The Jackals mistakes


One of my favorite thrillers, but the Jackal makes some terrible mistakes:
1. Why drive like a banshee after you've painted your car and have new license plates?
2. Why use the name Duggan in registering for a room? Pay cash and use a phony name, any name.
3. Why tell the Paris cop the street address of where you are going to (as the one-legged veteran)?
4. Why tell the man in the bathhouse, the name Per Lundquist, when you don't have to?
Nonetheless, one excellent film.

reply

2. Hotels in many parts of Europe require foreigners to show their passports at registration and that information is compiled and presumably sent to the local police. Even if it were not true in the early 1960's, the French would have made it a requirement knowing the plot against DeGaulle and as a means to track the OAS members.

You might recall the scene where the registration cards were collected at the local police station, prior to Lebel getting a call of Duggan's whereabouts. Those cards were obviously in use prior to the plot.

reply

His true mistakes:

1: The hubris of using the code name "Jackal," which was a combination of parts of his REAL name. (rather incredibly stupid.)

2: Not having fake passports for all countries made up long in advance. - They discovered his "Dugan" identity because they only had to research back 3 months.

reply

CHArles CALtrop was not his real name. Nobody from the police know his real name. However, I remember that at the beginning of the film the OAS mentions his probably real name once (some time after he left the meeting with them).

reply

I've seen this film many times -- the OAS never mentions his real name.

reply

Right, but who is Mr Kola? Is he him or the bank clerk?

"Hello, Zurich?
Mr. Kola, this is he.
That's right. Account Number 50664.
The money's been deposited."

Of course if he refers to himself as Kola we still don't know whether it is his real name or not, but nevertheless it might be his yet another name.
What does the book says about that name?

reply

I don't recall it coming up in the book.

"I shall tread uncommon wary and keep my pepperbox handy."

reply

I've always assumed that Mr. Kola is the guy on the other end of the phone, and the conversation went something like this:

(operator) I have a call from Zurich
(Jackal) Hello, Zurich?
(Zurick) this is Mr. Kola calling Mr. ___ ___
(Jackal) Mr. Kola, this is he.

I don't think anyone knows the Jackal's real name.

reply

There is a problem with your first premise, his real name was never given to the reader/viewer. Charles Calthrop was just a red herring. Even the OAS may not have known his real name.

"All opinions are well reasoned and thought out, any similarity to reality is pure coincidence."

reply

He knew he was going to kill the guy in the bathhouse anyway? Why potentially ruin his next avenue by lying?

reply

[deleted]

Mistakes:
picking up the rich milf; added a descriptive witness.
Not realizing the bodyguard in Austria was eavesdropping on the first meeting; it was his info (rendered via torture) that gave the law the basics of the plot.
visiting the rich milf! he probably assumed he could hideout there but didn't realize the cops have questioned her.
KILLING the rich milf. had he just said no about staying and vanished in the night she probably would have just chalked the affair up to an odd adventure and forgotten about it.

reply

I don't think Wolenski was eavesdropping, when the door was opened for the jackal to leave one of the OAS men called him jackal which could be overheard normally.

"All opinions are well reasoned and thought out, any similarity to reality is pure coincidence."

reply

As others have said, 1. He wasn't driving like a banshee, just fast for understandable reasons. The other car caused the crash - accidents happen. 2. a requirement of getting a room, 3. totally necessary 4. part of maintaining credible cover.

But his REAL, glaring error was in not popping de Gaulle straight away. Instead he let him stand to attention in full view for the entirety of "La Marseillaise" before having a go.

reply

1. In the book there is no crash. He's driving fast because he needs to get away from a place called Gap as fast as possible because he needs to get through the security cordon.

2. The identity of Duggan was established for this purpose. He was required to present a passport to get a room.

3. It doesn't matter. It's on his papers anyway. If he didn't need papers, he wouldn't need an address.

4. This doesn't matter either. We know what is going to happen anyway. He doesn't break cover.

In the book, the Jackal actually has an extra identity. First is the unknown Englishman who appears at Pension Kleist. Second is Duggan. Third is a Danish clergyman. Fourth is an American called Marty Schulberg and finally, Andre Martin.

He needs identities so he can spend them before the police can track him.

reply

In my perspective, he made no mistake. It wasn't his fault, that the police was after him. He knew that they were on his heels, felt the pressure and had to improvise, but he had an answer and was always one step ahead. Therefore, the ending was random; pure luck. (Even if they hadn't known his plan, the security measures for that day would have been the same)

reply

Actually, once the authorities figured he would strike on Liberation Day anniversary when de Gaulle was most exposed to the public, they did discuss ways to upgrade his protection without de Gaulle being aware of it such as putting very tall men around him. But in the end, it was luck that made the difference. The Jackal did not anticipate de Gaulle bending down to kiss the cheeks of the shorter man receiving the decoration.

reply

I agree with it being pure luck, I had a policeman tell me once that detective work was basically 90% luck, the other 10% hard work.

"All opinions are well reasoned and thought out, any similarity to reality is pure coincidence."

reply

Regarding #1, I got the impression the Jackal was tired and sleepy; he was yawning. He was also probably under a lot of stress. That tends to lead to mistakes.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

You want a mistake? look at the coincidence Jackal-Calthrop. The Jackal did the assassination in Trujillo, but why didn't Calthrope have an exit stamp ? Was he involved in something else ? That's a big coincidence
Rodin shouldn't have used the name Jackal in Wolenski's presence (not very important), who wasn't listening at the door, but more important, shouldn't have used him as key man in Rome with him knowing about the visitor in Vienna
On 3. The veteran had to give an address to the CRS (154, the same that was in the id card) , but I dont think he had to use the same he was shooting from. What policeman would have checked the door he entered, if it was close enough to be seen
And how did the Jackal manage to kill the countes just by touching her ? That's new(old) magic
Ps. Loved the horse/dog scene and the real parade scenes

reply

The coincidence can be accepted anyway. I dont mind giving a Joker to the plot, and that's a good one. Wolenski is OAS mistake, and there wasn't another way for the plot. He made the fake veteran id before knowing they were looking for him

reply

I think his biggest (and ultimately fatal) mistake was not having a pistol in addition to the rifle. At the end, when they burst in on him, he was able to kill the policeman immediately with his already loaded, single-shot rifle. But then he couldn't kill the detective before the latter picked up the machine gun and killed the Jackal.

If he had space in his exhaust system to hide the rifle, he surely would have had space to also hide a small pistol that, like the rifle, he could break down and reassemble. That would have allowed him to kill the two policemen easily and still have the loaded rifle remaining for a second shot at de Gaulle.

reply

Actually, the only mistake I see was not aborting his mission when his first cover was blown. After that, it became a sliding slope.

reply

Well, if he had had a pistol, he might have succeeded w/his mission and escaped, since those two policemen were the only ones who knew where he was. So my point was simply that this might have neutralized all the other mistakes he had made up to that point; and if he had succeeded, then undertaking the mission in the first place obviously would no longer be a mistake.

But clearly they had to write the story so that he would fail, because of course de Gaulle was not assassinated. That's probably why they omitted the obvious "belt and suspenders" aspect of having an additional (defensive) weapon.

reply

True, he may have succeeded, though his odds were very much diminished after his (fake) identity was discovered. Once that happened I wouldn't bet a dime on his chances of survival. You know how it is, where there are two cops, there are a hundred two seconds later if there is a life at stake (in spite of what was shown on screen).

But it also occurred to me that regardless of whether or not he succeeded in killing de Gaulle, he had almost no chance of making it out alive from the very beginning, due to the diligence of a Scotland Yard (or was it Special Branch) detective who brilliantly had the Jackal's passport checked against death certificates. This would probably be routine today, but the movie gives the impression that this was a novel idea at the time. And, as I mentioned above, once they figured out his fake identity, the Jackal was pretty much toast.

But then I'm not sure he cared. Like most psychopaths, he got a thrill out of taking high risks, and in gaining the upper hand. Once he lost, it was time to go.

reply

Yeah, maybe just killing de Gaulle would have been a victory. As JFK said to a reporter on the morning of his assassination, "If someone wants to trade his life for mine, he can do it. We can't stop him."

Btw, apparently as late as 2003 (or perhaps even later), using a child's birth certificate to get a passport still worked in the UK, even though Frederick Forsythe (author of 'The Day of the Jackal') told the govt. to get its act together a long time ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3098104.stm

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't think it was the exhaust, if I remember the book correctly that model of car was chosen because of the undercarriage having supports that could be cut into to hide the rifle.

"All opinions are well reasoned and thought out, any similarity to reality is pure coincidence."

reply

Well, in the film, it was clearly the exhaust pipe. It was hollow and about three inches in diameter.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

reply

If it was the exhaust pipe, then several things would have to happen, 1 the plastic wrap would probably melt due to the heat, and 2 with the exhaust pipe having the tubing put in would cause the engine not to run since there is no path for the exhaust.


"All opinions are well reasoned and thought out, any similarity to reality is pure coincidence."

reply

Yes, I know that. Don't hold me responsible for logical mistakes made by the filmmakers.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

reply

[deleted]