Talk:The Train (1964 film)

Undated comedy

According to the IMDB review (http://imdb.com/title/tt0059825/) the railyard bombing sequence was filmed at Gargenville yard, outside Paris. I'd like to verify, if possible, that this is the yard actually demolished during filming, for inclusion in the Anecdotes section.

Reviews

Started to collect info for a Review or Reception section. The film is included in the second edition of "The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made", published 2004 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/1000best.html#T). I also saw on one web site, but have not yet been able to verify that it was a 1964 Film Nominee by the Orange British Academy Film Awards, and a 1965 Best Film Nominee by the National Board of Review, and that Leonard Maltin gives it four stars in his 2007 Movie Guide. Cryptonymius 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Train (1964) DVD cover.jpg

Image:The Train (1964) DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

==I love this film but.. The article is choppy. Lots of bullet points generally hint to a need for re-organization of material. If anyone has the time, the director's commentary is a wealth of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.187.103 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Added Section from Director Page

This "production" section was interesting but stupid, it was just a list of lists.

I was surprised to see a very good explanation of the production on the bio page of the director, so I just copied it over with a few edits. --208.127.100.147 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the new section may need some reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

The real events

curator Mademoiselle Villard has really existed at the museum, when the cpieces of art were taken. She worked for the "Resistance".The film is closely related with 1946 René Clément's "La bataille du rail"

Takima (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The movie makes reference to "Allied" (American and British forces) being deliberately held up from entering Paris so that a Free French division will have the honor of liberating the city. This is depicted as a stupid political gesture that prevents the train from being captured by the Allies earlier and needlessly costs French Resistance lives. Without commenting either way on the merits of that decision in the war itself, it's treatment in the movie seems ironic in that, in the real events that the movie is based on, the train is actually prevented from leaving Paris for Germany be a team from the Free French army that had just liberated the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:300:E50:ECD7:32FF:F67C:9556 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the train may have been discovered by Free French troops, but it had been prevented from leaving by SNCF officials who just kept making bureaucratic excuses. Anyone who has had to deal with French bureaucracy can imagine the impenetrability of the processes involved. And in fact the Allies held off liberating Paris because it wasn't a strategic asset, it would just use up manpower and resources to feed and administer the population, and they didn't want to take losses for it or damage it by fighting. So Ike and Monty planned to bypass it and wait for the German garrison to fold. Ike had long promised de Gaulle that Leclerc's 2nd French Armoured Division could liberate Paris, but when it came down to it -- with a Resistance rising in the city and the German commander von Choltitz telling intermediaries he wouldn't try to stop the Allies -- Ike refused to release Leclerc from Patton's command. So de Gaulle, fearing the Communist FTP would take over the city, ordered Leclerc to ignore the Americans and liberate Paris. Leclerc was 120 miles away and had quite a drive to get there. No actual Resistance lives were lost stopping the train, it was all done with paperwork. The Germans were too scared at that point to start waving guns around and making threats in their usual manner, because they expected to be in Allied custody any day and they knew there'd be French witnesses to whatever they did. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Airplanes are Mosquitoes, not Invaders

The article incorrectly states that the planes seen later in the film are A-26 Invaders; they are not. They are De Havilland Mosquitoes.Theonemacduff (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they were French Armée de l'Air A-26 Invaders that were used. FWiW, see A-26s used in Films Bzuk (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC).

If you look at 0:41 of the theatrical trailer currently on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuyme-U9-es you'll see a clip from the low-level run where it's very clear that the nose of the twin engine planes sticks out far beyond the engines rather like the A-26, as opposed to the Mosquito, on which the nose and engines project forward to about the same length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcanicus (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

They're French Air Force A-26s, presumably meant to represent the very similar-looking A-20 Boston / Havoc aircraft used by the US and British tactical air forces in 1944. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Railway Locations

The pamphlet shipped with the DVD references "an abandoned railway line in the town of Acquigny," and by Googling "Acquigny" I came across this page with further details on railway locations in the film. Is any of this useable content? Would a simple link to the page suffice? Arcanicus (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a borderline case. What's in the DVD pamphlet is certainly usable. The webpage ... well it's a blog-like site referencing what I assume is a fan club magazine ("SNCF Society Journal"), so it's a little iffy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreau's Role

Her character does much more than simply lie to the Germans. Can't the list of cast members say something like 'an innkeeper who assists Labiche'? Ivandh (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Penn as co-director

Should Arthur Penn be added as one of the directors? I know that we generally shouldn't give undue credit to a person whose contribution to a work is relatively minor, but two reliable sources (TCM, AFI) agree that Penn was the original director until he was replaced by John Frankenheimer just three days after filming had begun. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

1964 or 1965?

It's named for one year, and the first sentence claims another.