Family Plot - Underrated Classic?
Perhaps not a classic, but very underrated. I think Family Plot is a great film and upon seeing it a second time, I appreciated it a whole lot more. What are your thoughts?
shareSPOILERS
Hitchcock made this film, his last, when he was in terrible health, and with neither the budget nor the cast he desired to make a true "A picture."
And yet, I think the film very much reflects Hitchcock's sense of style and themes. You have to put up with a few problems (slow opening scenes, poor process work, too much exposition and overlong patches), but the film is ultimately quite rewarding.
Hitchcock and his screenwriter, Ernest Lehman (who also wrote "North by Northwest" for Hitchcock), carefully designed a story in which two separate stories slowly merge, and in which various characters take action based on their misunderstandings and misjudgments of the other characters.
There are some fun set-pieces, particularly in the last hour of the film: the kidnapping of the bishop, the runaway car, the stalk through the cemetary, the perfectly timed "doorbell ring" and the fateful moment when Blanche meets Adamson in his garage.
Hitchcock made his greatest classics in the 50's and early 60's, though there are those who love his British 30's pictures and 40's American films as well.
I like how "Family Plot" is rather light, funny, and non-violent after a decade-plus of violent films from Hitch such as "Psycho," "The Birds," "Torn Curtain" and "Frenzy." It was as if he were saying, "I'm leaving now, and I hope you don't think I was such a nasty man. Here's a pleasant little dessert of a movie."
"Family Plot" is a final bow, a small sketch from a great painter. But there's a lot to like, and it fits right into the Hitchcock canon.
(slow opening scenes, poor process work, too much exposition and overlong patches)
Would you elaborate and give examples on this statement.
"How could I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle?" share
SPOILERS
Sure, I guess so, but remember -- I like "Family Plot" very much, and I think its second hour in particular "delivers the Hitchcock goods":
1. SLOW OPENING SCENES.
The first two scenes in the movie -- Madame Blanche's seance with Julia Rainbird and Blanche's taxi ride with Lumley -- impart the same basic plot information three times in a row: about the history of the missing Rainbird heir and Blanche's assignment to find him. First when Blanche is in her trance, second when she comes out of it and talks to Julia Rainbird; third in the cab with Lumley. Hitchcock should have cut down on both of these scenes. As one critic wrote: "Does Hitchcock think that we are too slow to understand it the first time? Telling us twice is bad enough, but three times?"
The visually beautiful opening seance scene goes on and on -- John Williams has to "re-start" a music cue -- and then, when Blanche comes out of her trance, the scene "starts again" with repetitive discussion of the Rainbird heir.
2. POOR PROCESS WORK
Sadly, this occurs early in "Family Plot," in Bruce Dern's cab, thereby starting the movie on the wrong foot. I call this "the process shot that ate Bruce Dern's head."
Hitchcock was double-crossed by Universal on this "new" process, which was done "in the lab" rather than with screens. It wasn't quite matte work. The process work also hurts the otherwise wonderful "runaway car" chase scene.
Hitchcock was reportedly broken-hearted over this bad process -- he worked in process a lot, but not this badly -- and asked to re-shoot those scenes. Universal said no.
3. TOO MUCH EXPOSITION
The first two opening scenes, Dern's interviews about the Rainbird heir, Devane and Black talking in their car (Black actually says to Devane: "I"m confused. I need a synopsis.)
The debriefing of the millionaire is expositional, but rather fun to watch and handsomely filmed.
Hitchcock was reportedly worried about making sure everything got explained carefully in "Family Plot." This may have been the slightly anal obession of an older man. Scene after scene is expositional in this movie, and people keep explaining the same things.
4. OVERLONG PATCHES
The first two opening scenes, Dern's interviews, the other exposition.
AND: The second hour moves like gangbusters up to when Devane entraps Blanche in his garage...and then slows way down for the over-detailed, overlong scene in which Dern arrives at the house and slowly makes his way inside.
These are just my opinions, but I think the flaws are there. The process work is a technical problem. The rest could be solved by editing the script or the final print of the movie itself.
Thanx ecarle. I liked the movie very much too. I don't understand what you mean about "process work". Are you talking about the blue screen? I think that made the film rather dated for 1976 standards.
"How could I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle?"
Yes, the blue screen. Modernly, they seem to mainly use a "green screen" with computer-generated process.
This process for "Family Plot" was somewhere in between "traditional" process (footage projected on a screen behind the actors) and today's CGI double-printing. I don't believe Universal used it after "Family Plot."
Good new/bad news:
Good news: The process shots in "Family Plot" are exclusively in scenes with cars.
Bad news: "Family Plot" has a LOT of scenes of people in cars.
As for the dated quality of the process, that's largely true. Except modernly, process shots in cars are back in a big way, because with CGI techniques, you can barely SEE the process work anymore. And that's better dramatically -- realistic filming always puts the camera out on the hood of the car looking back at the driver and passenger, which isn't really realistic at all.