Review of Alfred Hitchcock's Final Film Family Plot
|
FAMILY PLOT (1976)
HITCHCOCK'S FINAL CHAPTER
By Tom Clare
Family Plot (1976) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. USA: PG Following the success of The Birds in 1963, legendary director Alfred Hitchcock’s seemingly-evergreen career at the peak of Hollywood finally began its slow descent into the wilderness, after more than twenty years of revelling in the glitz of show business. Ego clashes and allegedly excessive pay demands soured Hitchcock’s working relationship with actors Paul Newman and Julie Andrews during the filming of Torn Curtain (1966), and his decision never to work again with A-list performers symbolised the end of his run at Hollywood’s heights. Hitchcock would hit a critical and commercial low with 1969’s Topaz, a long-winded tale set during the Cuban Missile Crisis that was dull in its execution and alienating to long-time fans expecting more of his trademark suspense. After a brief return to Britain where he made his most violent picture Frenzy (1972), it came as something of a surprise to find Hitchcock’s final film, 1976’s Family Plot, marked a tentative return to form. It’s far from perfect, but much like the underrated Marnie (1964), Family Plot seems harder to criticise for some of its dated elements so many years down the line, because for all of its contextually odd-sounding dialogue and hairstyles, as well as a staunch reliance on sets as opposed to on-location shoots, it feels like a ‘Hitchcock’ film should. |
In many ways Family Plot is one last snapshot of the glory days, out of sequence with the director’s more sombre later works; a flashback that seems like a lesser, though still-relevant sibling to fifties classics such as Rear Window (1954)and North By Northwest (1959).
This could in part be down to Blanche Tyler (Barbara Harris), the token blonde leading-lady and one of the best for quite some time. From Psycho (1960) onwards, Hitchcock’s female leads had played ever more passive, fragile roles and as Marnie and Frenzy hinted, were increasingly becoming objects of abuse, even to the characters that were seen to be ‘good’. Family Plot in effect makes a conscious attempt to turn back the clock to more light-hearted fare; Blanche is a far more active player in the story than her immediate predecessors and delights in delivering witty jibes and put-downs.
Pretty, a touch over-the-top but essentially likable, she in many ways comes to embody the films own strengths and weaknesses. Blanche is a slightly dubious ‘psychic’ who seemingly makes her living from duping rich elderly people who don’t know any better. However, one day she is propositioned by her client Mrs. Rainbird (Cathleen Nebitt) to find the old woman’s long-lost son, with the prize for reuniting them being a not-inconsiderable $10,000. The catch is, the son is believed to have taken on a new identity, is nowhere to be seen and many of the locals are of the opinion he’s been dead for some time.
Bruce Dern is reunited with Hitchcock having earlier made appearances in his TV series, and a good bit of casting it proves to be as he puts in a strong showing as Blanche’s long-suffering boyfriend. Certainly, he doesn’t have the screen presence of a Cary Grant or a James Stewart, but that’s not so much of a problem as he fits the role of George Lumely like a glove; a down-trodden taxi-driver turned amateur investigator. It’s a performance that’s as jovial and fun as villain Arthur Adamson (William Devane) is unnervingly frosty beneath his charming veneer.
His partnership with femme-fatale Fran (Karen Black) reveals a life of relative luxury, made possible by a series of clinically planned kidnappings and robberies, their latest target in Family Plot being a giant diamond. Their scenes make clear a relationship of lust made possible by the adrenalin rush of crime and the sordid urgency created in running the risk of getting caught. By comparison, the down-to-Earth relationship shared by Blanche and George makes for a fine parallel and a frequently excellent source of light-relief. No crystal ball needed to deduce that the two couples eventually cross paths, though as is often the case with the best Hitchcock yarns, it’s not the anticipation of this inevitable meeting that intrigues the viewer, it’s what happens along the way…
…And whilst little about Family Plot really stands out, it tells its story solidly and does just enough to keep the viewer interested. There are no big actors or big performances, the story moves along at just a shade too leisurely a pace to allow much in the way of tension, with a fair bit more dialogue than your average Hitchcock – the films rather pessimistic tagline reads ‘You must see it twice!’. On the other hand, its easy enough to follow, all of the characters are distinctive enough and for a cast who were more chiefly known for TV roles, it’s perhaps fitting that they’ve helped make a film best suited to enjoying on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
This could in part be down to Blanche Tyler (Barbara Harris), the token blonde leading-lady and one of the best for quite some time. From Psycho (1960) onwards, Hitchcock’s female leads had played ever more passive, fragile roles and as Marnie and Frenzy hinted, were increasingly becoming objects of abuse, even to the characters that were seen to be ‘good’. Family Plot in effect makes a conscious attempt to turn back the clock to more light-hearted fare; Blanche is a far more active player in the story than her immediate predecessors and delights in delivering witty jibes and put-downs.
Pretty, a touch over-the-top but essentially likable, she in many ways comes to embody the films own strengths and weaknesses. Blanche is a slightly dubious ‘psychic’ who seemingly makes her living from duping rich elderly people who don’t know any better. However, one day she is propositioned by her client Mrs. Rainbird (Cathleen Nebitt) to find the old woman’s long-lost son, with the prize for reuniting them being a not-inconsiderable $10,000. The catch is, the son is believed to have taken on a new identity, is nowhere to be seen and many of the locals are of the opinion he’s been dead for some time.
Bruce Dern is reunited with Hitchcock having earlier made appearances in his TV series, and a good bit of casting it proves to be as he puts in a strong showing as Blanche’s long-suffering boyfriend. Certainly, he doesn’t have the screen presence of a Cary Grant or a James Stewart, but that’s not so much of a problem as he fits the role of George Lumely like a glove; a down-trodden taxi-driver turned amateur investigator. It’s a performance that’s as jovial and fun as villain Arthur Adamson (William Devane) is unnervingly frosty beneath his charming veneer.
His partnership with femme-fatale Fran (Karen Black) reveals a life of relative luxury, made possible by a series of clinically planned kidnappings and robberies, their latest target in Family Plot being a giant diamond. Their scenes make clear a relationship of lust made possible by the adrenalin rush of crime and the sordid urgency created in running the risk of getting caught. By comparison, the down-to-Earth relationship shared by Blanche and George makes for a fine parallel and a frequently excellent source of light-relief. No crystal ball needed to deduce that the two couples eventually cross paths, though as is often the case with the best Hitchcock yarns, it’s not the anticipation of this inevitable meeting that intrigues the viewer, it’s what happens along the way…
…And whilst little about Family Plot really stands out, it tells its story solidly and does just enough to keep the viewer interested. There are no big actors or big performances, the story moves along at just a shade too leisurely a pace to allow much in the way of tension, with a fair bit more dialogue than your average Hitchcock – the films rather pessimistic tagline reads ‘You must see it twice!’. On the other hand, its easy enough to follow, all of the characters are distinctive enough and for a cast who were more chiefly known for TV roles, it’s perhaps fitting that they’ve helped make a film best suited to enjoying on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
|
|
CAR CRASH VIEWING
Family Plot is further evidence of the director’s unwillingness in the final years of his career to take advantage of modern filming techniques, a sad point given that Hitchcock had for so long been renowned for pioneering new technical tricks (he was one of a select number of director’s to find success in silent film and then become even bigger following the advent of sound). In many ways, a scene mid-way through the film that sees George and Blanche in a car that has had its brakes cut encapsulates the best and worst of the latter-day Hitchcock.
The interior shots are extremely funny; as we see George trying gallantly to keep control of the car, with the comically nauseous Blanche decreeing “my Hamburger’s coming up!”, before kicking him in the head as she falls flailing into the back seat, and almost strangling him with his own tie. However, intercut with these amusing bits we see shots from the front-bumper of the car, and sadly the director was not at the helm for these sections due to his reluctance to film outside of the studio. Whilst this bumper-perspective certainly had the potential to be effective, the manner in which it was used lacks finesse, as in an attempt to simulate an increase in speed the film has rather unconvincingly been sped up in editing. There’s a sad irony to the fact that a director once famed for his mastery of creating such effective illusions with miniature models and clever camera work could fall short when filming with the real thing.
That said, there are still a couple of inspired moments that deserve a mention. The first is a high-angled shot during a funeral service that shows two adjacent paths, one at the top of the screen and one at the bottom, and sees the widow sneaking away on the first path, shortly before George begins tailing her on the opposite side. The scale of the shot tells the viewer that these two trails ultimately lead to the same destination, cannily creating the image of a hunter stalking his prey. The second glimpse of genius is one of the most memorable instances of the trademark Hitchcock cameo, as we don’t technically see ‘him’ – rather his last appearance comes in the form of a shadow silhouette portraying those unmistakable, rounded features on a door.
The ending is simplicity itself. Too simple, some might argue, and with a running time of an hour and 55 minutes you have to wonder if some compromise had to be made to compensate for a clutch of overly-long séance scenes in the opening section of the film as well as a rather lengthy middle period. Still, the great mans final scene as a director is tackled as professionally as you would expect, dealing with all the loose ends and finishing on a pleasant, light note that will raise a smile.
In the closing moments, one of the characters makes the unusual move of breaking the fourth-wall (a direct recognition of the audience or viewer), a trick I can’t remember having seen Alfred Hitchcock employ previously. No pyrotechnics or an over-the-top fanfare; just a wink and a knowing smile that could so easily have come from the director himself, and as such, it serves as an ideal curtain call for one of cinemas greats. It’s no world-beater and isn’t recommended to those who want a fix of show-stopping sets and bags of tension; instead, it will find its greatest appreciation among fans of the quirky banter that permeated Hitchcock’s career in the forties and fifties.
Family Plot is further evidence of the director’s unwillingness in the final years of his career to take advantage of modern filming techniques, a sad point given that Hitchcock had for so long been renowned for pioneering new technical tricks (he was one of a select number of director’s to find success in silent film and then become even bigger following the advent of sound). In many ways, a scene mid-way through the film that sees George and Blanche in a car that has had its brakes cut encapsulates the best and worst of the latter-day Hitchcock.
The interior shots are extremely funny; as we see George trying gallantly to keep control of the car, with the comically nauseous Blanche decreeing “my Hamburger’s coming up!”, before kicking him in the head as she falls flailing into the back seat, and almost strangling him with his own tie. However, intercut with these amusing bits we see shots from the front-bumper of the car, and sadly the director was not at the helm for these sections due to his reluctance to film outside of the studio. Whilst this bumper-perspective certainly had the potential to be effective, the manner in which it was used lacks finesse, as in an attempt to simulate an increase in speed the film has rather unconvincingly been sped up in editing. There’s a sad irony to the fact that a director once famed for his mastery of creating such effective illusions with miniature models and clever camera work could fall short when filming with the real thing.
That said, there are still a couple of inspired moments that deserve a mention. The first is a high-angled shot during a funeral service that shows two adjacent paths, one at the top of the screen and one at the bottom, and sees the widow sneaking away on the first path, shortly before George begins tailing her on the opposite side. The scale of the shot tells the viewer that these two trails ultimately lead to the same destination, cannily creating the image of a hunter stalking his prey. The second glimpse of genius is one of the most memorable instances of the trademark Hitchcock cameo, as we don’t technically see ‘him’ – rather his last appearance comes in the form of a shadow silhouette portraying those unmistakable, rounded features on a door.
The ending is simplicity itself. Too simple, some might argue, and with a running time of an hour and 55 minutes you have to wonder if some compromise had to be made to compensate for a clutch of overly-long séance scenes in the opening section of the film as well as a rather lengthy middle period. Still, the great mans final scene as a director is tackled as professionally as you would expect, dealing with all the loose ends and finishing on a pleasant, light note that will raise a smile.
In the closing moments, one of the characters makes the unusual move of breaking the fourth-wall (a direct recognition of the audience or viewer), a trick I can’t remember having seen Alfred Hitchcock employ previously. No pyrotechnics or an over-the-top fanfare; just a wink and a knowing smile that could so easily have come from the director himself, and as such, it serves as an ideal curtain call for one of cinemas greats. It’s no world-beater and isn’t recommended to those who want a fix of show-stopping sets and bags of tension; instead, it will find its greatest appreciation among fans of the quirky banter that permeated Hitchcock’s career in the forties and fifties.
|
|
|