MovieChat Forums > The Mephisto Waltz (1971) Discussion > There is NO INCEST in this movie!

There is NO INCEST in this movie!


What most folks on this message board don't seem to realize is that Roxanne (Barbara Parkins) was NOT Duncan Ely's daughter!

Duncan & Roxanne were husband & wife who put on the "cloak" of father and daughter because Roxanne had already transfered to her new, younger body and she was waiting for Duncan to do the same. I think this point is fairly obvious. This is why when Myles first arrives for the interview and Duncan sees his hands he immediately sends for Roxanne to come downstairs to look at them too.

The movie "Skeleton Key" was very similar in this way, but in that film it was the wife (Gena Rowlands) who was still looking for a new body. The husband had already transfered into the body of Peter Sarsgaard.

The reason I bring this up is because every thread I've read on here, someone - if not everyone - keeps mentioning their "incestuous" relationship. Perhaps once they realize what is really going on they might enjoy the film a bit more. I hope so.

I think it is a very good film. It has it's faults, but it's still fun to watch.
And for those who complain about character's reaction to the death of the little girl, I too noticed Paula's lack of compassion... but who cares? hahaha
I was relieved when that precocious kid was finally disposed of.

reply

Yes, and in Skeleton Key their first victims were children -- a brother and a sister -- the husband and wife took their bodies. But I never thought about the creep factor in that until someone mentioned that in the other board where i just went "Hmmmmmm...." Now you know they didn't wait all those years to have sex and imagine them getting caught at that game. LOL.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

i'm glad you told me that, cause i didn't pick up on that. i was sad when the little girl died, even tho her swinging mom didn't seem o care that much.

reply

I didn't catch on to Duncan's wife stealing a younger body. I'm glad you clarified that. People criticize these boards because of the trolls, but people help you think of movies in ways they normally wouldn't so I'm glad they exist. I wasn't sad to see the little girl go either. Children in movies are often annoying. It seems like there are two types of annoying kids in movies to me: ones have a bad attitude and constantly talk back to their parents, or are over-the-top nicey-nice and sweet that it's irritating. I think the girl in this movie fit the latter.

reply

My wife had this interpretation and your explanation confirms it. The ending could then be interpreted as Paula-in-Roxanne getting her revenge on Duncan, who essentially killed her husband and was possessing his body thru the black arts. She's shown hugging Duncan-in-Myles but there's this knowing look on her face, revealing that she's going to reveal the truth to Duncan and devastate him.

I now have way more respect for the film, but there's still the problem of the comic book depiction of her mastering the satanic arts so quickly to the point of easily triumphing over two seasoned sorcerers.

reply

I didn't have a problem with Mrs. Clarkson outwitting the seasoned sorcerers because it wasn't that she was a better sorcerer but rather they underestimated her. If they don't suspect she's capable of learning the arts they have no reason to have their defense up for it.

I will grant that once she killed the Dog and stole her mask they should have suspected something but for whatever reason they didn't.

reply

In other words, their arrogance was their downfall and in line with the proverb "pride goeth before destruction; a haughty spirit before a fall." It's a good explanation and kinda similar to the murderers in Columbo movies always underestimating the disheveled detective because they're so arrogant.

reply

Kind of a tortoise and the hair sort of deal. I can dig it.,

reply