criterionforum.org

Sorry, I know this thread hasn't been replied to for a year, but as soon as I knew there was an existing thread on Seconds, I just had to emphasise my love of this film. Quite simply a masterpiece but one that's never received due recognition in my opinion - not only technically innovative but also thematically daring too; a quite ferocious assault on the American middle class values. It's also one of the most downbeat films of all time.

And if I can crudely link my own review of it.

Since I saw it for the first time a few years ago, it's always stuck with me and remains one of my favourites to this day.

Matt wrote:

Macintosh wrote:Seconds is one of the saddest films ever made, period. I think it was also the first film to use that technique where the camera is strapped to the actor. Scorsese would later use the same technique in Mean Streets and i think most kids today would mostly reconize it from Requiem for a Dream.

I wouldn't be me if I weren't splitting hairs. Scorsese's technique (also used often by Spike Lee) involves the actor standing on the camera dolly. Aronofksy's technique (which was trademarked and licensed for a ton of money to MTV for their stupid show "Fear") involves a harness which attaches a camera to the actor's torso. It's called the Snorri cam.

I don't actually remember how the effect is achieved in Seconds and I'm too lazy to go get the DVD and look right now.

Obviously I'm responding to an old post from this recently whipped-up thread, but the Wachowskis stuck a harness on Joey Pants in "Bound" in 1996, so it had been used recently as well as way back in "Seconds." Considering the other films that have used this technique, I'd be curious to know what from "Requiem" could have been legitimately trademarked.

I saw this film a few years ago—before JF died—because it was one of my friend's favorites, and I hadn't even heard of it! It definitely deserves to be more widely seen.

A special rig similar to the SnorriCam was also used in Gerald Kargl's Angst (1983). The main character had a steel ring (to which the camera was attached) strapped around his waist which allowed the camera to circle around him while he was walking.

Was the Paramount Region1 the only ever issued DVD for this film around the world?

manicsounds wrote:Was the Paramount Region1 the only ever issued DVD for this film around the world?

To my knowledge, yes.

Caught "Seconds" on TCM-HD for the first time last Thanksgiving weekend (right after watching, of all things, The Wachowski Bros.' "Speed Racer") alone and late at night in a big empty living room. Needless to say it blew my freaking little mind even though I could see the ending coming a continent away (too much "Twilight Zone" training I guess). To the movie's credit though, knowing what was coming didn't make watching it any less wrenching. I haven't seen enough Rock Hudson movies ("Avalanche" anyone?) to have an opinion about the man but, based on his work in "Seconds" alone, he must have been a helluva good performer saddled with s*** roles and scripts. Unlike John Randolph's easy-to-buy willingness to grab an out-of-nowhere escape from his banal middle-aged existence, it's Hudson who sells the idea (and does it convincingly) that his good-looking being is tortured on the inside and wants out (something we now know Rock didn't have to dig too deep within himself to find). James Wong Howe's B&W cinematography is spectacular, Saul Bass' opening credits seem like a continuation of his 'eye' shot from "Psycho," the supporting performances perfect (never have impish little old man in business attire looked more menacing), Jerry Goldsmith's score is excellent and the picture's overall mood so oppressive even during supposedly 'happy' scenes (i.e. the grave-stomping orgy) that it helps us understand why Hamilton/Wilson does what he does even though we're all screaming at him 'don't do it!' I'm slowly getting the memo (better late than never): Frankenheimer was a very underrated 'auteur' of modern cinema, and "Seconds" is exhibit A. Where's our Blu-ray Criterion?

I like Rock Hudson a lot, more than most I'd bet, but this was his bid at getting another Oscar nom. Unfortunately, he didn't have a studio pushing an event movie like with Giant and this movie bombed, so the nom never materialized. He did pretty good for a former chauffeur hired on looks and non-threatening masculinity. Why Criterion wasn't interested in this film is a mystery, I agree

dad1153 wrote:Caught "Seconds" on TCM-HD for the first time last Thanksgiving weekend (right after watching, of all things, The Wachowski Bros.' "Speed Racer") alone and late at night in a big empty living room. Needless to say it blew my freaking little mind even though I could see the ending coming a continent away (too much "Twilight Zone" training I guess). To the movie's credit though, knowing what was coming didn't make watching it any less wrenching. I haven't seen enough Rock Hudson movies ("Avalanche" anyone?) to have an opinion about the man but, based on his work in "Seconds" alone, he must have been a helluva good performer saddled with s*** roles and scripts. Unlike John Randolph's easy-to-buy willingness to grab an out-of-nowhere escape from his banal middle-aged existence, it's Hudson who sells the idea (and does it convincingly) that his good-looking being is tortured on the inside and wants out (something we now know Rock didn't have to dig too deep within himself to find). James Wong Howe's B&W cinematography is spectacular, Saul Bass' opening credits seem like a continuation of his 'eye' shot from "Psycho," the supporting performances perfect (never have impish little old man in business attire looked more menacing), Jerry Goldsmith's score is excellent and the picture's overall mood so oppressive even during supposedly 'happy' scenes (i.e. the grave-stomping orgy) that it helps us understand why Hamilton/Wilson does what he does even though we're all screaming at him 'don't do it!' I'm slowly getting the memo (better late than never): Frankenheimer was a very underrated 'auteur' of modern cinema, and "Seconds" is exhibit A.

Seconds and the Swimmer are my two favourite American films of the period.

I recall reading (or perhaps I saw it in a supplement on the dvd?) that Rock Hudson felt very uncomfortable doing the grape-crushing scene, for a number of reasons, and had to really be persuaded to shoot the scene. It shows, and Hudson's character's reluctance to participate ain't acting, he was terrified!

It's about time. This is gonna look great on Blu. Some of my favorite cinematography ever.

At the risk of being that guy, did anyone else find the movie disappointing? It great potential, and a great first half but then it sort of descends into ho-hum territory. The Manchurian Candidate is great though. I do agree, cinematography is pretty amazing.

The movie is all about the second half being disappointing.

I like Baldwin as much as the next guy, but what makes him an expert on Frankenheimer over any of the other actors he worked with?

Foam wrote:It's about time. This is gonna look great on Blu. Some of my favorite cinematography ever.

I feel like I've been hearing about this one since I started seriously collecting Criterions a decade ago. I agree, a gorgeous movie, maybe the handsomest film James Wong Howe photographed.

knives wrote:I like Baldwin as much as the next guy, but what makes him an expert on Frankenheimer over any of the other actors he worked with?

They should've gotten Val Kilmer.

knives wrote:I like Baldwin as much as the next guy, but what makes him an expert on Frankenheimer over any of the other actors he worked with?

If you never saw any of the TCM series of The Essentials that he co-hosted, he's very well-versed in classic film history, a good raconteur, and quite pleasant to listen to. I would definitely prefer him over, say, Val Kilmer.

EDIT: Haha, jinx with the Val Kilmer references.

Great news and some interesting sounding extra features, although I would have been even happier if Criterion also had been able to pair Seconds up with the excellent 90s neo-noir film inspired by it, Suture.

I guess this is the Saul Bass clue everyone was talking about...

colinr0380 wrote:Great news and some interesting sounding extra features, although I would have been even happier if Criterion also had been able to pair Seconds up with the excellent 90s neo-noir film inspired by it, Suture.

I think this is part of what I love about Seconds. Not so much because of Suture per se, but because Seconds strikes me as the ahead-of-it's-time forefather of any number of later film thrillers. For me this is Frankenheimer's best film. And I'll cast a vote in favor of the Bass cover too.

This film creeps me out today as much as it did when I first saw it 25 years ago. The premise, though perhaps implausible, is still chilling, and of course Frankenheimer and James Wong Howe create the perfect atmosphere.

Seconds will now hold the distinction, in my opinion, of being the greatest film in The Criterion Collection. Spectacular news.

Could have done without the overly long orgy scene but otherwise the film is an absolute cracker and it's got one of the most chilling finales I've seen in any film ever. One of Frankenheimer's finest, and I'm so grateful that Criterion have come to this film's rescue.

Finch wrote:Could have done without the overly long orgy scene

Spoiler

I touched on this briefly with an earlier comment but the second half (or more like the third quarter) of the film may initially seem out of place/dramatically inert considering the stylistic tour-de-force that preceded it, and this may be a sticking point for some. But remember that this section is kind of like a computer-generated vision of the ideal life for a man who is supposed to have artistic sensibilities, and it becomes much more chilling. (Whether Hudson's character is even innately an artist is debatable--this came up as a fleeting interest during a drug-induced interview, and it wasn't even his first choice.) The company is saying: "Oh, you want to be an artist? You like freedom and sexual liberation? Here you go." But it's not true freedom, just the preassigned fruits that stereotypically come with another societal role. He eventually gives in but just look at the horror on his face when the orgy starts to warm up, not that far removed from the film's more obvious horrors.

We often think of society trying to force us into preassigned roles with regard to admirable things like parenthood, education, careers, etc., but I really like this idea that there are also predefined ways that you are permitted to be loose, "bad," or different.

Yes, it's a bit like that play Rhinoceros in that you need the thing being opposed to define the one who opposes.

swo17 wrote:

Spoiler

We often think of society trying to force us into preassigned roles with regard to admirable things like parenthood, education, careers, etc., but I really like this idea that there are also predefined ways that you are permitted to be loose, "bad," or different.

Spoiler

Not only that, but since he hasn't actually earned that freedom by authentically committing to the life of an artist in the long term, by living an actual counter culture existence, or by having the balls to openly remake his life (quit his job, divorce his wife and move to CA), it's equally hollow from an existential angle. He gets the Disney version of an art life, the happy end results only -- free of any of the doubt, dejection, struggle, suffering, sacrifices, poverty, privation, broken relationships, etc. And also, of course, free of anyone who truly knows him that he might share it all with.