MovieChat Forums > The Day of the Jackal (1973) Discussion > Madame De Montpellier

Madame De Montpellier

posted 9 years ago by stonedprune1975
12 replies | jump to latest

Just watched this great film again and noticed something that's worth mentioning.

When The Jackal is chatting up Madame in the hotel lounge, she tells him she has a 19 year old son.

When the old woman in the lounge dies, The Jackal takes advantage of the commotion and checks the hotel register to find out which room Madame is in. In the register, there is a date written against every guests name. One has to assume that this date is the guests' date of birth. It can't really be anything else. The date against Madame De Montpellier's name is 04/08/33.

The film is set in 1963. That would make Madame De Montpellier 30 years old. A 30 year old woman with a 19 year old son? Is this a monumental goof, or did she really give birth at 11 years old?

[–] Noir-It-All 9 years ago

Sort of like Don's timeline in Mad Men.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] Charlot47 9 years ago

Even if the entry in the hotel register is correct, what makes you think that Madame de Montpelier, or any other attractive woman travelling alone in France, would tell the truth to a man who is trying to pick her up?

[–] stonedprune1975 9 years ago

The dates on the register are all wrong. There's a Belgian couple called 'Mr et Mme C. Ferry' and according to the register, one half of that married couple is 15 years old!

It appears that whoever filled in those dates on the register either forgot or simply didn't know that the film is set in 1963 and not 1973. The ages of everyone on the register is 10 years out.

Mme De Montpellier certainly looks closer to 40 than 30. Her telling the Jackal about having a 19 year old son was probably the truth. She certainly didn't put up much resistance when he entered her room uninvited. Which is one of the more unbelievable parts of an otherwise near faultless film. If any of us tried to do that in real life, we'd be spending the night in a police cell.

[–] Ed in MO 9 years ago

I think that she left the door open intentionally, hoping that he would come. He was a very handsome, seductive man, and her interest in him was obvious. He picked up on that interest and saw her as a possible unintentional helper in completing his task.

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

That is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] stonedprune1975 9 years ago

Not only was her door firmly shut, she put up a 'Do Not Disturb' sign for good measure. She gave him no encouragement at the lounge telling him that she needs to get up early in the morning. And he still just walks into her room. That's a risky thing to do. She could have screamed and the police would have been called and his mission to kill De Gaulle would be over and he'd be spending the rest of his life in prison (For attempting to kill the President of course, not for being a sex pest).

His motives for seducing her was that he needed a place to stay and he obviously wanted to stay at her house. He decided to target her as soon as he first set eyes on her. But how could he possibly have known where her house was? For all he knew, her place of abode might have been in the exact opposite direction of where he was heading.

The Jackal is meticulous and plans everything. Here, he takes a course of action on a whim and he just gambles that the Countess's chateau is en route to Paris.

[–] Ed in MO 9 years ago

She didn't lock her door though. If it had been locked then he could not have entered and then no harm, no foul. He took a chance that she left it unlocked, and voila! She did. Whoopee time!

And didn't he know her name and address from looking at the guest register?

[–] stonedprune1975 9 years ago

The hotel register only states 'Haute Chalonierre', which is clearly not a full address. The addresses of the other guests are merely 'Los Angeles', 'Cannes', 'Bruxelles' etc.

Unless the Jackal has a taxi driver's knowledge of France, he'd still be none the wiser as to where she lives. I don't even think she tells him the address after he's screwed her, not on screen anyway.

[–] chester-copperpot-1 9 years ago

Has anybody read the book? How is this resolved in the book?

I always thought her name, Montpellier, also was the name of the town/chateaux she was living in. He could have deduced the place from her name. Or she simply told him in a scene off camera so to speak.

[–] stonedprune1975 9 years ago

Montpellier is in the South of France near Spain so that would be a bit of a detour though it is possible. That still only locates the town, and not the address. If it is the name of the chateaux, the Jackal would need to have a local taxi driver's knowledge to know where it is.

It is highly unlikely that she would tell him where she lives. Why would she? She lives there with her husband and 2 elderly servants. She's hardly going to invite a casual sex partner round to her place. She tell the Jackal that her husband is not at home. That is the green light that the Jackal needs to go and visit her. But the film does not explain how he knows where she lives.

The hotel register is the only feasible means for him to find the address. But we the viewers can see that there are no addresses in that register and the dates of birth are also all wrong. In the days before DVDs and even video cassettes, it could be that the film makers thought that they could get away with a hotel register that is riddled with errors. That register would have been on screen for about 3 seconds in cinemas in 1973.

Maybe there is an explanation in the book.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

I read the book years ago and I recall that a local gives him a lift, suspects the police are after him but has no intention of denouncing him to the authorities.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."