2019 Controversial films

SPOILER ALERT! The plots will be discussed.

A couple of 2019 films, Joker and Parasite, have drawn criticism because of their supposed endorsement of class violence, and one, Little Women, has brought outrage from literary purists who think that the movie is overly feminist and is not true to the spirit of the book on which it was based. The purpose here is not to do an analysis of each scene in these movies, but instead to address the above criticisms leveled at these motion pictures.

There have been protests in several countries, with people using clown make-up, to protest corruption and other grievances in their countries following the release of Joker. Since the character of the Joker is a psychopathic killer, one can understand why there is fearful concern for people using his character as a force for social change. But, if the film is accurately assessed, it is not promoting violence, but instead is a cautionary tale about how the marginalization and abuse of struggling individuals can lead to violent uprisings.

Joker turns the Batman story on its head by providing a backstory for its main character that shows him and others as victims of the selfishness of the rich and powerful. It takes place in 1981 in Gotham City (the comic book story equivalent of New York City), but the setting and location is relevant to the present. The world is upside down in terms of what most would want for its citizens. There is garbage everywhere, since the sanitation workers are on strike for better benefits. Shops are closing. Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) ironically has a job advertising a going-out-of-business sale that will cause the elimination of jobs. He holds the sign upside down to imply the inverse society that he inhabits. Arthur has a condition, for which he hands out cards, which makes him laugh at what would normally be reasons for sadness, which again shows that things are the opposite of what they should be. His social worker says he can’t see Arthur anymore because funding was cut, commenting, “They don’t give a shit about people like you, Arthur. And they really don’t give a shit about people like me, either.” Arthur comments on the decline of the human condition when he says, “Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?” And, his increasing insanity mirrors what is happening everywhere.

Arthur, despite his wasting away, physically and mentally, because of his plight (Phoenix lost a great deal of weight for the role), just wants to make people laugh. Despite the sadness that permeates his life, Arthur said his mother told him “to smile and put on a happy face.” She said, “I was put here to spread joy and laughter.” As it turns out, he becomes an instrument for just the opposite of what his now severely ill mother, Penny (Frances Conroy), hoped for, (her name shows how little value someone like billionaire Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen) assigns to her). But, she is complicit in her son’s metamorphosis. She lied to Arthur by not divulging that Thomas, for whom she worked and loved, is really Arthur’s father. Thomas cast her aside, making her signing papers to conceal his affair. So, the young Bruce Wayne, who becomes Batman, is really Arthur’s half-brother.  Here we have the suggestion that the two are mirror images of each other, and that their roles could have been reversed if conditions were different. In fact, Thomas, on television, shows his anger about how someone disguised as a clown who killed three of his executives on a train is a “coward” who “hides behind a mask.” Thomas says that the violence was due to someone who was “envious of those more fortunate.” (The film probably would have been more convincing in its argument if it showed the poor treatment of persons of color). In fact, Thomas’s executives were abusing a woman and beating Arthur on the train. Arthur is instead portrayed in the press as a vigilante, so Thomas’s rage can be directed at what his son will become, a person wearing a mask working outside the law. 

One of Penny’s boyfriends inflicted a head injury on the young Arthur, which may account in part for his mental illness. Street thugs badly beat him when he is working at the closing store. Before he shoots the executives with a gun given to him for protection, the men also beat him. At first he shoots in self-defense, but when he hunts one of the attackers and guns him down, Arthur crosses over to becoming a murderer. He dances a death ballet in the men’s room afterwards, celebrating his deadly empowerment. Arthur is invited to be on a show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro), who just has him as a guest to humiliate his lack of comic talent. Arthur admits to killing the three executives, saying, “I killed those guys because they were awful. Everybody is awful these days. It’s enough to make anyone crazy.” There is the film’s warning. Push people enough, and they lose their psychological footing, and become unbalanced. 

When Arthur confronts Thomas he says all he wanted was “a little bit of warmth. Maybe a hug,” and at least some “decency.” Without that in his life, Arthur identifies with all the other deprived individuals and becomes their symbol of anger. On the Murray Franklin show, Arthur turns comedy into tragedy, as happened in his life. He says, “What do you get … when you cross … a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash? … I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you fuckin’ deserve!” Arthur, having been introduced as “Joker” then shoots Murray in the head. In and of itself, it is a very disturbing scene, but it is consistent with how Arthur’s pathology was nurtured. Outside in the streets there is rioting by people wearing clown masks. Arthur rides in a police car after being apprehended for his murder on television. But, his “followers” ram the car. In a significant image, people in clown masks pull Joker out of the car window. It appears as if they are delivering a baby. Joker is removed from a vehicle of the law into a world of anarchy, and it’s as if the Antichrist is being born. One of Joker's followers kills Bruce Wayne’s parents as the boy watches, which is the galvanizing moment that turns him eventually into Batman, who, let’s face it, doesn’t care about how villains become who they are. Joker then stands above his demonic flock and uses blood to paint a smile on his face to add another image of an upended world.

The message is what goes around comes around, on steroids. The movie is sending out a warning. There is a difference between advocating violence and exposing the elements that lead to it to prevent its inevitability.

Parasite has a different story and takes place at a different time (the present) and place (South Korea) than Joker, but its theme is the same. Perhaps because it is a foreign film for American audiences, it has not experienced the negativity that greeted Joker, which has more violence throughout the film. Also, Parasite is more intimate, with its plot focusing on a smaller group of people, instead of the scary apocalyptic impact of Joker.

Here the film also depicts social class struggle. Ki-woo Kim (Choi Woo-Shik) lives in a ghetto with his family in poverty. Their apartment is a basement unit. The movie uses the subterranean to emphasize how the poor must endure subhuman conditions. Conversely, the rich live literally and figuratively high above street level, stressing how difficult it is for the lower-class inhabitants to rise above their level in society. (Joker also uses a steep flight of stairs to show Arthur’s struggling in his life, and eventually his descent into madness and violence). The Kim family tries to eke out a living assembling pizza boxes, showing how the members must relegate themselves to a marginal task to help feed others. They have to endure a drunk urinating right next to their window and being fumigated by the town to kill vermin, as if they are part of the infestation (the image connects to the title of the movie). 

Ki-woo has a rich friend who visits the Kim family. He gives them a rock that is supposed to symbolize good fortune. Not exactly a generous present from a wealthy person. Instead of real help, he only supplies the hope of doing better. At first, however, the Kim family does seem to experience good luck. The friend is leaving for a while and has a student who he is in love with and wants Ki-woo to tutor because he trusts him with her. (His trust is misplaced since Ki-woo begins to romance the girl). Ki-woo does not have a college background, so he gets his sister, the crafty artist Ki-jung (Park So-dam) to create fake documents. So begins the Kim family’s infiltration into the rich Park family. The Kim family plots to get the father, Ki-taek (Song Kang-ho) to become the driver for Mr. Park (Lee Sun-kyun). Ki-jung becomes the art tutor for their son who had a traumatic event when he saw a “ghost” in the house and now paints horrific paintings. They get rid of the housekeeper, Moon-kwang (Lee Jeung-eun), by exposing her to peaches, which trigger an allergy that makes it appear as if the housekeeper is contagious. Mrs. Kim (Jang Hye-jin) takes over her job. Mrs. Kim and her daughter comment on the Parks. The daughter says, “They are rich, but still nice.” To which her mother replies, “They are nice because they are rich,” which implies the Parks can afford to be nice, while those in need must sometimes descend to unscrupulous behavior to get by. It is interesting to note that the housekeeper has been working in that residence longer than the Park family has lived there, having serviced the previous owner. This fact shows how despite her longevity of employment, her lot in life has not progressed. 

The thing is, the Kims handle the new positions very well. They are capable workers who if just given the chance can prosper. However, for them to latch onto making a good living, they get other workers fired by employing some nasty maneuvers. It is in this way that this film presents a larger view of society as a whole through this microcosm than does Joker. However, both movies suggest there is a domino effect once marginalization and cruelty occur.

The film cons the audience, too. It appears to be a funny satire through the first half of the tale, but then becomes very dark. While the Park family leaves for a trip, the previous housekeeper, Moon-kwang, shows up, interrupting a Kim family party that has them indulging themselves on the Park family’s food and drink. The Kim family discovers that Moon-kwang has been hiding her husband, Geun-sae (Park Myung-hoong) from loan sharks in a hidden basement in the house. She finds out that the Kim family members have manipulated the Parks, and she threatens to expose them unless they do her bidding. A severe rainstorm causes the Parks to cancel their trip and they call saying they are returning home. In the havoc that ensues in an attempt to evade being caught, Mrs. Kim throws Moon-kwang down the steps leading to the secret cellar. The woman is badly injured and afterwards dies while her husband is restrained, gagged and secured in the basement. Again, the inability to ascend out of misery is stressed, but here members of the lower class inflict the punishment on one of their own. 

The Kims are able to escape but their below-ground-level apartment is flooded out, and they lose all their belongings, except, ironically for the good luck rock. Ki-woo, badly shaken by what has happened, carries the rock, saying it clings to him. It becomes similar to the rock that Sisyphus must eternally push up a hill (the impossibility of rising out of one’s place in life is stressed again). The Parks throw a party for their son’s birthday. Ki-woo descends into the hidden basement and is ambushed by Moon-Kwang’s husband, Geun-sae, who slams the rock onto Ki-woo’s head. We again have the proliferation of violence, even among people of the same social class. Geun Sae is the “ghost” that the son saw previously coming up the stairs of the lower house level, a sort of person deprived of life because of his poverty. He is just as crazed as Joker, as he stabs Ki-jung, who eventually dies. Mrs. Kim is able to stab and kill Geun Sae. Earlier, Mr. Park said that the driver before Mr. Kim took the job would “cross the line,” trying to become too familiar with Mr. Park. He says the same thing about Mr. Kim’s smell, reminding him of Kim’s poor origins. Mr. Kim overheard Mr. Park tell his own wife about Mr. Kim’s smell. When Mr. Park seems like he is smelling something unpleasant, Mr. Kim snaps. He seems to realize that the real reason for the loss of his daughter and the rest of this violence starts with the rich marginalizing the poor. He stabs Mr. Park killing him. 

Mr. Kim manages to escape. He becomes a ghost of himself, replacing Geun Sae in the house’s hidden cellar (tomb?) during the time the rest of the Parks move out and before the new rich family moves in. After being in a coma, Ki-woo recovers. Mr. Kim is reduced to using Morse code through blinking lights and tells his son where he is and that he was able to bury Moon-Kwang without anyone finding out about her, since the victims of society are not noticed (just as Joker says, until they revolt). Ki-woo communicates a message to his father telling him he will become educated, get rich, and buy the house, so they can be a family again. There is a sort of blurry, highly lit shot of Mr. Kim rising to meet his wife and son. But, it is only a dream at this point, and we are left with the feeling that Ki-woo’s hope may only be wishful thinking.

The director, Joon-ho Bong summed up the theme of his movie by saying that coexistence between different parts of society has become so unbalanced that “one group is pushed into a parasitic relationship with another.” But because they are struggling to survive, is it fair to “call them parasites?” He says, “They are our neighbors, friends, and colleagues who have merely been pushed to the edge of a precipice.” This film, like Joker, is a cautionary tale about the inevitable plunge into madness and violence unless something is done to stop the free fall. 

And now for something completely different. There has been criticism by some of Greta Gerwig’s version of Little Women. If one were to restrict the shortcomings of the film as a cinematic experience divorced from other considerations, then the focus would be on plot, character, directing, editing, cinematography, etc. For instance, one could argue that there was no need for the jumping back and forth in time instead of telling the story in a linear manner. Cutting between past, present, and future periods can be useful to gain interest to wonder what led to a set of circumstances. Or, it can take different points of view from various characters experiencing the same situation. It can also be used to contrast present attitudes or behavior with past or future ones. But, this story has been filmed seven times for theatrical release and television. It is based on a multigenerational best seller. The plot is well known so the jumping back and forth does not really add much in trying to show how the characters change over time.

But, there has been a myopic view expressed by some who just focus on several of the comments and actions of Jo (Saoirse Ronan) without considering other feelings that she expresses. This exclusion of what is happening in the rest of the movie is done to argue that the story has been changed into an overly dogmatic feminist vision. But, it is called Little Women after all, not Little Woman. And, the title, of course, is ironic, since there is nothing small about the intelligence and strength of the character of these females. 

Gerwig has incorporated elements of author Louisa May Alcott’s own life into the story she tells, thus not basing the movie only on the novel. Thus, criticisms that it is not a faithful retelling of the novel fail to take this broader aspect into account. For instance, Alcott never married (just like Jane Austin, and this film has an Austin feel to it in criticizing the stress on the practicality of marriage over the human need for love). The ending of the film is enigmatic, as Alcott’s arguing with the publisher of her book about concessions to the public’s wants are replicated by showing cuts between Jo’s meeting with her publisher and her supposed running after Friedrich Bhaer (Louis Garrel) because she loves him. But Gerwig in her script noted the sequence as “possibly fiction.” Friedrich’s impact in this story is not as profound as the one in the 1994 version of the novel, since here it is sister Beth (Eliza Scanlen) who inspires Jo to continue to write, which leads to her story of the family. Maybe Jo actually wants to include Friedrich in her life, since he is shown at the end as a teacher as Jo prepares to open her school. But he is not the only element in her life, and possibly not as important as other interests, or not a factor at all, because that is her choice.

In this movie Jo says, “I don’t believe I will ever marry. I am happy as I am, and love my liberty too well to be in any hurry to give it up.” Some may argue that putting independence as the only criteria to live by does not allow for the interdependence necessary in a loving relationship. And, Jo expresses that problem herself when she says women “have minds and they have souls as well as just hearts. And they’ve got ambition and they’ve got talent as well as just beauty, and I’m so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for. I’m so sick of it! But … I am so lonely.” Those last words stress how Jo is conflicted about the emphasis on freedom over the commitment to another in a romantic relationship. 

In that same scene of dialogue between Jo and her mother, Jo is even reconsidering her refusal to marry Laurie (Timothee Chalamet), so lonely is she. But Marmee (Laura Dern) is the one who asks if she truly loves him. Jo says, “I want to be loved,” to which Marmee says, “That is not the same as loving.” The selfish need to be loved is emotional greediness, and in that way is similar to marrying for one’s own monetary practicality. Marmee here expresses the generous relinquishment of total independence for the good of more than the individual. To argue that Gerwig’s film is only about exalting personal individual freedom over everything else is an unjust attack on the film.

It is important to note that Meg (Emma Watson) freely chooses a domestic life as her means of fulfillment. Jo seems to want to force her version on her sister of how a woman should live when she says, “you should be an actress and have a life on the stage.” But Meg knows what she wants and says, “I want to get married … I want a family and a home.” Amy (Florence Pugh) correctly expresses the reality of marriage of the time when she says to Laurie, “as a woman I have no way to make money, not enough to earn a living and support my family. Even if I had my own money, which I don’t, it would belong to my husband the minute we were married.” Yet, she foregoes marrying a person richer than Laurie, choosing to wed him for love instead. And, she continues what she also loves, as an individual, which is to paint. The film may be feminist, but it is about choice, and it does suggest that women should choose what and whom they love, not just espouse freedom as part of some agenda. 

People tend to be loyal to the books they love, and it is understandable that when a filmmaker changes the story, it can anger the readers. For example, Bernard Malamud’s novel, The Natural, ends with Roy Hobbs being a failure. The movie version shows him triumphant. There are many instances where the film will not carry the same title as the book so as to distance it from the source material, signifying that it will not be a faithful rendering. Perhaps the best, although not easy, approach is to judge the book and the movie objectively, and decide if each works on its own based on the artistic merits of the separate mediums.

Next, Oscar picks and preferences.

Seconds

SPOILER ALERT! The plot will be discussed.

If you haven’t heard of the movie Seconds (1966), which is very possible since it was a commercial failure that later gained cult status, you should check it out. It is a disturbing cautionary tale that foreshadows many concerns which people still worry about today. The title does not refer to time, but to an opportunity to have a second chance at life. But it also may signify being a glutton at the dinner table, wanting too much of a so-called “good thing.” Also, the title may suggest “secondhand,” which is a negative term implying something that is not new and thus inferior to the original condition.

Director John Frankenheimer specialized in paranoia conspiracy films (The Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May). According to movie critic David Sterritt, Frankenheimer did not view the 1960’s as an optimistic era, but instead worried about the “military-industrial complex” (of which President Eisenhower cautioned against), and “the danger of runaway technology.” Sterritt says in this movie, the director blended “horror, noir, science fiction … and an acid critique of American capitalism.” Frankenheimer said that an American Dream that was based solely on making more money was hollow and resembled more of a nightmare, which is what this film depicts. That mercenary outlook pushes one into wanting to “escape” those characteristics that made a person who he or she is. He said he wanted to present a “horrifying portrait of big business that will do anything provided you are willing to pay for it.” He also wished to show the dangers of a society that demanded its members to want to be “forever young” in its “advertising and thinking.” If one is only interested in physical and materialistic gratification, then one only wants more since there is no genuine satisfaction.

There is a face over the opening credits which is distorted, as is this tale about the desires of the world’s inhabitants who want more youth, money, and superficial success. There is gothic organ music in the background which adds an eerie, frightening feel to the visuals. The warped face ends up in bandages covering it, making the visage an image out of a horror movie. The face looks like a Halloween monster mask, possibly that of a mummy, which signifies death. But there is another human mask underneath as we discover that hides one’s true identity, which comments on the facades people erect to hide their true selves. 

Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph) is in a train station and the altered visuals continue as the camera jumps around while the commuters pass into view. Arthur looks despondent as he heads toward a train. His outlook makes him a possible customer for the company that offers a new life. A stranger approaches him and hands him a note before mysteriously leaving quickly. As Arthur is ready to settle back into trying to solve a crossword puzzle, a solitary activity, he pulls out the slip of paper that displays an address. He gets off at Scarsdale. He is a bank executive, whose career revolves around money. His suburban New York life is boring. His wife, Emily (Frances Reid), picks him up and their asking how each other’s day was is a banal exchange, with talk of gardening and their daughter’s successful marriage to a future doctor (financial success again being stressed). She wonders why he was pacing at two o’clock in the morning following a telephone call. He says it was a prank call, but his vagueness suggests that he was first contacted verbally before he received the note.

Later that evening, as Arthur stares at his telephone with the piece of paper in front of it, the phone rings loudly, startling him (and us). The man on the other end is Charlie Evans (Murray Hamilton), who the alarmed Arthur says is supposed to be dead. The man on the other end knows exactly what pictures are hung up in the study, and even how long the telephone cord reaches. He describes events only his friend would know, and mentions that Arthur scratched a note on the bottom of a tennis trophy that sits in the study. Charlie says to go to the address on the note just past noon and use the name “Wilson.” ("William Wilson" is an Edgar Allan Poe short story about alter egos which fits here). Charlie says he feels more alive than he has in the past twenty-five years and questions what Arthur is hanging onto. Arthur, however, is hesitant to do what his friend told him.

Later in their bedroom, Arthur is upset about Emily asking about the phone calls. That he is distraught is implied by the bottle of medicine sitting on his end table. They sleep in separate beds which suggests there has been no sexual activity between them for some time. She comes to his bed and asks him to see the doctor. She kisses him and looks as if she wants intimacy. But there is no spark in their kiss. He is distant and she pulls away, going back to her separate space.

At work, Arthur is paranoid about the presence of a man who entered the bank. He is distracted from his dull dictation involving a loan as he looks at the man. He stares at his phone, which has become an upsetting object. The film continually projects a sense of menace. Arthur decides to go to the address on the note. He must follow a twisting path to get to the Company, which is like going down the rabbit hole of a scary “Wonderland.” His passage through business locations adds to the story’s satire against worshiping capitalism. Sterritt says the laundry Arthur first visits suggests his wrinkled skin will be pressed so as to create a younger, more socially marketable appearance. It’s possible the steam may also symbolize the infernal fires of the hell into which Arthur is descending. Arthur already starts to pretend to be someone else because he must dress like one of the employees at a meatpacking plant so as not to draw notice (the meat company’s slogan states it’s the “used cow dealer,” a pun on a car dealership, but the words carry with them an ominous sense of death). Sterritt points out that the meatpacking establishment uses the same type of truck to transport animal carcasses, many of which are on display, as the one that transports Arthur to the Company. This observation would suggest that companies treat people the same as meat, to be reprocessed and sold for a profit. 

When he finally makes it to the Company, the picture on the wall of the reception room is one of a mother and child, which suggests birth, or in the case of this story, rebirth. Arthur accepts some tea, which turns out to be drugged. We again get close-ups magnifying his face, and the camera work attempts to recreate the dizziness that Arthur is feeling. The shots imply that the world he is entering is mentally unbalanced. The numerous close-ups of human faces stress how the horrors that occur in this movie are personal. Arthur seems to be having a nightmare (mirroring the real one he is in) where the walls and floors of a bedroom are distorted and a beautiful woman in a nightgown in a bed screams inaudibly. It looks as if Arthur is on top of her, implying that a rape is taking place. Arthur then wakes up sitting on the reception room’s couch. Upset, he attempts to leave, but like what might occur in a Twilight Zone episode, there is no button to push to summon the elevator, showing how he is incapable of escaping the situation he has become a part of. He goes into a waiting room that has many eerily silent men sitting at desks, looking as if they are killing (the word fits here) time. Arthur stops at one desk and the man sitting there seems surprised to see him. Arthur asks the man (who turns out to be the rejuvenated Charlie who called Arthur) how to exit the building. The man turns away without answering. A man looking like an orderly dressed in white enters the room, and after Arthur asks him how to leave, the orderly makes a call and tells Arthur he must return to Mr. Ruby’s office. One gets the feeling that the ghost of Franz Kafka wrote this scene, and possibly the whole movie (the screenplay is actually by Lewis John Carlino, based on a novel by David Ely).

Ruby (Jeff Corey) says he is there to talk about the circumstances surrounding Arthur’s death. Arthur is upset, and Ruby says the topic may be “indelicate” but must be discussed because of its complexity, which carries a high price tag. A chicken dinner is brought in for Arthur (a strange action during a meeting discussing one’s demise. Food in the context of the film is used to emphasize the unappetizing nature of what is happening). Ruby says the expense includes cosmetic surgery and getting a “fresh corpse” that will match Arthur’s “physical dimensions and medical specifications” so it can appear as if Arthur has died. Ruby says there must be an “obliteration” of the cadaver’s “identifiable” features before it is found, such as fingerprints and teeth. This tale is about wiping away that which makes people unique. Ruby says they “can’t leave anything to chance.” Arthur’s subdued response is, “No, I guess not,” which is a bit humorous, as if what is being stated is part of a rational, acceptable discussion. Ruby asks if he can eat the food Arthur declined, and, given what is happening in the story, the image suggests a beast devouring its prey. Ruby goes on to say that Arthur’s death must be “very carefully staged” so that there are witnesses and other evidence which will identify him as the one who is dead. 

Ruby presents different ways that may be used to fabricate Arthur’s demise and says that choosing how he will die may be the most important decision of Arthur’s life, which makes it seem as if living one’s life is not all that significant. Men enter Ruby’s office with documents that consist of Ruby’s will and a trust which ensure Arthur’s wife and daughter will be provided for. But there will also be enough money to take care of Arthur in his new life. However, in an ominous note that indicates how Arthur is delegating his freedom, the Company will be the trustees. Ruby offers a pen for Arthur to sign the agreement, and it feels as if he is making a Faustian deal with the devil, selling his soul. Arthur hesitates, and Ruby has the men show Arthur that they staged and filmed the bogus rape scene. So, the lock has been fastened on Arthur’s fate by way of blackmail. 

Ruby and the men leave, and there remains an older man, the Company Chief (Will Geer, who later was the grandfather in the TV show The Waltons and who acts grandfatherly here). As Sterritt says, the Chief is shot making his hat look like a halo around him. One might argue that he sounds as if he is recruiting his flock to enter the afterlife. The Chief says that Arthur’s friend, Charlie, wanted Arthur to know “that rebirth is painful,” most likely since it symbolically replicates one’s first traumatic emergence out of the comfort of mother’s womb into a much different surrounding. Instead of blackmail, the Chief calls the video “insurance” that makes it “easier to go forward when you know you can’t go back.” The Chief smiles and acts reassuring, but what is occurring is criminal, thus adding to the theme that appearances can be deceiving. 

The Chief presents the proposition that Arthur’s life is meaningless to him and others, and then allows Arthur to do the talking which presents the evidence that justifies what the Chief stated. Arthur has no proof to refute the fact that his relationship with his wife consists of habitual repetition with no humor or passion. His daughter lives far away and hardly communicates. He says he has friends but they are equated with the boat he uses in the summer, which stresses that people in his life are the equivalent of things. There is no emotion in Arthur’s voice, only a sense of regret. The Chief implies that the “dreams of youth” have been unrealized, which, unfortunately, is true for the majority of people. He goes on to say that Arthur and his family no longer need each other, and it’s “time for a change.” The close-up of Arthur presents a man who seems to be mourning his own life. The scene is shot with Arthur in close-up and the Chief in the background, and it appears like Arthur is making a confession to his priest. But, the religious reference here is ironic. 

As Arthur uses a pen to sign the contract, the next scene neatly segues into showing the doctors drawing surgical lines around Arthur’s ear, his face already covered, implying that he is disappearing. They look at annotated drawings of what they must do to transform Arthur. When Arthur is bandaged, and literally loses his face (“defaced,” as Sterritt calls it, which also carries with it the intent to wipe out the value of the original work) he also is in danger of losing his identity. The scars turn out to be physically literal and also psychological. There is a cut to an obituary which shows Arthur died in a fire, sort of a symbolic cremation, his past life having been turned to ashes.

Arthur is now Antiochus (in Greek means "unwavering," ironic here) “Tony” Wilson (Rock Hudson, in what I think is his best performance). He has had teeth replaced and a vocal cord reconstruction, and must heal before he can speak (which allows a new actor to play the role, both literally and as part of the plot). But the initial scars on his face remind us of Frankenstein’s monster, to emphasize that this is a horror tale. Tony starts to cry, and one could wonder if Hudson took this role to reflect his personal story of re-imagining himself as a straight leading man while hiding his gay orientation. 

Tony must heal and undergo physical therapy. He then meets with Davalo, (which sounds like the Italian word “diavolo” that means “devil”) who is his “guidance adviser.” (The actor, Khigh Dhiegh, is the same person Frankenheimer used as the brainwasher in The Manchurian Candidate, thus adding a chilling aspect to his presence here). From a drug-induced psychological assessment, another example of how the Company covertly controls Arthur/Tony, Davalo says that Arthur wished to be a painter (“Arthur” has the word “art” in it). Sterrett notes Arthur’s desire to be a painter contrasts with drawing surgical lines on him. The critic’s note suggests Arthur’s wish to create art contrasts with what the Company does to him to enhance their commerce. 

Davalo presents Tony with authentic documents from universities which show he studied art at prestigious institutions. The fact that the documents are real illustrates how powerful the Company is that they can acquire such validation. It is ironic that the papers are real, but Tony is a human forgery. Davalo has “evidence” that galleries displayed Tony’s paintings. To enhance the phony facade, Davalo says that they will furnish Tony with paintings on occasion to keep up the front until he adopts a painting style of his own. Because he will be able to show that he is a successful painter, Davalo tells Tony, “you don’t have to prove anything anymore.” These are scary words, because on the surface they sound as if Arthur already paid his dues. But, the statement also shows that with money and connections to technology, what is false can be made to appear to be real. The film here speaks to us today since technological manipulation of information in the media can blur the difference between lies and facts. Davalo also says Tony is a bachelor, and his parents are deceased. He is “alone in the world, absolved of all responsibility except to your own interest.” In this brave new world, caring about others is vanquished by the drive to satisfy selfish wants.

Tony flies to Malibu, California, which is where the Company has relocated him. We hear Davalo in a voice-over saying Tony will have what every middle-aged man wants, total “freedom.” The movie is addressing the male tendency to have a mid-life crisis, where there is anguish that youthful hopes for a grand, significant life most of the times made way for settling for a more downsized version of occupational and family success which entailed accommodations to others. As Arthur, he was not used to female attention. But now the pretty flight attendant seems to want to flirt with the handsome Tony. His reaction (which may covertly fit Hudson’s personal satirical take on the scene) is to run to the bathroom and pull out some pills. The scene also suggests that the Tony transplant is being rejected by Arthur. 

A stranger rushes up to Tony as he acquires his luggage at the airport, loudly calling his name and implying he knows him as an artist, possibly adding authenticity to his new persona. But, Tony is puzzled by this event since, despite his metamorphosis, the incident still feels odd. The quick scene also highlights the fact that Tony has no friends here. Tony has an expensive home with an artist’s studio. A man named John (Wesley Addy) says he’s there to assist him as a servant to make the transition for as long as Tony needs him to become oriented. John informs him that professional businessmen and writers live in the local community. But John says he thinks Tony is the only artist, which Tony hopes is true so nobody there can question his painting ability. Tony, despite his new appearance, is still very much the older Arthur, and is thus having difficulty shedding the outlook of his previous self.

John suggests throwing a cocktail party for the locals living there, but Tony feels he is not ready, which again suggests he is not yet comfortable in his new skin. He is unhappy with his early painting attempts, and looks lonely walking on the beach and eating alone. John pushes for meeting others, probably wanting the transplant not to be rejected, since a successful rebirth would benefit company business. But Tony impatiently resists. He is not sleeping, and looks unhappy. 

Tony meets a beautiful woman named Nora Marcus (Salome Jens) on the beach. She is alone, too, and at first looks like she wants it that way. As he starts to walk away, she calls to him and asks to walk with him. She then runs into the ocean shouting that she wants to ask the sea a question. Tony is still morose, not getting caught up in her exuberance. He asks what did she ask, and she says, “Who is Tony Wilson?” A very appropriate question for this identity blurring film. She says the ocean answered by telling her, “to mind my own business.” Her statement reflects Tony’s mood, but also makes him admire her insight, since he offers a tiny smile and keeps walking with her.

At her house, she shows Tony a picture of her family as she tells her story, which mirrors Arthur’s. She had all the comforts of an affluent family life, but was unfulfilled. She says she left four years prior, and sees her family occasionally, but the connection is not the same, because she is “different.” This admission connects with Tony’s outsider feelings. He says he understands, and she can’t believe he would, given his free artistic life. He says she doesn’t know anything about him. She says she does because she can see who he is by looking at his face. What an interesting statement, since it’s not his real face. But maybe his true identity somehow surfaces through the superimposed features. She says she sees “grace,” but it isn’t “pure.” She adds, “it pushes at the edge of something still tentative. unresolved, as if somewhere in the man there is still a key unturned.” She comforts him by saying what she said fits just about everyone. He warms to her “analysis” of his current alienation, and she strokes his new face. It is only later that we find that there is a reason why she knows him so well.

Tony asks Nora if he can join her at what she describes as a wild party in Santa Barbara to help to turn that “key” to unlock the prison of his self-imposed isolation. The gathering mimics a bacchanalia with loud celebrating, music, and wine drinking. Most of the people there are young and they strip off their clothes and jump into a huge wooden vat together to stomp on grapes to make wine. Nora, while drinking and hugging the still unsure Tony, says, “Now, in dying, Bacchus gives us his blood so we may be born again.” These words seem to mimic what happens in a Catholic mass, where the blood of Jesus Christ is supposed to open the door to spiritual, not carnal rebirth. The whole scene adds to the theme advanced by the Company of abandoning self-sacrifice for others to indulge selfish desires. 

Nora wants Tony to be a part of the ritual, but he feels like a stranger here, not a willing convert to this new life with people he does not know, which possibly reveals his continuing attachment to those he cared for and left behind. Nora takes off her clothes and joins the other naked people. The juice of the grapes that coats their bodies is like amniotic fluid and the vat resembles a womb that will give birth to a new life steeped in self-indulgent intoxication. Tony calls to Nora and wants the two of them to leave. However, the others pull off his clothing and throw him into the vat. Nora hugs him and wants him to kiss her. In a way she is the Eve of the bible who tempts Adam to join in the sinning through the partaking of physical satisfaction. At first Tony seems to be drowning in the juices, but then lets go and gives way to the physical temptations as he laughs and commits to the new life, repeatedly saying the word, “Yes!” The movie can be seen as a resurrection tale, but as it turns out, a demonic one. 

After breaking out of his reclusive existence, Tony now takes John’s advice and hosts a large cocktail party with Nora at his house. He is drinking and his intoxication, fueled by the pagan wine ritual, is reflected in staggering camera shots, not unlike what was used at the beginning of the film. This symmetry suggests that the loss of focus in Arthur’s life repeats itself in that of Tony. Interestingly, the wild Nora of the wine party at this moment sounds like a stereotypical suburban wife of the time as she chides Tony for consuming too much alcohol. She says the excessive drinking is “not like” him, which is true, since he is still Arthur, too. Her remarks imply that Tony has not progressed in his journey of reincarnation, and in fact he is being reintegrated into the same prescribed life, only with a different appearance. 

He takes Nora aside and says he will have her sexually later. Her kidding comment about Tony being a “dirty old man” stops Tony short, and the grim look on his face implies he is thinking about how he is still the aging Arthur underneath, which makes him feel pathetic. His smiling agreement that “Yes I am” a dirty old man is a sad confirmation of his past life. He explains that he needed the booze to give him courage to deal with meeting the residents of the community he has invited to his party. He says that he will behave, but then pours what remains of his drink onto the floor. Arthur then comes through and says he is sorry and that he has embarrassed her. She says no, and wants to get the party over with so they can have sex. She says she thinks she loves him, but he does not return the sentiment. Instead he says she is beautiful (stressing physical appearance), and jokingly calls her “evil” for her sexual ways, which is an odd word to use, and adds a disturbing feel to the scene.

Tony is in a conversation with Nora and another woman and a man. It is revealed that the man is a Harvard lawyer. Arthur almost surfaces as Tony says that’s a coincidence, but he is interrupted before he undermines the supposed art background of Tony by revealing Arthur’s education. The alcohol breaks down Tony’s inhibitions and undermines his ability to maintain a separation between his two identities. When the other woman calls the other man “two-faced,” Tony starts to laugh at the remark, because he himself is literally a man of two faces. The jokes about how California is the place where strange movements and cults thrive is satirized here. Tony talks to one woman who says she belongs to a group that routinely changes “sects.” It sounds like “sex,” but even with the idea of pursuing rotating systems of beliefs the interchange points to the lack of finding stability and anchoring oneself to a code of behavior. 

Tony continues to drink and when a woman asks what is his artistic process, he says he paints naked to get in touch with his primitive self, which is what happened at the wine party. But, his delivery seems to be mocking what he is saying. He spills a drink onto the questioner’s dress, and she and her husband are outraged at his unbecoming behavior, which again shows how even after the unrestricted behavior at the bacchanalia, he has not attained the world of total freedom that the Company promised. The film shows the attraction of unhindered actions, but also suggests that having no boundaries is not the way to go in a social environment.

Tony approaches a table where the attorney is with Nora and other men. Tony apologizes for interrupting, but nobody there is speaking, similar to the room of workers at the Company, which lends a surreal, inhuman element to the scene. When he starts a joke by saying, “Have you heard the one about …” they interrupt in robotic unison that they know it, without even hearing what Tony is about to say. It is an eerie restriction on Tony’s freedom of speech. When Tony starts to ask about where the lawyer stayed at Harvard, the group quickly disperses, as if questions about the past are forbidden. The drunken Tony follows the lawyer outside and says he was a Harvard alumnus, but just stopped being one since he became a painter. He starts to sing the Harvard school song. When the lawyer tries to shut Tony up, he suggests that they play golf. Tony exhibits fake shock that he the artist would play golf, but says Arthur Hamilton would play the game, thus letting his personal cat out of the bag. The others stare at him like pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Men carry him away to the bedroom as Tony says he has a nephew at Harvard. As they pin him down, we see their stern faces staring down at the prone Tony, like he was still on the operating table, being molded into something he is not. One man says Tony has no nephew, and if we haven’t already, we now suspect that this community consists of clients of the Company. Tony laughs and says “right,” but follows with the fact that he does have a nephew. And then he says the same about the existence of his daughter, and that he may be a grandfather now. John enters and confirms the fact that the others are “reborns.” Tony wails in tears at the revelation. Nora enters and tells him to stop crying and asks, “Who the hell do you think you are?” Thematically, it is a pertinent question, since the film questions what elements make us who we are.

Charlie calls the distraught Tony the next morning warning him of what he is doing about exposing the process. Tony says he has to get out, which is what he was doing the first time around. He says that Nora is a “reborn,” but Charlie says she is an employee of the company, a different sort of fraud, who was trying to make sure Tony would adapt and not reveal his secret. After hearing this ultimate betrayal, Tony is finding it difficult to trust anybody since authenticity is hard to come by. Charlie says the Company supplied Nora because the initial “adjustment” is a difficult process. Charlie seems afraid of what could happen to him, because the two men were connected in their prior lives. The suggestion is that if Tony is exposed, Charlie’s arranged death may be questioned, and he would be a liability for the Company. 

Charlie begs Tony to stay put, but we see him at the airport, trying to escape his life again. Reborns follow him to the airport, so we know Tony will not be free. Tony goes to his old house, trying to reconnect to the life that he undervalued. He looks around the converted living room and picks up a picture of himself as Arthur. There is a reflection of Tony in the glass covering the picture of Arthur, stressing his dissociative existence. He called Emily before visiting, and what follows is a strange meeting between a wife and a husband she doesn’t recognize. Perhaps the movie is suggesting how spouses over time begin to feel estranged from each other. 

Tony says he met Arthur just before he died to explain why Arthur never mentioned him. She is puzzled that Tony knows that the room they are sitting in was once a study, which reveals knowledge not usually shared in a recent acquaintanceship. He says he and Arthur talked about painting and he wondered if he could have one of Arthur’s watercolors that was stored away as a memento. She says the garage that housed Arthur’s paintings has been cleaned out, which is a metaphor for what has happened to his prior identity. Tony says that Arthur spoke a great deal about his house and his family. Emily is surprised, saying it wasn’t like him to do that. Her statement demonstrates how she knew that Arthur didn’t seem to have strong feelings about his life, or her in particular. Tony, through his disguise, is able to learn about what his wife thought of him which he didn’t realize when he was actually himself. 

Tony, using painting as a metaphor, says that he wants to have a detailed portrait of Arthur, but all he has are sketches and “lines,” (Surgical? Could the movie be implying that his genuine connection to “art” was cut out of “Arthur,” when he let the surgeons remove him from his old life. Also, maybe Frankenheimer is making a cinematic reference to bits of a character sometimes being left on the cutting room floor). Tony’s words indicate how he wants to understand himself through his wife’s perspective. Emily says that she mostly remembers Arthur’s quiet nature, his “silences.” She says that he seemed to be listening to a voice inside him, and wasn’t touched by anything. She says he lived like a “stranger” there who may have been upset about the life he “surrendered” to. She says that Arthur fought for what he was supposed to want, and when “he got it, he just grew more and more confused.” These lines show how the human spirit is prone to be an outsider, never satisfied with what it has been told should bring happiness. As she talks she stands in front of Arthur’s picture as if she is talking to him, which she actually is. She says that Arthur had been “dead a long, long time before they found him in that hotel room.” So, in essence, his soul died before his body supposedly did. As Frankenheimer does in his other movies, one person is in close-up here as we see the effect of the words of another character in the background. The only memento she can give him is the trophy he won in college that was used by Charlie to prove his identity. It somehow symbolizes a time in his life long ago when he felt he was happy and a winner.

Outside, John pulls up in a car, and says he is sorry. At this point, Tony is resigned to his fate, saying, “it doesn’t matter,” which can sum up his attitude toward his attempts at living so far. He tells John that he wants to go back to the company to kill off Tony and start again. He later says to Ruby that mistakes were made this time around, but Ruby first wants to know if Tony can recommend someone else who “would benefit by the company’s services.” Charlie had been the one to give them Arthur’s name, and the Company relies on a “word-of-mouth” means to recruit its subjects. Tony says he has to think about who he could suggest.

Company workers take pictures of his undressed body as Tony questions the procedure, which apparently is different from what happened during his prior surgery. The audience should be getting suspicious now. He is brought back to that same silent room filled with men. The attendant is putting pills in little paper cups, (Nutrients? Sedatives? It’s like a mental ward) to be consumed by those present. An attendant tells Tony to take a seat. Charlie is there, and seems to recognize that Tony is Arthur. Charlie quietly talks with Tony, revealing who he is. He confesses that he has been in that room waiting for a long time for the next body. Tony seems to have gained insight through his talk with Emily. He says he spent years trying to get “things” that he was told were important. How he should get meaning out of life, not possessions, and make connections with people should have been emphasized. He says in California, “They made the decisions for me all over again,” but the emphasis was still on getting the same “things.” Charlie, now called Mr. Carlson, sobs, and hopes that Tony is right when the latter says, “It’s going to be different from now on. A new face and a new name.” Tony doesn’t realize that running away from one’s self which is defined by one’s actions will not end well. A loud buzzer sounds and Charlie is picked to leave. 

In a contentious meeting with Ruby, Tony says that he doesn’t have anyone to offer as a recommendation for the company. Ruby accuses him of deliberately not cooperating, and Tony does not deny that. After Tony leaves, Ruby makes a call and says that they are ready to go “to the next stage” with Tony. Oh, oh. 

The Chief wakes up the sleeping Tony and says he had hoped Arthur’s dream would have come true. The bedroom, as does the waiting area, look like cells, which undermines the quest for freedom. Despite his being aroused from a sleep state, which incorporates dreams, Tony says maybe the problem was that he never had a dream of his own (except for the ones imposed on him). The Chief says that they keep trying to improve the process, but they had a significant failure rate, which is not what a company wants to divulge. Perhaps the significant number of unsuccessful reborns is because the emphasis was on superficial external changes and not meaningful internal ones. As Sterritt says, “the body is reborn but the spirit stays dead.” The Chief says he didn’t start the business for rich people. He really wanted to help everyone, and didn’t care about profits. But, the business grew, and then there was a board of directors, so the acquisition of money became foremost. He is basically stating what happens when corporations become so large and powerful that the welfare of clients becomes secondary.  

Men come in with a gurney and say Tony is being taken to surgery. But there has been no discussion about his new identity. They put him in restraints, so he won’t fall off, says the fake, grandfatherly Chief. As they wheel him away, Tony ironically keeps stressing how freedom is important at the same time he has been immobilized. A man is there who confirms Tony’s Protestant religious orientation. Tony starts to understand that the cleric is there to administer last rights. He thrashes about as he is gagged and given what turns out to be a lethal injection. He is now to be one of the cadavers used for the next fake death of another reborn. (Could Tony be the cadaver used for the fake death of Charlie's latest incarnation?) The words read by the clergyman speak of spiritual resurrection, and that is the only type of rebirth that is left for Arthur/Tony. The last sound we hear is that of the whirring noise of a cranial drill as the Frankenstein doctor is at it again. 

The movie appears to be saying that in a society that worships materialism and external appearance over intangibles, such as love and friendship, people themselves may be seen as objects, even as parts on an assembly line, or obsolete objects for disposal.

Next, controversy over the 2019 films Joker, Parasite, and Little Women.