders. How can that be possible? This has to be a totally underground company since it’s doing strictly illegal things."
It’s possible. Underground shares, I find that believable.
“If this company is really trying to help these people out and truly wants to be successful in making people fully transform and be reborn and be content in their new lives, then they are really bad at it.”
Maybe the problem isn’t so much them being bad at it, as it’s something that’s nearly impossible to be good at because the cause of unhappiness for many of these people isn’t what they own, and where they work, and who they have as family and friends, but is instead a more fundamental problem: who they are and how they perceive the world. And maybe this just so happens to be the point of the film: you can change someone’s face, but not their underlying personality and perception of the world.
Cecil beat me to it. It’s a sci-fi film, Riss. It uses the completely implausible scenario to discuss it’s themes. These could be addressed in a different way, but the filmmaker wanted to make a film about a guy who changes his appearance.
Why bother to dress your themes in an implausible scenario? Because it’s fun. Of course, part of enjoying it requires you to suspend your disbelief. I’m not knocking you for your criticism, just messing with you. If a film doesn’t allow you to suspend your disbelief (I had this problem with Hannah ) then the film isn’t doing it’s job for you.
I believe we have this score:
July – 18
Seconds – 19
Come on July, you can win!!!!
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 0
@Risselada
I think, and I agree with Will, Peabody, and House, that you are somewhat off-base in overthinking the mechanics of the plot to this degree. SECONDS I believe is primarily a tone piece composed of ideas that coalesce into the themes that dominate the running time. Elements that you find questionable are merely tools, little windows into the themes that Frankenheimer and Ely/Carlino wanted to communicate. This film is first and foremost an exploration of identity (personal/private/public) and how identity is realized and constructed in society. The blackmail film, while not something that can be dangled in from of any official authority, would be like a death sentence for anyone of Arthur Hamilton’s station. While mentioning the conformist attitude of the 1950s can be trite and well-worn, it is of note that Arthur was expected by the society in which he lived to be of a type. The usurping of the status quo (viz-a-viz the film) is something that would hardly be tolerated. Think of the Cold War. Think of the House Un-American Activities Committee. The contract I believe is representative of the social contract we all must wrestle with when we present our personal/private selves to the public sphere. What I find most compelling is the way Rock Hudson the person is incorporated into all of this. It was a somewhat closely guarded Hollywood secret that he was gay, and his studio and press handlers even arranged a marriage to deflect any question of his sexuality. This, especially for someone of Hudson’s matinee idol looks, must have felt like an incredible burden in these less tolerant times. I am not sure if Frankenheimer knew Rock was gay or not, but I believe Hudson jumped at the chance to play a character so completely different from his performances in Sirk’s melodramas and the pillow talk films he starred in with his good friend Doris Day. To say that this film can be read as a allegory about homosexuality is an understatement. However, to limit this to a deconstruction of sexuality is a disservice. This film is a vehicle for a vehement denouncement of the social superstructure.
Watch this scene again, what Dhiegh’s character sermonizes to Rock is the exact kind of thinking that the film rails against, and why the Reborn program is doomed to failure, and why I believe Will Geer’s character (the Founder) kept going with the program, a pure engine of exploiting the weakness of the social contract.
You cannot change or improve who you are if you lie to yourself.
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) 1 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) 0
I like both films very much, but it’s my first Omirbaev and I must say that I loved it. A simple film full of beautiful little moments.
What is the name of the device that attaches the camera to the actor as they walk around? Where was that first used?
I think it’s called a SnorriCam
“They’re insistent I sign a contract, so what they’re doing must be defensible in a court of law, from the court of law’s perspective”.
Would you believe that? Would anyone believe that How could that logically be defensible? To stage a death, to fraud insurance companies, etc.
This is sci-fi. Stuff exists in sci-fi that doesn’t exist in the real world. Plus this company has incredibly advanced plastic surgery, I’m sure they can manufacture a drug and manipulate him with hypnosis or something to that effect in order to make the video.
This is Sci-fi?? I never really thought about it that way. But Sci-Fi is a broad definition, and still has to be established by the narrative so that we can understand the kind of world we are entering. For example, if the film took place in the future and we saw all kinds of unusual technical advancements around that would set a precident that lots of things could exist that normally wouldn’t. But this film seems very much the real world of the time that it was made. The way I watch a film like that, if it is going to start using sci-fi suddenly it needs to give you some kind of indication. At least have someone explain how or why this company has this technology or some insight into some kind of familiar science terms to explain it. Even if they used some kidn of bullshit science terms in there, that would have been easier for me to accept than just throwing it at us in the realistic context that was already created.
As with the contract, this may well exist more for the purposes of convincing Arthur rather than holding any real power. Arthur doesn’t know for certain the police would believe him for sure, and if they don’t then he could be doing jail time and a divorce. Also, the panic could make him dismiss rationality for the time being.
It’s all “could bes”. Seems like way too much uncertainty.
I don’t really see this as an issue. This is the 1960s, long before DNA testing or anything like that. Also it’s in a country that has thousands and thousands of people die every day, a few of them every now and then having someone act weird before they die really isn’t going to get noticed.
Just like all of these things, on it’s own it might not be THAT unbelievable, but it just piles on top of everything else I said that happened to Arthur in particular, and then imagine that this is apparently repeated over and over and over by this company.
There’s plenty of technology shown in sci-fi movies that isn’t that believable, and definitely couldn’t be done during the time period the sci-fi film is set. I really don’t see this as an issue.
Again, that would be fine if the film set some sort of precedent for this to be the case of being that kind of film. Obviously to some people it did. To me it did not. I never thought of it as sci-fi.
Yes, they would. However, I imagine the original intent of the company was to help people get whole new lives. If the company was out in the open and well known it wouldn’t be able to achieve this. And if the technology that allows them to do this advanced plastic surgery was widely known about then people might start to get more suspicious about the existence of this company which could endanger the company’s efforts to help people.
Fair enough. But to me it just seems like such a much more difficult and thus improbable situation that it would develop that it really sticks out.
Huh, I got the feeling at the time that she was kind of put off by this man’s presence in a way that suggested a possible familiarity that she couldn’t explain. I might be wrong though…
That could be true. I wish they had played it up more or played upon this angle a lot more though. It would have made it interesting I think.
Agreed, but people aren’t perfect. Maybe they’re jaded because of how many of the seconds end up failing at their second chance at life? Seeing so many of failures could really take it out of them.
I guess so. I wonder why these people stay at this “job” then.
That isn’t a plot hole. That’s just you wanting to know some information the film chooses to hide from you ;)
You don’t want to know too???
Whilst I agree this bit of the film is stretching it a a bit, it’s entirely possible that such a huge number of the seconds fail in their second life that the actual average cost of one is under $30K (after all, each one that fails is another body that can be used for a new second and another $30K). It could just speak to the company’s failure that the costs are so low.
Again it’s possible, but to me the question is too obvious to not be addressed directly by the film.
I imagine the man who started all this covered the costs of developing the plastic surgery with his own money.
That seems like it would cost more money than any one man would have.
One butler + one other company person to keep an eye on a second. They don’t need to be forever, just long enough that they can be sure the second is ready to cope on their own and won’t break down.
I guess so. I was thinking of all of the people at the different parties too, but I guess a lot of them could have been Seconds as well. But why are they doing work for the company then? Aren’t they supposed to be the clients? The dream of that many clients were to go have grape stomping parties? Or to attend parties at the house of a new Second?
I imagine the houses are reused. One second fails, throw a new one in there.
But it would take a ton of money to remodel and decorate each one according to each new Second’s dreams and wishes.
Only for the short term, whilst the second finds their feet and manages to get an income.
I never thought about that. The film seemed to indicate that the Second could do whatever they wanted and have full freedom regardless of any income. I doubt that guy would ever make an income with his painting! HA!
This is one of the major points of the film. Arthur would be unhappy no matter what his life is like, how much money he has, how his body changes &c. The problem lies with him, not what his life is like or how much he owns.
Good point.
It’s possible. Underground shares, I find that believable.
Maybe I’m naive about how much stuff happens underground. I’m all about believing that corporations do some pretty horrible stuff they hide from the public, but this seems to go a little beyond that.
Maybe the problem isn’t so much them being bad at it, as it’s something that’s nearly impossible to be good at because the cause of unhappiness for many of these people isn’t what they own, and where they work, and who they have as family and friends, but is instead a more fundamental problem: who they are and how they perceive the world. And maybe this just so happens to be the point of the film: you can change someone’s face, but not their underlying personality and perception of the world.
OK, so at the end here we do get to some really good points. This is what the film is really about. I like that. I can buy that. I just think the way it gets to that point is a way that is too distracting for me at least. Obviously a lot of other people enjoy the way it got there. But I get hung up on these thrillers that put so much emphasis on certain points of the plot to explain certain questions but end up opening up even bigger questions that are ignored. I would rather the film just be a lot more stylized and not try to put any emphasis on explaining certain plot points that don’t need explaining. Because once you try to start explaining one thing, I’m gonna ask for explinations about things in the same realm. If you just don’t both explaining anything and just focus on the theme, I’m much more apt to go along with it.
If a film doesn’t allow you to suspend your disbelief (I had this problem with Hannah ) then the film isn’t doing it’s job for you.
That’s essentially the problem.
SECONDS I believe is primarily a tone piece composed of ideas that coalesce into the themes that dominate the running time. Elements that you find questionable are merely tools, little windows into the themes that Frankenheimer and Ely/Carlino wanted to communicate. This film is first and foremost an exploration of identity (personal/private/public) and how identity is realized and constructed in society.
I think you are so right Max that Second is a tone piece, or that’s what it should be rather. And that’s what I wanted it to be! It would have been great that way. But all this uncesessary stuff kept getting in the way I thought.
VOTING IS CLOSED
I believe July wins with a score of 20 – 19
Thanks, Riss.
Arman
Darezhan Omirbaev (July) – 0 vs. John Frankenheimer (Seconds) – 1