The Ending

> After all, Arthur did retrieve the little boy's body from the bog and placed it in the coffin with his mother. Why would the woman in black then cause Arthur and his son's death at the train station?

C'mon. This woman was killing the children of the local town, who had nothing to do with her son's death. She's crazy as a loon! Even though she was reunited with her son, she's still going to go on killing children.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

Whatever the larger metaphor, theme, jumps per minute quota, etc., I think the film was mostly playing on viewers' expectations.

Jennet accuses her sister of stealing her son by falsely claiming she's unfit, of not letting her see him, of letting him die, and of not retrieving his body so as to hide her guilt. We believe her, because it puts her into a very familiar narrative pattern: the ghost who walks because they were wronged in life, who needs someone among the living to bring it to light and right it, if possible. Appease the ghost, end the haunting, release their victims, if any.

But the movie also suggests she lived in the house with the family - her presence in the photographs, her non-letter papers stuffed into a bench, the window scene which implies that she saw the accident that killed the boy. How could she not see her son if they lived in the same house? Given the time period, that suggests she was the token mad relative tucked out of sight in an attic or back bedroom.

Maybe she was indeed unhinged and unfit, as her sister claimed. Or maybe Alice confined her for the sake of baby-snatching and Jennet had a "Yellow Wallpaper" breakdown while locked away. Either way, it looks like she was mad when alive and is no saner in death, and it was never about the body lost in the marsh - the wrong done to her can never be righted, and might be completely in her own head.

She'll continue to kill, because she was, is and always will be total squirrelbait.

Agreed, a confusing ending and to me disappointing to learn at this point that the story's stakes were rigged from the start - Kipps was actually powerless to escape the woman in black's vengeance, the initial problem. When you think about it, these are the same stakes as simply tying down and torturing a protagonist for 90 minutes whilst adding in hopeful but futile glimpses of an escape. Not great drama.

Lordhammer, it would stop her from killing more kids I think because it would break the chain: Joseph did NOT join her or her victims, he went with his father and mother, happy, not even noting her presence. She was defeated, the vengeful b*tch; even if she wasn't totally stopped, at least she failed to truly hurt that family.

I thought the film was descent and Danial Radcliffe did a great job

MY interpretation:

1. The WIB wanted to find the body of her son. When Elizabeth Daily is possessed by her child, he reveals that WIB takes them because she can't find her son.

2. Arthur reunites WIB with her son. But her son rejects her saying "You are not my mother"

3. WIB is pissed off. She looks at the photograph of the Drablows and says "I will never forgive". I believe this refers to Arthur for reuniting her with her son, who ultimately rejects WIB, thus causing her more hurt and dejection.

4. WIB has found her child. She was rejected. She is pissed at Arthur and wants to make him suffer. So she decides to take away his child and make him suffer too.

5. Arthur's act of trying to save Joseph saved both Arthur and Joseph from WIBs wrath. In one of the letters to Alice, WIB mentions 'You didn't even try to save him (Nathaniel). You left him there and saved your own skin.' By trying to save Joseph, Arthur saved both himself and Joseph from WIBs torment.

5A. When she says, 'I will never forgive' she plans to keep on killing children as she doesn't want others to be happy because her own child rejected her. Arthur's final act of saving Joseph actually sates her appetite. When Sam Daily sees the image of the children reflected in the Train window, they seem much healthier and at peace. WIB also seems more satisfied and actually wistful while watching the Kipps family walk away into the distance.

5B. The climax seems to imply that if Nathaniel had accepted WIB as his mother, she would have been sated; he didn't. But when Arthur tried to save Joseph, and even if they died, they ended up satisfying WIB whose grouse was always that Alice didn't even try to save Nathaniel or later find the body. Arthur did both. This had the unintended effect of allowing her to vicariously experience a family reunion and also a certain form of satisfaction. Hopefully, this has sated her. She will kill no more.

5C. The lost children will remain lost but will no more be tortured. They will always have each other and be together, waiting for their parents to move on and join them. That's why they looked healthy in the train window and were together.

5D. The WIB may be sated but she will still be a vengeful spirit playing mean tricks on whoever crosses her path, which is clear from the screaming of her reflection in the train windows at Sam Daily. There is no salvation for her. Never. There never should be.

There is also an alternate version of the movie where the WiB enters the playroom to recover the child and the spirit of the child crys out "you're not my mommy." That is when the WiB lunges at Kipps and screams. The reason she will "never forgive" is due to the child being robbed from her both in life and in death.

My thoughts, precisely. You couldn't have put it better. I think the woman in black was there to set up the sequel (The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death) Which I haven't seen yet.