Hitchcock was never 'respectful' to the writers of his source material. In the case of Family Plot he turned Victor Canning's very dark (and very good)thriller The Rainbird Pattern into a frothy comedy with a happy ending. Victor Canning, I have been told, 'washed his hands of it'.
Nonetheless, Family Plot was the only memorable film to be made from a Victor Canning book.
Any more thoughts on Hitchcock and his sources?
John Higgins
(SPOILERS for FAMILY PLOT next)
One of my theories about why Hitchcock turned Canning's dark "The Rainbird Pattern" (where all the characters die or are going to) into the light "Family Plot" is that Hitchcock's previous film had been "Frenzy," (1972) a very grim, R-rated movie anchored by the most horrible murder scene in Hitchcock's career (plus rape.)
Hitchcock was getting older, worried about the years to come, and, I think, maybe wanted to go out with something more light and funny. So he converted "Family Plot" into a comedy of sorts, and had Barbara Harris "wink goodbye" at the end.
This may be why Hitchcock chose Ernest Lehman to write the "Family Plot" script. Lehman's other Hitchcock script had been for the (much better) "North by Northwest" in 1959 -- Hitchcock's last "light" film before "Family Plot."
I've also read that Universal chief Lew Wasserman may have warned Hitchcock that his last movies had been too dark or brutal, and that it was time to make an "entertainment."
As to Hitchcock's source novels and short stories in general, I think he was pretty famous for avoiding best sellers whenever he could, so as to avoid "the book was better than the movie" criticism.
I think Hitchcock only filmed two bestsellers -- "Rebecca" and "Topaz."
The rest of the time, Hitchcock used fairly obscure mystery novels as his sources. Even Robert Bloch's "Psycho" wasn't much of a bestseller -- it hadn't been promoted like the novels "The Exorcist" and "Jaws."
[deleted]
While it is true that Hitch sometimes strayed from his source material, I’m sure Mr. Canning was only too happy to soil his freshly-washed hands with dollars when the film buoyed his book sales. However, I do applaud him for not re-releasing his book under Hitch's new title, as Arthur La Bern did when his Goodbye Piccadilly, Farewell Leicester Square became Frenzy
shareI have very recently read "The Rainbird Pattern" and found it deeply depressing. Its conclusion seemed to be that evil will always triumph (although that's probably an over-simple summary of a complex plot with some pretty morally ambivalent characters).
I found watching Hitchcock's "frothy" comedy a much happier experience than reading Canning's book.
I'm glad to have read the book, though. For one thing, it gives one another angle on the film.
I, too, am none to happy about authors altering the titles of their books in conformity with the film-maker's renaming. ("Schindler's Ark" for example.)
From what I understand, The Rainbird Pattern (The Book) is quite different from what Family Plot ended up being. It would make a great remake as The Rainbird Pattern.
Well Hitchcock never films books. He just takes whatever ideas he likes form that book and then does his own movie. He never if ot's anything close to the book, just if it looks right on screen.
The Birds listed Daphne Du Maurier in the credits but the movie had nothing to do with the book (except the idea of the bird attacks).
An exeption is for instance Rebecca which was pretty close to the book because Selznik wanted it that way.
Dial M for Murder was a pretty sucsesful play at the time Hitchcock made it. If you look at it, it's full of suspence but it derives from the plot. There wasn't much that Hitchcock could do on it exept the murder scene and a few other moments. At that time Hitchcock was dry on ideas and was just playing it safe.
"The Wrong Man" was based on a true story and followed it in great detail.
Other than that HItchcock rarely relied on his sources and cared only about what his sinale product would look like. He was wary of the content of his film as much as how thaty were shot.
Could by the way someone describe what the The Rainbird Pattern is all about and what the differs from "Family plot"?
SPOILERS for "Family Plot" and "The Rainbird Pattern"
--
Could by the way someone describe what the The Rainbird Pattern is all about and what the differs from "Family plot"?
---
Book and film are significantly different. Simply put, the book is rather dark and bleak,and practically everybody gets killed. Whereas the movie is fairly light and funny (though suspenseful) and practically nobody gets killed.
The book takes place in London and British rural towns. The movie, in an unnamed, fictional mix of San Francisco and Los Angeles in America.
Madame Blanche and Lumley are a lot older in the book than the movie, overweight and middle-aged.
The kidnappers are not an unmarried couple in the book. They are not named Adamson and Fran. They are a married couple with a very young son. They are also rather blah people (not stylish like Adamson and Fran) and, as I recall, environmental activists. The father is also rather a madman, a fanatic.
Book follows movie in this regard: Blanche and Lumley search for the missing heir, who is indeed the kidnapper. He and his wife kidnap a bishop, but not in church, out on a country road.
A third group is on the chase: a British "secret police force" out to catch the kidnappers. This force gets wind of Blanche's investigation and follows her occasionally. She doesn't know about this.
There is no runaway car sequence in the book.
Come now the "darknesses":
Blanche comes upon the kidnappers with the bishop, loading him into their car in the driveway of their country home. The kidnappers grab Blanche -- and kill her. (In the movie, Blanche survives.)
The secret police, having followed Blanche's trail to the kidnappers, surround the husband and wife at their home -- and kill them. "Secret government action." (In the movie, there are no secret police; the kidnappers survive but are captured.)
The secret police award the "new heir" -- the young son of the kidnappers -- to Julia Rainbird. He comes to live with her.
In the final pages of the book, the little boy pushes Julia down her huge mansion staircase (this would have made a great Hitchcock scene.) We "read his thoughts": the boy is a "bad seed," as mad and evil as his father. Having killed Julia, he will next kill Lumley, and then all of the secret police.
Thus, "the Rainbird Pattern" is one of criss-cross and murderous intent.
At least one critic (Richard Corliss) thought Hitchcock was mad to change "The Rainbird Pattern" into such a lightweight tale. But Hitch thought the story would play better as a comedy of coincidences, and his last few films had been downbeat and/or extremely violent. Hitch evidently wanted what would likely be his last film to be upbeat.
Note: Hitchcock added a key new character: Joe Maloney, who alerts the kidnappers early on that Blanche and Lumley are looking for them. In the book, the kidnappers didn't know about the others. Maloney helped increase the suspense as the kidnappers went looking for the people looking for them, early on. Maloney is the only character to die in "Family Plot." (Other than those who were murdered years ago.)