To me, this movie is perfection.

People are voting emotionally.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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.

A seance leader (Kim Stanley) convinces her husband (Richard Attenborough) to kidnap the daughter (Judith Donner) of a wealthy family. Stanley's goal is to "borrow" the daughter in order to use her as a means of gaining fame as a "medium" by convincing everyone that she would have found the daughter through her superior psychic abilities. Needless to say, it doesn't quite work out. The movie's plot is excellent and the director, composer, and cinematographer, not to mention the art director and the film editor, more than achieve cinematic nirvana in bringing it to the screen. The highest marks would go to the two main actors, Attenborough and Stanley, who portray both their relationship and themselves within it as if they themselves were these characters. Stanley's character is the dominant one in the relationship, but her plan to kidnap the girl illustrates her dangerous instability. Attenborough's character may be even worse off for its pathetic submission to the insults and bizarre logic of his wife, acts of which the film captures throughout, to its inevitable end.

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!

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.