Peek 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.

Miles-10 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.

lasttimeisaw When Ms. Myra Savage (Stanley) self-professes that she is a professional medium, it does make me chuckle is there any definitive method to determine the word "professional" in this line of business in this cynical world? But Myra's believes her gift, but paradoxically in order to establish her reputation, she hatches a scheme of kidnapping a rich kid Amanda (Donner), and so she can her "gift" to correctly predict the whereabout of the kid and the ransom, to stage a sensation for her benefit.But it is a risky plan, as the parents of Amanda doesn't know Myra, she must pro-actively visit them and lure their attention, which will inconveniently raise the suspicion from the police (which is a sure thing after the kidnap has occurred), so a further police investigation is inevitable. Also it is an implausible plan, one may wonder even if she pulls off the subterfuge, how she can sustain her reputation after that? Keep rigging everything in advance? I fail to foresee what this one-time deal can really boost her career? As it is under one condition, she is a sham. But is she?Also kidnapping requires field work, so she must manipulate her weak-minded husband Billy (Attenborough) to carry out more physically-taxing procedures, including kidnapping, receiving ransom and transferring the hostage. This vintage black-and-white drama from Bryan Forbes hinges heavily on the play-off between Stanley and Attenborough, both are superb and tellingly affecting, although we can never morally take their stand, the scenes of their interactions register a sublime psychological mind-game of control and defence between a married couple. Stanley is righteously honoured with an Oscar nomination, Myra is shown simultaneously as a perpetrator with cold-hearted conviction and a victim of her own delusional obsession of their stillborn baby. Her so-called gift is the only connection (whether imaginary or uncannily tangible) to him which she clings to devotedly. A tour-de- force from Ms. Stanley, whose screen roles are rather scarce and here, it is a performance of a lifetime, she is resolute, calm, crafty and projects her towering presence with pitch- perfect note, until the ending, that ending which powerfully strengths the emotional impact by giving Stanley a show-stopping vent of truth and also masterfully veils the fact whether it is a guilt-driven confession or in a more eerie interpretation, she really reconnects with her dead child and gains her gift but at the same time, beans also been spilled so that she can never get away with her crime, simply brilliant! Attenborough, with a fake nose (which seems to be an odd option), didn't get enough credits for his equally excellent performance, he is the one audience is rooting for, his has doubt in their scheme from the very first, and he is compliant but we know when things reach the threshold, he is the game-changer can alter the entire plan, because he is not a psychopath, Attenborough instills great credibility into Billy, equips him with a humane touch which subtly subverts Myra's indefatigable madness. In cliques mainly composed with male chauvinists, we can see how easily his poignant acting can be easily snubbed. The truth is, occasionally the film's one-dimensional and predictable storyline tends to be a shade bland, and the procedural account of getting the random is too archaic to believe (a deliberate mockery of the police force?); but the performances are gravitating enough to ensnare viewers into a compelling human tragedy with its expressive chiaroscuro, a must- see for everyone.

blanche-2 Two magnificent actors, Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough star in "Seance on a Wet Afternoon," a 1964 film directed by Brian Forbes. Stanley was one of the truly great stage and film actresses of the last century; unfortunately, her film performances are very rare.Here Stanley plays Myra Savage, a woman who probably believes that she is a true psychic and communicating with her late son. Her late son tells her that in order to gain a big reputation, she needs to kidnap the child of a wealthy family, collect the ransom, and then psychically come up with the location of the child and the money.Myra doesn't do much - instead, she sends her weak, cowed husband Billy (Attenborough) to do the kidnapping. They make one room in the house look like a hospital room and, wearing surgical masks, they tell the child she's sick and in hospital. The whole thing starts to make Billy extremely nervous, as he realizes that his delusional wife, whom he's been jollying along all these years, is in fact nuts.Brilliant performances by Stanley and Attenborough, Stanley capturing the manipulative nature of Myra as well as her delusions, and Attenborough simply amazing as a weak-willed milksop who seems willing to do anything to avoid a confrontation with Myra.Though this is a somewhat slow film but extremely atmospheric and suspenseful. This is not only due to Forbes' direction, but is also driven in part by Stanley's portrayal of the unstable Myra. You never know what she's going to do next, but you can guess - and it scares you.Excellent film.