![]() |
Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough are superb in unsettling drama Seance on a Wet Afternoon |
Bryan Forbes writes and directs (and produces, with
Attenborough) this unsettling and often tense film, which shares DNA with ghost
stories (but contains no terrors) and psychological dramas. It’s also a
superbly acted chamber-piece, an acute psychological study of two deeply
traumatised individuals who have responded very differently to personal tragedy
and found themselves locked into cycles of behaviour that are becoming
increasingly destructive.
Forbes shoots the film with a fly-on-the-wall intensity, giving
the exterior scenes a cinéma verité style, concealed cameras capturing
unwitting crowds walking blithely through a kidnap drama. There is a
kitchen-sink realism here, and elements of psychological hammer horror, with
the viewer never quite sure how far this couple will be willing to go. The
eerie score by John Barry, mixes in with hauntingly dominant sound designs
(especially of dripping water in the film’s opening moments) to create an
oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere that leaves you not in the least
surprised that the psyche of its two lead characters have been so badly damaged.
That sense of disturbance fits perfectly with the lack of
planning around the couple’s entire operation. Despite sparks of ingenuity
(many of them dependent on Billy’s bland forget-ability and bank-managerish
blending into the crowd), once the child has been kidnapped, they have no idea of
the next step or how (or even, it seems, if they want to) exploit the
situation. It becomes increasingly clear that the plan is not a grand design,
but a final desperate attempt to find meaning in their own lives and (certainly
in Myra’s case) to provide some sort of connection to their lost son.
That lost son hangs over the whole film, his pointedly
not-real ghostly presence having contributed hugely to Myra’s mental
disintegration – and also having crushed the life out of Billy. Myra has
clearly never recovered from the shock and grief – more facts of which are
revealed as the film plays out, culminating in a scintillating scene of
emotional confrontation between the two – and Billy, in a desperate attempt to
comfort his wife, has instead become the chief enabler of her fantasies.
It makes for an elegant two-hander of stirring emotion – and
requires two actors at the peak of their game. As Myra, the little-known Kim
Stanley is a sensation. A Broadway star (the “female Brando”) but with only one
film credit prior to this (and only three more after this), Stanley brings a
brilliant method technique but also a freshness and theatricality matching perfectly
the film’s theatrical roots and heightened sense of reality. Stanley delivers
an immersive performance that walks a fine tight-rope between calculation,
delusion and psychological collapse. It’s a show-piece role, but Stanley
largely avoids overplaying, instead exploring the deep emotional scars in the
character with a sensitivity that makes Myra someone to pity as recoil from.
Opposite her, Attenborough delivers one of his finest
performances as the complex, conflicted Billy. Seeming at first just a
brow-beaten husband, it becomes clear Billy has in fact taken on a great
emotional responsibility for protecting and comforting Myra, a dedication that
has (step-by-step) led to him catering to her every misguided demand. It’s a
generous, very subtle performance, of a fundamentally good man who performs
misdeeds because he believes it is for the greater good, confusing love for his
wife with refusing to make her confront reality.
These two excellent performers perform a complex dance where
our perception of the power dynamics in the relationship constantly shift. At
first Myra appears to hold all the aces, brow-beating the meek Billy and
lecturing him on everything from the spirit world to classical music. However,
it slowly becomes clear – as does Myra’s lack of grasp of reality – that Billy
is the quieter but stronger character, whose dedication and strength has kept
the couple going.
Séance on a Wet Afternoon is at its best when
exploring the relationship between these two and provides two fine actors
magnificent opportunities which their seize with relish. Its pace flags a bit
over the two hours – a tighter 90 minute run time would probably have helped it
– and while it’s lack of drive in the plot does reflect the confused ambling
scheme at its heart, it does mean the film can drift. But this is a fine
psychological study, well-made and superbly performed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.