MovieChat Forums > Seance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) Discussion > Thinking about Arthur **SPOILERS**

Thinking about Arthur SPOILERS

posted 19 years ago by elmerturnipseed
20 replies | jump to latest

During the final seance, Myra "sees" that the girl is still alive. How could she have known this?

Perhaps she really is psychic, and saw the girl, or was able to read her husband's mind. Or maybe she really was communicating with Arthur the whole time!

If so, this is one wild plot: the evil ghost of a stillborn baby influences his psychic mother and henpecked father to kidnap and murder a girl. His dad doesn't believe in him, and secretly saves the girl. Arthur betrays his parents by spilling the beans during a seance attended by suspicious police.

That would make Arthur one of the most extraordinary horror villains. He operates under the cover that he never existed, and only his seemingly delusional mother can sense him.

Any other thoughts on Arthur?

[–] sol- 19 years ago

I had never thought of that, however it would make some sense if she was really communicating with Arthur, and if it was just her husband who thought that it was a load of bull. The ending felt a bit awkward to me at the time, but your explanation makes a lot of sense. Anyway, I have ordered the DVD from overseas, so I hopefully I will have a chance to rewatch the film again in the next few weeks, and I'll play close attention to the way in which Myra acts, and try to judge whether or not she is actually communicating with Arthur. Or, if she really believes the whole time through that she is, even if she isn't...

A man can change the whole world with a bullet in the right place.

[–] SouthernDrawl 19 years ago

I think that Arthur is a good guy in a bad spot. Remember where he left the little girl? Remember the question that he asked the police during the seance?

Nemo me impune lacessit

[–] whimsical5 19 years ago

Authur is the dead baby, not the husband Billy is the husband

nice socks, man.....

[–] Sponiatowski 18 years ago

If so, this is one wild plot: the evil ghost of a stillborn baby influences his psychic mother and henpecked father to kidnap and murder a girl. His dad doesn't believe in him, and secretly saves the girl. Arthur betrays his parents by spilling the beans during a seance attended by suspicious police.

I believe that is the best answer. I thought the ending was a bit of a letdown, but the more I watched this film, the more I've come to the same conclusion.

Overall, this was a terrific film. Some parts reminded me of Hitchcock, others of Polanski. Kim Stanley herself is a combo of Bette Davis, Gena Rowlands and even reminded me of Marilyn in certain moments...an excellent, believable, natural portrayal of an eccentric or even insane woman.

I understand why this film is not more popular, though. You really have to put a lot of thought into it to arrive at the conclusion you mentioned above.

For anyone that enjoyed this film, I also recommend the also-underrated Deborah Kerr film "The Innocents".

These two would make a great double feature on Halloween.

[–] jeffreylincoln 17 years ago

YES, this movie makes a good companion to The Innocents. Both films are somewhat open to interpretation as to the endings.

[–] ksf-2 17 years ago

yes... lots of similarities to a hitchcock. Also couldnt stop thinking how much Richard Attenborough looks like Clive Swift. ("richard" on Keeping up Appearances) Billy the husband didnt seem too worried that he might be recognized by the cops after being chased around town.

[–] swinms 17 years ago

I realize that this question was discussed on this board last summer but I'd still like to confirm - did the girl survive? I couldn't understand half of what was said in the last couple of scenes.

[–] Sponiatowski 17 years ago

Yes, the girl survived. Billy laid her down near a place where there were scouts camping.

[–] surrealgertrude 17 years ago

I also got the creepy feeling that Myra was indeed communicating with some rather evil force on the other side of the veil (perhaps masquerading as her deceased son) when he revealed that the kidnapped child was still alive and NOT his new spiritual playmate. I think this was left ambiguous to suggest to the viewer that the young girl was never intended to be returned to her family alive
and Myra was being manipulated into murder by the spirit. Yikes!!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] myrndra 15 years ago

This is what makes SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON the very best kind of psychological thriller! It's got a great plot powered by intricate, tragic characters with an ending that brings up lots of discussion/theories because it is somewhat ambiguous.

I think SOAWA is not as popular as most films of its ilk precisely for this reason. Most people don't want ambiguity, they want to be told from A to B to C what's happening, then spoonfed the answers to any questions asked. Hell forbid they have to ever think for themselves.....

Wonder what the author of SOAWA would say about all these theories. If it were me I'd be quite pleased I'd got people wondering!

Take care, all.

____________________________

I support two teams: Wales, and whoever's playing England.

[–] Sponiatowski 15 years ago

I just saw Kim Stanley in "The Goddess" last night and was reminded of this movie board. "Seance" was probably Kim's best performance, but I wonder why she always got to play "mad women" roles.

I always think it is best to leave out the supernatural when trying to arrive at a conclusion. And I can't help thinking about the look on Myra's face when she sees the mother of the girl her husband kidnapped. Myra looks at her with HATRED, and I get the feeling that she knows her, or feels wronged by her and wants some sort of revenge.

Does anyone else get that impression? Is there any evidence of this in the movie? It's that first scene when Myra goes to offer her psychic services.

What Ever Happened to the Marlboro Man?

[–] kevinjo67 14 years ago

SPOILERS>>>>>>>
I always think it is best to leave out the supernatural when trying to arrive at a conclusion.

I agree to that in real life, but in movies there is always room for a supernatural explanation. How else can you explain the fact that Arthur knew that the little girl was still alive? And there is little doubt from Myra's behavior that she really is in contact with another entity--this is NOT a woman "acting" out a fake contact--at least it seemed clear to me that this was so.

Moisture is the essence of wetness, and wetness is the essence of beauty.

[–] Sponiatowski 14 years ago

Good response. I decided that it is "persons" that are haunted by ghosts...not groups.

And Myra was definitely haunted...with madness or otherwise.

I think this film needs to be remade.

!!!Scrooge for President!!!

[–] Trippetta10 14 years ago

I don't think this film is a ghost story; I think it is more about how people chose to believe in ghosts and spirits to help them cope with terrible loss (and how this leaves them open to manipulation by "mediums.") At times I thought Arthur was a figment of Myra's wishful imagination, but it times it seemed like Arthur was deliberately being used to manipulation the spineless husband (didn't it seem a bit convenient that Arthur wanted them to kill Amanda?) The degree to which Myra herself believes in Arthur is debatable, but I am pretty sure he is not meant to be an actual ghost. Myra told the police Amanda was alive at the seance because it wasn't the right time yet for the police to learn of her death. Unfortunately for her though she had become so nervous and wound up by unexpected appearance of the police that she ended up being unable to keep up the act and broke down, revealing that she and Billy had in fact kidnapped Amanda. That's my reading of the ending, anyway.

[–] AsHimself 13 years ago

That would make Arthur one of the most extraordinary horror villains. He operates under the cover that he never existed, and only his seemingly delusional mother can sense him.

Give me a damn break. Can't believe people are jumping to the ghost explanation first. Why kidnap a kid and use your "psychic powers" to tell everyone where she is, when you're lying about it in the first place? If you were truly that incredible, you wouldn't need to commit a serious crime.

The lady was unbalanced to begin with, had a stillborn baby and went overboard nuts - first thing I thought about. We see absolutely no evidence of her being a psychic. Even when she talks about when she was young, who knows what the hell she was talking about. The way she's talking, it's like she's trying to convince herself she wasn't just performing a trick in front of the adults. Whatever she was doing at an early age got her attention and nice things, which is still what she wants as an adult.

The way her husband shouts at her near the end- Arthur was dead, he never existed, etc. It's like she forgot this and her husband is baffled how she could forget, while knowing it drove her mad. I read not just relief in his face when the cops found out, but sympathy for his wife because she was so far gone.

[–] TheSqueee 13 years ago

I agree.

While she might have been genuinely psychic (that's where we differ), there's no question the stillbirth drove her insane - there are several times in the film where we see how damaged her psyche is, before she has the final breakdown at the end.

^^ May contain ramblings of an easily over-excited fangirl # http://www.thesqueee.co.uk

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Any actual spiritual or psychic mumbo jumbo doesn´t figure into any of what happens in the film the least bit; the woman´s just getting crazier by the hour. And this ghostly rubbish also steers attention away from one of SOAWA´s most lasting strengths - that of observing the couple unravel psychologically as a result of Stanley´s grief over the stillborn child & her resulting childnessness in general. The way the synergy between the two of them works, is a fine balancing act, and Forbes never falters once, from the quietly doom laden & spellbinding first act when things are being talked over in sinister tones without giving anything away plot wise, to the hysteria of the titular closing seance. It´s a bit like Martha and George from Who´s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf graduated onto the next level, relocated to London suburbia and gone business.

The only ghosts in the film are the metaphoric ones.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan