I was referred to this film after watching the Wire and he was mentioned by one of the characters ..
I definitely feel that he should have finished the job, both for the sake of the rest of the movie and the character.. for me, the film was about a ruthless assassin, not about terrorists.. or history.. or politics... mainly because I'm completely ignorant of history and pretty much wished that they could somehow do it in a fictional parallel world where him finishing the job wouldn't make the film overly controversial or re-writing history (while keeping the charm of the setting being in Paris... somehow). The reason I routed for him was because of how meticulous his planning was and we got to see it step by step, for the entire thing to fall apart within 2 minutes (in both movie time and probably in real time) for me smelled like lazy writing.. very few films I've seen where I feel that the last 1-2 minutes completely ruined the rest (which was excellent), I'd much rather something along the line of the commissioner and the soldier figured it out just in time for them to go storming into the building, which forced him to go into hiding, narrowly missing the window of his shot, but he still manages to escape afterwards.. or something along the line, but what we saw was almost like.. "oh *beep* well, we've spent 2 hours giving all the attention to this character, but the president can't die? let's just say he'll be found last minute and shot up... that'll wrap it up"
reply
share
alexdelliott
11 years ago
Exactly. They spent about 2 hours creating the best assassin ever who plans every last detail out to have him fail and die in 2 minutes. I think that was the idea though, to show how even the most meticulous and detailed of plans can fail due to luck on the day. I still think he deserved to escape for all his efforts.
As for lazy writing I'm not so sure, I'd go for condensed. The book fleshed that whole scene out much more alongside a number of scenes from the film. If you have time I really recommend the book as it goes into so much detail with the planning and the subsequent manhunt. Regardless, I still have to put the film in my top ten, it's before my time but there really aren't any films I've seen like it.
reply
share
loveagoodstory
11 years ago
To me, what the film depicts is a far more realistic view of crime and police work than you typically see in a big-screen film.
The assassin takes on an extremely difficult contract, outlining the problems at the start: the police are alerted (though the streets were deserted), the client is being watched and his organisation is full of informers and the target is powerful and wealthy, therefore having first-rate intelligence organisations. As soon as he takes the contract and the OAS start their fundraising bank jobs, the police are on to it. That there is a plan is quickly discovered and what the plan broadly is gets found out soon after. The detail of the plan never gets discovered and the police et al fall back on what always sustains them and has got them this far: dogged, good police work. Checking. Observing. Looking. Checking again. Looking at it again. Checking again. Finding. Acting.
It's truly brilliant storytelling because it is believable. I fully understand why some people might find that dull and that's their privilege. I think it's fabulous.
Contrast this with Arnie (love the guy to death, but...!) finding out at the end that it was Senator Whatsit all along, miraculously able to do anything he liked without anyone around him noticing anything - where the money went, why a pile of opponents all ended up dead pretty quick - none of it. Those in power have completely unlimited power and can use it completely unnoticed forever...until the goodie turns up!
The fact that a tiny percentage of Western and heads of state in the West have been successfully assassinated suggests that they have few enemies willing to undertake assassination or that it's very difficult and policing detects and defeats it before the event. I bet there's lots of examples people will throw up against that comment but the number that didn't get murdered is vaster; I've stuck to Europe and the U.S., I'm no world expert here :-)
---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow
reply
share
alexdelliott
11 years ago
That's true and it's a point I always mention when recommending this film to people. If someone had told me this was a documentary back when I watched it I would probably have believed them. The characters are presented in such a realistic manner, the assassin isn't your generic bad guy going around killing people for pleasure. Instead he is simply a professional doing a job to earn money. Similarly, the detective isn't presented as a rogue cop who single handedly solves the case due to some far-fetched hunch. He figures it out after meticulous police investigatory work like you said. It really drew me into the film and the suspense had me on the edge of the seat much more often than any action films.
However, I feel that is all true right up until the last few minutes when all it took was an open window for Lebel to come running. I just wish there could have been more to it than bad luck.
That aside, the film come across as a very real assassination attempt on a president well known for escaping death several times in his career.
reply
share
loveagoodstory
11 years ago
I suppose it might just come down to how we each see it :-) I thought Lebel had spent the day looking around himself and checking with police at all the previous events. However, the minister had said to him that there was one public event, the 4.00pm gong presentations, and since nothing had happened up til then they really were looking for anything out of the ordinary. Lebel goes around chatting to the gendarmes before that ceremony (not shown, I admit) and I'd imagine asks if anyone's been let through for any reason. That leads them to that particular block of flats and to notice that open window.
I'd personally rather have that than spotting some clue or getting a late phone call because it shows how it was down to rigorous detective work, in this case just communicating with the gendarmes, and some luck.
I think that shot of the open window, with the lone gunman inside with loads of police and marksmen below him and some above him on rooftops, is the perfect finale to the largest section of the story: the story of How Will He Do It. And Lebel's horror as he finally sees it all in place is gripping to see.
Then the plan was for DG's head to explode so no-one knew where the bullet came from and an escape in the utter pandemonium that would follow.
Glad we enjoy the same film so much, thanks for your comments :-)
---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow
reply
share
garp-26
10 years ago
How about this for an alternative ending? After the Jackal is thwarted by De Gaulle's unforeseen gesture and Lebel bursts into the room the assassin is too quick for the policeman and fires first, either killing or seriously injuring him (I'd prefer the latter). Deciding he has lost his best opportunity to carry on with the hit the Jackal is able to slip away, just how is left to our imagination but it almost certainly means killing the second police officer. So by the end of the film history has not been rewritten, De Gaulle survives for now and all of the Jackal's meticulous preparation do not entirely go to waste with a moment of bad luck (or good fortune depending on who we're rooting for). We're then left to speculate on whether the Jackal will attempt another hit and how, and go on thinking about the film long after it ends.
reply
share