How a lawsuit stopped Alfred Hitchcock from doing Shakespeare: “It’s horrible”
Alfred Hitchcock was known as the ‘Master of Suspense’ for creating the template for the modern thriller. He could ratchet up tension like no one else, putting the audience on the edge of their seats, peering queasily through their fingers, and perspiring with nerves. Movies like The 39 Steps, Rope, and Rear Window demonstrated just how nerve-shredding a film could be without showing a single drop of blood, while the success of a film like Psycho demonstrated just how much of an appetite there was for deranged serial killers on-screen.
Hitch was known for his idiosyncratic style of filmmaking, but that doesn’t mean he always stuck to a single genre. He made capers, mysteries, and even comedies, but he rarely attempted period dramas or high-minded theatrical adaptations. In fact, he was often dismissed by critics for being too shallow and insubstantial.
That perception is directly undercut when considering the fact that Hitchcock spent years trying to adapt Hamlet, Shakespeare’s timeless play about a self-pitying Danish prince trying to decide whether to carry on with life, kill his uncle, or both. It’s hard to imagine how the Master of Suspense would have adapted the notoriously wordy and long play for the screen. Kenneth Branagh tried making a faithful version, and it ended up being over four hours long.
Still, Hitchcock was fascinated by psychology, which is a central theme of the play. He made it a key plot point in movies like Spellbound, Marnie, and even Psycho. For the most part, his approach was pretty sensationalised and simplistic, surfing the wave of pop psychology and psychoanalysis that was taking over Hollywood at the time. However, that fascination makes it slightly more understandable that he would alight on Hamlet, a play that famously centres on psychology. “To be or not to be?” is one of the most famous lines in the history of literature, and it has been asked and pondered by countless actors over the centuries.
Despite his enthusiasm about the project, Hitchcock was stymied by a pesky lawsuit. In an interview with François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol, the Master of Suspense revealed that the only reason the film never got off the ground was because a stranger sent him a formal letter by courier “stating he had written a considerable number of modern Hamlets, and that, if I were to do mine, he would sue me for $1,250,000.”
Recognising that the fellow didn’t have a leg to stand on, Hitchcock ignored the threat and went to court. Not surprisingly, he won the case, but learned after the fact that the plaintiff had no money and was unable to reimburse him for his legal fees. “I paid the court costs,” the director explained, “And, after all was said and done, that set me back $10,000.”
That is still a lot of money by modern standards, but this is Hitchcock we’re talking about. He was able to finance Psycho with his own money when the studio refused to back it. Surely, $10,000 was mere pocket change. But Hitchcock claimed that it put an end to it. “It’s horrible,” he said, lamenting that he wanted to do a modern interpretation of the play.
Without further details, there is ample room to speculate. Who would Hitch have cast as the Dane? Who would he have cast as Gertrude? Would there be ghosts? And, most importantly, would he have been able to beat The Lion King at its own game before its creators were even born?
