Talk:The Eagle Has Landed (film)

Not an S-Boot

In the film it is explicitly stated that 'this boat has an unusual configuration' and it is explained that it is a captured allied torpedo boat. There would be some logic to using such a vessel for the covert operation. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Manned Torpedoes

I thought that Steiner's men were serving on E-boats, not manned torpedoes. 66.214.187.229 (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The E-boats were only used to rescue any of the paratroopers or, as shown in the film, to retrieve the bodies of the dead.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  

In the book, Steiner's men manned the torpedoes. The torpeodes were taken out into the shipping lanes and launched. This may have been changed somewhat for the film. Engr105th (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Vere(c)ker

The priest and his sister's surname appears twice in this article as "Vereker" and twice (in the cast list) as "Verecker". In the Wikipedia article on the original book it appears twice as "Vereker", but not as "Verecker". I have no idea which spelling is correct, as the name is very rare, perhaps even unique, in English (I've never come across it before or since).213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! This has now been corrected. Cjhard (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Production company

It's stated that the film rights to the book were purchased by Paramount, but there's no mention of how the film passed from them to ITC. Lee M (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Dubious section as per WP:MOSFILM

This section reads like a film school essay assignment that is making an argument that the editor wants to make. The quotes appear to come from fringe periodicals and not mainstream publications. It's an attempts at painfully trying to push an agenda IMO by elevating - what was a pretty mediocre film - to a level that is not reflected by its actual status in the annals of film history.

Analysis

The British scholar James Chapman noted that both the novel and the film reflected the rehabilitation of the reputation of the German military as the character of Steiner is arguably the film's hero; a romantic, dashing and honorable paratrooper played by Michael Caine as the character whom the audience is meant to sympathise with and admire. Chapman noted that Steiner and his paratroopers are all "dutiful soldiers who are simply doing their duty instead of rabid Nazis". Chapman argued that the popularity of The Eagle Has Landed shows that by 1976, the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht's reputation was complete as it was now possible for a British film to tell an adventure story from the German perspective, something that would not had been possible a few decades earlier. The success of The Eagle Has Landed paved the way for other films that also portrayed the Wehrmacht in a favorable light that came out later on in the 1970s and 1980s. Chapman noted that this image of the Wehrmacht had become so deeply embedded within the popular culture that even an anti-war film such as Das Boot-which suggests that the U-boat campaign was pointless and futile and that the German sailors who perished did so in vain for an evil cause-was widely seen in Britain and the United States as a war adventure film that just happened to be told from the German viewpoint. The way that Admiral Canaris in the opening scene curses the incompetence and delusional thinking of the Nazi leaders who are leading his country towards the abyss is meant to show the Wehrmacht leaders as being more victims of the Nazis rather than their followers. In contrast to the favorable portrayal of Admiral Canaris as a decent and honorable man despite being a spy, full of disgust with his nation's leaders, Heinrich Himmler is portrayed as a sinister and malevolent figure whom the audience is meant to understand as coming from a completely different world. The scholar Petra Rau noted that the film is very much a "caper film", where an anti-hero attempts to steal something that does not belong to him; in this case, the object of the caper is Winston Churchill, but the film's sympathy is more with those attempting to pull off the caper than with those trying to stop the caper.

Through the film goes out of its way to disassociate Steiner from Nazism, showing him as trying to save an young Polish Jewish girl, the fact that he still willing to fight for the Third Reich on a highly dangerous mission suggests that he is loyal to the regime; an aspect of his character that he is not criticized for. Chapman wrote that this aspect of Steiner's character is in fact highly morally problematic as Steiner is shown as being well aware of the genocidal nature of the regime that he is fighting for and indeed disgusted by it, but still does everything within his power to make his mission a success. Rau wrote that she felt that popularity of The Eagle Has Landed, which depicts German paratroopers taking over an idyllic English village in 1943 as reflecting anxieties caused by Britain joining the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. Through Steiner and his men are portrayed in a sympathetic light, the message of both the novel and the film is that they have gone where they should not have gone, thereby making their deaths both inevitable and ultimately deserved. That the leaders of the American Rangers, Colonel Clarence Pitts, is portrayed as a blustering incompetent, abusive towards his men and full of a lust for glory, which leads him to order an ill-planned attack that sees most of his men killed reflects a post-Vietnam view of the U.S. military. The fact that Larry Hagman portrayed Pitts as speaking with a strong Texas accent while displaying hubristic arrogance was meant to evoke Lyndon Johnson, whose presidency was ruined by the Vietnam war.

The American scholar Connelly described the character of Liam Devlin as "a more creditable IRA figure than the imaginary Irish spy in The Man Who Never Was". Connolly noted that the Devlin character seemed to be based on the Irish novelist Francis Stuart who worked as an IRA gunrunner during the Irish civil war and later became an intelligence contact for the Abwehr in the 1930s. Like Devlin, Stuart lived in Berlin in World War Two where he worked as an university lecturer who gave propaganda broadcasts on Radio Berlin's English language channel. Devlin is dismissive of the S-Plan bombing campaign launched by Seán Russell in 1939-40, saying: "I don't want to spend my days in Bayswater mixing up explosives in my landlady's saucepan to blow off the arms and legs of some passerby. My fight is with the bloody British Empire. And I'll fight it on my own two feet". In this way, the film associates Devlin with the image of the IRA as romantic freedom-fighters while also dissociating him from the real life consequences of IRA violence. Connolly noted that in many ways the Devlin character is the stereotypical hard-drinking, womanising, poetry-loving, romantic "loveable rouge" Irish nationalist, but the character is redeemed by his love for the 18 year old English girl Molly Prior. At the end of the film, his love letter to her is read out, declaring that he has "suffered a sea change", by which is presumably meant that his view of the British has changed as a result of his love for Prior.

The British scholars Sue Harris and Justin Smith argued that The Eagle Has Landed reflected a misogynistic trend in 1970s British films as part of a backlash against the rise of feminism, noting the audience is supposed to identify with the film's macho male characters who live adventuresome lives "...scarcely troubled by interventions from dewy-eyed females". The fact that the film is set in 1943 provides a way to present traditional gender roles in a manner that would not be offensive towards a modern audience. The film's heroine, Molly Prior, is portrayed very much as an innocent ingenue, torn by her loyalty towards her country vs. her love for Devlin. Notably of the characters involved in the plot to kidnap Churchill, only the South African spy Johanna Grey is portrayed unfavorably as betraying the trust of the other villagers and shooting down an unarmed girl in contrast to the favorable portrayals of Steiner and Devlin, who arguably betrayed the trust of the villagers just as much. In the book, Grey's work as a spy is explained by her youth spent in the concentration camps during the Boer War; an aspect of her backstory that is dropped in the film, with the viewers are meant to guess that her South African background makes her anti-British. The character of Harvey Preston a major figure in the novel is dropped from the film. Both Steiner and Devlin are unburdened by domesticity. Steiner is portrayed as living entirely for war with no family or lovers to divide his attention. Devlin has an affair with Prior, but leaves her at the end of the film, through it is suggested that she would be more than willing to follow him whatever he goes, to resume his life of adventure as an IRA operative. Harris and Smith argued there was a tendency for 1970s British films to punish female characters who failed to know their place and challenge patriarchal values while at the same time celebrating male characters who lived by machismo and violence, significantly in films usually set in another time and/or place from modern Britain.

References

Books

• Chapman, James (2008). War and Film. London: Reaktion Books. ISBN 9781861893475.
• Connelly, Mark (2014). The IRA on Film and Television A History. Jefferson: McFarland. ISBN 9780786489619.
• Harris, Sue; Smith, Justin (2011). British Film Culture in the 1970s: The Boundaries of Pleasure. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0748681698.
• Hughes, Howard (2012). When Eagles Dared: The Filmgoers' History of World War II. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1848856504.
• Rau, Petra (2013). Our Nazis: Representations of Fascism in Contemporary Literature and Film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0748668640. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.61.156 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The plot thins out

Could you explain, please, Sweetpool50, why these edits are "not improvements"? -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:FILMPLOT, sourcing is not necessary. If it's sourcing an editorial supposition rather than something mentioned in the actual film, then it's original research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT does not forbid sourcing. It merely states that sourcing is not necessary for the plot, since the film is an acceptable, primary source in itself. The source I added is not about the plot; it merely explains why enemy troops not wearing their uniforms in enemy territory might be executed, since this is the cause behind a significant development in the story. The other addition was the name of the American deputy commander, who, after his commander's death, overrun the German position. It's another key character, played, moreover, by a major actor. But, Sweetpool50, you seem to have reverted the whole of my edit, as if everything in it was wrong. Perhaps, you could reconsider in view of my elaboration as above. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the point made by your source mentioned in the film? If not, then it's original research, as I already mentioned. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• The point about wearing German uniforms underneath is indeed part of the plot and mentioned during the preparation of the German detachment. In the book, it was Himmler who ordered the crew to wear their uniforms underneath their disguises but, in the movie, it was only Steiner's order to that effect. This fact is important since, if the Germans were not wearing German uniforms under their disguise, the water wheel accident would not have revealed to the village inhabitants their true identity. But this concerns only one of the changes I made, i.e. the source added. I repeat, you reverted the whole edit, in toto. And you have not yet explained why you find it unnecessary to name in the plot an important character. -The Gnome (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Any response, please, Sweetpool50? -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Now you have indeed clarified that the point of avoiding being executed as spies is indeed made in the film itself, I've introduced it in the proper place without making it seem an afterthought; it doesn't need sourcing either. I've left in your extra wording and have edited out unencyclopedic contractions (not of your making) elsewhere. It's a pity you didn't take more care in the first place. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ι find your tone quite disagreeable, Sweetpool50. You must be assuming some kind of paedagogical privilege here. There is nothing of the kind bestowed upon you. Please focus on the things that matter, i.e. encyclopaedic work, and refrain from personal remarks. They are unpleasant and counter productive.

As to the section's content, I shall review your changes later on. In the meantime, know this: When one introduces a point in the plot section, e.g. about uniforms and spies, it should be assumed that this is about something in the film itself. No point in justifying or proving everything since that would make plot-writing unwieldy. So, the snide remark in your very first sentence makes a null point. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)