MovieChat Forums > Family Plot (1976) Discussion > A Movie With Many Titles

A Movie With Many Titles


Alfred Hitchcock usually knew exactly what he wanted to call one of his movies.

Sometimes, the title of the original novel dictated it: "Rebecca" for instance. Or "Psycho." Or "Marnie." Or "Topaz."

Sometimes, Hitch just thought a word was "cool." He had a couple of scripts written with the title "Frenzy" in the sixties. He never made those movies, but when he bought a book about a psycho killer called "Goodbye Picadilly, Farewell Leiceister Square" in 1970, he gave it the title "Frenzy" because finally a movie fit it again.

The original screenplay "Torn Curtain" got its title right away; it was meant as a visual AND verbal play on "Iron Curtain."

When Hitchcock decided to make a movie out of Victor Canning's novel, "The Rainbird Pattern" in 1973 (for what would end up being a 1976 release), getting a Hitchcock title on that movie proved most difficult and endless.

Alfred Hitchcock's "The Rainbird Pattern" actually sounds OK (rather like "The Da Vinci Code.") But Hitchcock wanted more style and meaning, I guess.

First, the film was called "One Plus One Equals One", because that's what the story is ABOUT: two separate stories come together as one.

Next: "Missing Heir" (because that's what one of the two stories is about.)

Someone (Hitch?) decided that a classic Hitchcockian "one-word title" would be the best bet, so the movie was next titled "Deception."

But there was already a movie with that name, years ago. By 1975, when the movie went into production, Time Magazine announced the film as "Alfred Hitchcock's Deceit." Hitch was evidently bound and determined to give this movie a one-word title.

A week or so into filming, "Deceit" was dumped. Studio polling found that people didn't much understand the title, or thought it was about spouse-cheating.

For a few weeks, Variety listed this movie merely as "Alfred Hitchcock's 53rd Movie," a nice way of reminding us how long he'd been working.

And then somebody, somewhere, somehow, came up with "Family Plot."

I like it.

Its rather closest to "Torn Curtain" in that it is a title that rather double-plays the meaning of the movie itself. There's no body in the family plot, said the ads. Yet the story itself is about a plot involving a family (the giving up of a bastard child, the aunt's guilt over forcing her sister to give up the child; the murder of foster parents, a missing heir, etc.) Moreover, "Family Plot," unlike "Frenzy," suggested a tale of a certain jauntiness and wit.

The titles, summarized:

The Rainbird Pattern
One Plus One Equals One
Missing Heir
Deception
Deceit

Family Plot.

reply

Interesting that you should bring this up. I had always wanted to see this movie because of the title. FAMILY PLOT was a mysterious and unconventional title for a film. The title doesn't really make sense until you see the film. Which might have been Hitchcock's intent. But like you said it means two things at the same time. One being the fact that Eddie Shoebridge's body is not apart of the Shoebridge family plot and two being about the troubled past of family relations such as the fire, the bastard son, Julia Rainbird forcing the sister to give away the child and the missing heir. Another brilliant concept from the master of suspense.

We all go a little mad sometimes...

reply

Nifty point.

The movie went a few weeks into shooting with no title. Newsweek magazine did a story about Hitchcock making the film in the summer of 1975 and they asked him about the unknown title. What might it be?

"Oh, it'll be Alfred Hitchcock's Something," Hitchcock remarked, well aware of how his name was used for marketing. "Perhaps "Alfred Hitchcock's Wet Drawers."

Which was, in 1975, a rather anachronistic paraphrase for "Alfred Hitchcock's Peed-In Underpants."

Funny guy....

reply

Interesting point, and I agree, FAMILY PLOT could really be read to mean many different things. I think that's usually the key to a good title.. something memorable and multilayered and catchy and interesting... yah.

-
Shuji Terayama forever.

reply