Oh! I could crush a grape!
-
rrebenstorf — 21 years ago(December 14, 2004 02:13 PM)
In the interest of economical storytelling, the scene could have definitely been shorter. But other interests compete with economy of storytelling especially in an entire film that is conveyed this concisely. I think we need to understand Wilson's reluctance to simply go with the flow, and the length of the scene helps us to understand that Wilson is struggling mightily to hold on to an individual sense of himself.
In his director's commentary, Frankenheimer notes that the original theatrical release shortened the scene considerably (and I remember seeing that version first myself). He was unhappy with the abbreviated scene because it made it look like Wilson was merely participating in an orgy. The longer version of the scene helps us to see that the participants are expressing a more comprehensive alternative lifestyle rather than just outright lewdness. I agree with Frankenheimer. -
jfulbright-1 — 20 years ago(June 19, 2005 09:00 PM)
I think we need to understand Wilson's reluctance to simply go with the flow, and the length of the scene helps us to understand that Wilson is struggling mightily to hold on to an individual sense of himself.
Actually, I was thinking that the bacchinal represented what the character really WANTED, but was afraid of. Perhaps his fantasy of a carefree, unbound life was just thata fantasy. Perhaps he just couldn't run away from himself.
As an unrelated side note, as hippie orgies go, the scene was relatively silly. Thirty guys who look like Gregory Corso play atonal sea shanties in the woods while naked people stomp on fruit? The Haight-Ashbury hippies would've probably considered this a bad concert with combined with a waste of perfectly good food they could've used to feed themselves. If you were going to do bad things to edible products back then, Kool-Aid was a much better choice than grapes.
I found the scene long, but it served its purpose. -
rrebenstorf — 20 years ago(June 21, 2005 09:24 PM)
Not only is your very witty side note related to the topic of the thread, but it is also perceptive. Remember, these aren't Haight/Ashbury hippies who are getting a second chance at a life for themselves. It stands to reason that these newborns would still have a rather, um, uptight concept of bacchinalia, yes?
-
cardullo — 20 years ago(August 12, 2005 05:24 AM)
According to Frankenheimer's commentary, this was a real wine "festival" w/ real folks. This group apparently had these on a fairly regular basis. Frankenheimr and others (the screenwriter?) involved in the film were looking for some sort of scene in which the character could have a "breakthrough". When they heard about this group, they decided that would be a good way to go.
Oh, and it wasn't supposed to be an orgy. Frankenheimer mentioned in the commentary that the original cut (designed to remove the nudity) ironically did make it look like an orgy. He said he prefers the restored cut, which shows that it was not really an orgy, but more of an uninhibited celebration. -
samanthaseaotter — 20 years ago(August 31, 2005 03:04 PM)
I love this film and consider it one of many underrated gems. However, I get a headache every time the festival scene begins. It never seems to terminate. One can only wonder at the things going on in Charlie's head - he's new to all of this, he seems to be taking forever to assimilate in his new world (John is constantly prodding him to get out and have cocktail parties), you can see how this uninhibited festival would bring him dangerously close to cracking already (considering my own headache).
"Nobody's perfect." -
freudified_n_funkified — 20 years ago(September 27, 2005 05:22 PM)
I've always wondered about the sequence in question. Were all or most of the participants reborns? Was the entire free love/hippie lifestyle populated with old people in young bodies? When it's revealed at the cocktail party that everyone he's come into contact with are either working for the company or reborns themselves, it's obvious that he's never been off their leash. The implications of this movie are fascinating.
-
jfulbright — 19 years ago(May 08, 2006 07:25 PM)
"Thirty guys who look like Gregory Corso play atonal sea shanties in the woods while naked people stomp on fruit?"
This may be the funniest thing I've read in five years. You NAILED this scene; it's a "straight" version of a hippie party. -
adamk-2 — 20 years ago(February 24, 2006 07:47 AM)
The first time I saw this film, I also thought so. The second time I saw it, many years later, I remember thinking "Oh, oh, here's this scene". Oddly, it didn't seem nearly as long. I don't think that it was cut, but it just wasn't as painful. Maybe because I was expecting it.
I read somewhere that Hudson was actually drunk through the whole scene! -
hotfriend1 — 19 years ago(April 15, 2006 10:57 PM)
I haven't seen the DVD or heard its commentary but I'd seen it on AMC years ago and the announcer claimed that the look of distress on Hudson's face was not entirely acted because some of the "hippies" were practicing "free love" and Hudson was genuinely alarmed and uncomfortable.
I agree with the posters who said that the scene's length is necessary to show the "reborn's" inhibitions portrayed and how they're broken down. And if Frankenheimer insists it wasn't supposed to be an orgy, fine. But everybody gets packed pretty tight in that wine vat in their birthday suitsand that's pushing convention far enough for me, shy guy that I am. (Are we really supposed to be believe that these real hippies, in the era of free love, held this event regularly and never made love, not even in the bushes? Okay. I suppose none of them smoked weed, either.)
This scene is not one of the highlights of the movie for me except for one exceptionin the unedited cut that was first released in Europe, the frontal nudity of that delightful young woman who first enters the wine vat to "stomp those grapes" absolutely enraptures me. She moves so naturally, so unselfconsciously, as though she's a latter-day Eve. And she looks as though she's never heard of aerobics (the term wasn't invented until 1968) and yet she's one of the finest examples of female beauty I think I've ever seen.
I can't help but wonder who she was, how her life turned out. It's impossible to know. And sometimes it's better not to tamper with a fantasy.
But this is definitely an inexplicably underrated, unappreciated movie. I'm glad to see that it's received such a relatively high mark on IMDB. Hudson thought "Seconds" would revive his career and move him into more challenging, serious roles, especially since the "pillow talk" era was outdated and he was typecast.
There may have been a few critics and fans who appreciated "Seconds" but it was otherwise a bomb. It's one of those films of which I say, thank God it was made in the first place. -
munkeh — 18 years ago(June 19, 2007 06:19 PM)
Ugh, that was the worst scene. I don't know if hippies were really like that, but that grape-crushing scene was so damn annoying and it really did last forever.
IMO, his girlfriend irritated the hell out of me, even before we found out who she really was. Just hearing her story about how she left her husband and kids and became a hippy annoyed me. -
bastasch8647 — 17 years ago(September 17, 2008 10:22 PM)
I never got the impression that they were hippies as that term came to connote in the late 60s. Sure, the film was made in 1966 and the Summer of Love was in 1967, but these folks seem more "Beat"-alternative than hippy-alternative, as if they're carrying more early 60s baggage than late 60s "true" hippieness.
Also, did anybody notice the brief shot of the "professor"-type guy in the sports coat and spectacles? I wonder if he was a Beat poet or someone influential in California's alternative society in the mid-60s. Looks vaguely familiar to me. -
bastasch8647 — 17 years ago(September 17, 2008 10:32 PM)
Also wanted to mention that I thought the bacchinal was extremely refreshing, non-lacivious, and documantary especially for a mainstream film of its time. Non-exploitive nudity and spontaneous celebration - all to underscore Arthur's uptight persona, and how it finally begins to change just a little - a fitting, non-intrusive set of images.
-
jameselliot-1 — 17 years ago(October 04, 2008 05:20 PM)
I never liked this jarring scene and I never really understood Rock's sudden transformation to experiencing ecstasy in the vat. He goes from demanding Salome leave the vat to being stripped and tossed in to sudden joy. It didn't work for me. If he is so transformed, then why does he freak out at the cocktail party and reject his new life? The best scene for me is the meeting between John Randolph and Jeff Corey. The entire movie is like an adult version of the original Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits. Brilliant.