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)