Take a second look at "Seconds" on CineVerse!

With a million things taking up so much of every day, putting up new posts has fallen by the wayside again. But I did want to share the link to a great episode of the CineVerse film discussion where we take a look at Seconds, an excellent, if lesser known, thriller from suspense master John Frankenheimer. As Erik Markin, hosts of our discussion writes: Released at the height of the Cold War in 1966, Seconds is a unique psychological thriller directed by John Frankenheimer that can still resonate with modern audiences in a world where innovative technologies can offer exciting—and frightening—new possibilities. Notable for its unsettling take on themes of identity, existential crisis, and the pressures of modern life, the film follows Arthur Hamilton, a dissatisfied middle-aged man, who is approached by an enigmatic group that offers him a chance to erase his old existence and begin anew by undergoing a complete physical transformation. After assuming the identity of the younger, more successful Tony Wilson, played by Rock Hudson, Hamilton initially enjoys his new life. However, he soon discovers that this fresh start comes with a heavy and frightening price.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Seconds, click here.

Seconds is overwhelmingly dark and pessimistic, even for the Cold War era, with an especially downbeat conclusion. There is no tacked-on happy ending here. This is a film that attempts to expose the myths and lies behind the pursuit of the American dream and the search for physical perfectionism—at a time when advertising and popular culture emphasized physical beauty, materialism, and sex appeal.

The visuals are creative, memorable, and unsettling, particularly the distorted shots achieved by master cinematographer James Wong Howe, who uses fish eye lenses, distorted and wide angles, giant close-ups of blank, soulless faces, POV shots, tracking shots following heads and feet, jump cuts and other techniques to achieve a disturbing visual tapestry.

Frankenheimer's direction builds on his earlier work with themes of conspiracy, dread, and control, evident in films like The Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May. Though Seconds was not a commercial hit upon release, it has since garnered a devoted following and is now considered a significant piece of existential and dystopian cinema.

 

Hollywood doesn’t understand that the Magic Bullet theory doesn’t work.

When I teach various courses on media theory, media history, or media business, we discuss one of the first theories of the relationship between media messages and audiences. The Magic Bullet Theory, originating in the early 20^th century, expounded upon in Harold Laswell’s book, “Propaganda Technique in the War,” argues that a skilled communicator can craft a persuasive message that will have direct and uniform effects on all members of his audience. Today any textbook on mass communication theory also explains that the Magic Bullet Theory is overly simplistic, unrealistic, and stands as a discredited relic of the dawn of media studies. 

 

To discuss in detail why the Magic Bullet Theory is an unrealistic explanation of the communication process would take too much space here, so for an abridged version, consider the following: Suppose you had one shot to convince a room full of people to accept your position on some controversial issue. Suppose you want to convince them one way or another about the proper policy on gun control or abortion. Do you think you could come up with a perfect message—even suppose you have the most eloquent speaker in the world doing the talking for you or that you present them a video with your persuasive message directed by Steven Spielberg himself—do you think you will be able to sway every single person in that room to agree with your position? Of course not. It would be foolish to think otherwise. People’s belief systems, tastes, opinions, and preferences are shaped by a combination of factors like life experiences, upbringing, education, socialization among friends, and a whole lot of our personal, innate, psychological hard wiring. A single message, no matter how well constructed, will not immediately cut through and neutralize all of those other factors. As advertising professionals will always say, the most common type of ad is the one that people ignore. 

 

Therefore, it is unfortunate that people making films and TV shows today don’t seem to understand this. Or, perhaps they are so arrogant as to believe they will be the ones to come up with that perfect magic bullet message that will have direct, immediate, and powerful uniform effects on every single audience member.

 

I bring this up in light of realizing that the most compelling and entertaining aspect of observing the film industry these days is to witness some of its  most spectacular failures in both theatrical releases and streaming series. And some of these megaton bombs are coming from franchises that have decades-long track records of success and global name recognition. These are intellectual properties that have absolutely no excuse to fail. These are films like the recent “Joker,” based on the most iconic villain in the Batman universe and the sequel to the 2019 blockbuster that made over a billion dollars. Or films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that have been barely breaking even—as in most of the films in their Phase 4—or turned out to be a spectacular, embarrassing failure like 2023’s “The Marvels.” 

 

And any mention of Marvel films brings the focus to the owner of Marvel studios: Walt Disney Studios. Disney, which also owns Lucasfilm, has made an art form out of trashing the franchises they bought and antagonizing their core fan base. Since acquiring Lucasfilm in 2012, Disney still has not turned a profit from the deal, despite the fact that there is probably no human being on the face of the Earth who hasn’t heard of Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Han Solo, Princess Leia, or the rebels’ fight against the Galactic Empire. You would also be hard pressed to find anyone who has never heard of Indiana Jones. One almost needs to try really, really hard to not be successful if handed such properties to continue exploiting. Disney, however, has managed to turn pure gold into absolute trash. “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” was an insult to fans, turning the iconic hero into a bumbling old fool who is repeatedly insulted, tricked, and proven wrong in the entire film by the most annoying character in all Lucasfilm history since Jar Jar Binx. The “Star Wars” films made by Disney made significantly less and less money with each outing at the box office. Their stand-alone film “Solo” was the first “Star Wars” film to ever lose money and their slew of “Star Wars” shows made for Disney+ have completely lost their luster since the strong debut of “The Mandalorian” in 2019. Then the latest “Star Wars” Disney+ series, “The Acolyte,” was a ratings disaster, enraging fans with its assaults on logic, basic story-telling craft, and the entire lore of the series. Curious to see what the controversy was about, I watched the entire first, and thankfully last, season of “The Acolyte” and I concur with all of the angry fans. The show was an abysmal pile of garbage, a waste of the electricity it takes to run your TV or power your computer while you’re streaming it. 

 

Part of the problem with all of these franchises that are suddenly failing is that they appear to be made by people who are either ignorant of their properties’ history or they outright hate them. Disney has made no secret of the fact that it now prefers writers on Marvel and “Star Wars” properties to be unfamiliar with the past of these films and TV shows. “The Acolyte” creator and showrunner Leslye Headland repeatedly said that she hired her staff based on how little they knew of George Lucas’ original film. The show then proceeded to turn the Jedi in both a collection of bungling idiots and fanatical child-kidnappers. Moreover, the entire series subverted the entire moral philosophy of “Star Wars” by declaring that good and evil didn’t exist and right and wrong are merely points of view. If Headland and her crew would have actually seen and paid attention to the original “Star Wars” films, they would have known that such moral relativism was the complete antithesis of the franchise. The very point of the Force in “Star Wars” was to function as a metaphor for the idea that there were such things as an objective universal good and an objective evil, or the light side and the dark side. Furthermore, “Star Wars” was about the need to have the strength of character to choose good over evil, no matter how hard it might sometimes be or how much needs to be sacrificed.

 

Which brings me back the Magic Bullet theory. How can Hollywood studios keep turning out films that betray their own core cannon or make films that mock and deride their fans? They think they can get away with this if they spend enough money on massive ad campaigns—the Magic Bullet. Make the TV ads, trailers, and various promotional materials slick enough and loud enough, Hollywood’s thinking seems to say, and audiences will turn off all their reasoning faculties immediately and obediently sit and consume product that insults them, made by people who hate them. Except that is not working and Hollywood studios are deservedly losing billions of dollars as a result.

The mystery monoliths are back! And I cannot tell a lie! I'm behind them!!

 Psych!

Okay, I’m just kidding here. I’m only behind the mystery granite globes that appeared around the world in my first novel, CONFIRMATION: INVESTIGATIONS OF THE UNEXPLAINED. You can click on the link on the right and a buy a copy of the book.

 

In the book, I examine the way people react to an unexplainable phenomenon by seeing it strictly through their own filters, through their preconceived biases and dogma. Once all the different interpretations of the origin of the globes start to clash, very bad things also start to happen around the world. What those bad thing are...you’ll need to read the book!

 

In real life, I’m fascinated, of course, by these monoliths and I wonder when we’ll find out who erected them. This is a link to one of the latest articles about the reappearance of the strange objects. I don’t believe they’re from any sort of an otherworldly source. But, then again, we can never be sure… 

Listen to our discussion of "Chinatown" on the private eye classic's anniversary!

This year is the 50^th anniversary of the neo noir classic, Chinatown, so we discussed it it in a recent episode of Cineverse. As host Erik Martin describes, “’Forget it Jake—it’s Chinatown,’ we famously hear an associate of private eye Jake Gittes say to his boss. But while Gittes may be able to put it behind him, Chinatown can’t be so easily forgotten by its audience—even five decades years later.”

“Set in 1937 Los Angeles, Chinatown explores themes of corruption, power, and moral ambiguity. The story follows Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, who is hired by a woman claiming to be Evelyn Mulwray to investigate her husband, Hollis Mulwray, the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, whom she suspects of infidelity. As Gittes delves deeper, he uncovers a complex web of deceit, corruption, and murder related to the city's water supply. The real Evelyn Mulwray, played by Faye Dunaway, reveals herself, and Gittes becomes entangled in a larger conspiracy involving land and water rights in Los Angeles, leading to a tragic and shocking conclusion.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Chinatown, conducted last week, click here. To hear the June episode of the Cineversary podcast, which celebrates Chinatown’s 50th anniversary, click here.

 

That was then, this is noir

“After watching Roman Polanski’s brooding psychological mystery, originally released 50 years ago this month, one cannot overlook the overt resemblance it bears in both style and structure to classic film noir—a term invented by French critics to classify a particular genre of post-war American cinema. Noir represents a pessimistic, highly stylized brand of films that incorporate themes such as inescapable fates and femme fatales, and employs shadowy compositions and urbanized settings to frame its often bleak narratives. It personified the hard-boiled detective story, the murder mystery, the psychological crime drama, and the thriller. The era began, arguably, in 1941 with The Maltese Falcon and continued with a plethora of similar fare, including Double Indemnity, To Have and Have Not, Out of the Past, and The Big Heat, and supposedly reached its golden age denouement in 1958 with Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil.

“Over a decade passed before Hollywood seemed to return to the thematic and formalistic characteristics quintessential of the discarded noir tradition, at least evident in a few prominent films. “Neo-noir” pictures like Klute, Dirty Harry, (both 1971), and The Godfather (1972) brought back the look and feel of old-school noir. Neo-noir movies like these adopt the themes, archetypes, and visual template of classic noir but often occur in modern settings and employ contemporary situations and/or sensibilities as well as present more graphic and adult content.

“Among all the neo-noirs released over the past 60-plus years, Chinatown may be the greatest. It certainly mimics, for the most part, the look, vibe, and attitude of classic noir in its set design, costumes, cars, urban environment, duplicitous characters, and crime. “However, this film deviates in that it’s shot in color and often in the bright light of day, there are no canted angles or expressionistic visual traits, a shadowy black chiaroscuro lighting scheme isn’t predominant, and Evelyn Mulwray isn’t an archetypal spider woman—she leads men into danger and is deceitful, but she doesn’t have evil intentions.” 

 

Be sure and check it out!