Skip to main content

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon
(1964)

(SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

Myra: We have borrowed a child, Billy. Borrowed.

This means that, for all there are reveals hinging on what the viewer does or doesn’t know, there’s significant expository dialogue that might have been more effectively rendered through the transition to cinema itself. Then, I’ve never been overly sold on Forbes’ progression from actor to director anyway, an arrangement whereby he could ensure Nanette Newman featured in each new project, whether she was suitable or not.

I suppose you could argue the theatrical approach either way: that Forbes resists upping the potential for spooky emphasis, so avoiding making what is, essentially, a highly unedifying premise even more distasteful. Additionally, one could readily imagine only a nudge shifting the picture into the realm of the risible, so slender is its grip on anyone perceiving the plan as plausible. Ultimately, I don’t think he’s imaginative enough to juggle the kitchen sink/supernatural/crime movie elements, which is why the dust settles into something closer to a standard chamber piece.

Myra: Why did I ever marry you, Billy?
Bill: I don’t know, dear. Why did you?
Myra: Because you’re weak. And because you need me.
Bill: Well, those are two good reasons.

The problem I encountered with the material going in was that I couldn’t see how it would support a plot that was all laid out for an obvious resolution; there’s no doubt from the first that Myra (Kim Stanley) is unbalanced, and there’s no doubt – because she keeps reinforcing the point – that Bill (Richard Attenborough) is obedient to her wishes, however wrong-headed he thinks she is (and he certainly does, although clearly not enough to draw the line at following her hare-brained scheme). She plans an abduction of a child, and from thence a resolution to the situation through her intervention with the vital psychic goods, so reaping the fame this will bring. Powerful as the leads are, much of the film is a two-hander, and their back and forth covers insufficient ground to fully sustain itself.

Mr Clayton: Well, what’s in it for you? You must have some angle.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon’s depiction of delusion might have been the more effective if some of the more obvious character traits had been dialled down a notch; we can see so clearly that Myra is antic in disposition, and because we can see so clearly – because Bill keeps saying so, that he doesn’t believe in it, and because the plan itself is absolutely barking – the only suspense generated relates to how it will go wrong, not if. Which is why it’s rather surprising – and frankly, even less credible than her idea that they might pull it off – that Billy actually succeeds in grabbing the cash at the exchange. Not to mention that the various areas set up for a fail (the kidnapped Amanda, played Judith Donner, failing to stir or be happened upon when left alone for hours in a sidecar). All this following the equally unlikely duping of Amanda’s chauffeur in the first place. As put-upon as Bill is, as a criminal he has an enormous amount of luck, it seems.

Amanda: Caroline says you only go to hospital to die…
Myra: Well, Caroline is just being very silly.
Amanda: No, she isn’t. She’s very clever. She’s a Christian Scientist.

Early on too, it seems as if precocious Amanda may outwit her kidnappers, offering a string of pertinent objections to Myra’s nurse disguise, including her inability to take a temperature and pushing her to diagnose the absurd “Double German Measles”. Later, she tells Bill “You don’t smell like a doctor”. But this element doesn’t last. Neither does the potential for Myra putting herself in frame as a police resource; that in itself might have been a means to produce suspense, but instead she visits the Claytons just the once. However, Newman’s Mrs Clayton does materialise for a séance, the proceedings themselves proving something of an effective misdirection; Myra’s trance state is depicted as genuine, rather than simply feeding Mrs Clayton information, which is why the premonition of death adds an edge, something Forbes pursues into the sequence where Bill appears to be disposing of Amanda’s body.

Myra: She’s seen you, Billy. She’s seen your face. Do it for me, please. Then we can both be safe forever.

Despite these objections, it’s very evident why posters boasted “Two of the greatest performers you will ever see…” Stanley, with her faux-coquettish inflection is both deeply disturbing and deeply annoying. She’s absolutely convincing as a delusional woman hoisted by her own petard. I particularly like the beat when she is leaving the Claytons’ and the plod warns her “Reporters. You don’t want to get mixed up with them”. That’s exactly what she wants, but she is forced to maintain the illusion and leave by the back gate. What Stanley is unable to do, though, is supply Myra with any degree of sympathy.

Myra: He believes what I believe.

That might in part be because her co-star invites it all. Attenborough, in a fake nose even the monochrome can’t forgive, is playing older (how much is never entirely clear, but he “rejuvenates” himself to an approximation of his actual age for a disguise scene, albeit he still wears that fake conk). He’s in a phase of interesting roles here, post his cheeky youthful types and prior to a descent into prestige picture (as a director) bloat. While Stanley, rarely seen on the big screen, took the main plaudits, including a Best Actress Oscar nod, Bill is the more impressive performance, contained and simmering (Attenborough, who also produced the film, won Best Actor BAFTA that year, shared between this and Guns at Batasi). It seems Forbes considered making Myra and Stanley a gay couple (hoping for Alec Guinness and Tom Courtenay, the latter willing but Guinness unsurprisingly didn’t want the attention the part might bring). Which might have been distinctive, but it wouldn’t have solved the problem of needing to open the film out.

Mr Clayton: We had a man in here a half hour ago offering to find our daughter with a diving rod.

I liked that Séance on a Wet Afternoon leaves ambiguous the possibility of Myra’s genuine abilities (some reviewers are firmly in the court that she is depicted as entirely deluded, by I tend to only partly so). She’s clearly barking, but the final séance suggests she is receiving genuine information about Amanda being alive, not having been disposed of by Stanley as agreed. Of course, this could have been intuited, in much the same way that Mark Eden insinuates she has gleaned information concerning his daughter (she has, but not in the way Eden assumes). And the desire to kill Amanda so she can be with dead son Arthur could equally, as Stanley suggests, be the product of her sick psyche (“Arthur doesn’t exist. He never existed. He was born dead. You never saw him. I was the only one who saw him. They wouldn’t let you see him”). But there’s also the possibility – and her trance state certainly doesn’t deny the possibility – that “Arthur” is a malign influence manipulating her for its own dark ends.

Superintendent Walsh: As a matter of fact, I’m president of my local society for psychical research.

Frankly, I welcomed the third act shift from the almost exclusive company of Myra and Bill upon the arrival of Patrick Magee’s Superintendent Walsh (accompanied by Detective Sergeant Beedle, played by Attenborough’s brother in law Gerald Sim). Advocates might say this illustrates how effectively claustrophobic Forbes has made the preceding proceedings, but that’s not it at all; what you’re wishing for is some new spark to ignite the drama, and the séance, knowing as we do from the looks between the policemen that they’re wise despite professing to need genuine help in their investigation, provides it.

Bill: We’re mad, you and me. We’re both mad.

While I’ve been aware of this film for decades – probably ever since first seeing it listed on BBC2 matinees in the 1980s – I somehow always managed to avoid catching it (probably never the right wet afternoon). I always admired its evocative title. Séance on a Wet Afternoon conjures something both drab and otherworldly, which doesn’t really convey Forbes’ film. Like his better pictures, it’s a showcase for acting talent, but less formidable as a piece of cinema in its own right.





Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism