The first hour is one of the most riveting pieces of film ever to hit the screen. The pace, the mood, Attenborough and, of course, Kim Stanley! Then, something happens on the second half, it feels rushed, at least, that's what it felt to me. Once that aside, what a treat! Bryan Forbes signed some startling British movies of that period but you hardly hear his name mentioned. I mean, "Whistle Down The Wind", "The Wrong Box", "The L Shapped Room", "King Rat". Here he touches some kind of zenith. I heard that originally, Forbes and producer Richard Attenborough, had toyed with the idea of making the couple a "queer" one. Alec Guinness and Tom Courtenay. As fun as the idea may sound I'm glad they didn't go ahead with that. It would have deprive us of Kim Stanley and of Richard Attenborough in what could be, arguably, his best performance. He made of Billy's weakness a separate entity. Painful, creepy. Stanley is, goes without saying, sublime. Another superlative characterization in her far too brief film gallery. We can actually see what she's feeling and what she's feeling is so all consuming so strong and so fragile that we feel she's about to fall at any moment and we will too, with her. For those of us who love great acting - This is unmissable.
100 Reviews
Powerful Performances in an Unexpected Story
gftbiloxi24 April 2005
An unsuccessful psychic and spiritualist has grown frustrated with her lack of celebrity--and so devises a plan to bring herself the fame she craves. She and her husband will kidnap a child. When the police are baffled and press coverage has reached a fevered pitch, she will have a "vision" that will lead to the child's recovery and the reap the rewards of publicity. But no sooner is the plan underway than there are complications--and in this instance the complications are the characters themselves.
Everything about Brian Forbes' SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON is understated yet oddly moody. The story, although unusual, is told in a direct sort of way; although it offers an occasional twist, the plot avoids tricky devices. The script is very natural sounding, the black and white cinematography avoids undue cleverness, and the background music is discreet. This throws all attention on the characters--and Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough offer amazing performances, with Stanley the very personification of rising madness and Attenborough painfully accurate as her emotionally dependent husband.
The interplay between Stanley and Attenborough is justly famous, and the two stars are well supported, most particularly by Judith Donner as the kidnapped child and Nanette Newman as her distracted mother. The film has a dreamy, claustrophobic quality that many will find fascinating; some, however, may consider it a bit talky and its conclusion an anticlimax. But if you are in the mood for a psychological thriller that really is psychological, you couldn't pick a better choice for rainy day viewing. Recommended.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Everything about Brian Forbes' SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON is understated yet oddly moody. The story, although unusual, is told in a direct sort of way; although it offers an occasional twist, the plot avoids tricky devices. The script is very natural sounding, the black and white cinematography avoids undue cleverness, and the background music is discreet. This throws all attention on the characters--and Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough offer amazing performances, with Stanley the very personification of rising madness and Attenborough painfully accurate as her emotionally dependent husband.
The interplay between Stanley and Attenborough is justly famous, and the two stars are well supported, most particularly by Judith Donner as the kidnapped child and Nanette Newman as her distracted mother. The film has a dreamy, claustrophobic quality that many will find fascinating; some, however, may consider it a bit talky and its conclusion an anticlimax. But if you are in the mood for a psychological thriller that really is psychological, you couldn't pick a better choice for rainy day viewing. Recommended.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
A ghost story without a ghost
gee-152 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What makes this film work are the details. One scene I found particularly effective occurred at the beginning of the film. Myra is trying to explain to Billy why they must carry out this plan and turns off the music playing to make herself heard. A few seconds later she says, "Who turned off the music?" Billy replies, "You did, dear." Myra says, "Now, why would I have done that?" Billy resignedly says, "You're right. It must have been me." This brief scene effectively outlines the nature of their dysfunctional relationship.
And while we cannot condone their behavior, we can sympathize with the characters. Ultimately, Billy loves his wife despite her self-centered and unhinged behavior. We understand his love for her because despite her actions, she is quite vulnerable.
I've heard some stories and movies described as "ghost stories without a ghost". I never really understood what that meant until I heard "Seance" described this way. Both of the main characters are definitely "haunted"; Myra, by her childhood, the death of her son, and her own frustrated ambitions and Billy by the memories of a life without purpose. In fact, the only purpose in his life comes from his wife, Myra. That alone helps explain why he would go along with Myra's mad kidnapping scheme. It also helps build the suspense when Myra insists that they kill the child. Billy seems to like the child but we have plenty of examples of Billy going against his better judgment to carry out Myra's commands. Not until the very end do you know if he did or didn't do what Myra asked.
This is an excellent, suspenseful movie with two superior performances. The characters of Myra and Billy Savage will stay with you long after the film ends.
And while we cannot condone their behavior, we can sympathize with the characters. Ultimately, Billy loves his wife despite her self-centered and unhinged behavior. We understand his love for her because despite her actions, she is quite vulnerable.
I've heard some stories and movies described as "ghost stories without a ghost". I never really understood what that meant until I heard "Seance" described this way. Both of the main characters are definitely "haunted"; Myra, by her childhood, the death of her son, and her own frustrated ambitions and Billy by the memories of a life without purpose. In fact, the only purpose in his life comes from his wife, Myra. That alone helps explain why he would go along with Myra's mad kidnapping scheme. It also helps build the suspense when Myra insists that they kill the child. Billy seems to like the child but we have plenty of examples of Billy going against his better judgment to carry out Myra's commands. Not until the very end do you know if he did or didn't do what Myra asked.
This is an excellent, suspenseful movie with two superior performances. The characters of Myra and Billy Savage will stay with you long after the film ends.
Should Kim Stanley have won the Oscar?
axsmashcrushallthree16 January 2007
One of the best British films of the 1960's, "Seance on a Wet Afternoon" is now available on DVD through general distribution. This should help the film to gain the wider appeal that it deserves.
This succeeds on all levels - extraordinary direction with riveting tracking shots, evocative cinematography, great set pieces, a winding plot, and amazing acting from the two leads. The showy yet introspective role of Myra Savage might be one to elicit histrionics and stern looks in the wrong hands, but the character is immensely deepened and supplemented by Kim Stanley's superbly rich "Method" performance. Stanley is matched by Richard Attenborough's Bill Savage, attenuated and subordinated by his wife's unstable, grasping personality.
Much has been said about Stanley's performance as a deserving Academy Award winner. This is difficult to judge. Most of the awards presented in 1965 were for lighter films, and it is difficult to find fault with Julie Andrew's now legendary performance as "Mary Poppins". Deeper inspection of past Awards shows a predilection toward films of an escapist nature during certain times, such as "Going My Way" during the dark, uncertain days of World War II 1943/1944. Could the same be said of the tumultuous aftermath of Kennedy's assassination and other upheavals? Under any circumstance, this film is a masterpiece with no small debt to the acting of Stanley and Attenborough. Seek this out and you will be richly rewarded - 10 out of 10.
This succeeds on all levels - extraordinary direction with riveting tracking shots, evocative cinematography, great set pieces, a winding plot, and amazing acting from the two leads. The showy yet introspective role of Myra Savage might be one to elicit histrionics and stern looks in the wrong hands, but the character is immensely deepened and supplemented by Kim Stanley's superbly rich "Method" performance. Stanley is matched by Richard Attenborough's Bill Savage, attenuated and subordinated by his wife's unstable, grasping personality.
Much has been said about Stanley's performance as a deserving Academy Award winner. This is difficult to judge. Most of the awards presented in 1965 were for lighter films, and it is difficult to find fault with Julie Andrew's now legendary performance as "Mary Poppins". Deeper inspection of past Awards shows a predilection toward films of an escapist nature during certain times, such as "Going My Way" during the dark, uncertain days of World War II 1943/1944. Could the same be said of the tumultuous aftermath of Kennedy's assassination and other upheavals? Under any circumstance, this film is a masterpiece with no small debt to the acting of Stanley and Attenborough. Seek this out and you will be richly rewarded - 10 out of 10.
Kim Stanley is a knock-off and this film a masterpiece.
imdbdata5 April 2002
This is an almost forgotten masterpiece by British director Bryan Forbes in which everything is unique.
The sound track is macabre and chilling, the story and setting: simply adorable (the atmosphere of the old house is comparable to the one in Wise's "The Haunting"), the cinematography is great, and the editing almost perfect.
The greatest plus, whatsoever, is Kim Stanley's acting. Perfection would be the right word to describe it. Regarded as being "America's finest actress", she proves what Method acting can be like in this stunning, electric performance. It's so sad that her filmography is that short! Equally good is Richard Attenborough as Stanley's weak husband. Both actors deliver a tour-de-force duel in acting -- it's great to watch!
I highly recommend this film which still -- in times of "Hannibal", and "Scream" -- gives us chills. It's the best entertainment you can get!
The sound track is macabre and chilling, the story and setting: simply adorable (the atmosphere of the old house is comparable to the one in Wise's "The Haunting"), the cinematography is great, and the editing almost perfect.
The greatest plus, whatsoever, is Kim Stanley's acting. Perfection would be the right word to describe it. Regarded as being "America's finest actress", she proves what Method acting can be like in this stunning, electric performance. It's so sad that her filmography is that short! Equally good is Richard Attenborough as Stanley's weak husband. Both actors deliver a tour-de-force duel in acting -- it's great to watch!
I highly recommend this film which still -- in times of "Hannibal", and "Scream" -- gives us chills. It's the best entertainment you can get!
Excellent psychological horror
thomandybish6 April 2001
This great, seldom-scene movie stars Kim Stanley as an unbalanced woman who holds seances in her home and concocts a plot to gain celebrity with her so-called "powers". With the help of her husband, she plans to kidnap the daughter of a wealthy couple, then use her "powers"to reveal the girl's whereabouts. As the story unfolds, the audience is shown the reasons behind the woman's emotional problems and the growing inevitability of disaster that her plan holds. Richard Attenborough gives a great performance as he teeters between the desire to fulfill his unhappy wife's scheme and the knowledge that the deed they are doing is wrong. Reccommended for those who want a shiver without the gore. Thought provoking.
A Deeply Unnerving Film with Two Tremendous Lead Performances
evanston_dad1 December 2006
Kim Stanley delivers a tremendously affecting performance as a sad English suburban housewife who desperately wants to prove her validity as a medium and will go to criminal means to do so in this chilly and chilling drama.
Critics heaped praise upon Stanley, always known as more of a stage actress than a movie actress, and the Academy awarded her a best actress nomination for her work in this film, and rightly so. At a time when movie acting could still be superficial, when Hollywood starlets were cast in ill-fitting roles because they looked better and would sell more tickets, Stanley gave a performance that distinguished itself in sheer commitment to character. It was rare then and still rare now to see a performance in which the actress creates a living, breathing human being before your very eyes.
But in the interest of fairness, one must also mention the equally strong work of Richard Attenborough, who gets a less showy but as important role as Stanley's beleaguered husband, who will do anything to keep his wife happy, even after he begins to suspect that she may be ill. Attenborough creates the image of a middle-aged man who suspects that he was lucky to get the wife he has, and who wants more than anything to live a normal, family-oriented life that seems to always remain just beyond his grasp.
"Seance on a Wet Afternoon" is not a masterpiece, but it is a subtly and intensely disquieting film, the kind that lingers in your head long after you've seen it.
Grade: A-
Critics heaped praise upon Stanley, always known as more of a stage actress than a movie actress, and the Academy awarded her a best actress nomination for her work in this film, and rightly so. At a time when movie acting could still be superficial, when Hollywood starlets were cast in ill-fitting roles because they looked better and would sell more tickets, Stanley gave a performance that distinguished itself in sheer commitment to character. It was rare then and still rare now to see a performance in which the actress creates a living, breathing human being before your very eyes.
But in the interest of fairness, one must also mention the equally strong work of Richard Attenborough, who gets a less showy but as important role as Stanley's beleaguered husband, who will do anything to keep his wife happy, even after he begins to suspect that she may be ill. Attenborough creates the image of a middle-aged man who suspects that he was lucky to get the wife he has, and who wants more than anything to live a normal, family-oriented life that seems to always remain just beyond his grasp.
"Seance on a Wet Afternoon" is not a masterpiece, but it is a subtly and intensely disquieting film, the kind that lingers in your head long after you've seen it.
Grade: A-
Seance on a Wet Afternoon is a great British suspense film
tavm9 May 2008
This was a British picture that I had long wanted to see so when I went to my local library and found this there, I quickly checked it out. Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough are perfectly chilling as the séance wife Myra and reluctant kidnapper Billy. Judith Donner, in her only role, brings a subtle naturalness as the child Amanda who they "borrow" from a wealthy couple. Also good were Mark Eden and Nanette Newman, who's married to the film's director Bryan Forbes, as the child's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Clayton. John Barry's score brings various shades in many chase scenes and some quietly chilling ones involving Myra and Billy. And Forbes brings measured tension in many point-of-view shots. The suspense involves psychological emotions that cut to the bone and brings a compellingly British flavor to the concluding scenes. So for all that, I highly recommend Seance on a Wet Afternoon.
Some Really Good Acting Here
Lechuguilla25 April 2004
Assisted by her reluctant husband, a delusional but clever "psychic", with a fondness for opera, carries out a child kidnapping scheme, to help boost her mysticism business. The film's premise is interesting, but the plot is slow and tedious. Many scenes, especially those shot outdoors, could have been shortened, or even deleted. Blatant plot holes and a sputtering finale further weaken the screen story.
If the plot is weak, the acting assuredly is not. Richard Attenborough (as the meek husband) is excellent. Even better is Kim Stanley (as the psychotic psychic). Indeed, Stanley's performance, which earned her an Oscar nomination, is the main reason to watch the film. Her method acting is perfect for the role. At times almost whispering her lines, she gives an instinctive and highly mannered performance that reminds me of another method actress, the brilliant Geraldine Page.
Mercifully, the film is shot in B&W. The best scenes are interior scenes wherein the stark contrast in lighting combines with minimal dialogue, and at times only the ticking of a clock in lieu of dialogue, to bring about the kind of brooding and dreary atmosphere one would expect, for a psychological thriller.
The best approach to this film is to ignore the details of the flawed plot, and focus instead on the psychology and motivation of Kim Stanley's character.
If the plot is weak, the acting assuredly is not. Richard Attenborough (as the meek husband) is excellent. Even better is Kim Stanley (as the psychotic psychic). Indeed, Stanley's performance, which earned her an Oscar nomination, is the main reason to watch the film. Her method acting is perfect for the role. At times almost whispering her lines, she gives an instinctive and highly mannered performance that reminds me of another method actress, the brilliant Geraldine Page.
Mercifully, the film is shot in B&W. The best scenes are interior scenes wherein the stark contrast in lighting combines with minimal dialogue, and at times only the ticking of a clock in lieu of dialogue, to bring about the kind of brooding and dreary atmosphere one would expect, for a psychological thriller.
The best approach to this film is to ignore the details of the flawed plot, and focus instead on the psychology and motivation of Kim Stanley's character.
Definite spoiler - but appropriate for repeat viewers of this great film
peekdm7 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen Seance many times. First, as a side note, having viewed this film as a child, I can attest to how uncomfortable it was to see a child kidnapped, so not real good for little ones. Next, to avoid repetition of better reviews than mine, I'll just confirm that Seance represents a very high caliber of film-making, and actors Stanley and Attenborough, cinematographer Turpin and director Forbes are especially at the top of their craft here. If you haven't seen it, watch it first - it unfolds slowly like an exquisite flower - then read this, if you like, as it is a focus on the ending.
Finally, for repeat viewers of Seance I'd like to address the last few scenes, maybe others have more clarity on this. The ending, described by some as "anti-climactic"(!) has Myra in a trance delivering her agonizing monologue which reveals their guilt - to Billy's horror. More than once I have tried to accept at this point that the jig is up and I find I often focus on Billy, the police - anyone to avoid watching poor Myra because Stanley's performance is so powerful, it's nearly too uncomfortable to watch. But as she continues, she reveals information that she couldn't possibly know - information that Billy has kept from her. Has everyone else noticed this? This would transform the entire story (or for me it would). Does she indeed have the "gift" that "Arthur" advised her of or helps her with? It would appear she does. It would seem that her grief, histrionics and loss of ethics (among other things) mask a brilliance. She has devised a hoax to increase her notoriety, so has she failed this gift by not respecting her own unique ability? Does Billy act as if he believes she has a gift or does he quietly acquiesce to this as well, creating a silent climate of non belief? Either circumstance, though different, could drive someone crazy. Has anyone, by chance, read the novel? I probably should . Perhaps it clears this up. Sorry for all the questions. Thoughtful, complex, psychological, atmospheric film.
Finally, for repeat viewers of Seance I'd like to address the last few scenes, maybe others have more clarity on this. The ending, described by some as "anti-climactic"(!) has Myra in a trance delivering her agonizing monologue which reveals their guilt - to Billy's horror. More than once I have tried to accept at this point that the jig is up and I find I often focus on Billy, the police - anyone to avoid watching poor Myra because Stanley's performance is so powerful, it's nearly too uncomfortable to watch. But as she continues, she reveals information that she couldn't possibly know - information that Billy has kept from her. Has everyone else noticed this? This would transform the entire story (or for me it would). Does she indeed have the "gift" that "Arthur" advised her of or helps her with? It would appear she does. It would seem that her grief, histrionics and loss of ethics (among other things) mask a brilliance. She has devised a hoax to increase her notoriety, so has she failed this gift by not respecting her own unique ability? Does Billy act as if he believes she has a gift or does he quietly acquiesce to this as well, creating a silent climate of non belief? Either circumstance, though different, could drive someone crazy. Has anyone, by chance, read the novel? I probably should . Perhaps it clears this up. Sorry for all the questions. Thoughtful, complex, psychological, atmospheric film.
Creepy
JasparLamarCrabb17 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Creepy in the extreme, SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON is a real spine-tingler. In a rare film appearance, Kim Stanley is brilliant as Myra Savage, a self proclaimed medium who, along with her milquetoast husband, kidnaps a child and then comes forward to prove she has the power to find her. Stanley gives a gutsy performance...her mannerisms, of which there are many, serve her very well. She's slightly off-center to begin with and director Bryan Forbes exploits that for maximum effect. Although she's an awful person, Stanley makes Myra pathetically sympathetic. Her performance is matched by Richard Attenborough as her nervous nelly of a husband. A great, thoughtful, and rare horror film that relies on character as opposed to blood and gore to scare the wits out of you!
A Baffling Oscar Oversight
dglink10 December 2004
Over the years, the Oscars have often gone to performers and films that seemed to make little sense at the time and subsequently failed to stand the test of time. While Julie Andrews was certainly marked for stardom, her singing nanny did not hold a candle to Kim Stanley's tour-de-force as Myra in "Seance on a Wet Afternoon," either in 1964 or in 2004. One wonders in retrospect if any of the voters actually saw this brilliant, minor masterwork. If they had, how did Richard Attenborough's performance get overlooked? His subtle underplaying as the passive husband is in perfect sync to Stanley's showy turn as the medium and deserved Academy recognition as much as and perhaps more than his direction of "Gandhi." The taut screenplay and direction by Bryan Forbes, the fine black and white cinematography by Gerry Turpin, and John Barry's music also deserved recognition. Unfortunately, Hollywood was into big musicals in 1964, and the Academy's nominations were showered on "My Fair Lady" and "Mary Poppins," while more serious fare such as this film was overlooked. While "Lady" clunks along today as a leaden stage-bound adaptation and "Poppins" does not seem quite as charming as it did, "Seance on a Wet Afternoon" and the two brilliant performances at its center remain as riveting as they were 40 years ago. Fortunately, the Academy has shown some maturity in recent years, and films such as this are more often recognized, which raises their profiles and brings them to the attention of viewers who might otherwise miss them. Without any recognition other than recommendations from those few who have seen this character-driven suspense gem, "Seance" has been little seen and remains a cinematic jewel that awaits discovery and its deserved place among British film classics.
Hm...Solid acting.
jamesstama-735321 November 2021
The actresses/actors here did an excellent job, although (and this may just be me) the plot was a bit droll and predictable, lacking any real climax and just sort of carried on relentlessly. It seems some others thought the story had plenty of twists and turns, but to me it was like an empty hallway.
Frustrating (a wildly dissenting view)
zetes14 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Frustrating. There are so many exceptional pieces of this film, but there are probably even more pieces that are rather infuriating. The story concerns a neurotic woman who swears she is a medium (Kim Stanley - giving one of the most mannered performances in cinema history). To prove this she devises a plot to kidnap the young daughter of a rich man and then lead the police to her. Her testes-less husband (Richard Attenborough) goes along with her plan. After the first couple of minutes of their interaction, we know how sorry he feels for his wife. He doesn't believe any of what she says, but he'll obviously do anything she asks. The kidnapping plot is truly terrible, though. Neither the original author of the novel, Mark McShane, nor the director/screenwriter, Forbes, knew anything about either committing crimes or police procedures. Either that or everyone in Britain is retarded. Attenborough accomplishes this kidnapping by approaching the child's driver and telling him that the school's headmistress has a note for him. When the driver walks away (with the kid and the keys still in the car), Attenborough jumps in and drives away. Okay, don't you think that when the driver finds that there is no note with the headmistress he's going to run back to the car and find it gone, which would then lead to a massive hunt for the vehicle and the man who lied about the note, whom the driver saw very, very clearly? This crime should have been solved by the next evening. Oh, and don't forget Kim Stanley's trip to the rich man's house, when she tells him that she dreamed about their daughter, who told her the name of her best friend and her favorite stuffed animal. The rich man says, "Oh, you could have heard that anywhere!" Hmm, really? I would think that that would raise a certain amount of suspicion, more than it does anyway (the police visit her house but simply leave when they find them not home, and do not leave anyone to stake out the place).
The there's this stupid backstory about the kidnappers' dead son (they try to hide that fact but it's obvious from the first two seconds of the film). The way hints are dropped it comes as no surprise to any thinking audience that there's something even more special about this kid. When that point is finally revealed, it's just silly. Two years later the film Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Would be much more successful with a similar subplot.
It's all so disappointing, because the film is very well directed. Very beautifully so. And Attenborough, despite desperately needing to grow a pair of cojones, is exceptional. Also great is the music, by John Barry. But, damn, so much of the film blows. So little of this story is believable, and it's just so frustrating. That frustration turned into total annoyance by the end of the film. 5/10.
The there's this stupid backstory about the kidnappers' dead son (they try to hide that fact but it's obvious from the first two seconds of the film). The way hints are dropped it comes as no surprise to any thinking audience that there's something even more special about this kid. When that point is finally revealed, it's just silly. Two years later the film Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Would be much more successful with a similar subplot.
It's all so disappointing, because the film is very well directed. Very beautifully so. And Attenborough, despite desperately needing to grow a pair of cojones, is exceptional. Also great is the music, by John Barry. But, damn, so much of the film blows. So little of this story is believable, and it's just so frustrating. That frustration turned into total annoyance by the end of the film. 5/10.
Bryan Forbes' Best Film
billseper22 March 2011
Forbes also wrote this one (as he often did). It's hard to find any fault with this movie. You can't get much better than a film, not only written and directed by Forbes, but starring an unforgettable pairing in Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough. Ms. Stanley didn't make too many movies, but this one is enough to show why she's often thought of as the best stage actress of the 20th century.
Just to tell a small bit of the story, it's about a woman and her husband who earn some money giving séances for people. It's unclear whether the husband, played by Attenborough, actually believes anything supernatural is going on, because as the story progresses, what does become clear is that his wife, played by Stanley, is having, or has already had, a serious break with reality.
A word of warning to those thinking this is a movie about the supernatural given the film's title—it is not, although some may see something of the supernatural in the wife's delusional mode of existence. The film is actually about something entirely different—the kidnapping of a young girl. Very suspensefully done from beginning to end.
Just to tell a small bit of the story, it's about a woman and her husband who earn some money giving séances for people. It's unclear whether the husband, played by Attenborough, actually believes anything supernatural is going on, because as the story progresses, what does become clear is that his wife, played by Stanley, is having, or has already had, a serious break with reality.
A word of warning to those thinking this is a movie about the supernatural given the film's title—it is not, although some may see something of the supernatural in the wife's delusional mode of existence. The film is actually about something entirely different—the kidnapping of a young girl. Very suspensefully done from beginning to end.
Kim Stanley is fantastic!
StreepFan12618 June 2004
This little seen film stars one of America's greatest actresses in one of Britian's greatest thrillers. Kim Stanley was an excellent Method actress. I agree that she very much reminds me of Geraldine Page, another brilliant actress. The way she says her lines, or uses her hands and face is very much like Page. (Ironically, Page turned down this role!)
I'm not going to get too much into the plot because I don't want to give too much away. If you want to know more about the plot, then check out some of the other comments. Let's just say great acting by the entire cast, and a good tense story, make for a night of suspense. So turn out the lights and enjoy!
PS: If you're looking for a copy of this video don't forget to check your public library.
I'm not going to get too much into the plot because I don't want to give too much away. If you want to know more about the plot, then check out some of the other comments. Let's just say great acting by the entire cast, and a good tense story, make for a night of suspense. So turn out the lights and enjoy!
PS: If you're looking for a copy of this video don't forget to check your public library.
Lies bring forth the Truth
zeleny17 October 2002
A deeply conventional moral emerges from a denaturalized plot involving a phony psychic, her meek husband, and a manipulative police superintendent. While Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough acquit themselves spectacularly as the couple undone by overweening ambition of a childless wife, the film is indelibly marked by an all too brief final appearance of Patrick Magee, a stage actor seen to fair advantage on film only infrequently, and nearly always in supporting parts. Watch this favorite actor of Samuel Beckett, the originally intended performer of Krapp's Last Tape, in a performance of trenchant subtlety, enforcing Law through measured duplicity and chilling subterfuge.
One of the Academy Awards Most Baffling Choices (2)
Paris5513 July 2012
I agree with the comment provided by author djlink, Alexandria, VA regarding the Oscars. Unfortunately for Kim Stanley in "Seance on a Wet Afternoon" Julie Andrews won the Oscar not for her performance in Mary Poppins BUT for the controversy over Andrews not getting the part in the movie "My Fair Lady". Andrews created the part on Broadway. When the movie was cast, the producers chose Audrey Hepburn, for name recognition. Many in Hollywood industry and the Academy were not thrilled over the slight and thought that was a major mistake, therefore giving Andrews the Oscar for Mary Poppins, no matter who else was nominated and their performance. This happens much too often and in recent years as of 2011. The Oscars are more political now than they were back in the 1960s.
Great Movie!
marlene_rantz23 September 2013
I was not sure if I would like this movie, so I was very pleasantly surprised to find that I not only liked it, I loved it! The plot about a psychic seeking recognition by involving her husband in a kidnapping plot might seem trivial, but there was nothing trivial about the great acting by Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough. They worked well together! What I really liked about Richard Attenborough's performance was that he did not say much(except for one scene), but he held my attention just the same with his marvelous facial expressions. In my opinion, an actor who does not say much, but still can gain your attention is an excellent actor, and that is Richard Attenborough! This movie might not appeal to everyone, but it will definitely appeal to anyone liking great acting, so I recommend it for that reason!
If it's top calibre acting you want then this is where you'll find it
Red-Barracuda19 January 2016
If what you are looking for in a movie is to see an acting masterclass then you need look no further than Séance on a Wet Afternoon. This psychological drama is very much a character-driven piece and it features a pair of truly outstanding performances at its centre. It tells the story of a medium that has lost sight of reality since the death of her child. She convinces her weak-willed, overly dependent husband to kidnap a young girl from a wealthy family in order to collect a sizable ransom and from which she can then subsequently use her 'powers' to assist the parents in finding the child, leading to her attaining fame as one with a gift of the second sight.
The two lead actors here are Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough. Stanley only appeared in seven feature films, meaning that she is far from a household name but she was quite obviously an actress with incredible talent. Seemingly an advocate of method acting, she is unbelievable as the unbalanced complex woman at the centre of the plot. It's a pretty intense role but it's played to perfection without resorting to anything over-the-top. Richard Attenborough is practically just as impressive as her husband in an understated performance of a character with many flaws and contradictions. His presence is key to the film's success in that he has feet in both camps, in that he acts with his wife in carrying out their crime, yet he is the one who has moral doubts and so is the audience identification figure. It takes some considerable skill on Attenborough's part in order to create a character which is so believable – sympathetic yet quite reprehensible. Both actors work beautifully together and create something very real. The film also offers very good turns from Patrick Magee as a wily police inspector and Nanette Newman as the broken mother of the missing girl.
John Barry is on hand too with a moody score which perfectly complements the moody black and white photography. It all adds up to a film with considerable depth. Despite the subject matter, it isn't really a thriller; it's more of a psychological drama. It doesn't play out in a very predictable manner either which is never a bad thing. This British film still remains relatively unknown, which strikes me as a bit of a shame. I guess it's one that will remain under the radar but which will reward those who seek it out.
The two lead actors here are Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough. Stanley only appeared in seven feature films, meaning that she is far from a household name but she was quite obviously an actress with incredible talent. Seemingly an advocate of method acting, she is unbelievable as the unbalanced complex woman at the centre of the plot. It's a pretty intense role but it's played to perfection without resorting to anything over-the-top. Richard Attenborough is practically just as impressive as her husband in an understated performance of a character with many flaws and contradictions. His presence is key to the film's success in that he has feet in both camps, in that he acts with his wife in carrying out their crime, yet he is the one who has moral doubts and so is the audience identification figure. It takes some considerable skill on Attenborough's part in order to create a character which is so believable – sympathetic yet quite reprehensible. Both actors work beautifully together and create something very real. The film also offers very good turns from Patrick Magee as a wily police inspector and Nanette Newman as the broken mother of the missing girl.
John Barry is on hand too with a moody score which perfectly complements the moody black and white photography. It all adds up to a film with considerable depth. Despite the subject matter, it isn't really a thriller; it's more of a psychological drama. It doesn't play out in a very predictable manner either which is never a bad thing. This British film still remains relatively unknown, which strikes me as a bit of a shame. I guess it's one that will remain under the radar but which will reward those who seek it out.
Remarkable
colinmuze8 December 2006
Alfred Hitchcock would have been proud of this, only it was directed by Bryan Forbes. Wonderful shots in London in 1962 (not 64 as stated). No violence, yet there is an underlying threat throughout. The creepy Victorian house adds atmosphere but it is the location shots that are excellent. Attenborough is convincing but it is Kim Stanley who shines, quite apart from disguising her American accent, she is absolutely faultless. Forbes' interview on the DVD is fascinating. As he states there is not a cardboard film set in sight; it is all on location. The interview adds so much and should be viewed after the film as he answers all the questions you are asking while watching. John Barry's score is also excellent; especially the use of violins in the scene in the Rolls Royce. A 60s black and white classic. that deserves to be reappraised in coming years and will stand as one of Forbes' greatest moments as a director.
Taut and Engrossing
JamesHitchcock19 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The title of this film is a bit baffling. Two séances play an important part in the plot, but neither takes place on a wet afternoon. One takes place in the evening, the other on an obviously fine day. Perhaps its significance is clearer in the original novel, which I have never read.
Billy and Myra Savage, a middle-aged, middle-class suburban couple, kidnap Amanda, the young daughter of a wealthy businessman. Although they send her father a ransom note, their motive is not financial. Even though Billy is unable to work because of ill health, they live in a large, imposing Victorian house and are clearly not short of money. Rather Myra, a medium who holds séances in her home, believes that she can become famous for her supposed psychic abilities by helping the police to solve the crime.
When I first saw this film many years ago I disliked it for what I saw as a lack of realism. How on earth did Billy and Myra imagine that they were going to get away with a plan so obviously badly conceived and badly executed? Looking back, I can see that my criticism was unfair and that I had been unduly influenced by films in which a gang of master- criminals put together an intricate, seemingly foolproof, scheme only to come unstuck because of some minor detail, of the tenacity or brilliance of the investigating detective, or of sheer bad luck.
Because the truth is that Billy and Myra are not brilliant master- criminals. Far from it. She is mentally unstable and detached from reality to the extent that she hardly realises that she is committing a crime. She insists that she is merely "borrowing" Amanda, not kidnapping her. She believes that she is in touch with the spirit of her son Arthur, who died at birth, but fails to realise that she does not actually have any psychic abilities. If she did, she would not have to go through such a ridiculous charade in order to "demonstrate" them. As for her husband, he is merely a weak and cowardly little man unable to stand up to his domineering wife, although at the end he does display a greater humanity than she is capable of.
This is the only film in which I have ever seen Kim Stanley. She was, apparently, a theatre and television actress who had only appeared in one previous feature film, "The Goddess", and was only the third choice for the role of Myra, Deborah Kerr and Simone Signoret having turned it down. Yet she is excellent here, showing us the way in which her self- deluded character's personality disintegrates bit by bit to the point where she can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality and can see no objection to killing Amanda. Richard Attenborough, the film's co- producer and her co-star, paid tribute to her "complexity of dramatic impression". She received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (losing to Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins) but this did not persuade her to make a career in films. It was to be another eighteen years before she appeared in another film, "Frances". (She was Oscar nominated for that as well). Attenborough is also very good as the cowed Billy.
This was the third film directed by Bryan Forbes, who had made such a brilliant start to his directing career with "Whistle Down the Wind", one of the great classics of the British cinema; his wife Nanette Newman appears as Amanda's mother. Like Forbes's two earlier films (his second was "The L-Shaped Room"), this one is in black-and-white, something still regularly used in Britain (unlike America) during the mid-sixties, probably because colour television had not yet come to Britain. I was reminded of some of the early works of Alfred Hitchcock, especially "Shadow of a Doubt", another psychological thriller about a young girl in danger and which takes place in a seemingly tranquil suburb.
"Séance on a Wet Afternoon" doesn't have quite the same emotional impact as something like "Whistle Down the Wind", largely because the two leading characters are so unsympathetic. It is, however, a taut and engrossing psychological drama.
Billy and Myra Savage, a middle-aged, middle-class suburban couple, kidnap Amanda, the young daughter of a wealthy businessman. Although they send her father a ransom note, their motive is not financial. Even though Billy is unable to work because of ill health, they live in a large, imposing Victorian house and are clearly not short of money. Rather Myra, a medium who holds séances in her home, believes that she can become famous for her supposed psychic abilities by helping the police to solve the crime.
When I first saw this film many years ago I disliked it for what I saw as a lack of realism. How on earth did Billy and Myra imagine that they were going to get away with a plan so obviously badly conceived and badly executed? Looking back, I can see that my criticism was unfair and that I had been unduly influenced by films in which a gang of master- criminals put together an intricate, seemingly foolproof, scheme only to come unstuck because of some minor detail, of the tenacity or brilliance of the investigating detective, or of sheer bad luck.
Because the truth is that Billy and Myra are not brilliant master- criminals. Far from it. She is mentally unstable and detached from reality to the extent that she hardly realises that she is committing a crime. She insists that she is merely "borrowing" Amanda, not kidnapping her. She believes that she is in touch with the spirit of her son Arthur, who died at birth, but fails to realise that she does not actually have any psychic abilities. If she did, she would not have to go through such a ridiculous charade in order to "demonstrate" them. As for her husband, he is merely a weak and cowardly little man unable to stand up to his domineering wife, although at the end he does display a greater humanity than she is capable of.
This is the only film in which I have ever seen Kim Stanley. She was, apparently, a theatre and television actress who had only appeared in one previous feature film, "The Goddess", and was only the third choice for the role of Myra, Deborah Kerr and Simone Signoret having turned it down. Yet she is excellent here, showing us the way in which her self- deluded character's personality disintegrates bit by bit to the point where she can no longer distinguish fantasy from reality and can see no objection to killing Amanda. Richard Attenborough, the film's co- producer and her co-star, paid tribute to her "complexity of dramatic impression". She received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (losing to Julie Andrews in Mary Poppins) but this did not persuade her to make a career in films. It was to be another eighteen years before she appeared in another film, "Frances". (She was Oscar nominated for that as well). Attenborough is also very good as the cowed Billy.
This was the third film directed by Bryan Forbes, who had made such a brilliant start to his directing career with "Whistle Down the Wind", one of the great classics of the British cinema; his wife Nanette Newman appears as Amanda's mother. Like Forbes's two earlier films (his second was "The L-Shaped Room"), this one is in black-and-white, something still regularly used in Britain (unlike America) during the mid-sixties, probably because colour television had not yet come to Britain. I was reminded of some of the early works of Alfred Hitchcock, especially "Shadow of a Doubt", another psychological thriller about a young girl in danger and which takes place in a seemingly tranquil suburb.
"Séance on a Wet Afternoon" doesn't have quite the same emotional impact as something like "Whistle Down the Wind", largely because the two leading characters are so unsympathetic. It is, however, a taut and engrossing psychological drama.
Although it starts slowly, it is well worth staying with this movie
Miles-1020 July 2016
This is a brilliant how-catch-'em told as a character study of a middle-aged couple, Billy and Myra, that decides to kidnap a child in order to fix everything that has gone wrong with their lives. As it evolves, the crime itself seems to bounce back and forth between lucky improvisation and clever planning. In terms of suspense, the best scenes are the kidnapping itself and the ransom pick-up. The movie seems to be saying that things are more apt to go according to plan when dealing with adults rather than children. Poor Billy has to do most of the dirty work. Myra masterminds the crime, but she is clearly an unstable person from the outset.
At one point, Billy complains to Myra that he is not "a master criminal" implying that that is what their crime needs, and he is right about that. It needs two master criminals, and neither of them is up to it, but they give it their best.
Despite all of that, you have people doing horrible things with a surprising hold on their humanity. There is genuine tenderness on the part of Billy throughout and even from the police inspector at the end.
There is a revealing power shift in the course of the movie as the submissive Billy gradually reveals that he holds the marriage together and actually does have more talent as a master criminal than she does. Myra and Billy are both motivated by pain and loss, but she can't stand it while he has long since accepted it.
The cinematography is tops, with judicious, almost invisible use of zoom lenses, clear-eyed views of London in the early 1960s, and moody, sinister looks at the kidnappers house, cluttered with the refuse of the couple's bad memories.
At one point, Billy complains to Myra that he is not "a master criminal" implying that that is what their crime needs, and he is right about that. It needs two master criminals, and neither of them is up to it, but they give it their best.
Despite all of that, you have people doing horrible things with a surprising hold on their humanity. There is genuine tenderness on the part of Billy throughout and even from the police inspector at the end.
There is a revealing power shift in the course of the movie as the submissive Billy gradually reveals that he holds the marriage together and actually does have more talent as a master criminal than she does. Myra and Billy are both motivated by pain and loss, but she can't stand it while he has long since accepted it.
The cinematography is tops, with judicious, almost invisible use of zoom lenses, clear-eyed views of London in the early 1960s, and moody, sinister looks at the kidnappers house, cluttered with the refuse of the couple's bad memories.
A Gentle Madness
bkoganbing19 January 2019
The performances of Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough dominate the film
Seance On A Wet Afternoon. This one will leave with a feeling of creepiness
long after you've viewed it.
Stanley who is so good in the role that you barely notice that in this British production she has no trace of any kind of accent. She's a psychic medium whom I guess was spending too much time communicating with the world beyond. Attenborough is her weak and dependent husband. He suffers from asthma and barely works.
Now in a new location they need to advertise her powers. Stanley has this scheme to kidnap a little girl from wealthy parents which of course Attenborough does. Attenborough just obeys Stanley in everything. But the scheme goes horribly wrong.
Ever since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, juvenile kidnap stories have done well in film. Everyone feels an empathy for the victim and wants to see the innocent returned and the guilty punished.
But Stanley imbues her performance with a certain quiet madness. She 'communicates' with the dead through the spirit of her dead baby. Attenborough knows what she is, but she is completely dominating as far as he's concerned.
Seance On A Wet Afternoon got Oscar recognition in the form of a nomination for Kim Stanley for Best Actress. The slightly more expensive and popular Mary Poppins with Julie Andrews in the lead took home the gold that year.
Still both the performances of Stanley and Attenborough are as fresh today as in 1964 when Seance On A Wet Afternoon was released.
Stanley who is so good in the role that you barely notice that in this British production she has no trace of any kind of accent. She's a psychic medium whom I guess was spending too much time communicating with the world beyond. Attenborough is her weak and dependent husband. He suffers from asthma and barely works.
Now in a new location they need to advertise her powers. Stanley has this scheme to kidnap a little girl from wealthy parents which of course Attenborough does. Attenborough just obeys Stanley in everything. But the scheme goes horribly wrong.
Ever since the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, juvenile kidnap stories have done well in film. Everyone feels an empathy for the victim and wants to see the innocent returned and the guilty punished.
But Stanley imbues her performance with a certain quiet madness. She 'communicates' with the dead through the spirit of her dead baby. Attenborough knows what she is, but she is completely dominating as far as he's concerned.
Seance On A Wet Afternoon got Oscar recognition in the form of a nomination for Kim Stanley for Best Actress. The slightly more expensive and popular Mary Poppins with Julie Andrews in the lead took home the gold that year.
Still both the performances of Stanley and Attenborough are as fresh today as in 1964 when Seance On A Wet Afternoon was released.
super dreary
onepotato221 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This was on TV about twelve thousand times when I was growing up. I can only assume that its copyright fell into the public domain for a couple of decades. It's common-ness meant I always managed to avoid it. But I've been on a British film kick and rented it. It's "drama" as drama is not done anymore, from a period that rejected the previous eras stagey, formulaic, dramatic conceits (a la Tennesee Williams) in favor of more finely observed filmic derangement. Kim Stanley is off her rocker here, but she's still presented as being in a delicate, pitiable state. Though you can see utter failure coming about one minute into things, the character study is intended to be of greater interest. I just didn't agree. In real life no one seeks out two hours with a passive-aggressive harpie like Stanley, so unless you're an extraordinary film-maker you've got a very difficult trick to pull off.
The story in which it's clear from the get-go that the criminals are fatally flawed was familiar and modern by 1960 (The Killing, Bob le Flambeur) but is retro and outdated now. The failed crime movie is absolutely one of my least favorite genres, usually taking the form of a failed heist (Bottle Rocket, Rififi, Gun Crazy, Lavender Hill Mob) forcing audiences to sit through every last detail of a crime for no discernible reason, or worse; to learn a lesson in morality (ugh!). Which is probably why I was overjoyed at the multiple successful getaways in the Thomas Crowne remake.
Some of the cinematography is very nice, but the movie is as dreary and exhausting as a two-hour visit to a nursing home.
The story in which it's clear from the get-go that the criminals are fatally flawed was familiar and modern by 1960 (The Killing, Bob le Flambeur) but is retro and outdated now. The failed crime movie is absolutely one of my least favorite genres, usually taking the form of a failed heist (Bottle Rocket, Rififi, Gun Crazy, Lavender Hill Mob) forcing audiences to sit through every last detail of a crime for no discernible reason, or worse; to learn a lesson in morality (ugh!). Which is probably why I was overjoyed at the multiple successful getaways in the Thomas Crowne remake.
Some of the cinematography is very nice, but the movie is as dreary and exhausting as a two-hour visit to a nursing home.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
