Why didn't they erase Arthur's memories?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Seconds
Pearl_Jade — 17 years ago(September 24, 2008 04:11 PM)
It's been a while since I last saw this film, so I hope someone can give me the answer to these two questions because I can't remember.
1.
When Wilson went back to the corporation at the end of the film, did he ask them to turn him back into Arthur Hamilton, the man he was originally? Or did he want them to give him a totally new identity because Tony Wilson wasn't working out for him?
2.
Also, was there some indication that the corporation made a mistake with Arthur's/Tony's transformation? That is, were they supposed to erase his memories from his past life as Arthur Hamilton but for some reason failed to do so? I can't remember if this was touched upon in the movie or if this possibility was simply ignored.
I know the short answer to question #2 is this: If they erased his memories, the film would not be nearly as interesting. But for debate's sake, do you think it would have made Arthur's/Tony's adjustment easier if he had no memories of having a wife and daughter and of being Arthur Hamilton? Or would it not have made any difference and he'd still feel adrift and unhappy? -
kascat — 17 years ago(September 28, 2008 02:22 AM)
i just watched this film for the first time so i probably don't know everything that was going on, but in answer to question 1 i think he wanted a new identity. i think he knew there was no way he could go back to being arthur hamilton.
on question 2. it seems they mentioned that there were mistakes made with his transformation, but i don't think it was that they didn't erase his memory. the purpose of the transformation was to be himself with a new persona and a chance at a new life, since he had been so dissatisfied with his old life. after all they were giving him the chance to become a painter which was something he had always wanted to be.
what i took away from it is that everyone thinks (to use an old saying) the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. you never realise how good you actually have it. if your life isn't perfect work on making it better instead of abandoning it and the people who love you. -
Pearl_Jade — 17 years ago(October 19, 2008 10:40 PM)
Thank you for clarifying kascat. Regarding the 2nd question, about erasing Arthur's memories: In the book, it was emphasized that this was a flaw in the handling of Arthur's case. Ideally, every client of the corporation is supposed to have his former life's memories erased. This was to help the client adjust more easily to his/her new life.
But you indicated that this was not really dwelled upon in Arthur's situation. (And if all clients did have their memories erased, how would they obtain "referrals" for the corporation, which is what the corporation seems to want? Wouldn't they need to recall old friends and acquaintances in order to approach them about being potential clients? Isn't that how Charlie approached Arthur?) Maybe Frankenheimer was remedying a plot flaw in the novel by de-emphasizing the erasure of past memories in the film.
I'd like to see the movie again, though, in order to pay more attention to this part. I'll have to add it to my rental list.
I'd still be interested to read others' opinions on whether introducing Tony Wilson into the world as a "blank slate" would have helped him adjust, or whether it would have left him just as bereft. -
CalvinJarrett — 17 years ago(November 17, 2008 03:26 PM)
In my opinion, it would make no sense whatsoeer to erase Hamilton's memory. If you're going to erase his memory, why spend the money to give him a lavish beachfront house and the leisure to sit and paint and frolic with Salome Jens. In fact, why go throuigh the time and expense of making him look like Rock Hudson if he's going to have no memory of even going to the facility. In Hamilton's mind, what would be the point of transforming yourself if you can't recognize what you were and what you look like now? I think the temptation to just make them all janitors or kill them without giving them a new life would be too great.
-
EllisFowler — 15 years ago(June 19, 2010 07:36 AM)
In the book, it was emphasized that this was a flaw in the handling of Arthur's case. Ideally, every client of the corporation is supposed to have his former life's memories erased. This was to help the client adjust more easily to his/her new life.
I don't recall reading this; can you tell me where exactly in the book it appears? And how would an adult human being with absolutely no memories or idea of who he is make for an easier transformation? Amnesia victims can hardly be said to have it easy.
It always seemed to me that the assertion that the transformation didn't work as planned was rationalization on the part of the Agencyclearly, given the number of men in the waiting room (who are, after all, the means of recruiting new subjects in the first place), there couldn't have been too many "successes." -
robertaa_2000 — 15 years ago(October 26, 2010 10:24 AM)
The fundamental problem appears to be trying to remake the life of a person with external cosmetic changes after that individual has lived for decades and one day realizes they are "not happy in their own skin". Perhaps this individual is having a midlife crisis and feels dissatisfied after taking stock of how their life has progressed over the yearsthe person they have become and the life they are living is not what they want. This isn't something that external cosmetic changes alone to things such as their physical appearance, job, home, and friends is likely to fix if they still retain the memories of the person they once were. I believe internal mental alterations are needed so they can fully embrace the external changes and find the sense of peace in their life they were seeking. A workable solution might be to combine elements in "Seconds" with elements from the short story by Phillip K. Dick "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" to give someone both the internal and external changes. That still wouldn't preclude the possibility of them one day feeling dissatisfied with their new ideal life if they lose their old memories and the basis for understanding that there new life is an improvement over the life they once had. Which I think is the major point herehumans are rarely 100% satisfied all the time with their life and should be wary of wishing they could change that life.
-
schumithecat — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 12:06 PM)
i don't think they had the technology to erase memories. some people went on with their new lives not because they had no memories but because they were just built that way, other people couldn't adapt to their new lives because they still dwelt on the past.
-
ncdwbmk6 — 11 years ago(March 19, 2015 10:55 PM)
That's right. This wasn't science fiction. They didn't actually do anything that wasn't possible with conventional 1966 science. Although turning John Randolph into Rock Hudson with plastic surgery and sit-ups was a bit of a stretch, that fits under suspension of disbelief.
You got your mind right, Luke?