🔗 Share this article

A screenplay penned by the acclaimed writer and featuring Christopher Lee and the lead actor should have been a dream project for filmmaker Robin Hardy during the production of The Wicker Man more than 50 years ago.

Even though it is now revered as a cult horror masterpiece, the extent of turmoil it caused the film-makers has now been uncovered in previously unpublished letters and early versions of the script.

The Plot of The Wicker Man

This 1973 movie centers on a devout policeman, played by Edward Woodward, who arrives on an isolated Scottish isle in search of a lost child, but finds mysterious pagan residents who claim she ever existed. the actress appeared as the daughter of a local innkeeper, who tempts the God-fearing officer, with Christopher Lee as Lord Summerisle.

Creative Conflict Revealed

However, the working environment was frayed and fractious, according to the letters. In a letter to Shaffer, Hardy wrote: “How could you handle me this way?”

Shaffer had already made his name with acclaimed works such as Sleuth, but his script of The Wicker Man reveals Hardy’s brutal cuts to his work.

Heavy edits include the aristocrat’s dialogue in the ending, which would have begun: “The child was only a small part – the part that showed. Don’t blame yourself, it was impossible you could have known.”

Beyond the Creative Duo

Conflict escalated outside the main pair. A producer wrote: “The writer’s skill has been offset by a self-indulgence that impels him to prove himself too clever by half.”

In a letter to the production team, Hardy complained about the editor, the editing specialist: “I believe he appreciates the theme or approach of the film … and thinks that he has had enough of it.”

In one letter, Christopher Lee referred to the film as “appealing and mysterious”, even with “having to cope with a talkative producer, an underpaid and harassed writer and an overpaid and hostile director”.

Forgotten Papers Uncovered

An extensive correspondence about the film was part of six sack-loads of papers left in the attic of the old house of Hardy’s third wife, Caroline. Included were previously unseen scripts, visual plans, production photos and budget records, many of which show the challenges faced by the team.

The director’s children his two sons, now 60 and 63, used these documents for an upcoming publication, titled Children of The Wicker Man. The book uncovers the intense stress on Hardy during the making of the movie – from his heart attack to financial ruin.

Personal Consequences

At first, the film was a box office flop and, following the disappointment, the director left his wife and his family for a fresh start in America. Court documents show Caroline as the film’s uncredited executive producer and that Hardy owed her up to £1m in today’s money. She had to give up their house and died in the 1980s, aged 51, battling addiction, never knowing that her film eventually became an international success.

Justin, an acclaimed documentary maker, called The Wicker Man as “the movie that ruined my family”.

When someone reached out by a resident living in his mother’s old house, asking whether he wished to collect the documents, his initial reaction was to propose burning “all of it”.

But then he and his brother opened up the sacks and understood the significance of what they held.

Revelations from the Documents

Dominic, a scholar, said: “Every key figure is represented. We found the first draft by Shaffer, but with dad’s annotations as director, ‘controlling’ the writer’s excess. Because he was formerly a barrister, Shaffer did a lot of overexplaining and dad just went ‘cut, cut, cut’. They sort of respected each other and hated each other.”

Writing the book has brought some “resolution”, Justin stated.

Financial Struggles

The family never benefited monetarily from the production, he added: “The bloody film has gone on to make so much money for others. It’s unfair. Dad accepted five grand. Thus, he missed out on any of the upside. Christopher Lee never received payment from it as well, despite the fact that he did the film for no pay, to leave his previous studio. So, in many ways, it’s been a very unkind film.”