Talk:Allied (film)

Scanty

Considering the lack of plot and the abundance of production story (especially names), this article reads like a publicity stunt. That's not what Wikipedia is for. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"German"

Why does the word "German" link to the page on Nazis? Most people old enough to both read and care about this article are probably already aware that a German spy in 1942 would most likely be a Nazi. Unless it was a German working for the Allies, in which case Vatan would have no reason to worry and the film would have no conflict. I'm also confused as to why "German" is in quotes to begin with. Is Vatan fearful that his wife is only a hypothetical Nazi? It seems like you could just change the word "German" to "Nazi" in this case. As it stands, the current form presents two issues. The first is political correctness. This is potentially irrelevant, but I thought I'd mention it for the sake of optics. The second issue is clarity. This is much more important. Having the word "German" in quotes raises questions that this scant article cannot come even close to answering. Is she actually French, but working for the Germans? Is she potentially German, but the author wanted it to be clear that in this case the word meant something more? I could keep going with these, but the word count already exceeds that of the Premise section itself. Because that's what happens when shoddy writing results in more questions than answers. Do better. --Unsigned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8C15:2D00:4C94:AAAD:724E:F572 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

To add a historical inaccuracy, due to ULTRA, all German spies were intercepted upon arrival by British intelligence and under Operation Double Cross (XX) were vetted for possible turning before incarceration or execution. It is extremely improbable that Marianne Beausejour would have been handled any differently. ([User Retrograde6270.180.255.76 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Having seen the film, whilst the storyline is dramatic and keeps your interest, the whole thing is unrealistic from start to finish. The assassination at the reception in Morocco, apparently spy-infested Highgate, his suddenly taking a plane to France and raiding a village prison with a gang of resistance, its all stuff that never could have happened for real. Typical Hollywood. I agree about the link - linking basic terms like 'German' isn't something we should be doing under WP policy anyway, so I have removed it. IanB2 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the amount of spies in Highgate was excessive! And the prison raid! Being pedantic, there is no reason that spy working for Nazi Germany would have to be a Nazi themselves.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the scenes with so many spies in Highgate were at least twenty years too early! Or, perhaps, twenty years too late?  ;) IanB2 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, in reality Highgate is the site of a Communist plot.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the comment by Jack Upland, while a spy working for Nazi Germany need not have any personal liking for the Nazi Party, is it not likely that s/he would be expected make a public show of support? Also, given that most German people where likely to have been aware of what was going on, does not that indicate a certain degree of support for Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.206 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Regency

At the time of writing, the entry concludes with the following line: "It is unknown if Regency is still participating unless they chose to abandon the project and let Paramount continue the work without them." Three things. First, "unless" is a terrible word choice. Second, saying that something is unknown seems unprofessional in this context. All you're really saying is that YOU don't know it. Someone else might. Wikipedia's reach is not so vast as to imply that a source literally does not exist. Third, the previous point seems even more pertinent when the two sources attached to this statement are just trailer videos. Are you saying that Regency's logo doesn't appear in the trailer, therefore we can't possibly assess their level of participation in the film? Trailers don't always include every companies logo. Frankly, this sentence is just plain useless and ought to be deleted. --Unsigned (come at me, SineBot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8C15:2D00:4C94:AAAD:724E:F572 (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why, if they met in north africa in 42 then later in england, eventually have a child, that then "on the brink of war" something happens. Which war? In 1943 the war had already been on for 4 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.4.125.25 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Drunk vs. Alcohol Withdrawal

I think that Delamare is exhibiting symptoms of alcohol withdrawal rather than just being drunk. They allude to him being an alcoholic throughout the film. When Max confronts him to inquire about Marianne, he is covered in sweat and vomits. Max also withholds alcohol in order to coerce him to provide information. A normal individual who is vomiting from drinking is not going to want to keep drinking, but someone who is experiencing withdrawal will want to drink to alleviate their symptoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr1ms0n Lobster (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not really up to us to attempt to diagnose his condition based on his symptoms (WP:OR). In the plot we are told that he has been drinking and in prison, and when they enter the cell we see that he has with him a bottle that does not appear to be empty. The only point pertinent to a plot summary is that he was struggling with his recollection due to drink. And of course, this is just fiction, we are actually watching acting, and his being drunk is simply a plot device to avoid puncturing any suspense by having the guy say "I have never seen that woman in my life" when presented with the photo. IanB2 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Resistance fighter?

Why is Cotillard described as a resistance fighter in the lead? She's a German spy...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Another good point Jack. I guess almost the only interesting question posed by the storyline is the extent to which she worked for the Germans purely from blackmail, as the plot towards the end of the film suggests, as against being a willing agent, at least initially. In history, as the course of the war started to become clear, support for the resistance grew, and in both Vichy and Italy there were people who started on one side and ended on the other. I think the most reasonable course (given we don't need to worry about spoilers on WP) is to describe her as both, since there were points in the film where she was clearly a spy (and the plot implication is that she betrayed all her Paris colleagues), but she also went through with the resistance plot including killing the ambassador. Given that the latter apparently suited the Germans, I did wonder whether "German spy posing as a resistance fighter" might be more appropriate, save for her apparently credible claims towards the end that she had been an unwilling agent. IanB2 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think "German spy posing as a resistance fighter" would be better...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and almost saved this myself originally, before deciding it might be seen as provocative given the way the film was marketed. However in reality many spies/collaborators were (and are) lured or threatened into it originally; few just pitch up and volunteer to betray their country. And her protestations at the end of the film can be seen as a mix of 'she would say that..' and arising from the credible storyline of genuine love for Pitt's character. I have made the 'posing as' change and we will see if there are other views. IanB2 (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the film's plot?

Does anyone know if the original story that inspired the film is documented in a verifiable source? Book, official file or document, etc. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Allied (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliette Han (talk · contribs) 07:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Soon. Juliette Han (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• 'began developing the story after hearing the story' → 'Knight developed the script from the story told to him as a 21 year old man' / 'Knight first began developing the script'
• 'and would also film in the Canary Islands', 'and would match the designs' → e.g. 'and continued in May 2016 in the Canary Islands'
• 'it would receive a nomination' (see previous point) → 'it earned / received a nomination'

 Done all. Rusted AutoParts 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Costume design

• Copyright issue: direct quotation of Johnston is excessive. It doesn’t appear that it is something inevitable for this section, specifically that the same ideas could not be described without copying 8 sentences in a row. The ‘Johnston stated […] she puts herself together’ part should be either shortened, or partially reworded into a paraphrase

I tinkered with that paragraph, and this is where I got it to. Would this work?: Johnston shaped the style of the costumes around the characters, and particular focus was on Marianne. Johnston talk of how she felt you never get to the hear of the character, and had two different styles for her. "“I wanted her to look very assured in the first part of the film, in Casablanca. I looked at a lot of French style and fashion plates from the time, and I made her look very clean and graphic. When she goes to London, she takes on a mantle of being a mother and wife, so I put her in warmer tones. Rusted AutoParts 16:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: How about this version: Johnston shaped the style of the costumes around the characters, and particular focus was on Marianne, whose clothing altered with the development of the plot. "I wanted her to look very assured in the first part of the film, in Casablanca.", said Johnston, "I looked at a lot of French style and fashion plates from the time, and I made her look very clean and graphic. When she goes to London, she takes on a mantle of being a mother and wife, so I put her in warmer tones. But you never really know who she is." Johnston-Johnston repetition at the beginning of the sentence is avoided due to the interrupted quotation, and also 'one never gets to know Marianne' point is saved (it logically ends the quotation), while the 'heart'-sentence (which basically states the same) is removed. Juliette Han (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Perfect, I put that version in. Rusted AutoParts 17:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Are there any images to illustrate these outfits? This section describes costumes in detail, and considering that this film has relevant accolades, an illustration may be useful

There aren’t specific images of the costumes unfortunately (as far as I know anyway). I did include an image of Lauren Bacall as a means to highlight how her attire had influenced the designers approach to the film, but it got yanked by another editor as being superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 15:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

• Copyright issue: shortening quotes from The Playlist and The New York Observer is needed. For instance, ‘If you love classic movies and their potential to sweep you up into a world outside of your own experience, this one will rock your world.’ may be for sure removed without affecting meaning of the opinion
• Rephrasing other unreasonably long quotes is also desirable (CinemaBlend, The Guardian, Deadline (see))
• write/writing → the review reads, critics praise, thought, etc.

I believe I have tackled all these points. Many of the quote blocks I decided to rework, as for certain quotes they didn't really say much (IE Deadline). Rusted AutoParts 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Outcome

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   UPD: Passed. Juliette Han (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Juliette Han: I have addressed all points raised. Rusted AutoParts 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Congratulations on passing this! Juliette Han (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, Juliette. Most appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 18:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.