Editing John Frankenheimer (section)

===''Seconds'' (1966)===

[[Seconds (1966 film)|''Seconds'']] presents a surreal and disturbing tale of a disillusioned corporate executive, Arthur Hamilton ([[John Randolph (actor)|John Randolph]]). In an effort to escape his empty existence, he submits to a traumatic surgical procedure that transforms his body into that of a younger man, Tony Wilson ([[Rock Hudson]]). Randolph's effort to erase his former self in a new persona proves futile and leads to his horrific demise.<ref>Wilshire, 2001<br>Pratley, 1969 p. 135: “...a horrifying, shattering, screaming climax [as] he is taken away to become a cadaver for another second…” And p. 139: “...the horrific ending…”</ref><ref>Barson, 2021</ref> Biographer Gerald Pratley describes ''Seconds'' as “a cold, grey, frightening picture of a dehumanized world...based on the age-old search for eternal youth...an amalgam of mystery, horror and science fiction…”<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 134</ref>

Based on a novel by David Ely and a screenplay by [[Lewis John Carlino]], Frankenheimer explained his thematic objectives:

{{blockquote|“An individual is what he is, and he has to live with his life. He cannot change anything, and all of today's literature and films about escapism are just rubbish because you cannot and should not ever escape from what you are. Your experience is what makes you the person that you are...That's really what the film is about. It's also about this nonsense in society that you must always be young, this accent on youth in advertising...I wanted to make a matter-of-fact yet horrifying portrait of big business that will do anything for anybody providing you are willing to pay for it [and] the belief that all you need to do in life is to be financially successful.”<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 141-142, p. 148: Composite quote, ellipses added for clarity.</ref><ref name="Wilshire, 2001">Wilshire, 2001</ref>}}

Frankenheimer acknowledged his difficulty in casting for the elderly and demoralized Arthur Hamilton, which required the director to convincingly show his metamorphosis, both surgically and physiologically, into the youthful and artistic Tony Wilson.  A dual role played by a single actor was considered,  with Frankenheimer advocating for British actor [[Laurence Olivier]].  Paramount rejected this in favor of two players, in which one actor (Randolph) undergoes a radical transformation to emerge with the appearance and identity of the other (Hudson). Rock Hudson's portrayal of Wilson introduced a troubling plausibility issue that Frankenheimer fully recognized: “We knew we were going to have a terrible time getting audiences to believe that the man who went into the operating room (Randolph) could emerge as Rock Hudson,  citing the physical disparity between the actors as problematic.<ref>Smith, 2010 TCM: “Frankenheimer preferred Laurence Olivier, whom he considered a natural for the dual role of Arthur Hamilton/Tony Wilson, but Paramount wanted a bigger name” for the youthful Wilson.</ref><ref name="Wilshire, 2001">Wilshire, 2001</ref> Film historian Gerald Pratley concurs: “the weakness [in ''Seconds''] is trying to convince audiences that the actor playing Hamilton could emerge, after plastic surgery, as Wilson in the form of Rock Hudson. This is where the star system has worked against Frankeheimer.”<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 135:</ref>
 
Frankenheimer identified the source of the film's weakness less on the physical disparities in his actors, and more on his difficulties conveying the themes required to explain Wilson's inability to adjust socially to his new life: “We thought we had shown why [Wilson] failed, but after the film was finished I realized we had not.” <ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 143-144: Frankenheimer: “I don't think the [disparity in stature] was too noticeable.” And: “...the film was obscure and nobody ever understood why [Wilson] didn't make it.” And: “We did not successfully dramatize the second act” i.e. the Tony Wilson phase. See also Frankenheimer's remarks on deleted sequence about Wilson's encounter with a small girl.</ref><ref name="Wilshire, 2001">Wilshire, 2001</ref>

Frankenheimer's technical prowess is on display in ''Seconds'', where the director and his cameraman [[James Wong Howe]] experimented with various lenses, including the 9.5&nbsp;mm [[fisheye lens]] to achieve the “distortion and exaggeration” that would dramatize Hamilton's struggle to “break free of his emotional straightjacket.”<ref>Wilshire, 2001: Wilshire quoting [[Vincent LoBrotto]]  “the screenplay...had a surreal quality, which suggested an extreme visual approach to Frankenheimer.”</ref>

Howe and Frankenheimer's use of visual distortions are central to revealing his character's hallucinatory mental states, and according to Frankenheimer “almost psychedelic”.  In one scene, a total of four [[Arri]]flexes are brought to bear to emphasis Hamilton's sexual impotency with his estranged wife.<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 144: “9.5mm lens...” And p. 146: Arriflex methods. And p. 145 “...psychedelic...”<br>Wilshire, 2001: “Most importantly, the theme of distortion is central to ''Seconds''...The camera is used not only as a recording device, but also as an expressive tool.” And:“Howe was the ideal choice to visually realize Frankenheimer's ambitious and surreal vision in ''Seconds''...”</ref> Film historian Peter Wilshire considers Frankenheimer's choice of [[James Wong Howe]] as cameraman for the project was his “most important directional decision.”  Howe was nominated at the Academy Awards in Best Cinematography for his efforts.<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 145: Frankenheimer:  “I had splendid co-operation from Jame Wong Howe, who's a marvelous cameraman.” And p. 139: Pratley states “James Wong Howe's photography has never been better than in this picture...”</ref>
 
At Frankenheimer's urging, Paramount executives agreed to enter ''Seconds'' at the 1966 [[Cannes Film Festival]], hoping the film might confer prestige on the studio and enhance box office returns. On the contrary, Seconds was savaged by European critics at the film competition, regarding it as misanthropic and “cruel”.  Frankenheimer recalled “it was a disaster” and declined to attend the festival's post-preview press conference.  In the aftermath of this fiasco, Paramount withdraw promotional resources and ''Seconds'' failed at the box office.<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 133-134: “The French and European critics at Cannes gave ''Seconds'' such a hostile reception and denounced it so bitterly as being ‘cruel and inhuman’ that Frankenheimer refused to leave Monte Carlo...to attend the press conference...” And p. 146: “It was a disaster. Most critics hated it.” And: Frankenheimer: “Paramount lost all faith in the film...put no effort into selling it.”<br>Baxter, 2002: “...Seconds was so badly received at the Cannes film festival that he boycotted the press conference.”</ref> As consolation for its critical and commercial failures, ''Seconds'' was ultimately rewarded with a cult following among cineastes.<ref>Barson, 2021: “Although a critical and commercial disappointment, Seconds later developed a cult following. “<br>Smith, 2010 TCM: “Although it would eventually find its cult, Seconds was relegated to the Paramount vault and forgotten...”<br>Pratley, 1969 p. 145: Frankenheimer: “We all know [cast and crew] that the film was a failure, but I think its an excellent case against [entering movies] in film festivals.”</ref><ref>Wilshire, 2001: “''Seconds'' failed miserably at the box-office in 1966.”</ref>

Critical appraisal of the film has varied widely. Gerald Pratley, in 1968, declares that ''Seconds'', despite its poor reception in 1966, will one day be recognized as “a masterpiece.”<ref>Pratley, 1969 p. 134: Pratley declares that ''Seconds'' will one day be “described as a masterpiece.”</ref> Film critic Peter Wilshire offers qualified praise: “In spite of its obvious weaknesses, ''Seconds'' is an extremely complex, innovative, and ambitious film.”<ref name="Wilshire, 2001">Wilshire, 2001</ref> Brian Baxter disparages ''Seconds'' as “embarrassing...unconvincing, even as science fiction.”<ref>Baxter, 2001</ref> and critic [[David Walsh (writer)|David Walsh]] considers ''Seconds'' “particularly wrongheaded, strained and foolish.”<ref name="Walsh, 2002 WSWS"/> Biographer [[Charles Higham (biographer)|Charles Higham]] writes:

{{blockquote| “''Seconds'', superbly shot by James Wong Howe...fails to achieve the political portrait of the California rich which would have made it a triumph. The important central passages at [[Malibu, California|Malibu]] have all the softness of a dream-come-true. By conspiring with his own target, Frankenheimer shows that corruption has crept up on him. Not even a powerful climax—the hero preferring death in New York to ‘life’ in Malibu, returning to be killed in a horrifying operating room scene—alters the fact that the film has been compromised.”<ref>Higham, 1973 p. 295</ref><ref>Baxter, 1970 p. 175: Hamilton-Wilson “rejects [the] oiled efficiency [of his surgery] and goes, albeit unwillingly, to death rather than deny his true self.”</ref>}}