MovieChat Forums > Family Plot (1976) Discussion > 'Family Plot' is the REAL 'Psycho' Remak...

'Family Plot' is the REAL 'Psycho' Remake

posted 20 years ago by ecarle
11 replies | jump to latest

(Warning: SPOILERS for "Psycho" AND "Family Plot" below)

"Family Plot," Hitchcock's last film, was made in 1976, 16 years after Hitchcock's greatest hit, 1960's "Psycho." "Psycho," made when Hitchcock was at his peak of health, power, and popularity, is the justifiably more famous and great film. "Family Plot" is more minor, less shocking, more the work of a tired old man.

But anybody who thinks that "Family Plot" "isn't really like a Hitchcock movie" should look again: STRUCTURALLY, "Family Plot" is a remake of "Psycho."

Here's how:

Both movies are about one story that turns into another story, and in a similar way.

In "Psycho", investigators are looking for missing thief Marion Crane. This brings them to Norman Bates and his Bates Motel. He knows what they don't: his mother killed Marion. (But they know what he doesn't: mother killed a woman who stole $40,000.) Norman is desperate not to be found out. The investigators (Arbogast, Sam, Lila) keep coming at him, putting themselves in danger -- until they go into Norman's house and meet mother.

In "Family Plot," investigators are looking for missing heir Eddie Shoebridge. This brings them to Arthur Adamson and his jewelry store. He knows what they don't: he's a master kidnapper hunted by the police.(But they know what he doesn't: he's the missing heir.) Adamson is desperate not to be found out. The investigators (Lumley, Blanche) keep coming at him, putting themselves in danger -- until they go into Adamson's house and meet Eddie Shoebridge.

I'm telling you, it's the same movie! It even has a crucial "matched sequence": Arbogast goes from hotel to boarding house to motel looking for Marion; Madame Blanche goes from one A Adamson to another A Adamson to another A Adamson looking for Arthur Adamson.

The differences are in quality, acting, set-pieces, shock value, etc.

But structurally, those two movies are almost exactly the same. Which is why Hitchcock liked both of the novels that they came from, and one of the reasons why he made those two movies.

[–] skl2003 20 years ago

An interesting idea, but I have to disagree. I don't see the structure of Family Plot as fundamentally the same as that of Psycho. In Family Plot, we do not have one story that develops and is then derailed in favor of another story; we have two distinct stories, both of which are established early on, which come together in the end. The search for Eddie Shoebridge does bear some strong resemblances to the search for Marion Crane, but there is more structure to each movie than those searches.

[–] ecarle 20 years ago

I'll admit I stretched it a bit to fit -- "Psycho" is one story that turns into another; "Family Plot" two stories that merge into one.

But I think you can see how the two match up, particularly in the sequences where Arbogast and Madame Blanche go looking for somebody.

My main point is to address those who say that "Family Plot" doesn't seem like a Hitchcock movie. Structurally, and thematically, "Family Plot" is right in the ballpark of the kind of story Hitchcock liked to do. I'm not sure that any other director would have been interested to make "Family Plot" except Hitchcock.

[–] skl2003 20 years ago

Yes, you do make a good point about Arbogast/Blanche.

I very much agree about Family Plot being a thoroughly Hitchcockian movie. I think another significant point of contact with the rest of his output is the motif of the double or doppleganger. It's more subtle in Family Plot than in Shadow of a Doubt or Strangers on a Train or Vertigo, but there is an interesting parallel here between the two couples. One could even say that this theme extends across his entire career, all the way back to his very first finished movie, The Pleasure Garden.

[–] ecarle 20 years ago

That's very true. The "doubles" theme in Hitchcock is very strong.

In "Family Plot" you also see the issue of "identity." Think of Norman Bates/Mrs. Bates, Roger Thornhill/George Kaplan, Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton, Arthur Adamson/Eddie Shoebridge... (if you know your Hitchcock movies, you know who I'm talking about.)

And Hitchcock sure liked to toy with how his stories unfolded: "Psycho" starts as one story and becomes another, as does "Family Plot" in a different way.

The poorly-regarded Hitchcock spy movie "Topaz" (1969) at least has Hitchcock toying with structure yet again: the story keeps changing with every country it goes to: Denmark, America (both in Washington and New York), Cuba, France. Characters leave and are replaced by new characters.

Hitchcock was a lot of fun, analysis-wise.

[–] skl2003 20 years ago

That's a very good point about identity. Devane's character actually has a sort of triple identity - first as the Rainbird heir, second as Eddie Shoebridge, and third as Arthur Adamson. I can't, offhand, think of another Hitchcock movie in which he takes the motif of multiple identities quite as far as he does here. Maybe Vertigo, with Carlotta/Madeleine/Judy.

The parallel stories are also something quite unusual. I can think of many other films and books in which two plots begin together, diverge, and then reconnect. But it's hard to think of any other cases where two plots are introduced separately, with no apparent relation to one another, and only fully connected near the end.

[–] ecarle 20 years ago

"Devane's character actually has a sort of triple identity - first as the Rainbird heir, second as Eddie Shoebridge, and third as Arthur Adamson. "

----

Not to go all "mutual admiration society" on you, but that's a very good point. It's as if this aspect of "Family Plot" is telling us: one man can be many things. And recall that as the kidnapper, Adamson is known only as "The Trader." That's FOUR identities. And the main split is: Arthur Adamson is a respected businessman hiding his real villainy from everybody but Fran.

I must say that the problem with "Family Plot" is that for all of its very good, very Hitchcockian ideas, the production values and general slowness of this last "sick old man Hitchcock picture" don't do full justice to the material. Time for a remake!

---

"The parallel stories are also something quite unusual. I can think of many other films and books in which two plots begin together, diverge, and then reconnect. But it's hard to think of any other cases where two plots are introduced separately, with no apparent relation to one another, and only fully connected near the end. "

---

My understanding is that this is why Hitchcock was attracted to the novel "The Rainbird Pattern," from which "Family Plot" was made. Indeed, an early title for "Family Plot" was: "One Plus One Equals One."

I may raise this in a different post again, but "The Rainbird Pattern" was much more grim than "Family Plot." In "The Rainbird Pattern," the kidnappers KILL Madame Blanche when she finds them, and then they are killed by "secret police."

[–] spellbound81 20 years ago

I am a fan of 70's hitchcock. I dont see any connection to psycho and i dont feel the need to critizise this movie either. Frenzy and family plot are among my favorites and the 'tired old man' comment kinda made me cringe alittle after reading that. for one thing, frenzy and family plot take place in a time congruent to when the film was being made. I like that, i wish he had made a couple more during the 70's, the times had been changing but hitch was still making the best movies. just my opinion

[–] denverbeau-1 19 years ago

ecarle wrote:

"Hitchcock was a lot of fun, analysis-wise."

A fellow Hitch-fan once told me:

"Hitchcock plays with your mind."

I always thought he hit the nail on the head.

-Bill

[–] almitra 19 years ago

Good movies have good threads :)

Thanks for the food for thought

E.

[–] colinTheBarSteward 17 years ago

Surprised no-one on this thread pointed out the street sign for "Bates Ave", visible near the end.

"Yeah? Well, you know... that's just like, uh... your opinion, man"

[–] ecarle 17 years ago

Good call. A real street, in LA near ABC studios.

I rest my case?