Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Film Glance Forum

  1. Home
  2. The Cinema
  3. Arthur Hamilton's transformation

Arthur Hamilton's transformation

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Cinema
15 Posts 1 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • F Offline
    F Offline
    fgadmin
    wrote last edited by
    #6

    brennerp — 19 years ago(July 13, 2006 11:37 AM)

    I agree with the comment that this movie doesn't stand for two much specific scrutiny a la some of the questions raised. And it doesn't need to (although it is human nature to want to understand "all the details".) It's beauty is that it is a very "impressionistic" as well as imaginative (and dark) movie; and it explores a more fundamental concept.
    Plus, it should be noted that, as someone once said, there are only about seven original stories; and that this movie, as is true of many others, is the retelling of a classic story. This movie is the "Faust" story.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • F Offline
      F Offline
      fgadmin
      wrote last edited by
      #7

      machineteam — 19 years ago(August 09, 2006 10:29 PM)

      'This makes even more sense as a possible intent given it was the era of "The Manchurian Candidate", "The Prisoner", brainwashing, and the CIA mind control-progam MK-ULTRA."'
      it should probably also be noted that this is the 3rd film in frankenheimer's 'paranoia trilogy'. supports your idea.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • F Offline
        F Offline
        fgadmin
        wrote last edited by
        #8

        IMDb User

        This message has been deleted.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • F Offline
          F Offline
          fgadmin
          wrote last edited by
          #9

          pasqualt3 — 19 years ago(November 17, 2006 11:01 AM)

          I Agree with Mobocracy
          The old guy that seems to lead the whole thing is wacky and could be super rich. He talks about giving people a new life almost as he wishes he could do it too but missed his chance and is spend all his money to play God.
          But this movie doesn't work in our time because they had a different sense of paranoia then. Secret societies, super secret experiments, medical science for the sake of discover and not profit. Its all crazy thinking by today's logic. As for the money issue, they said he had to pay $30K, which is equal to about $250K now, but don't forget they probably have some great life insurance policies on these guys and are getting pay outs from the seconds deaths.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • F Offline
            F Offline
            fgadmin
            wrote last edited by
            #10

            movielover35 — 18 years ago(August 30, 2007 08:32 PM)

            "But the plot point that always irks me is that this is someone whose youth is gone for good. He's old, out-of-shape, and it's going to be downhill and shady all the way, healthwise. But Arthur Hamilton goes from looking like John Randolph (with all due respect), who looks way older than the average 50-year-old today (I'm 46 and people think I'm in my mid- to late-thirties), a saggy, old, not very goodlooking man who's reborn looking likeROCK HUDSON. And this is before Hudson started losing his looks to excessive boozing. Frankly, I don't see the problem. No offense, but if that were me, I'd be boffing everything in sight."
            According to Frankenheimer on the commentary, the original concept called for the leads to be played by the same person. They landed Rock Hudson, but he stipulated he would only play the "after", so they cast Murray Hamilton as the "before". They then went to extra lengths to make the transformation as "believable" as possible. This is a plot hole of sorts, but remember he first requested "tennis pro" as his new life, and the company nixed that idea for his second choice of "artist". I think that was their way of telling us the new identity for Charlie Evans as Tony Wilson is little more than a facade, given his age and health problems, and to fill-in this "plot hole" and make it believable.
            Overall it worked for me because of the way things worked out, but at the time of the "transformation" I was skeptical. And perhaps the reason why Tony Wilson didn't start boffing everything in site was because he just didn't have the libido of the younger man he was supposed to be?

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • F Offline
              F Offline
              fgadmin
              wrote last edited by
              #11

              praxagora — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 08:48 PM)

              Rock Hudson was 41 not 30-35 when this movie was made.
              Yes, the banker looked a little younger afterwards, but with the surgery & physical conditioning, I think it was within possibilities.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • F Offline
                F Offline
                fgadmin
                wrote last edited by
                #12

                schumithecat — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 12:09 PM)

                Rock looked a lot older than 30-35 to me. I would say he looked early 50s (a very handsome man of that age, but still of that age). dying the hair alone made him look significantly younger (say 50 instead of 55).

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • F Offline
                  F Offline
                  fgadmin
                  wrote last edited by
                  #13

                  Altho73 — 11 years ago(July 01, 2014 09:38 AM)

                  Rock Hudson was actually forty when the movie was made.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • F Offline
                    F Offline
                    fgadmin
                    wrote last edited by
                    #14

                    schumithecat — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 05:34 AM)

                    wow the B&W must've made him look older especially the beginning where his hair was white. man's favorite game was around the same time and he looked much younger in color than in seconds.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • F Offline
                      F Offline
                      fgadmin
                      wrote last edited by
                      #15

                      hammer4 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 08:59 PM)

                      Actually Hudson was probably 39 at the time of filming. On the Criterion DVD, one of the special features includes a still of a scene being shot with a date of 6/21/1965. Hudson''s DOB was 11/17/1925. I'd say he looks "40ish", not particularly youthful with somewhat haggard features.
                      The film depicts a full body ""makeover", that is the Arthur Hamilton body is transformed into something much bigger, stronger and more muscular. However, they don't indicate that vital internal organs have been replaced.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0

                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups