It's the only misstep in an otherwise fascinating, disturbing and well acted film. The scene is badly directed and edited and goes on too long. You could take it out of the film entirely and the film would only benefit.

Too long?
It wasn't long enough!
I wanted to watch those naked tits as much as possible!
If you think it was too long then you are a fag.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall

I thought the grape stomping scene was a very important moment in the film because it showed how difficult and awkward it was for Hamilton to assimilate into his new life as Wilson.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

CRACKERJACK!

fin

He goes from demanding Salome leave the vat to being stripped and tossed in to sudden joy.
At the end of the film, Tony says that his main problem was that he never knew what he truly wanted and he allowed others to tell him what he wanted & the bacchanal illustrates this problem: At first, he protests and resists, but he is ultimately forced to succumb and then he joyfully participates. He is forced to do what he doesn't want to do and then he seemingly enjoys it.
The bacchanal also illustrates that this character flaw enabled him to become a victim of the company: he never knew what he really wanted and he was easily pressured into doing things he didn't want to do. Since he was malleable, the company could persuade him to go along with the agenda.

naked women frolicking and bouncing around joyouslyhmmmmmmmI'm not sure the scene was long enough
They'll hang you as sure as 10 dimes will buy a dollar

The grape crushing sequence might indeed seem quite endless, but it actually lasts 7'50", which is not THAT long. It's the relative improvisation feeling (as opposed to the rigid scriptwriting in the rest of the film) which probably gives that impression.

Well not really a minor problem - it was SO horrible it ruined almost the entire movie. At any rate stopped it dead on its track for some time. Couldnt they really find a less ridiculous way to showcase Wilsons inability to blend in and let go? The first act was perfect, awesome film-making, but things go pretty much downhill from the moment Rock Hudson appears. Neither the second party nor Wilsons home visit were handled quite as well as they couldve.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

This message has been deleted.

Likewise here all those muddy feet going into a barrel of drunk presumably typically incontinent people, puts you off the vintage or maybe just adds to the flavour?

On a slightly tangential note, I'm still giggling at the title of this thread, or rather, at the unexpected juxtaposition between the catchphrase of a slightly camp, 1970s TV presenter (Stu Francis: "Ooh, I could crush a grape!") and a classic John Frankenheimer film. I never thought I'd see the day. It's
made
mine.
The lion and the calf shall lie down together, but the calf won't get much sleep.

LOL I thought the same thing!
Next time you see me, it won't be me

When I first saw that scene I thought, "Who would want to drink that wine?"

This message has been deleted.

As a side-note: I really liked the wine-crushing girls. They had nice, harmonious bodies, none of nowadays' anorexic BS. Maybe I should have been born in the 50!s.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

They're seen smoking weed, in a couple of quick cuts.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

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.