criterionforum.org

Seconds



Rock Hudson is a revelation in this sinister, science-fiction-inflected dispatch from the fractured 1960s. Seconds, directed by John Frankenheimer, concerns a middle-aged businessman dissatisfied with his suburban existence, who elects to undergo a strange and elaborate procedure that will grant him a new life. Starting over in America, however, is not as easy as it sounds. This paranoiac symphony of canted camera angles (courtesy of famed cinematographer James Wong Howe), fragmented editing, and layered sound design is a remarkably risk-taking Hollywood film that ranks high on the list of its legendary director's major achievements.

SPECIAL FEATURES

• New 4K digital film restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition
• Audio commentary featuring director John Frankenheimer
• Actor Alec Baldwin on Frankenheimer and Seconds
• New program on the making of Seconds, featuring interviews with Evans Frankenheimer, the director's widow, and actor Salome Jens
• Interview with Frankenheimer from 1971
• New visual essay by film scholars R. Barton Palmer and Murray Pomerance
• PLUS: An essay by critic David Sterritt

Michael wrote:Anyone seen Seconds?

I just saw it early today and I have to ask why this film is not recognized or discussed as much as the best of Bergman or Hitchcock. It even failed to make it on the '60s list of this forum's Lists Project. Why, why?

More on the film after I let it settle in.

I believe I was the only one who voted for it, and this is surely because almost nobody has seen it...unfortunately (and for reasons I can't fathom)this remains an unknown film, but everybody I've ever showed it to (or recommended it to) loved it.

Michael, you've just discovered a film that's been in my top ten of all time for four years, since the night I first watched it (and my first experience with "Seconds" actually remains the most emotional and shaking I've ever had with a film). It's perhaps the most simultaneously imaginative, beautiful, and horrific film, and one of maybe four or five that exist that cast a day-long spell over me after I watch it.

James Wong Howe (cinematography) and Jerry Goldsmith (score) are also doing their very, very best work, and Rock Hudson gives a beautiful, frantic, daring performance...the end of the grapes scene is one of the most liberating moments in all of cinema. The writing is breathtaking, and I count it as one of the greatest stories to have been told.

And being "A Paramount Production," it's nothing short of a miracle that it even got made, and it surely must have upset a lot of people at the time. Can you imagine a studio looking at this film today and actually releasing it? It's unimaginable.

After you watch the film again (because it sounds like you will), listen to Frankenheimer's commentary on the DVD, it's one of the best.

it's one of the maybe four or five films that exist that cast a day-long spell over me after I watch it.

Thats exactly what I'm going through right now. The spell. It's hard to focus on anything else. I was completely, completely transfixed with the film from the beautiful, eerie opening all the way through to one of the most devastating finales ever. A Hollywood film that is 100% "art" and has a wickedly uncompromising ending.. I can't ask for more.

Being already familiar with Rock Hudson's work (Sirk, Doris Day and Dynasty!), his performance in Seconds shocked me, leaving me in utter awe. Like Dylan said, the film is a very emotional experience.. very visceral and consuming I must add. Gorgeous black & white cinematography - just as magnicent and expressive as Persona, Baby Doll, Eraserhead, and 8 1/2. Before I go on making myself appear like a lunatic, I better stop here for now till the spell drifts away.

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.

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.

I haven't seen Mean Streets in a couple years but i seem to remember a shot of Keitel where he's drunk and is falling down with a drink in his hand with the camera attached to his body. I don't think he was standing on the dolly for this shot. Of course i may be wrong if memory doesn't serve me well. Someone who owns the DVD should verify this.

Yeah, during the whole "Rubber Biscuit" sequence-- the camera is slightly below Keitel's neck, looking up at a slight angle.

...The way it moves in conjunction with his torso, it has to be a harness. I haven't seen it in a year and a half, but this image has stuck in my mind.

Seconds has a few week moments-- the dissolution of the Californian "fantasy" was a bit aimless and sloggy-- but the first and last acts may be some of the most beautifully dread-inducing, (and originally-shot) sequences ever made.

...For a high-concept movie, it unfolds elegantly-- perhaps more than any other.

I love this film, but agree the California segments are weak. That endless grape mashing scene in particular, which has not aged well. Nevertheless, a very underrated film.

The most depressingly brilliant film I've ever seen. Granted it made me feel sick, but this was due to much of the imagery bringing on flashbacks of the fever dreams I had when suffering from meningitis as a nipper.

The parallels between the effects of those awkward camera positions, surreal-like scenes, and extreme close-ups et al with the effects on the brain of a viral infection are quite marked.

I don't think that its underrated as much as unseen. Certainly its Frankenheimer's best film.

i saw this one in an "introduction to film" class i took as an elective my last year at school. i definitely enjoyed from the eerie titles sequence on, although i agree about some of the california scenes going on too long. i was under the impression that frankenheimer used the "snorri - cam" here and i'm pretty sure he discusses this in the commentary, although i may be remembering incorrectly.

Dylan wrote:

It even failed to make it on the '60s list of this forum's Lists Project. Why, why?

I believe I was the only one who voted for it.

No you weren't! So it must have at least made the Also-Rans list.

I watched the film again recently and was once again completely blown away by Howe's work. This must be some of the most visionary cinematography to appear in a Hollywood film, and it's a miracle that the film itself has the substance and guts to match the visuals. And surely this is Hudson's finest hour and a half, leaping way out of his comfort zone but pulling it off beautifully.

There's no excuse for this to be unknown, with a decent DVD available. For further dips in the same gene pool, try The Face of Another (from MoC) for theme and The Cremator (from SecondRun) for style.

SPOILERS...

I simply can't imagine Seconds without its California mid-section. The California mid-section is utterly revelant to the film. Of course we understand why Tony was sent across the country after the surgery. Keep in mind that the butler kept insisting on having a social party and Tony dismissed his attempt every time. That failure led to Nora being called in to do some "work". The whole grape harvest festival was a set up. It was also a perfect and cinematic way to show that Tony's inner self hadn't changed since before the surgery. I love how the last frame of that grape stomping sequence dissolves into Tony and Nora holding each other on the beach. Beautifully, perfectly done...because it really made me believe that they were in love with each other. So the twist related to Nora at the party in the next few scenes was an incredible shock!

I'm not understanding the criticisms of the second act, which to me is the most important part of the film in terms of emotion and character.

Beautifully, perfectly done...because it really made me believe that they actually fell in love with each other.

That is a gorgeous moment, and you're right, we really do believe their love. By this point in the film we understand the pain Hudson's character has been suffering for his entire life (how he had spent every day of his youth working toward what he thought was important (success and content) but never considering, or approaching, his true desires) and following the beautifully-written entrance for the woman and the frantic and liberating forest party, we see them bonding physically and romantically, and it's fully realized that this is his first time experiencing these kinds of raw and free emotions. Of course, this is also where the real nightmare will begin.

Zedz, it's great to see that I wasn't the only one who voted for it. Maybe when the next '60s list project comes up it will break the top 50.

Scorsese talks about the hand-made board-cam in the Scene by Scene interview with Mark Cousins and he may talk about it on the Mean Streets DVD. It was a harnessed board, on which the camera - presumably a lightweight camera - sat

Frankenheimer used a harness on Seconds. He notes that the actor (Frank Campanella) was very strong, so it may have been a heavy, mounted camera. The old camera in the suitcase trick was also utilized. Wong Howe shot the footage in the train himself, handheld. Right from the opening title sequence by the great Saul Bass, with that beautifully austere typeface, we are immersed into a sublime, totally unique aesthetic experience in American Cinema of the 1960s. Legendary art directors/set decorators Ted Haworth (Strangers on a Train; Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid) and John Austin (Touch of Evil; Paper Moon; Westworld; Exorcist II) created some of their very best work on this film, as did the awesome dp, James Wong Howe, who helped devise some astounding lighting effects and Frankenheimer's audacious use of the wide-angle lens, deep-focus framing and long takes all combine to achieve a powerful, dense and disturbing world. Jerry Goldsmith's exquisite, adventurous score communicates the inner turmoil of Arthur Hamilton brilliantly. And though I have never really thought much of Rock Hudson, he is certainly very good in the role, though John Randolph usually gets overlooked - he sets the tone for the story will great skill and subtlety.

Of the many modern day retellings of Goethe's immortal masterpiece, David Ely's novel is one of the most interesting - and disturbing. Jonathan Mostow has wrote his own screenplay and it will be interesting to see what he comes up with, but he'll have his work cut out emulating Frankenheimer's masterpiece of existential Cinema. It is a story that speaks of themes that everyone can relate to: Arthur Hamilton tries to remove his past to start anew, but without one's past, one is nothing; a man cannot reduce himself to the foundational will - there is no 'default setting' of the human mind. We are what we are - all of what we percieve as the positive and negative aspects of our being. Trying to 'make a fresh start' in the most comprehensive way is impossible; all that we have experienced is all that we are and we cannot obliterate our misery though physical acts or transformations. This is an age of extreme vanity and greed; an age of the 'quick fix' and 'specialist' who will advise us and solve our problems for us! But as Arthur finds out, our great problems of existence cannot be solved easily, let alone by others.

It's interesting to note that the film appeared in the same year as Kôbô Abe and Hiroshi Teshigahara's striking, The Face of Another, which is infused with more black humour, but is equally thought-provoking and stylish.

Been a couple of years since I watched it, but it just seemed kind of like an episode of Twilight Zone. I was disappointed after having read good things about it.

Christopher Nolan talks about his love of this movie over at the Telegraph.

A memorable excerpt:

"It is very tempting to relate what the character goes through to what we now know Hudson went through, but I think it's more universal than that. His portrayal of the character conveys a universal sense of the hollowness of the glamorous idea that if our lives could just be freed from our responsibilities, we could be happy… We really know that's just not true. Seconds is an astonishing portrayal of a man getting to find that out for himself."

Here is an interesting factoid (from Wikipedia) about Brian Wilson during the recording of the Beach Boys album Smile (an album that was never completed by the group in its original form mostly because of Brian Wilson's breakdown.

In December, Brian was deeply troubled by a viewing of the surreal and disturbing John Frankenheimer film thriller Seconds, starring Rock Hudson. In his increasingly vulnerable and confused state, Brian convinced himself that the film's opening line "Good morning, Mr. Wilson"—and indeed in most of the film's content—somehow referred to him.

Yeah, he thought Phil Spector had paid Hollywood to make a movie to freak him out because of jealousy. Poor Brian should have put down the hash pipe.....

Does anyone notice anything that links between Seconds, Safe and Cure? And I don't mean just their one-word titles. I watched those films all in one month. Quite a coincidence because those films affected me almost in the same way. Beautifully photographed horror films taking place in everyday life, dealing with common people - all perfectly realized with a unique, surreal touch. They're eerily quiet in tone and sound.

Those films deal with people who are not happy with themselves in this crazy, fast-changing modern world without really realizing or understanding it.. and they still have no way out. They seek out science to take care of their problems or make up who they are or fill out their voids. The characters of Rock Hudson, Julianne Moore and Koji Yakusho don't beg you to sympathize with them but long after the films end, you couldn't help shaking them out of your mind and heart.

What do you think? Any other films that deserve to be in the same sentence as those films?

I think Seconds' ideal double feature is The Face of Another, and Safe has always reminded me of one of Fassbinder's arch, stylish mid-period domestic horror-melodramas, like Martha or Fear of Fear. (Though Safe would have been an entirely different film with Margit Carstensen in the lead role!).

So there are three to go on with!

Having just seen this I'm in complete awe. I'm not even sure what to write, but this floored me. It's criminal this isn't more widely regarded, or known.

Unbelievable!! Obviously a big influence on the likes of Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem For A Dream) and Nolan (Following, Memento).

And I couldn't shake the comparison to Orson Welles' The Trial. I would say it even surpasses that film in terms of raw immediacy, scope and poignant nightmarish power. Nothing short of a masterpiece.

I'll second the emotion for SECONDS. It IS a masterpiece, I think, but probably too dark and bizarre for most audiences. It's definitely not a feel-good kinda movie, and it's not especially well-known, which probably accounts for its lower profile than some of Frankenheimer's other films. It's definitely the hardest hitting of the "paranoia trilogy."

The film SECONDS reminds me of more than any other, in terms of tone and just in the impression it leaves, is EYES WITHOUT A FACE.

" I think it was also the first film to use that technique where the camera is strapped to the actor."

No the first was Sam Fuller's The Naked Kiss.

Seconds is teriffic and quite chilling. Kind of a John Cheever horror movie. Hudson was hoping it would be a big hit and make people take him seriously as an actor. Its box office failure genuinely depressed him. But it has nonetheless acquired quite a cult following over the years.

BTW it marks the return to the screen, after many years of blacklisting, Will Geer.

Don't know how or why I've missed this thread until now. This film is in one of Danny Peary's books and Harlan Ellison talks about it a lot, so I was looking for it for a while before I finally saw it on TCM a few years ago.

David Ehrenstein wrote:BTW it marks the return to the screen, after many years of blacklisting, Will Geer.

Who was a fabulous talent and who gives a very subtle, but deeply unnerving, performance here.