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…

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…

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. 

The Birds (1963)

After Vertigo Hitchcock took what it my mind was a much needed break until his next film.  You could say three of the best films of all time in three years deserves such (though it might have not been said until years after the release of these films) but even though this gap existed, he appears to have still been busy with his TV show Alfred Hitchcock Presents and, I’m sure, developing his next movie project.  After almost completely shattering any clichés of his 30+ year career in film, he does so again with 1963’s The Birds, a tour de force of scarring thrills, beautiful score (if you call birds screeching music), and *technical bravura. 

*for the time…

For those interested in the plot (though the Master is clearly not concerned with how the characters come together for the main story) Melanie Daniels (played by Tippi Hedren) is kind of attracted to this well off man from Bordega Bay, an oceanside village near San Francisco.  She heads up there on a whim, playing an inside joke of sorts by placing a bird on his doorstep after running into him at a bird store (shit, there are already a lot of birds…).  After getting attacked by a BIRD, she looks to stay the night.  The next day more BIRDS attack her and others, until for some reason there are more and more of these creatures seemingly at war with the peaceful village and… if you’ve seen Tremors, Jaws, or countless other horror/thrillers that have nature or some warped version of it become the enemy, I probably don’t need to go any further (hell, Mars Attacks could be viewed as a remaks…it’s a stretch, I know).  

 

Coming out more than 50 years ago and only having seen/appreciated it when I was a kid, I went into this fairly nervously, mainly because I feared dated special effects and boring subject matter (in other words, major elements of the movie!).  Luckily I was overall surprised at its effects so many years and so many imitators later (one that unfortunately came to mind was M. Night Shamalamadingdong’s movie The Happening; see it for a laugh) and how days after watching it I was still affected.  It’s certainly not perfect, and very unfortunately dated, but it’s not bad.

As I alluded to, many of Hitch’s earlier tropes and traits are not here.  This is not a murder mystery, a “wrong man” thriller, a comedy, or even much of a romance.  Visuals are still clearly his, but also missing is Bernard Hermann’s quintessential score (though the lack-thereof here is welcome; more on that later) and a clear McGuffin.  If there’s one thing the characters are after, it’s… survival?

 

Story wise, it excels from a modern viewpoint as it clearly inspired many films that followed it and presented a genre not really yet seen in cinema: nature thriller.  Sure we had sci-fi schlock with other-worldly monsters like things, black lagoon things, spider things that are big, etc. but never something all of us can completely relate to, or really scare us to the point of scarring.  The effect may not be as common today as it was when the film was brand new, but now I look at birds and can’t help but wonder if they’re plotting something (reminds me of a quote David Fincher has said about his belief of cinema and essentially how he wanted this “scarring effect” on the viewer).  Music wise, it is truly wonderful: there is essentially no music!  Hermann was still a consultant on the film because he helped with the sounds/noise of the titular subject, which in a sense acted as the score.  Doing so helped to create a truly minimalist and effectively haunting atmosphere: instead of traditional orchestral movie pieces, we just hear the sounds of nature prepping to maim and kill.

Acting is fine and serviceable, with decent performances by Hedren, Rod Taylor, and an even better performance by Jessica Tandy (Miss Daisy!).  However these characters could almost be played by anybody, and are certainly positioned as second fiddle to the more complex main characters (complex due to their technical nature; I’ll discuss more about how “technical” in the next paragraph).

Technical effects of this kind were I’m sure amazing to witness in the 60s!  Having said that, they are majorly dated in this film.  This as I’m sure you’d understand relates to the birds, whether they be fake and actually flying at the actor, or real and superimposed/rotoscoped into the scene.  However, there are moments (i.e. God’s view of the city before a major attack) where believability is understood even for the most jaded viewer.  These moments owe considerable debt to Albert Whitlock who’s matte paintings added essential verisimilitude.

 

Overall, as the film progresses it gets better with regards to the lack of believability from a modern viewpoint.  Much credit is also due to the third act, where instead of seeing much of enemy with our protagonists (aka humanity) in hiding, we only hear the potentially impending doom.  I must say there were moments here, and elsewhere in the film, where this quinquagenarian of a film surpassed the suspense of its contemporaries.  It is truly these moments along with a few other elements that keep it as a certain highpoint in Hitch’s filmography, and again showing why he is the Master of Suspense without retreading familiar territory. 

If you’ve only ever feared birds because of them pooping on you, watch the below trailer (till the end).

Psycho (1960)

It’s very hard to find a director who has made three exceptional films in three years, much less three exceptional films over any amount of time.  1958 brought the tragic romantic thriller Vertigo and 1959 gave an aggregation of Hitchcock’s “Wrong Man” oeuvre with a career best North by Northwest.  With solid stories, scores, credit sequences, action, mystery, and even humor, they stood out among the rest of Hitch’s considerable filmography.   What could possibly have a chance of originality after all this?

It comes in the form of one man named Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins in a career best even without regarding the lack of other options) in the horror classic Psycho.  Even if you’re a cinebriate novice at best, chances are you’ve at least heard of the film and are aware of both the iconic shower scene and its accompanying music (again, and at the risk of sounding like a shitty record, the great composer Bernard Herman).   The Master of Suspense famously started a promotional campaign of sorts that stopped late movie goers from entering the cinema so as to avoid ruining a major shocks ~45 minutes into the film.  As such and in respect to it, I’ll avoid spilling out many other plot details (even artwork in this post is meant to avoid spoilers) except that Janet Leigh is also serviceable along with Perkins as the “main” character Marion Crane (watch the movie to find out what the quotes are for… and if you’re smart, I’m sorry for already ruining it for you).

With North by Northwest servicing up a solid dose of entertainment, Hitch was apparently ready to delve out the dread once again, except this time in such revolutionary fashion.  Traits are consistent here with some of his more recent previous films, including a blonde at the center, Herman score, mystery, intrigue and the MacGuffin (though not obvious, and almost something anybody would want: a bag of money).  Otherwise, he creates a truly gritty atmosphere with black and white cinematography, seedy (for the time) sex scenes, and a really dank motel that even its caretaker Norman Bates thinks is creepy.  The low budget doesn’t hurt the feel of grime (and neither did it hurt Hitch’s pockets when this film become a full fledged phenomenon).

Again, if you really haven’t seen this, to describe more of the film would only take away from the potential surprises that lay ahead (and there are a multitude of points for candidates).  Just know that it is a fairly unique entity in Hitch’s filmography, and that is saying something.

Again again, if you really haven’t seen this, get it done now!  Instead of checking the trailer, listen to this piece of score below.