What was Arthur's Hamilton's problem?
-
Altho73 — 19 years ago(February 10, 2007 08:15 AM)
Thank you for your replies guys. Some interesting remarks made.
Let's settle one thing now, Arthur Hamilton was not a mediocrity, was not middle class or an average person. He was the manager of an investment bank with a high salary, probably an annual commission, he could afford to live in Scarsdale NY, he had a large house with grounds, he could easily pay $30,000 to the company. In today's values he'd be worth quite a few million.
In that case you have to ask, why was he so unhappy in the first place? If he hated his job he could easily have given it up, could have afforded to have moved near his daughter in the mid west or retired to somewhere pleasant (like a beach resort).
Why did he just stay in the Malibu house and look miserable all the time, why didn't he try and meet new people, associate himself with other artists, volunteer to give art lectures etc. Why not mix with single women (his reborn was good looking enough to attract a few), try and develop a relationship, marry again, raise a second family etc. Why not sell the Malibu house (in today's values it would be worth millions), travel around the world, see new places, do the things he always wanted to do.
If his problem was himself then I don't think he'd ever be happy and there was to point to him submitting to having the reborn treatment. -
uiwritemovies4 — 19 years ago(February 18, 2007 03:08 PM)
Hey Altho73,
I think you're right. I think he almost realized it himself at the end, but it was too late. I guess the point being he had everything anyone can want (or as they say in the movie, everything you are told you should want) and still was unhappy.
I think when he was in his new life he was slowly realizing that he was still the same unhappy guy. He got a glimpse of something new with the woman in his life until he found out she was just paid to like him.
I'm not sure why I found him sympathetic. He was the guy who had everything twice over, but still felt he deserved a third shot at remaking himself. He didn't learn anything. The filmmaking and the acting of both Randolph and Hudson made his claustrophobic little world and his personal drama compelling to me.
He submitted to being re-born because he didn't have anything to lose. The fact that it turned out to be the age old "deal with the devil" where you get everything you signed on for but it is meaningless if your soul is dead just made it a really effective tragedy. For me anyway. -
trozosdeunachicaenrusia — 19 years ago(February 19, 2007 12:08 PM)
"why was he so unhappy in the first place?"
First factor may be his age. He was not going to have the same passions he have had in his younger days. And he was used to everything good he had, so he didn't value it.
And his second life was other people creation, for example we don't know if he would have been able to sell the house and try another life. He had less freedom than it seems. As an example, remember the conversation he had with the butler, who tells him about that medieval weird party with subtle insistence. They company build a path for him to go and he didnt fit in there.
I think the message of the movie may be that we don't have as much freedom as we think. -
Jordan_Haelend — 19 years ago(March 05, 2007 01:02 AM)
One important point, according to Frankenheimer himself, is that we are the sum of the memories of our experiences, for better and worse, and if you could jettison your current existence and "become" someone else, the memories would have to go as well since they wouldn't have any relevance to your "new" life. And if you have to reject your memories, you lose your identity everything that makes you the person you are.
"An Archer is known by his aim, not by his arrows."
-Li Chen-Sung (Richard Loo) The Outer Limits -
johnfadrian — 18 years ago(September 01, 2007 04:04 AM)
I believe Arthur Hamilton's problem is that he is trapped in a passionless life. His job at the bank pays well, but without challengeing him. Certainly his relationship with his wife is passionless on his part. I believe the audience is pointed toward it during the film in several spots:
During the second phone call (the first phone call takes place before the film begins) from Charlie Evans, his college tennis doubles partner, Charlie tells him to look beneath the felt on the bottom of the trophy where Arthur had, in the locker room after they had won the trophy, etched "Fidelis Eternis" with his belt buckle. They had also exchanged identical wrist watches at that time. How do you translate "Fidelis Eternis"? "Eternal friendship" or "Eternal Love"? What's the difference?
How many times over twenty-five years have Arthur and Charlie been in Charlie's study together, comfortable, sharing each other's company. Charlie knows the room well enough to know just where everything is on the mantle and to know that the phone cord will reach the mantle. How emotionally intimate was their relationship in later years?
I believe Charlie Evans and Arthur Hamilton were in love with each other while at Princeton. Not that they ever spoke of it or would admit it even to themselves. Remember, the story is set in the early 1960'sbefore Stonewall, and they were, therefore at Princeton at least twenty-five years earlier, before World War II.
After the phone call from Charlie Arthur is lying in bed sleepless and troubled. His wife, Emily, seeks to comfort him and then to make love to him without success. The next day he succums to Charlie's offer. Is Charlie offering Arthur the fulfillment of Arthur's longing over a quarter of a century?
Nora offers a clue on the beach at Malibu when she asks Tony of himself and his art: "What kind of man is he? There's grace in the line and color, but it doesn't emerge pure. It pushes at the edge of something still tentative, unresolved - as if somewhere in the man there is still a key unturned."
I submit the unturned key is his desire for a passionate relationship with another man. A relationship that can fulfill Arthur/Tony emotionally. A fulfillment that has eluded him, personally and professionally. A relationship that can make him secure in himself, which I don't believe he has ever been.
This then raises the question of why Charlie doesn't reveal himself, with his new face, to Arthur, in the day room at the beginning of the film, when Arthur accidentally enters while looking for a way out of the building? Why does Charlie ignore Arthur? Charlie thinks about identifying himself to Arthur as the attendant is walking up the aisle of the day room behind Charlie in the frame. There is a momentary hesitation in Charlie's writing and you can see there is a thought which Charlie quickly suppresses. -
jameselliot-1 — 17 years ago(October 04, 2008 06:13 PM)
I've seen Seconds again on DVD recently and of course new interpretations always form when you revisit a film, especially an allegorical film like this with layers and layers of unexplained motivations and behaviors. This is an element of the story that has never been written about and you're absolutely right. It partly explains his lack of interest in his wife, that painfully depicted scene in the beginning of the film in which he has no interest in making love to her and why he is so short with her over the late night telephone calls. So it is more than just middle-aged ennui and fatigue. He has been living a lie since college because he did what society wanted him to do, not what he wanted to do. It then does seems fitting that his wife gives him (Rock) the tennis trophy he and Charlie won after she senses his disappointment (and anger) at her disposing of his paintings stored in the garage. She knows how much the trophy meant to her husband, a symbol of his greater devotion and love to someone else. She even looks like she suspects that her husband and Rock were more than casual friends, never dreaming that is her husband. This also partly explains why the company provides a man-servant instead of a live-in maid (or no one) in the second half. He's more comfortable in the company of men than women. Charlie has probably been told by the Company not to approach Arthur in the Day Room so that's why he doesn't reveal himself in the beginning.
-
lebellue — 9 years ago(November 27, 2016 12:45 AM)
I think one of the messages of the movie could be that to be really free we must embrace where we are in life and accept responsibility. That is the only way that we can really change things for ourselves. If we run from who we are, we cannot be free. We just become dependent on other people. If we run from who we are, we have lost our soul and are floating and aimless. That makes you dependent on others.
But sometimes there is a fine line between positive action and running from something. You have to know the difference.
Just a thought.. -
SnorrSm1989 — 18 years ago(July 10, 2007 05:57 PM)
(SPOILERS)
I completely agree with you, friedscream, I just saw the movie myself and that's the way I interpreted it, too. He had lots of love for his wife and daughter (you could clearly see his hidden frustration when he visited his wife after his rebirth and she talked about her "dead husband"), but he wasn't able to realize this love until he had lost it and saw his situation in pre-perspective. As I see it, he didn't sell his house and travel around the world etc. because that was not enough to change himself. He'd changed his surroundings, but HE knew who he was; which, perhaps, made it even more frustrating that nobody else knew. After he discovered that the woman he met was hired to show interest in him, he began to face the fact that although only a limited group of people was informed of his real identity, this small group was enough to destroy his ability to start all over again; they wouldn't let him, and he wouldn't let himself, either.
Rock Hudson was brilliant, by the way. -
littlekaren — 18 years ago(March 17, 2008 11:12 AM)
Heard a sermon once that nobody has it all. So, Arthur seemingly had it all, possibly before, and after, the transformation. But did he? It's a question I ask myself. Some are, maybe, born always wanting more.
-
paulovmota — 15 years ago(October 26, 2010 12:29 PM)
I also believe most you of guys missed the point.
He wasn't gay! His relation with Charlie was simple. They were buddies and Charlie saw in him the perfect guy to report to the company - Like they say in the end, they can't really put their number on a local news paper.
The point was that Arthur had lived what society advised - "Go To Harvard!", "Get Married" etc.
This is an empty life because he forced themthis wasn't really him! (or any of us for that matter).
He felt he didn't had a choice. This feeling came back on his "2nd life" because the company was doing the same things society had done to him in his 1st life.
Then he got back to his wife and saw how the company (in the beg) was right! That life mean't nothing! The only thing in that house that was accomplished by him was that "Fidelis Eternis" award.
He went back to the company to re-arrange with them what he thought was going to be his perfect new beg. He was right "I just want to make my own choices" like he had done in the past, but now he would probably do more accurate choices.
That's the problem with life! Turning back is an illusion!(that's what the end met).
This point of seeing Arthur as a gay individual is pointless people see what they want to see and that is ok but please don't forget the point of the movie
and btw people who say that the nude scenes were a bit off I totally disagree the line that Nora says about letting it go and that the wine is the blood of society (or something like that) is essential to the release of Arthur into Tony. the letting go.
Who know nudity can be a symbol of FREEDOM. isn't just the chance to see nice chicks naked for your own amusement
"Cut with the night into mine heart" - Wrest -
Owlwise — 15 years ago(February 09, 2011 11:50 AM)
This is it exactly!
Those arguing for a gay subtext are completely missing the point. While a terrific film could have been made about that and it would have been fascinating to see! this is NOT that film.
This is a film about midlife, especially midlife in American consumerist society. Arthur had followed all the rules & won all the prizes he'd been taught to value and yet, none of that was satisfying in the end. Because somewhere along the way, in pursuing all that he'd been taught to pursue, he lost himself. As he admits near the end, he never had a dream. And if he ever did, it was lost & forgotten long ago. His life was empty of meaning, and all the money & reputation & women & success in the world couldn't fill up that gaping black hole in his soul.
Meaning .. that's what he was really looking for & hoping to find in his second life. But even then, he didn't realize until too late what is was he wanted & needed. Perhaps his only authentic moments as a human being were when he was being wheeled down the corridor to his death, and he screamed in anguish & loss, understanding in one blinding flash what he could have & should have done with his life, and how he'd let it slip through his fingers. -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(April 26, 2011 03:09 AM)
Even if the protagonist were gay - to which theres next to no evidence whatsoever, mind you - itd still be but a minor element in his identity/post-midlife crisis.
And jesus, is this one bleak film. Perhaps even out does The Pawnbroker in these regards. Some real disturbing darkness was injected into Hollywood moviemaking in the early-to-mid 1960s.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan