Just two years later…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Seconds
Lonixcap — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 10:02 PM)
If Seconds had been made in 1968, it would have been more explicit in showing Arthur Hamilton's sexual rebirth that's only alluded to in the original film.
In a way, it was a form of Viagra, the whole rebirth thing. Seemed to be about giving middle aged white guys a second shot at youthful sexual expression.
I've seen the re-released version which has quite a bit of frontal nudity during the winery bacchanal sequence, but the early scene before the operation, where his wife makes an attempt at intimacy, showed her frustration at their sexless marriage and is quite effective.
This film might have done better at the box office with stronger sex scenes showing Tony Wilson getting his sexual mojo back, which is an essential part of the story. By '68 the ratings system was in place, and Seconds would have been even better had it been made for an R rating. -
puirt-a-beul — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 05:59 AM)
This film might have done better at the box office with stronger sex scenes showing Tony Wilson getting his sexual mojo back, which is an essential part of the story.
I gently disagree. Tony never does get his mojo back, in any respect, which is why he wants to have a second go especially after that incredibly sad visit with his former wife, who unknowingly makes it clear there was no aspect of his self-expression that she saw any value in, even the painting that he thought represented the mojo he was seeking. He's offered Nora, who represents unbridled sexuality, companionship, and a free spirit, and can't respond to her.
I see the film as an early antidote to the "just find the path you
should
have taken, and you'll find happiness" entrancement that was creeping into American life. A direct sequel, albeit in a different genre, would be films like
Kramer vs. Kramer
.
[
Edited for typos
.]
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.