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.

North By Northwest (1959)

Vertigo was truly the cat’s proverbial pajamas, and shocked me with a fully cinematic experience.  Perhaps it was a little to serious for a onesie, but still very solid.  However word on the street is that audiences of the time didn’t dig the film they way it is regarded today.  Hitch appeared to have been working on his next film even during Vertigo’s production, which appears to be very prescient of him.  After all what would be better than following up this gloomy thriller with what is probably his most entertaining film ever?

North by Northwest (or NBN as it will be called throughout this post so we can save lives) follows Cary Grant as ad exec Roger Thornhill with quite possibly the most ridiculous case of mistaken identity ever (be careful when you ask for a waiter).  He then gets involved in a plot with all sorts of fancy evildoers (headlined by James Mason and a very young/weird Martin Landau), assassinations of UN officials, planes attacking in the middle of nowhere in very uneconomical fashion (um run him over with a car?!) and a forward young woman (Eva Marie Saint playing Eve Kendall) way too many years his junior … unless you are a character played by Cary Grant.  Does this make for some ridiculous movie fodder?  Yes, but Hitch’s appreciation of audience awareness makes this one thoroughly thrilling and equally comical ride.

Seeing this movie as a youngster, my only recollection was that Cary Grant was on the run, being falsely accused or something.  Still I knew that would happen going in, and as such the moment I saw how he gets into this predicament, you can't help but laugh.  Even though it may seem a lame course by which to get the plot rolling, the fact that right before this moment the lead is truly incredulous as to how he got into this mess leads to totally hilarity.  It is a twist on the "wronged man" mold the Master established, with a comedy of errors blended in.

Continuing phase 3 of his career (as mentioned in the last post, the arguable apex of his talent) the Master starts NBN with a great, unique, and electric credit sequence setting the stage for the journey you and the characters (literally West… and kinda North) will take.  Set pieces are sometimes large, with the UN and Mount Rushmore being key though completely overshadowed (in this viewer’s humble opinion) by a train where Thornhill and Kendall meet, as well as backdrop near a cornfield where an infamous airplane attack occurs (we’re foreshadowing Bond villains with these ridiculous murder attempts).

Still as I reference earlier, a fine balance is taken to keep the film funny while still building suspense, mystery and romance.  Hitchcock certainly appreciates the audience; he always gives us crucial knowledge the characters don’t have.   But here he furthers that fondness with understanding of clichés and traits of other films, including those he made beforehand.  Now granted it may not work for everyone, and I am a self professed film geek that might appreciate it more than others, but with the amount of love for this film I highly doubt it. 

It’s not all fun and games however, with the unfortunate dating issues.  There are some great shots with matte paintings that while appearing dated and fake, are nonetheless beautiful and respectable.  But this along with some odd experimental choices and rear-screen projection are present throughout Hitch’s filmography.  I can nit pick all I want, but these minor critisms can’t hold back major compliments to most of his filmography, especially this film.

I’m almost certain that even my contemporaries that are more interested in the movies of the day could fall for this, which goes to show the power the Master of Suspense imbued in his 56-year-old masterpiece. 

The Trouble With Harry (1956)

 

It's an exciting time for this writer: the 1930s were unexpected, the 1940s were experimental, but the 1950s have always been regarded in my mind as where Hitchcock's masterpieces originate (they should produce a box set entitled "Masterpieces of the Master" and then pay me). I've of course already been through Strangers on a Train from 1950, but I've never witnessed, at least with these less naive eyes, the quintessential films like Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much (remake of his own lesser classic from the 30s), Vertigo, North By Northwest, and.... The Trouble With Harry (or if it were to be made today, There's Something About Harry).  

Captain Albert Wiles is out enjoying nature, talking to himself and his gun, and apparently trying to shoot a rabbit while also apparently having the lowest of expectations and the poorest of aim ever after hitting three items that consisted of everything except a rabbit.  Two of these items are inconsequential, consisting of a can and sign.  The third however goes by the name Harry, and he is dead.  While the captain attempts to hide the body, he has the worst luck with a seemingly unstoppable parade of people happening on the body.  His luck changes however when for various reasons, no one cares at all for some time, until a local artist with his head in the cloud actually notices the body, but even he doesn't care that much.

Not knowing anything prior to viewing this film, I certainly considered it an oddball piece right away.  First (and foremost it seemed to lack Hitchcock's flair for visuals.  The film contains many long static takes that are actually beautiful, but it's hard to understand the point and departure for the director (there is usually much more movement).  The duality between the setting and the plot could be a reason (i.e. murder in otherwise idyllic setting) which if intentional would fascinating in its own right.  Mundane dialogue appears pervasive at first, which is another uncharacteristic trait of the Master.  However it's not all strange, as black humor is a mainstay of his (though usually in the subtext) and there are some truly funny moments.

While I struggle with finding meaning beyond the black humor, the acting certainly provides a redeeming quality, One stand out is the Captain played by Edmund Gwenn.  Along with (at the time) other no-name actors (Shirley MacLaine, John Forsythe etc.) he provides effective characterization without any star-struck distractions.  Reportedly, The Master believed that a "star" was a hindrance to the plot and the story.  Whether or not he means the development, of or a hindrance for the audience to deal with is uncertain, but he may be right in both regards.  Its true the story certainly doesn't suffer from the lack of star power (Shirley and John would eventually be though).  Another certainty is that it was ahead of its time as I'm not sure audiences would've accepted this type of darkly humorous material.

In the end, I'd sum this up to a friend as Weekend at Bernie's by Hitchcock.