If any filmmaker deserved to be named the greatest of all time, Alfred Hitchcock would certainly not be a bad choice. There are so many reasons to revere him – his films were always of the highest standard, and his work spans from the silent era, right through to the latter stages of New Hollywood, and he was consistently excellent regardless of genre. However, the reason I adore Hitchcock so much is that even though he made some of the tensest films and essentially defined the suspense genre, he was a director who also knew how to have fun, on occasion temporarily putting his more chilling stories on hold for something much lighter. One of the best examples of this comes at the very end of his career, with his swan song, Family Plot. It isn’t a film that stands anywhere close to his masterpieces such as Psycho, Rear Window, Rebecca or Vertigo (which in itself can be considered one of the greatest films of all time) – but for what this film lacks in filmmaking prowess or narrative cohesion, it makes up for in relentless entertainment, being a profoundly enjoyable film that never takes itself too seriously, and sees Hitchcock applying the same impeccable standard to a lightweight crime caper as he did to his most serious films. Some may say Family Plot saw the director losing the plot – but I say this is as fun a time as anyone will get, and the fact that a director like Hitchcock made such a silly, exuberant film only makes it even better.

Two different couples are at the core of Family Plot. Blanche (Barbara Harris) is a medium whose skills are not very renowned, to say the least. However, she is able to convince at least one person of her credibility, as one of her wealthy regular clients requests that Blanche finds her long-lost nephew who was given up for adoption in infancy so that she can bestow her inheritance on him when she dies. For her services in finding the missing heir, Blanche will be handsomely rewarded. Her quest also involves her boyfriend, the cynical cab-driver George (Bruce Dern), who is pulled into the fray after he finds out about the potential earnings they can gain by simply finding a single individual. The problem is that absolutely no one knows who this heir is, and there doesn’t seem to be any way for them to find out, with everyone who could possibly lead them towards him perishing years before. However, no one can say this couple doesn’t try, with George living his private detective fantasy as he submerges himself into what he soon discovers to be quite an elaborate plot. This is where the other couple comes in – it turns out that the missing heir is none other than Eddie Shoebridge, who now goes by Arthur Adamson (William Devane), a famous jeweller who, along with his partner Fran (Karen Black) kidnap influential people and hold them hostage, demanding expensive diamonds in exchange for their safe return. Naturally, the infamous thieves grow suspicious when they hear about a supposed lawyer and his medium girlfriend poking around looking for them, and they hatch a plot to dispose of them, not being aware that they could come into an even larger fortune if they just listen instead of reacting with petty paranoia. Of course, hijinks ensue as the couples engage in a game of deadly wits, trying to outsmart the other.

Family Plot has so many of Hitchcock’s finest qualities, distilled into a form more focused on the levity than the suspense, but not being any less compelling. For one, it is a great thriller in the same vein as something like North by Northwest, Rear Window or Strangers on a Train, with a strong story bolstered by the director’s unmistakable knack for evoking a certain atmospheric mood from the plot. The only difference is where these other films would go for the thrills, Family Plot goes for the laughs – and like a lot of his films, it features a solid ensemble of actors giving these unique but cohesive performances that fit together perfectly, being different enough to be distinct, but working alongside each other wonderfully. This film also often feels like Hitchcock commenting on his own directorial style – labyrinthine plots, several mysterious characters weaving in and out of the story, red herrings, broad social questions and even some bleak violence that is used tastefully, but effectively to convey the message. This is by all accounts a film by Hitchcock, with his trademarks being peppered liberally throughout (including his cameo, which is always entertaining to spot in one of his films), its just a much lighter affair than we’re used to from the master of chilling thrillers. In many ways, this was a perfect way for him to end his illustrious career – it is an upbeat, funny film that sees him employing all of his artistic characteristics, but having fun with it along the way. It is by no means a perfect film, but definitely a great one.

This film has often been portrayed as consisting of a solid quartet of actors that make up the core of the film, and in this regard, it is very much like an old-fashioned caper with the heroes and the villains crossing paths or being in pursuit of the other. Each of the four actors are all exceptional and play their roles extremely well, finding unique aspects to each of their characters that make them far more than just archetypes. Karen Black, one of the true starlets of the 1970s, quite literally serves as the poster-girl for this film, turning in a more villainous performance as the seductive but highly-intelligent Fran who really is the mastermind behind the heists at the centre of the film. However, as good as she is, she doesn’t get a great deal to do, having the smallest role of the four, as well as the least compelling character. Her role isn’t necessarily underwritten, but rather seems to have a lot more potential than what it’s given. Black does the best she can with the paltry material she is given (and even manages to find some memorable moments in the middle of all of it), but she unfortunately falters as the story reaches its climax, merely being an accessory to the central story. William Devane is wonderfully unlikable as the sleazy Arthur Adamson, who is so used to a life of crime, anything out of the ordinary incites feelings of suspicion, which set off his violent instincts. One of my few quarrels with this film is that it does such a disservice to these two characters, portraying them as so deeply unlikable, the audience is just repelled by them – they’re supposed to be charming, when in actuality they’re just truly nasty, and while this is effective, it also reminds us of some of Hitchcock’s more memorable villains, who were as charming as they were despicable.

Contrast Black and Devane with the other two central performances in Family Plot. Bruce Dern gets one of his first great leading roles as George, the cab driver forced into becoming an amateur private detective. Normally used to playing villains, Dern is a riot in this film, taking on a character who is far from endearing, but possesses a strange charm that makes him such a compelling protagonist. One of Dern’s great assets as an actor is his ability to always play it straight, and while the other performances in this film are certainly heightened and wonderfully hyperbolic, his is grounded and lends the film some realism, as he often appears to be the only character in the film who realizes the absurdity of the situation. Of course, the real star of Family Plot is none other than Barbara Harris, who turns in one of her funniest performances as Blanche, the sex-crazed medium who finds herself the catalyst of quite a thrilling adventure. I recently reviewed Freaky Friday, in which Harris was exceptional, and with her performance here, I’m entirely convinced that she was one of the great unheralded comedic geniuses of her day, with her ability to give delicious camp or remarkable subtletly in equal measure making her performances so riveting, and so deeply entertaining at the same time. This is a genuinely brilliant comic turn from a really gifted actress, and if anything, these two films made me want to seek out more from Harris because there have been few performers who left such an indelible impression as her. Family Plot is her more traditionally-great performance, with her kooky psychic being a real highlight, and perhaps the best part of this film as a whole.

There seems to be a lot of disdain for Family Plot, mostly from the time of its initial release, where it was derided for being far less compelling or interesting than Hitchcock’s previous films. Thankfully, it’s received a much warmer reception in subsequent years, and perhaps the reason is because modern audiences are viewing this film not in comparison to his previous films, but as a work on its own, and how it demonstrates many of Hitchcock’s best directorial tendencies, albeit in a different manner. Judging this in contrast to his towering masterpieces is bound to make Family Plot look pale in comparison because many of his works stand as steadfast achievements in their respective genres. Its a much more rewarding experience to look at this film as Hitchcock allowing his curiosity of different cinematic conventions and sub-genres to manifest in this breezy but fascinating blend of filmmaking traditions. Made in the second half of the 1970s, Family Plot resembles a New Hollywood caper much more than it does one of the more atmospheric suspense films of the 1950s that is clearly inspired by. Hitchcock is not trying to recapture the same spark that made his more famous films popular, but rather his attempt to adapt to the shifting cinematic landscape – audiences didn’t just want predictable, conventional thrillers anymore, and thus it was necessary for more modern techniques to be employed. In all facets, Family Plot sees Hitchcock asserting contemporary ideas onto a well-taut structure – the bare-boned skeleton of his earlier thrillers remain mostly intact, but with more modern energy. Consider the score by John Williams, who was on the precipice of a breakthrough, having just made Jaws, but still far from achieving the stardom he’d begin developing the following year with Star Wars. Thematically, we see less morality and more liberation, with the two central couples being driven by carnal desire (one of the funniest subplots concerns the lascivious relationship between Blanche and George, who just can’t seem to keep their hands off each other). These are not the protagonists or antagonists we normally see from Hitchcock. Certainly, they appear to be similar, but they’re far more modern and products of their time. If anything, Family Plot deserves acclaim solely for demonstrating how an old master like Hitchcock could make something so modern and so energetic, even right at the end of his career. One of the qualities I love the most about him is that even when the director was at the very end of his professional and personal life, he never lost that childish playfulness that was always present in his work. Knowing how he enjoyed creating them makes watching his films so much more rewarding.

Family Plot joins a small but elite group of comedies made by Alfred Hitchcock, alongside other underrated masterworks like To Catch a Thief and The Trouble With Harry, all of which demonstrate a director allowing his more playful side to manifest, putting a priority on the fun as opposed to more serious affairs. This film is nothing more than a well-needed dosage of classic Hollywood suspense in the form of a rivetting screwball comedy. With a terrific cast interpreting this material, and excellent storytelling by Ernest Lehman, Hitchcock guides us towards a really engrossing comical crime caper about mistaken identity and fascinating mystery. Hitchcock is certainly far from needing a career reevaluation – if anything, his films become more beloved than they already are with each new viewer finding their way into the maestro’s demented world. However, Family Plot itself warrants revisiting, because not only is it severely underrated, it stands as a great film on its own, certainly a far cry from the director’s masterpieces, but no less brilliant in its own way. It is a kooky, silly film, one that plays out like the perfect blend of modern humour and a traditional comedy-of-manners, but it doesn’t skimp on the excitement either, becoming a really captivating, entertaining piece that may not be very serious, but definitely as fun a time as anyone will get with this kind of film. Hitchcock’s final film may not be as well-regarded, but no one with as diverse and prolific a career as Hitchcock was always going to satisfy every criterion to end on a masterpiece – so why not end on something that is nothing more than just great fun, and a riveting good time?