Hitchcock tried to cast better known actors in "Family Plot" for three of the four main roles:
For Lumley (Bruce Dern's role) he wanted: Al Pacino
For Fran (Karen Black's role) he wanted: Faye Dunaway
For Adamson (William Devane's role) he wanted: Burt Reynolds or Roy Scheider
Hitchcock was one of the most influential and respected directors of all time. Why couldn't he have gotten his ideal cast?
shareThe final time that Hitchcock got two big stars to appear in one of his films was when Paul Newman and Julie Andrews did "Torn Curtain" for him in 1966. The film was poorly reviewed and didn't do well at the box office. Thereafter, top stars worried that Hitchcock was getting too old and out-of-touch to risk their careers working with them.
In 1969, Sean Connery turned down the lead in Hitchcock's "Topaz" despite having worked for Hitch in "Marnie" (1964.) Unknown Frederick Stafford took the role instead. "Topaz" failed worse than "Torn Curtain."
In 1972, Michael Caine turned down the role of a sadistic killer in Hitchcock's "Frenzy." David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave also turned down roles. Hitchcock made "Frenzy" with unknown British actors -- and "Frenzy" was a surprise comeback hit.
In 1975, as he prepared "Family Plot," Hitchcock had the hit "Frenzy," but big new stars like Burt Reynolds and Roy Scheider still didn't trust their careers with Hitchcock. It was sad for Hitchcock. He was no longer considered "hip to work with." Bruce Dern, Karen Black, Barbara Harris, and William Devane were good actors, but not really top stars. Surely "Family Plot" would have been better had Hitchcock gotten his dream cast instead.
I disagree. I think the cast that he wound up with was perfect. Barbara Harris' quirky personality was perfect for Blanche. Same with Bruce Dern's. Karen Black's cold, detached stiffness also seemed right for her role, and Devane is often good at portraying sleazy characters. I couldn't imagine people like Pacino or Scheider in these roles. Way too serious for a film like this.
As for actors not wanting to work with him, why wouldn't they? Even though Hitch was winding down his career by the 70s, the guy was still a legend. The most common story I had heard was that he didn't like highly-paid method actors and their accompanying egos, souring on the whole thing since his experience on "Torn Curtain".
In his later films, he simply didn't like paying large sums of money for talent. And by that point, Dunaway, Pacino and Reynolds were pretty hot commodities.
Interestingly enough, it seems like he allowed his actors more leeway in "Family Plot" than in previous movies. He even stated that he loved Dern's unpredictability, and it's obvious that Harris was encouraged to inject much of her own personality in the role. Devane even pointed out in the 'making of' for the DVD that he snuck in a few things that weren't in the script.
All in all, I think the casting was one of the best things about this film, which is highly underrated, IMO. For what it is, it is a fascinating film, and much better than the horribly boring "Topaz".
Touche! Family Plot was easily Hitchcock's best film since North by Northwest - and I am NOT forgetting the highly overrated Psycho with the absurd "psychobabble" explanation at the end. Barbara Harris was the best female performance in a Hitchcock film since, at least , Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief, or ingrid Bergman in Notorious.
shareI think "Family Plot" is a fine, underrated Hitchcock thriller, but I stop short at putting it above "Psycho" "The Birds" or even "Frenzy." The first hour is simply too slow and uninvolving, by and large. The second hour is really good though, as "everything comes together" and the set-pieces come fast and furious.
The cast is fine -- especially the great Barbara Harris and the lugubriously-voiced William Devane -- but Hitchcock DID want those bigger stars, and couldn't get them.
I'm here to refute that Hitchcock was considered all that powerful by the Hollywood stars of the late sixties and seventies. In their eyes, he was fading as a box office power by "The Birds," and conclusively over by "Torn Curtain," when superstars Paul Newman and Julie Andrews were seen to have chosen a big flop with Old Man Hitchcock.
One by one, Hitchcock invited stars to join his films after "Torn Curtain." One by one, they turned him down. Michael Caine was specific about "Frenzy" -- "I didn't want to be associated with the part...of a sadistic killer of women" -- ironic given that he would change his mind for "Dressed to Kill" 8 years later when his career was in the toilet. Roy Scheider suggested he turned down the Devane part in "Family Plot" because it simply wasn't as major a film as "Jaws." Faye Dunaway said she didn't like the kidnapping plot of "Family Plot" and liked the juicier role offered in "Network" instead (good call; it won her the Best Actress Oscar.)
Certain Universal executives of the time have suggested that Universal Studios may have stopped Hitchcock before he could even make offers to Reynolds, Pacino, or Nicholson. They cost too much given that Universal felt Hitchcock was "past it." Also, Pacino and Nicholson were adamant in the 70's about making only "major prestige pictures" (Dog Day, Cuckoo's Nest, etc.)
One other problem with "Family Plot" (and "Frenzy" and "Topaz"): they were all "ensemble piece movies," in which no one role was really the "star part." The four leads in "Family Plot" are almost equal; you'd have to cast four equal stars or...four good actors with lesser marquee value. Which is what Hitchcock ended up doing.
Your comment that Torn Curtain did not do well at the boxoffice is INCORRECT! It was, in fact, the 7th biggest moneymaker of 1966!
shareI read different things about the grosses on "Torn Curtain."
Patrick McGilligan in his Hitchcock biography writes that "Torn Curtain" did worse than "Marnie" at the box office -- and "Marnie" was not in the Top Ten of its year. But then I've read "Psycho" as the Number Two movie of 1960, with the Number One being EITHER "Ben-Hur" (a 1959 release still going strong) OR Disney's "Swiss Family Robinson." Go figure.
It would make sense that "Torn Curtain," with Newman, Andrews and Hitchcock on the marquee, would make a lot of money early and then drop off fast due to bad-word-of-mouth. I've read that too.
I love the idea that "Torn Curtain" was the 7th biggest moneymaker of 1966.
Supposidely, Hitchcock felt that paying major stars the kind of money that say, Al Pacino was looking for was unfair and that Pacino was no more talented than more 'low-budget' actors like Bruce Dern. Hitchcock always compiled a list from 1-20 of the actors he wanted to play a rol (unless he knew for definite who was required). Bruce Dern was number 15 (according to Dern himself) but Hitch jumped from Pacino straight to Dern because he had met him on "Marnie" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".
shareThe facts regarding the casting of family plot are as follows:
Lumley was to be be played by Al pacino but Hitchcock resented the fact that his asking fee was so high. Bruce Dern was, they say, number 15 on the list of actors for the role. Hitchcock used Dern alot especially in his ' Alfred Hitchcock presents ' TV show. He also had a small role as the sailor in ' Marnie '. Hitch decided on Dern because in Hitch's own words ' Bruce You're Funny and I don't know what you're going to do next '.
The Adamson / Shoebridge role was always William Devane's. Hitch cast him but unfortunately due to other work commitments that clashed with production devane was not available at the time and the role went to the actor Roy Thinnes. Thinnes started shooting on the film and actually completed a number of key scenes including the abduction of the Bishop in the church when Hitch heard that William Devane had become available. He fired Thinnes and immeadiately hired Devane. All Thinnes scenes were reshot except for long shots, which still remain as Thinnes, the rest as they say is history.
I have recently read that in addition to considering Al Pacino for the role of George Lumley, Hitchcock also hoped that Jack Nicholson would take the part. Nicholson, too, was too expensive for Hitchcock at that point, and went for the more important "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next" instead.
Bruce Dern was a friend of Jack Nicholson who acted and sounded a bit like Nicholson, and often got Nicholson's "cast off" roles in the 70's. This, along with Dern's previous work for Hitchcock, probably helped Hitchcock decide to offer Dern the Lumley role.
It's nice to know that Hitchcock wanted to work with top actors like Nicholson, Pacino and Dunaway in his later years. It's too bad Hitchcock couldn't command the money or power to get to work with them as he had with the great stars like Cary Grant and James Stewart before them.
[deleted]
While I can vouch for reading of all those "star casting choices" Hitchcock wanted for "Family Plot," I've never believed he had a chance of getting them.
For one thing, Universal wouldn't have paid for four big stars, for this small Hitchcock film.
Another problem with "Family Plot" is that the four roles are almost evenly-matched as leads. Each character gets a stretch of the movie to him or herself. So you'd have to cast Four Big Stars. If, say, Al Pacino were cast as Lumley with the rest of the existing "Family Plot" cast, the whole story would be out of whack.
I'm fine with Harris, Devane, and Dern in "Family Plot." Only Karen Black didn't seem up to her role; she has real trouble "selling" the wittier lines, or saving the poor ones.