Family Plot (1976)

In the immortal words of Gandalf in The Return of The King, “We come to it at last.”  Of course, I’m referring to the fact that we’ve (or at least I’ve, unless I actually have other readers… possibly Mom) reached the end of this journey into the Master of Suspense’s oeuvre (or at least part of it; it’s substantial but not exactly complete).  His last and final film was finished in 1976.  With Frenzy regarded as a well overdue success after 2-3 very pedestrian thrillers, would Hitch be able to finish his career on top?

Family Plot is the story of “psychic” (or ostensibly lack thereof) Blanch Tyler (Barbara Harris) who uncovers the chance to make $10,000 by discovering the long lost relative of a wealthy widow.  She and her bf (Bruce Dern as George Lumley in a very satisfyingly funny performance) go searching for this man of mystery.  Is he dead?  Is he alive?  Is he played by William Devane in the only good performance I’ve ever seen him in?  1-2 of these things is true, but I of course will certainly not attempt to spoil what this early.

If we call the phase between 1964 and 1976 post-modern Hitchcock (i.e. the Final Act of Hitch’s Filmography) and only look at this phase, Family Plot is certainly amazing.  Looking at his filmography as a whole, it would probably be right in the middle if we consider quality and critical acclaim.  The story becomes a thriller/mystery and comedy almost on equal footing, which puts this into an echelon that the director hasn’t been commonly associated with during this period (at least with such overt humor).  The comedic style mainly comes out in the interaction between our main characters, with Dern and Harris almost acting as a modern day Nick and Nora Charles of The Thin Man fame, giving slight desire to see their adventures beyond this film. 

Beyond this, you’ve got great supporting characters played by the aforementioned Devane and Karen Black playing pseudo-couple Arthur Adamson and Fran.  A partial dichotomy between the two pairs of characters is created as they have different priorities, which become interestingly complex when no one is necessarily doing anything “good” and “noble”; after all, our main characters are looking to swindle some old lady out of her money (though this concern is easily pushed aside by the audience when it’s discussed she is wealthy).  Just as well, the opposing force of Arthur and Fran is nefarious but in the end all about money and with no original intention to actually harm people.   Sure they may hire someone for a murder, but Hitch may be getting at some larger case of nature vs nurture (unfortunately details would lead to minor spoilers).

Technically there are some significant issues, mainly regarding moving vehicle process shots.  Unfortunately this effect seems extremely dated in a 1970s-made movie, and even as such a generally progressive director like Hitch couldn’t seem to move beyond this type of filming.  Part of the reason is ostensibly that he always hated shooting on location, but the sacrifice is verisimilitude especially having this film made after such amazing and complicated car scenes as in The French Connection (Friedkin wins this round).  But I can accept this and move on to appreciate most else the film has to offer.

To say much more would be a disservice to what you learn while watching the film.  Is it iconic?  Is it perfect? Do I wish this wasn’t Hitch’s last film?  As I wrote this last sentence, I surprisingly decided “no” to all the above.  The Master of Suspense left us in ironically a state very much lacking in suspense, as he finished his career with a very satisfying piece of entertainment.  Had it been anything more than that, we would all possibly be left wanting too much more.  To more appropriately put the film on its own terms however, this writer thinks Hitch still had some solid tricks up his sleeve.

And to have his film literally go out with someone winking at the camera?  What a perfect ending…

Frenzy (1972)

It’s been a difficult time for me and the Master of Suspense.  Ever since the Birds, I haven’t honestly been enthralled with any of his films.  This includes Marnie (though this is appreciate much more than the others) Torn Curtain and Topaz.  With the latter two in particular, it appeared the Master didn’t have any interest in creating something to the level of quality associated with his previous films.  Was it the demanding actors?  Or pressure from the studio?  These are only rumors and nothing can confirm definitely what caused their lackluster nature.  The only question I had as I proceed through his films: would the slump last?

The answer is a resounding no!  Three years after Topaz, Hitch made Frenzy.  Prior to my viewing the only knowledge of the film I had was that it involved a serial killer and it was Hitch’s first and only R rated film (I guess based on this I knew one additional thing: no matter what, it was going to be light years better than M Night Shyamalan’s first and only R rated film). 

Richard Ian Blaney (Jon Finch) is a down-on-his-luck, ex air force pilot who is now also an ex-bartender after being fired for supposedly pilfering some beer.  Things get worse as his ex-wife gets killed by the Necktie Strangler (the serial killer I mentioned in the last paragraph) and by very unfortunate coincidence Blaney is assumed to be him.  While he attempts to prove his innocence with help from the few friends he has, we deal with the knowledge of who the murderer actually is!  What follows?  SUSPENSE.

Now it’s not exactly brimming with suspense, as there this film contains some welcome macabre comedy.  Regardless, the film is a triumphant return to form for Hitch.  Original yet familiar, Frenzy is a dark yet very enjoyable film that most would commonly associate with the director.  Hitch tropes such as “the wrong man”, sympathy for the killer, and even the MacGuffin are all present in full force.  Something that we haven’t seen for some time is also the macabre humor that is present throughout, even causing this writer to laugh out loud multiple times.

While there is familiarity, plenty new material keeps one interested including the twisty plot and various characters.  The unique cast assists here, with standouts by Bernard Cribbins (the bar owner), Anna Massey (squeeze and fellow bartender Babs), Barry Foster (his successful businessman friend Robert... at the very least) and Alec McCowen as a smart yet wonderfully stressed inspector (stressed only because of his wife’s newfound interested in cooking; many a hilarious interludes follow with his innocent struggles portrayed on screen). 

Also music is decent by Ron Goodwin, if nowhere near the quality of Bernard Herrmann (supposedly Henry Mancini was responsible for the original/unused score; after hearing a sample I soooo wish it was his score we heard).  However cinematography and atmosphere are wonderful throughout, including many shots of silence or just diegetic sound portraying a seemingly normal sequence, though we the audience know that something dreadful is going on or about to happen.  These long takes show that Hitch still had the capability for unmatched cinematic talent. 

Now it’s worth mentioning: this film is arguably much more viscerally twisted and disturbing that all of his others.  However if you’re ok with some fairly naughty material, this is a masterpiece that belongs on the pedestal with much of his other classics.

Topaz (1969)

A lot can happen in three years.  Get married, divorced, kids, or follow up the lackluster Torn Curtain with a new hopefully superior film.  That’s actually what I anticipated going into this, though I had no reason too.  The international intrigue behind the plot, the unusually long length of the film (close to 2 ½ hours) and the lack of star power had me hopeful that this would be Hitch’s film through and through.  Sadly, these changes and time did not help much.

The plot deals with a Russian defector to the US who lets them know about a traitor in their midst.  This leads CIA agent Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe in his first Hitchcock role since The Trouble With Harry) to utilize one of his French contacts Andre Devereaux (played by Frederick Stafford) and send him undercover to Cuba so that he may discover the extent of this conspiracy, and what exactly “Topaz” is (besides the title of this fairly average movie). 

Hard to say what the Master of Suspense saw interesting about this story.  Granted it was more relevant possibly at the time, being made during the cold war and taking place during the Cuban Missile Crisis (the plot is actually positioned to be the cause of the crisis, though references to this just feel forced).  However for me there was hardly any suspense at all, which is of course one of the major traits generally in all of Hitchcock’s films.  Mystery of who the mole was kept the plot moving and my attention on the screen, but only barely so.  Another issue

Actors do fine, with some standout performances by the female leads Dany Robin and Karin Dor, playing wife of Devereaux and lover of Devereaux respectively, but are hardly given the time or space necessary to shine adequately (save for an almost iconic shot with her and her purple dress).  Just as well, John Vernon as the antagonistic Fidel Castro-type Cuban commander Rico Parra almost made me think he was Cuban, but anyone who’s seen Animal House will recognize him right away.  Even Forsythe and Stafford are fine… but that’s it: just fine.  Usually “Hitchcock” mean “exceptional” or some similar adjective when describing aspects of his films.

If I had seen this movie without knowing it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, I would’ve told you it was an above average thriller made during the 60s and that I would’ve been mildly curious to see who the director was.  There are minor moments that do stick out, mainly as they are unique or experimental (wide shot of dialogue without audio, blending of stock footage with film footage) which can certainly be associated with many films of the Master.  Mostly however, everything is relatively mundane and uncharacteristic of his cinematic abilities or counterparts (music, editing, and other technical features are lacking too). 

Apperantely 3 years wasn’t enough to get back on track.  Maybe Hitch should try another 3…

Torn Curtain (1966)

I’ve often read that Marnie was Alfred Hitchcock’s last masterpiece.  I actually had assumed The Birds was the more appropriate film for this title (and still do after seeing Marnie) but the general consensus seems to include these two films, at least from this writer’s point of view.  Having said that, I was still intrigued by Torn Curtain: two starts in Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, an intriguing cold war plot made during the height of the cold war… what could go wrong?

Plenty apparently, though even plenty wrong Hitchcock is still better than most films from other directors.  The story involves Professor Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman) and Sarah Sherman (Julie Andrews) as they partake in a conference for Physics.  However Armstrong is up to something cloak and dagger-esque: he will defect to the east.  His stunned fiancé doesn’t know what to make of this.  But as we discover not too much longer later, neither do we…

First off, there are redeeming qualities in this picture.  Most notable is a scene involving the death of a East German operative who is watching Armstrong, (played by Wolfgang Kieling in a wonderful but short performance).  This scene certainly stands out in its attempt to portray the difficulty of killing a person (not that I’d know…) and is decently harrowing and suspenseful as two fairly unskilled characters attempt to take someone else out.  The plot also has some minor twists and turns as it proceeds along keeping things unexpected, but by the halfway point nothing ends up being unpredictable anymore, and characters are unfortunately uncared about (at least by this viewer). 

In fact besides the murder of the East German operative, nothing is really suspenseful or interesting for that matter.  Gone is Bernard Herrmann’s wondrous score (he was fired after he didn’t respond well to Hitch/production company’s instruction to go more mainstream, or produce a hit song, or some other bullshit: it’s Bernard Herrmann, let him do his thing!), editor George Tomasini, and much of the originality and vibrancy audiences had become used to with Hitch’s films.  I can’ even recall a specific MacGuffin, or at least a vital and memorable one. 

It’s almost as if Hitch lost his memory, watched all of the films in his filmography, and tried to copy himself.  This self-plagiarism shouldn’t be deemed that bad, but it’s so painfully obvious in scenes such as an opera set piece meant to be for suspense (he’s already used that at least twice, in The Man Who Knew Too Much and it’s superior remake) that he doesn’t even seem to be trying.  Other times he has the two main characters/lovebirds on the run in various scenarios that could seem fun, but are just dull and unconnected such as an escape on a public bus, their meeting a character who wants to escape the east but needs them as much as they need her… I believe it may have been more relevant for someone watching it during that period, but for this viewer it was fairly uninspired.

“Unmemorable” isn’t a word I generally associate with Hitch, but maybe that’s how he felt about this whole production and so evoked his feelings on screen.  After all, he hardly seems to be present at all (save for his quintessential cameo.  I would recommend you leave this one alone too.

Marnie (1964)

One year after the relatively unique nature thriller The Birds and terrifying horror film Psycho, Hitch comes back to one of his oft-used tropes (though less so than something like his wrong man thriller archetype): the “psychological profile mystery” or something like it.  Movies like Suspicion and even Rebecca fit into this mold.  I’ve never been extremely fond those films, at least more so than some of his others.  Would returning to this common theme after such originality? 

The titular Marnie (played by The Birds’ Tippi Hedren) seems to survive in life through stealing from employers and then moving on.  However she has some deep rooted issues with her mother, sleeping, and the color red.  For decades no one has been able to help her, until debonair James Bond (sorry, actually his name is Mark Rutland, but he’s played by Sean Connery so…) comes along, reads a book and then psycho analyzes the love of his life.  Realistic?  Not really.  Does it matter?  Not extremely.

Marnie is supposedly a classic.  For those not aware a classic is defined by Google as:

1. A work of art of recognized and established value
2. A school subject that involves the study of ancient Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, and history
3. A major sports tournament of competition, as in golf or tennis

I guess its meant to fit #1.  However, my own definition would include iconic, re-watchable, and indispensable, and I really can’t view that in these terms.  I’ve only seen it once now and perhaps it needs another viewing, but this doesn’t hold much of a candle to Hitch’s previous works which I do regard as classics, and unfortunately doesn’t bode well for the rest of the films produced afterwards.

Much of the issue has to be attributed to the story, which just doesn’t seem to give this writer much interest. However some major problems also relate to certain special effects, such as the red flashes on screen when Marnie sees red, supposedly personifying her condition when instead it just creates unintentional humor.  Other such effects include camera zooms representing her interest in something, backed by Bernard Hermann’s gorgeous yet inappropriate score resulting in me giggling hysterically. 

Acting is fine for the most part, especially with Tippi Hedren improving greatly on her debut in The Birds.  Also Connery is effective as the debonair businessman who is borderline obsessed with Hedren’s Marnie and at times believable with his dabbling in psychotherapy.  However it is Marnie’s mother, played by Louise Latham who is wonderfully realistic, even though she wasn’t that much older than Hedren.  Makeup effects being what they were with Latham at her age, it’s amazing how effective she is as the old and then young mother (in flashbacks).

The film eventually ends with a fascinating resolution of sorts, but the fact that it was so difficult to see that it was going in this direction made it that much more difficult to watch such a directionless bore.  It was at times likeable, but also much a frustrating film all on its own as well as the fact that this is the Master behind it, besides the familiar story territory and production values (though hard to determine a MacGuffin here).  One scene of poignant suspense while Marnie attempts to steal money is fairly redeeming, but not necessarily to save the whole movie. 

Some call it a standout classic.  Right now, I feel like it is a misstep.