Skip to main content

Without my research, you're about as psychic as a dry salami.

Family Plot
(1976)

(SPOILERS) And so, the master takes his final bow. Family Plot seems consigned by consensus to the “Yeah, it’s okay” Hitchcock pile. Even I do that mentally, although when I do revisit it, I invariably conclude it’s bit more than that, that it’s actually pretty good. But it has several things working against a resoundingly positive assessment. One is that it’s a Hitchcock comedy (well, dramedy), and when he stepped on that peddle, the results were occasionally regrettable. Another is that, in terms of production values and general presentation, Family Plot might easily be mistaken for a TV movie (all that’s missing are yellow credits). Yet it also boasts a smart screenplay from Ernest Lehman and a main quartet of leading players who acquit themselves admirably. After a spell in the mid-to-late 1960s where Hitch appeared to have lost his mojo, his final two movies may not have attained the status of all-time classics, but they are both more than respectable.

The culprit for Family Plot’s rather dog-eared look is Leonard J South, formerly a camera guy for the director (as far back as Strangers on a Train) whose graduation to cinematographer would see him working mostly in television. As such, Hitch, who favoured surrounding himself with familiar crewmembers, only had himself to blame (it’s curious how he could be so specific in so many respects and yet egregiously sloppy in others: the ubiquitous process shots, for example, which duly make their appearance here during an extended runaway car sequence that manages to be involving in spite of itself).

Also failing to help matters any is the choice of composer. I’m sure the kneejerk response of many will be that any aspersions cast on John Williams’ output are wholly out of order. And it’s true that he is rightly lauded for half a dozen scores that represent cinema’s finest. However, he has a tendency at times to pile it on in whatever way is least advisable. The score for Family Plot is too larky, twinkly, knowing. It makes you think of Murder, She Wrote. Which is never a good thing.

On the credit side, though, this is probably the director’s best material since Psycho, a fairly loose adaptation of Victor Canning’s The Rainbow Pattern (the 1972 novel is set in England, it’s a straight thriller, and medium Blanche Tyler has genuine abilities). The distinctiveness of the premise, whereby Blanche (Barbara Harris) and boyfriend George (Bruce Dern) hunt down a wealthy widow’s potential heir, leading them to a trail of faked death and another criminal enterprise, albeit far more nefarious, is in Family Plot’s favour.

Undoubtedly, the schemes of heir Arthur Adamson (William Devane) and his accomplice Fran (Karen Black) are in the realm of the unlikely; it would surely be difficult to make a regular thing of kidnapping rich or influential people and ransoming them for gems. On that score, it was likely sensible of Hitch not to take the material too seriously. Family Plot also hinges on an unlikely coincidence whereby Blanche and George, already on Adamson’s radar, show up to interview the same bishop whom Adamson happens to be kidnapping (the man of the cloth who christened him). There’s also some typically clumsy exposition about fifty minutes, with Adamson and Lautner’s Maloney informing us who did what when it came to murdering the former’s adoptive parents. None of this really diminishes the plot’s plus points, though.

Geoff Andrew in Time Out was rapturous about the picture, rather disproportionately, although his enthusiasmis quite infectious. He suggests Hitch “ties together the complex strands in a delightful way” and esteems its “dense but extremely entertaining collection of symmetric patterns, doubles and rhymes”. Truffaut wasn’t as sold on this “gorgeously amoral wink”, but his peculiar target was Devane: “… once again, the weakness of the villain was responsible for the weakness of the picture”. Actually, Devane’s really good value here. But then, Truffaut also manages to mischaracterise the reason Hitchcock dispensed with Roy Thinnes’ services after a week; rather than Thinnes giving a sub-standard performance, Devane was his original choice, so when he became available, he simply gave Thinnes the heave ho. Not the most sensitive of decisions, but Thinnes paid him back subsequently in a restaurant confrontation, making the director feel extremely uncomfortable.

Devane is wolfishly malevolent but also charismatic, essential for a good Hitch villain. Black, as an accomplice increasingly unconvinced this is the path for her – such that we expect a change of heart that never materialises – makes much less impression. Devane has it that Hitch wasn’t overly impressed with Black and was intent on cutting her material down. The actor also recounts how he removed a piece of lint from a fellow actor’s jacket in one scene, something Hitch nixed as “It’s just not clear” (the actor was playing a cop). However, when the scene was remounted and Devane did it again, it seems Hitch let it pass or didn’t notice (I doubt he didn’t notice). It’s funny, because Hitch was right – the meaning is abstruse – but I can quite see why Devane says “It’s my favourite bit in the film”. Ed Lauter is memorable too as a seedy, weasely – is there any other Lauter part? – henchman of Adamson.

The greatest fun comes from the bickering brio of Dern and Harris, though. I’ve never really noted Harris in other roles, but she’s hugely accomplished and appealing here, only prone to overplaying during the runaway car sequence where she’s mugging frantically all over the place, sticking her feet in Dern’s face and making Cary Grant’s soused get away in North by Northwest appear as sober as a judge.

Bruce Dern is great value anecdotalising the movie – and in particular working with Hitchcock – and he’s also great value throughout. Like Donald Sutherland and villains, it’s a bit too easy to cast Dern as the loony and so all the more engaging and distinctive to have him playing the good-ish guy (he’d previously appeared for the director in Marnie’s crucial flashback scene). Hitch also considered Burt Reynolds and Jack Nicholson, apparently. Pacino (“Mr Packinow”) wanted too much money (he’d have been a terrible fit too). There’s a visible streak of family-friendly innuendo between the couple, with Harris always up for it and Dern dead-tired from taxiing to all hours.

The results feel contemporary, even if the fortune-teller conceit has the air of the hoary. Family Plot wasn’t a hit, though. That might have been for many reasons. It lacked star power and the director’s name was no longer a beacon to a new generation. I doubt the rather inert title helped matters much either; it’s an amusing enough pun, but it doesn’t have that “something” (Deceit, Lehman’s original, is much worse, though).

Nothing here is going to blow your socks off, but as light-hearted romps go, Family Plot is actually one of the director’s better ones. Fortunately, the approach to humour hews closer to Stage Fright or Mr. and Mrs. Smith – he was dismissive of the latter – than the overcooked quirk of The Trouble with Harry. Both his cameo (a silhouette behind a window) and Harris’ fourth-wall breaking wink to camera are likeable touches. Dern tells that he tried to persuade his director to do the same as Harris, and he’s right that, in retrospect, it would have made an appropriate send off to a glittering career (alas, Hitchcock announced his retirement due to ill health soon after, and the planned fifty-fourth film The Short Night was cancelled).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.

You absolute horror of a human being.

As Good as it Gets (1997) (SPOILERS) James L Brooks’ third Best Picture Oscar nomination goes to reconfirm every jaundiced notion you had of the writer-director-producer’s capacity for the facile and highly consumable, low-cal, fast-food melodramatic fix with added romcom lustre. Of course, As Good as it Gets was a monster hit, parading as it does Jack in a crackerjack, attention-grabbing part. But it’s a mechanical, suffocatingly artificial affair, ponderously paced (a frankly absurd 139 minutes) and infused with glib affirmations and affections. Naturally, the Academy lapped that shit up, because it reflects their own lack of depth and perception (no further comment is needed than Titanic winning the big prize for that year).

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984) If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights  may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box ’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisi

I must remind you that the scanning experience is usually a painful one.

Scanners (1981) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg has made a career – albeit, he may have “matured” a little over the past few decades, so it is now somewhat less foregrounded – from sticking up for the less edifying notions of evolution and modern scientific thought. The idea that regress is, in fact, a form of progress, and unpropitious developments are less dead ends than a means to a state or states as yet unappreciated. He began this path with some squeam-worthy body horrors, before genre hopping to more explicit science fiction with Scanners , and with it, greater critical acclaim and a wider audience. And it remains a good movie, even as it suffers from an unprepossessing lead and rather fumbles the last furlong, cutting to the chase when a more measured, considered approach would have paid dividends.

You seem particularly triggered right now. Can you tell me what happened?

Trailers The Matrix Resurrections   The Matrix A woke n ? If nothing else, the arrival of The Matrix Resurrections trailer has yielded much retrospective back and forth on the extent to which the original trilogy shat the bed. That probably isn’t its most significant legacy, of course, in terms of a series that has informed, subconsciously or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, much of the way in which twenty-first century conspiracy theory has been framed and discussed. It is however, uncontested that a first movie that was officially the “best thing ever”, that aesthetically and stylistically reinvigorated mainstream blockbuster cinema in a manner unseen again until Fury Road , squandered all that good will with astonishing speed by the time 2003 was over.

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman (1984) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman ’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.

You cut my head off a couple of dozen times.

Boss Level (2021) (SPOILERS) Lest you thought it was nigh-on impossible to go wrong with a Groundhog Day premise, Joe Carnahan, in his swaggering yen for overkill, very nearly pulls it off with Boss Level . I’m unsure quite what became of Carnahan’s early potential, but he seems to have settled on a sub-Tarantino, sub-Bay, sub-Snyder, sub-Ritchie butch bros aesthetic, complete with a tin ear for dialogue and an approach to plotting that finds him continually distracting himself, under the illusion it’s never possible to have too much. Of whatever it is he’s indulging at that moment.

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef