It seems to me that you have failed to appreciate the essence of this film. It is intended to have a very real, almost documentary quality. It is set against events which were of considerable significance for France and which still resonate. The assassin is a professional - you are not meant to like him or dislike him - he is doing a job of work which requires ingenuity and meticulous planning but he is ruthless. On only one occasion in the film do we observe an element of human frailty - when he has the chance to withdraw from the assignment but decides to proceed. The other strong character - the police inspector is also portrayed as workmanlike and professional but he is the would-be assassin's antithesis. We have glimpses of his personal life which is, deliberately, in marked contrast to that of his opponent, but he exhibits little emotion even though he is entrusted with the gravest responsability. This is a gripping film, more plot than character based. It was loyal to the superbly researched novel by Frederick Forsythe and both novel and film convey a feeling of authenticity in their portrayal of French culture and government in the early 60s.
The book has more details and the characters have more background. The Jackal is the most elusive characters because we know very little about him, and this was intentional by Frederick Forsyth. At best we know he fought as a mercenary in the breakaway providence of Katanga in the Congo and in one part of the story where we see a slight breakaway from his nature where he, playing the traveling posh tourist "winces" looking at the bill, something someone from a lower middle class background might do and it explains why he does what he does and hints to something about his past, we don't get anything further about him. Nevertheless, the book does give more background on the other supporting characters and whether or not they're supposed to be the good-guys or bad-guys Forsyth gives us enough details to understand the characters. What I like about the movie is the settings and the color that goes with them especially towards the end when we see the Liberation Day ceremonies taking place.
The thing with books and films is that books can convey the character's internal conflict, whereas, since film is mostly a visual medium, it has to convey the character's conflict visually, and hopefully, through the use of minimal dialogue as actions speak louder than words. I haven't read the book, but it sure does sound interesting. Not giving him a background makes him more ominous, but I just didn't know what to feel about him. Maybe that's intentional, maybe it isn't. I just state my thoughts. Thanks for commenting!
I am intrigued by how the Jackal acquired the skills to become a contract killer. (Marksmanship/welding/how to disable someone with a blow to the neck to name a few). I haven;t read the book for years and I don't recall if there is any hints about him being in Katanga but I could be very wrong. The Katanga crisis was from 1960-1963 and the Day of The Jackal is set in 1962. There is also mention in the movie that he assassinated Trujillio (1961) and someone else in the Congo. Also in the book there is a scene where the Jackal is considering whether to abort the plan and he thinks about his previous life looking into travel agents windows and dreaming of getting away from his dull life. I thought he could have been in National Service in England (he was too young for WW2) and have been in the Engineers and picked up some skills there.
@@petermortimer6303 Now that is a good guess. He certainly had a military background of some sort possibly prior to going to the Congo, most mercenaries did, but that's the most we get in the novel.
Remember that this movie is loosely based on real events, real people, real terrorists. In the 1960s and 1970s years, political assassinations were much more common and spread fear in the population. For Europeans, this is a bit more than a movie. There is a shadow of reality behind. For an American comparison, you can consider Jackal as the equivalent of Lee Harvey Oswald, assassin of president J. F. Kennedy in 1963. The real Jackal failed. Incidentally, the two events happened around the same period of history. Such film must be made slow and close to reality, or else we would not still be talking about this movie 50 years after it was made. I am 56 years and saw the movie a few times as a teen. I recently saw it again. It's an excellent movie to me.
You are encouraged to 'route' for the Jackal until such time that you are required to despise him. If you had no admiration for him at the beginning of the film you would give up watching. At some stage at the right time, late in the film we are cleverly manipulated into despising him, when he starts murdering 'innocent' people, again so you keep watching, but for a different reason, that is, you want him stopped. For the sake of this film, President DeGaulle's policies or the aims of the OAS are irrelevant.
Brilliantly put. At the start of the film, the Jackal seems to be a bit of a playboy, too frivolous to go through with it. The murder of the forger appears 'justifiably' for trying to blackmail the Jackal. The dalliances with Collett seem reckless. The first one reinforces his playboy image in putting pleasure before business. The second is totally reckless (and that one for me us a major flaw in the plot of the film) and she was silly to sleep with him given she knew the police were after him and even sillier to mention it to him. He had no choice but to kill her. The murder of the helpful and naive Jules changed the mood completely (not realising why the Jackal's photo might be shown on TV is another major flaw in the plot). It's at this point for me that one realises just how roofless he is; the build up to it and its execution (no pun intended) is just bone chilling. From this point onwards I don't think Edward Fox smiles at all as the Jackal is totally focused on the job he has to do.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 bit of a typo due to autospell: should have read ruthless rather than roofless. As explained above, there are a number of holes and flaws in logic in the plot, and numerous continuity errors, but due to the quality of the story, acting, pacing of the story and editing, these are only realised after having watched the film or on subsequent viewings. In addition, the plot is totally believable: there WERE attempts by the OAS to assassinate De Galle. There have been films involving attempts by vague groups or individuals to assassinate US presidents, but no matter how good their storyline are, none appear to be anywhere as creditable as TDOTJ. In a similar manner, if anyone had scripted a storyline based on a 9-11 scale terrorist attack back in the 90s, it would have seemed too far fetched. The only scenario similar to TDOTJ which could have as believable would have been one involving an IRA attempt to kill a British PM like Thatcher or the Queen.
5/5....I read the book first then watched the film ...both kept me glued to my seat with anticipation and frankly I am not sure what outcome I wanted more ...the chacal’s success or the chief investigator’s success that to me is great film making
Refreshing to hear a new point of view, someone being honest. I myself have watched this film many times and it really astonishes me. Actually for the year this film was made (1973) was a new era in film making. The hilarious 1960's film making was over. Also Jack Kennedy was assassinated prior to the making of this film (The Jackal) Understanding the context of JFK assassination and the conspiracy that followed. Meaning that if one assassination happened it could happen again and maybe another President. Of course people were sacred. But Europeans tend to be more reserved. And The end of Hollywood musical's it was an end of an era and an end of being happy. And an End of Happy cinema altogether. But I watch this film because its old and shows how France used to look before which is incredible
A really interesting analysis, you are clearly not from the ethnicity or generation the movie depicts because you don't quite understand it, this is not a note of censure just a fact. For instance the comment of the British police (not shown in your clip) who comment that political assassination isn't a British thing, suggesting that the jackal was unlikely to be 'one of us." The Jackal is based on a real assassination attempt on de Gaulle (still classified by the French) but fictionalised by Freddie Forsyth, the book was a best seller. It was unusual in that the "baddie" was the central character and around whom a level of empathy was deliberately created, but only up to a point, it was designed to shock with the various murders the Jackal performs to maintain his cover. It is groundbreaking in its day, considered a classic and reflects the time it was created. You base your criticisms in comparison with contemporary movies, the Day of the Jackal was made in 1973, society was very different as was moviemaking. You need to factor this into your analysis.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 One thing I didn't make clear with my previous comments about 'Day of the Jackal' was that the director Fred Zimmerman deliberately used a slightly documentary style, observed and dispassionate, hence you don't know which side to emotionally to attatch to. He also revealed how simple it was to get a forged British Passport, it took the UK government 30 years to close that loophole! I recommend you read the book.
Interesting review, but I think that, to be cinematically artistic, you over-analyze such things as tight framing and atmospheric darkness in a scene. Sometimes a doorframe is just a doorframe.
Read the book. Then read it again 3 more times. You may have a deeper more sophisticated appreciation for Fred Z’s cinematic masterpiece. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of course! Madame Bert does not get killed in the book btw. Just bound and gagged.
I loved this film it was executed ( Whoops!) perfectly. It was made austere on purpose with a hunter and prey outlook. You're emotional attachment to the characters is a no-no you don't feel anything because that is the point. It is easy to be critical but if i would change something in the film it would be where Lebel almost slaps his head in realisation that the Jackal is going to strike on liberation day as someone on the hunt for him i would have thought that was pretty obvious a long time ago. Good film. Hands down.
@@schizoidboy I for sure know that to be true. Thanos and Joker are the protagonists of Infinity War and Joker respectively, and they aren't known to be the "good guys."
an advantage you had with the book was you could hear the characters thoughts and a lot of subtle backstory was given for example before the jackal was an assassin he was likely a government agent from an organization like the SOE who spent some time as a mercenary before becoming an assassin because the monies better. but because a lot of the scenes are copied directly from book to screen this is lost with not much to fill it in. loved both the book and the film.
I've no problem if you give this film 3/5 - but please tell me 2 or 3 films that you would give 5/5. I'm not going to argue with what you like - just want to understand what you consider great.
Hmm alright then. Some of the film I'd give a 5/5 are The Godfather, Spiderman into the Spiderverse, Whiplash, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, La La Land, Moonlight among many others. Here's my letterboxd list - letterboxd.com/p_talks05/list/perfect-movies-not-ranked/
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 I like your honesty and am impressed that you don't take offense. I admire many things about the Jackal character but can't say I like him. I also noticed the movie TENET has much complaining about the lack of character development...maybe it's just something I don't care much about.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 The movie doesn't delve into the characters as much as the book, it is something of a weakness. The book really goes into the shape-shifting nature of the Jackal and perhaps his ability to murder people tells us we shouldn't see this guy as a hero.
It seems to me that you have failed to appreciate the essence of this film. It is intended to have a very real, almost documentary quality. It is set against events which were of considerable significance for France and which still resonate. The assassin is a professional - you are not meant to like him or dislike him - he is doing a job of work which requires ingenuity and meticulous planning but he is ruthless. On only one occasion in the film do we observe an element of human frailty - when he has the chance to withdraw from the assignment but decides to proceed. The other strong character - the police inspector is also portrayed as workmanlike and professional but he is the would-be assassin's antithesis. We have glimpses of his personal life which is, deliberately, in marked contrast to that of his opponent, but he exhibits little emotion even though he is entrusted with the gravest responsability. This is a gripping film, more plot than character based. It was loyal to the superbly researched novel by Frederick Forsythe and both novel and film convey a feeling of authenticity in their portrayal of French culture and government in the early 60s.
Maybe you're right. For me personally, I'm more a fan of character driven stories than plot driven ones. But I'm glad you liked it.
I have seen this mivie at Bangalore in 1974 or so.
Liberation Day is the anniversary of the Liberation of Paris from the Germans in 1944, not thee end of the War.
Thank you for the information.
this film is a one of the best films of 70s una obra maestra . the version the jackal of bruce willis is pure shit
Haven't seen it. Don't plan on doing so either.
The book has more details and the characters have more background. The Jackal is the most elusive characters because we know very little about him, and this was intentional by Frederick Forsyth. At best we know he fought as a mercenary in the breakaway providence of Katanga in the Congo and in one part of the story where we see a slight breakaway from his nature where he, playing the traveling posh tourist "winces" looking at the bill, something someone from a lower middle class background might do and it explains why he does what he does and hints to something about his past, we don't get anything further about him. Nevertheless, the book does give more background on the other supporting characters and whether or not they're supposed to be the good-guys or bad-guys Forsyth gives us enough details to understand the characters. What I like about the movie is the settings and the color that goes with them especially towards the end when we see the Liberation Day ceremonies taking place.
The thing with books and films is that books can convey the character's internal conflict, whereas, since film is mostly a visual medium, it has to convey the character's conflict visually, and hopefully, through the use of minimal dialogue as actions speak louder than words.
I haven't read the book, but it sure does sound interesting. Not giving him a background makes him more ominous, but I just didn't know what to feel about him. Maybe that's intentional, maybe it isn't. I just state my thoughts.
Thanks for commenting!
I am intrigued by how the Jackal acquired the skills to become a contract killer. (Marksmanship/welding/how to disable someone with a blow to the neck to name a few). I haven;t read the book for years and I don't recall if there is any hints about him being in Katanga but I could be very wrong. The Katanga crisis was from 1960-1963 and the Day of The Jackal is set in 1962. There is also mention in the movie that he assassinated Trujillio (1961) and someone else in the Congo. Also in the book there is a scene where the Jackal is considering whether to abort the plan and he thinks about his previous life looking into travel agents windows and dreaming of getting away from his dull life. I thought he could have been in National Service in England (he was too young for WW2) and have been in the Engineers and picked up some skills there.
@@petermortimer6303 Now that is a good guess. He certainly had a military background of some sort possibly prior to going to the Congo, most mercenaries did, but that's the most we get in the novel.
@@petermortimer6303 Wow you have a lot of insight regarding this huh.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 Pure speculation on my part.
Remember that this movie is loosely based on real events, real people, real terrorists. In the 1960s and 1970s years, political assassinations were much more common and spread fear in the population. For Europeans, this is a bit more than a movie. There is a shadow of reality behind. For an American comparison, you can consider Jackal as the equivalent of Lee Harvey Oswald, assassin of president J. F. Kennedy in 1963. The real Jackal failed. Incidentally, the two events happened around the same period of history. Such film must be made slow and close to reality, or else we would not still be talking about this movie 50 years after it was made. I am 56 years and saw the movie a few times as a teen. I recently saw it again. It's an excellent movie to me.
Well, I'm really glad you love the movie!
You are encouraged to 'route' for the Jackal until such time that you are required to despise him. If you had no admiration for him at the beginning of the film you would give up watching. At some stage at the right time, late in the film we are cleverly manipulated into despising him, when he starts murdering 'innocent' people, again so you keep watching, but for a different reason, that is, you want him stopped. For the sake of this film, President DeGaulle's policies or the aims of the OAS are irrelevant.
Got it. I have a newfound appreciation for the film.
Brilliantly put. At the start of the film, the Jackal seems to be a bit of a playboy, too frivolous to go through with it. The murder of the forger appears 'justifiably' for trying to blackmail the Jackal. The dalliances with Collett seem reckless. The first one reinforces his playboy image in putting pleasure before business. The second is totally reckless (and that one for me us a major flaw in the plot of the film) and she was silly to sleep with him given she knew the police were after him and even sillier to mention it to him. He had no choice but to kill her.
The murder of the helpful and naive Jules changed the mood completely (not realising why the Jackal's photo might be shown on TV is another major flaw in the plot). It's at this point for me that one realises just how roofless he is; the build up to it and its execution (no pun intended) is just bone chilling.
From this point onwards I don't think Edward Fox smiles at all as the Jackal is totally focused on the job he has to do.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 bit of a typo due to autospell: should have read ruthless rather than roofless.
As explained above, there are a number of holes and flaws in logic in the plot, and numerous continuity errors, but due to the quality of the story, acting, pacing of the story and editing, these are only realised after having watched the film or on subsequent viewings. In addition, the plot is totally believable: there WERE attempts by the OAS to assassinate De Galle. There have been films involving attempts by vague groups or individuals to assassinate US presidents, but no matter how good their storyline are, none appear to be anywhere as creditable as TDOTJ. In a similar manner, if anyone had scripted a storyline based on a 9-11 scale terrorist attack back in the 90s, it would have seemed too far fetched.
The only scenario similar to TDOTJ which could have as believable would have been one involving an IRA attempt to kill a British PM like Thatcher or the Queen.
5/5....I read the book first then watched the film ...both kept me glued to my seat with anticipation and frankly I am not sure what outcome I wanted more ...the chacal’s success or the chief investigator’s success that to me is great film making
Really glad it worked for you!
Refreshing to hear a new point of view, someone being honest. I myself have watched this film many times and it really astonishes me. Actually for the year this film was made (1973) was a new era in film making. The hilarious 1960's film making was over. Also Jack Kennedy was assassinated prior to the making of this film (The Jackal) Understanding the context of JFK assassination and the conspiracy that followed. Meaning that if one assassination happened it could happen again and maybe another President. Of course people were sacred. But Europeans tend to be more reserved. And The end of Hollywood musical's it was an end of an era and an end of being happy. And an End of Happy cinema altogether. But I watch this film because its old and shows how France used to look before which is incredible
That's certainly an interesting take. I viewed the film from a filmmaking perspective, but seeing these different views is healthy for discourse.
A really interesting analysis, you are clearly not from the ethnicity or generation the movie depicts because you don't quite understand it, this is not a note of censure just a fact. For instance the comment of the British police (not shown in your clip) who comment that political assassination isn't a British thing, suggesting that the jackal was unlikely to be 'one of us." The Jackal is based on a real assassination attempt on de Gaulle (still classified by the French) but fictionalised by Freddie Forsyth, the book was a best seller. It was unusual in that the "baddie" was the central character and around whom a level of empathy was deliberately created, but only up to a point, it was designed to shock with the various murders the Jackal performs to maintain his cover. It is groundbreaking in its day, considered a classic and reflects the time it was created. You base your criticisms in comparison with contemporary movies, the Day of the Jackal was made in 1973, society was very different as was moviemaking. You need to factor this into your analysis.
I totally get you, and I will try to keep what you said in mind!
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 One thing I didn't make clear with my previous comments about 'Day of the Jackal' was that the director Fred Zimmerman deliberately used a slightly documentary style, observed and dispassionate, hence you don't know which side to emotionally to attatch to. He also revealed how simple it was to get a forged British Passport, it took the UK government 30 years to close that loophole! I recommend you read the book.
@@kevinclarkson7036 I'll try to but, you have forced me to question my views on the film.
@@kevinclarkson7036 brilliantly put kevin... it is a masterpiece ! Fred new what he was doing !
@@mmm091000 which one, Fred F or Fred Z, or both!
The Reader's Digest review on the book stated that it was the perfect plan to kill DeGaulle.
That's interesting...
Interesting review, but I think that, to be cinematically artistic, you over-analyze such things as tight framing and atmospheric darkness in a scene. Sometimes a doorframe is just a doorframe.
Understandable. As I said in the video, I tend to do that...The framing was quite interesting to me.
Read the book. Then read it again 3 more times. You may have a deeper more sophisticated appreciation for Fred Z’s cinematic masterpiece. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of course! Madame Bert does not get killed in the book btw. Just bound and gagged.
I loved this film it was executed ( Whoops!) perfectly. It was made austere on purpose with a hunter and prey outlook.
You're emotional attachment to the characters is a no-no you don't feel anything because that is the point.
It is easy to be critical but if i would change something in the film it would be where Lebel almost slaps his head in
realisation that the Jackal is going to strike on liberation day as someone on the hunt for him i would have thought
that was pretty obvious a long time ago. Good film. Hands down.
Yeah I kinda like it a bit more now after hearing for what you all had to say. It just wasn't as emotionally engaging to me.
A great film! I always found it very gripping every time I've watched it. Definitely in my top five favorite movies.
Interesting canine connection. Protagonist Edward FOX. Title of movie day of JACKAL Producer WOOLF
Lmao
“Edward Fox plays the ‘protagonist’....”
What...? Did you even watch this film?
As a matter of fact I did.
In literature terms a protagonist isn't necessarily a "good guy", sometimes they're the character we focus on in the story or plot.
@@schizoidboy I for sure know that to be true. Thanos and Joker are the protagonists of Infinity War and Joker respectively, and they aren't known to be the "good guys."
You don't know how you are supposed to feel about The Jackal? That's up to you!
Where did u watch it
you can literally see a complete movie of all the clips on youtube
@@submarineinthesky8946 ok
an advantage you had with the book was you could hear the characters thoughts and a lot of subtle backstory was given for example before the jackal was an assassin he was likely a government agent from an organization like the SOE who spent some time as a mercenary before becoming an assassin because the monies better. but because a lot of the scenes are copied directly from book to screen this is lost with not much to fill it in. loved both the book and the film.
I haven't read the book, but book-to-film transitions aren't easy considering they have advantages in each medium.
I've no problem if you give this film 3/5 - but please tell me 2 or 3 films that you would give 5/5. I'm not going to argue with what you like - just want to understand what you consider great.
Hmm alright then. Some of the film I'd give a 5/5 are The Godfather, Spiderman into the Spiderverse, Whiplash, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, La La Land, Moonlight among many others.
Here's my letterboxd list -
letterboxd.com/p_talks05/list/perfect-movies-not-ranked/
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 Awesome, thanks for that. I haven't seen several of those, so I have some must-see-catch-up watching to do!
@@patrickpaganini Lmao even i do!
I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about him...
sounds like a "you" problem
Probably is. I just state my thoughts.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 I like your honesty and am impressed that you don't take offense. I admire many things about the Jackal character but can't say I like him. I also noticed the movie TENET has much complaining about the lack of character development...maybe it's just something I don't care much about.
@@notme1048 Thanks a lot dude. I have yet to see Tenet so yea. But I have heard about the lack of character building in the film.
@@detoxwithp-talksofficial6868 The movie doesn't delve into the characters as much as the book, it is something of a weakness. The book really goes into the shape-shifting nature of the Jackal and perhaps his ability to murder people tells us we shouldn't see this guy as a hero.
@@schizoidboy Understandable. Adapting book to film isn't easy. For me personally, it didn't work as effectively.
If Writer and Director going to be one is not be good for film always..
I disagree. A writer and director being the same can give the film a bit more focus. It can work, and it does in several iterations.
Poor review enough said