Steve Crook

I have still never actually seen any reports that Jack Higgins has admitted that he nicked the story of The Eagle Has Landed from Went the Day Well? just grafting on the bit about it being a plot to kill Churchill.

But they are remarkably similar in so many ways.

Steve

Fellwanderer

It is certainly feasible that a yuong Jack Higgins could have seen WTDW? when it first appeared and may well, even if subconsciously, drawn some ideas/inspiration from it.

I think both films are remarkably good - though both have a similar weakness.

It is a good idea to watch both films in fairly quick succession so that you can contrast the viewing public's attitude towards Germans, as opposed to Nazis, that they picture so well. I'll say no more so as not to spoil it for those who have not seen both.

FELL

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

Rob Compton

...and don't forget that the "plot to kill/kidnap Churchill from a country house" idea was also the central theme of "Warn that Man" (1943, directed by Lawrence Huntingdon, starring Gordon Harker) Warn That Man (1943)

It's true that Churchill is never actually named, for obvious reasons, but the implication is there.

Good little film (though not in the same class as Went the Day Well), it was shown on C4 years and years ago, and Gordon Harker (one of my favourite actors) was once again playing.....Gordon Harker!

rgds
Rob

Fellwanderer

Ah, yes. I knew I'd read of another similar film but couldn't find the reference.

FELL

All the best
FELL

A signature is no substitute for a life

foha80

Hello Rob
I am also very fond of Gordon Harker especially Saloon Bar and the Inspector Hornleigh Films.

Rob Compton

Hello foha80

He was the archetypal Londoner, in films from the 1920's to the 1950's. I used to have loads of London relatives who sounded like him. If you haven't caught "The Phantom Light" then you'd enjoy that as well as Saloon Bar and the Inspector Hornleigh films. By the way, I keep looking on ebay for the Hornleigh films but to no avail - does anyone know where they might be obtained?

rgds
Rob

Steve Crook

Nostalgia Family Video have the first one, Inspector Hornleigh (1939). They also have The Phantom Light (1935) and quite a few other titles with Gordon Harker.

Steve

Rui

The Eagle Has Landed was one of my childhood’s private mithology milestones. I was fed up of seeing German characters underportrayed in war films, basically meat to feed Allied guns, and was delighted to see consistent German characters. I loved Caine/Steiner’s ultra-romantic heroicism (I was 8 yo then ...), the originality of the plot, the diversity of settings and secundary characters converging to the main action, and that particular ambience the film carries (a kind of sad, quiet resignation, that is Steiner’s primarily but seems to embody the entire film). That German that sacrifices himself to save a boy particulary moved me (*blushing* mind my age then ...), but that Himmler/Pleasence’s giggle after his line “Theoretically, you have autority over me” (or something like that) made my blood chill.

I only watched it again about 5 years ago (though I clearly kept the film vivid in my memories all those years). I still find it a very good film, very efficiently made. Excellent acting, Sturgee’s direction beeing efficient as it is discrete, gorgeous photograpy, very original and well conceived plot.

That group of Germans paras is clearly idealised to a degree that contrasts with the other film’s elements (Radl’s and Canaris down-to-hearth resignation, Himmler’s polite ruthlessness, SS’ rude ruthlessness, the American’s enthusiam and lack of pathos, etc.). But that’s that contrast that makes the film’s charm, I think : the German para’s heroicism is set inside a very real world (depicted differently accordingly the different subworlds it’s made of), and that makes it worth believing.

Perhaps a masterpiece in its type. Surely a very original war film, definitely the best I’ve ever seen.

rkroning

Wow! How do I find more of your 'stuff'. (I'm new here.) (Referring to 'Eagle Has Landed'/Went the Day Well' essay - I've lost it now.) (Edit: It was DB7.)

ChristineCB

I watched WENT WELL THE DAY recently and I don't give it very high marks. It's probably more "interesting" than "good", and that's likely to have been the primary goal of the film as a propaganda works (if that's what it was).

There is a certain 'rushed' feeling to a lot of scenes. And the choppy (no pun intended) editing didn't help (that poor phone mistress).

Aside from this thread's originating commentary, do you have comparative reviews of the propaganda-esque films of the day?

I am thinking of UNPUBLISHED STORY, which seems better acted and edited, albeit with a smaller cast.

DB7

Shame, it's a really great little film and propaganda certainly wouldn't have been Cav's primary aim. On a simple level you could view the film as reenforcing the 'You Never Know' poster campaign but there's deeper themes of the genteel English character under duress and the futility of war. The latter becomes apparent from Mervyn Johns introduction.

ChristineCB

I think the "rushed" aspects that degraded the film's goodness are usually the stunts and action sequences, but there are also some unpolished dialog deliveries. I got the feeling that either lunch was ready or that shooting schedule was so tight that re-shoots weren't 'that' necessary - that's why I presumed one of the goals was to get the film finished and into theatres, and let the story cover up any of those minor flaws.

The post-mistress' explanation of her lack of children ("his fault, my fault...") was a good quick explanation that distracted her guardian, but there was never an explanation of why the villager was a traitor, or a German plant or how that came about.

It's an interesting choice to make in the screenplay - "Do we give one explanation for all possible German infiltrators or English traitors, or do we leave that to everyone's imagination?" In wartime, it was probably more useful to have the population consider a lot of alternatives and not spoon-feed them only one excuse for traitorous behavior.

The narration at the beginning and ending of the film - presumably set far into the future, well beyond 1942 - is an interesting tool to use as well.

This is why I rate the film as "more interesting than good".

I also wonder about the timing of the film. I would have suspected that 1940 or 1941 would have been scarier years with the threat of invasion more imminent; this makes me wonder if there was serious English concern that the Germans would have required far more subterfuge in 1942 than a blunt-force-trauma invasion that was originally considered on both sides just after Dunkirk.

I didn't see any date of Grahame Green's original story, but I wonder how close it was to Dunkirk (June, 1940).

DB7

The majority of the cast are established actors but some of the troops were genuine soldiers.

Think it was written in response to the outbreak of war in Europe and was printed in 1940. I've not read it but it does appear that they've remained fairly faithful to the original story. With the German's invading France I suppose the idea of soldiers parachuting into a quiet English village didn't appear so far-fetched.

Steve Crook

They probably started working on it in 1941. Events were moving quite fast at the time and the threat of invasion was still there in 1942. There were many stories about Nazi paratroopers at the time as they're the ones that led the invasion of France and the Low Countries.

Like much British wartime propaganda they don't explain everything and leave it to the audience to figure out some parts. Does there have to be a reason why Leslie Banks' character was a traitor? It's enough that he was.

I think the main point of it was probably the "What would you do in those circumstances?" question. The big shocker scene was the harmless little old lady that ran the post office and how she fought back. The noble deed by the posh lady to save the children is also quite a shock.

And what about the fiancee? Hell hath no fury ...

Steve

ChristineCB

DB and Steve, yes, absolutely. Understood all of your points. I think the "don't explain traitor" is an interesting choice, and I'd love to hear the discussions of "Should we or shouldn't we?"

The crispness of dialog in so many Ealing films - and this one in places - shows they knew how to write 1, 2 or even 3 sentences to explain just about anything IF they wanted to. I assume they purposely left out any explanation only to convey some ambiguity, to better ensure the citizenry would pay more attention to all things.

But...

What about the storyteller?

His presence indicates - to me - that victory and celebration of England's struggles was assured.

And while there could have been some hopeful belief in 1942 of such an outcome, I'm not sure "certainty" would have been on anyone's brow except the Ealing execs who put in the 'storyteller'.

Quite an odd device. Then again, for purely propaganda purposes, what could be more certainly hopeful than telling a tale of today as if it was a decade or so's factual hisory.

Another question... how long would it have taken in 1942 to finish shooting and to get the film into theatres? Three months? Two? One? Five or more? If we could have had GAAP fund cuts back then, this movie might have made the 2002 BAFTAs.