Rosemary Sutcliff Book Group discussion

I'm curious to see everyone's opinions on Eagle of the Ninth as a book verses the 2010 movie "The Eagle".

Honestly, it's been a long while since I've read the book (I intend to mend that this month), but from what I can recall, I thought the movie was pretty darn close to the book. They cut out a lot of the traveling and things like that, but I can see why they did that; no one is going to watch a three-hour movie unless it's "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter." I absolutely loooooooooved Jamie Bell as Esca; I honestly don't think they could have cast anyone else. And I was surprised at how well Channing Tatum did as Marcus (I don't, in general, care for Channing Tatum's acting). However, I did like the ending of the book better.

I liked the ending of the book better too. But I second you on Jamie Bell, he was an amazing Esca =) It was pretty close to the book, especially in the first half, and what they did change it was good, and I think it actually made the story translate better to screen than if they had kept it totally accurate to the book. Somethings just sound better on paper than they turn out to be when filmed. I recently watched the movie with director's commentary which was interesting.

Ditto. Other than the ending, what were some of the major things they changed, out of curiosity? I know they cut out the chariot race Marcus has with one of the Britons (I really wish they had left that in, but at least they included it in the Deleted Scenes. I love the tune they play during it! "The Musical Priest" Best version of it I've heard). I kind of wish they had gone with the alternate ending, except I REALLY love it when Marcus tells the snotty-nosed tribune off.

Yes!!! I loved that part haha ;)

Mainly the only thing they really changed was the part where Esca tells the Seal People that Marcus is his slave because in the book they were just masquerading as physicians. Quacksalvers--love that word ;) But I liked that because I thought it just strengthened their relationship since Marcus thought Esca really might kill him or let him be killed but Esca was only doing it to keep him safe.

I loved the chariot race too and I don't know why the didn't just leave it in the movie. The soundtrack was amazing, I bought one of the songs off itunes because I just loved it, it's the track they play during the credits "Return of the Eagle"

You know, this is a sign that I REALLY need to re-read the book; I forgot that they pretended to be physicians. I do really like that change, though; I agree with you, it really strenthened their friendship.

The tune they play during the credits is called "The Musical Priest" - it's a traditional tune, one of my favorites - I really like their rendition of it, too. They don't play its third part, which I like; the tune's third part is so-so.

Haha, well that's why we're re-reading it ;) It's also good inspiration for me for my new book.

I've never heard that actual tune even though I listen to lots and lots of traditional things, haha ;) I thought it was just one they made for the sound track. Cool to know it's a traditional one though.

I hadn't heard those comments until after I had watched the movie so any allusions that might have been there went over my head. I can kind of see it now going back, but it's not, as you said, so blatant that you can't enjoy it. I believe the director also said they filmed it a bit like a western, which is understandable because Rosemary Sutcliff liked westerns and she said in her Author's note of "Frontier Wolf" that she wrote that story from an idea she had watching a western. (I know Louis L'Amour has been food for my soul and muse as well ;)

Well, I'd rather have the reviewers saying the movie was "pro-Imperialism" than that Marcus and Esca were gay (Urgh- anyone want to see a real life berserker?)

Yes, it's terribly unfortunate. I had a hard time writing the close brotherly scenes in "On a Foreign Field" because of that, but I wouldn't have taken them out for anything, because immature people are always going to come to those conclusions. I wrote a blog post on that actually a while ago, if you wanted to read it : http://hazelwest.blogspot.com/2012/06...

I'll have the check it out. Yes, that's why I like reading older books because no one worried about that. Like the Three Musketeers were always hugging and kissing each other and no one thought anything about it because that was just the time period ;) Oh well, I just try to bring back brotherly love a little bit at a time :)

I saw the movie in the theater when it first came out, so I missed the director comments. I'll have to check that out. I was much more impressed than I thought I'd be. The casting was great, and much of the dialogue was straight out of the book.

The only thing I didn't like (besides dropping the only female character in the book--which I can understand, given the time constraints) is that Esca goes on this mission as Marcus's slave!

My favorite part in the book was when Marcus gave Esca his freedom--and then asked him to go with him to Scotland. I even remember my reaction to Marcus's apology for not doing it sooner. He said "I have been a completely unthinking fool" (I think that's right; don't have the book with me). I shouted "say it again, you jerk!" But then, I tend to get carried away when I really like a book.

Haha, yeah, I felt kind of the same way ;)

The director's comments are worth checking out. If you have the dvd you can watch the movie with commentary. He explains the things he changed and why he did it, and I can see his reasons, because there are parts of the book that really just wouldn't translate to screen, and I think since we didn't have as much time to get Marcus and Esca's characters and inner thinkings as we did in the book, that their relationship had to be shown more gradually. I really like both versions and I also like that though they have differences and similarities they work really well together and you can see both versions working. The best part definitely was the casting though, because I couldn't have thought of better actors.

You can also go onto youtube and watch interviews with the actors which is pretty fun.

they forgot about cub in the movie but apart from that and the fact that marcus pretends to be an eye doctor in the book on the way north, the movie is rather good. jamie bell as eska was brilliant. not so sure about marcus' actor

I love the differences between the novel and the movie.I wish it could of went longer,and have the chariot race,and Cottia,and cub.I loved uncle Aquila,played by Donald Sutherland,and how Esca hated being a slave.Pretty natural feeling.

Alright, I know this is an old discussion, but I felt I needed to speak my peace about this.
I LOVED the book. though I admit it has been a while since I've read it all the way through, I think that the book Marcus was much more calm and a little forlorn; less the brooding, angsty exile; more the thoughtful friend. He had a plan, he wasn't all, "Then I guess I'll die if my only companion/option kills me." He knew what he was doing, he knew it was a long shot, but his chances were much larger and more thought out and he had his uncle and his real friendship with Esca to back him.
I totally wish that Cub and Cottia could have been in the film. I would have loved to see Marcus's soft side come out when interacting with them which, I think, is the difference between both Marcus's which isn't really a bad thing in two different telling's of the same story.
I absolutely agree that Jamie Bell was the perfect casting choice as Esca, no one could have done it better. I actually really liked Channing Tatum's portrayal of Marcus, even though I've only seen a few of his movies (and I haven't obsessed over him as some do) I thought his acting was so real and truly the thing that the movie Marcus needed.
The long and short of my blurb is that I liked the book so much more than the movie, but the movie can stand on it's own two feet as well. If only the book could be read in two hours...

I agree with most of what you said-Cottia & cub was missed,but too much to fit in that time.The best is the anger Esca & Marcus have for each other in some scenes-Esca & his tribe were enslaved.Great book,great film.

I really enjoyed the book back when I read it and loved the movie! I remember watching it in the same week I watched "Centurion" and out of those two movies, which are inspired by the same historical backdrop and events, "The Eagle" is in my opinion the better one. It challenges me more to think and is, in my point of view, not just an action movie.

But it has been so long since I watched the movie or read the book, I forgot half of it! I should definitely reread it in 2k16!

I agree,even though I love Centurion,& have it on Blu Ray as well,i reckon The Eagle is better-really like how Esca is not into being a slave.

I found the movie close to the book, but lacking the typical Hollywood effects, suspense, & glitter. I think that is why the movie didn't do as well as most and was mostly ignored by the public. The story (as well as most of Sutcliff's books) is so rich and well done that I think the movie makers could have done a better job.

Fivewincs wrote: "I found the movie close to the book, but lacking the typical Hollywood effects, suspense, & glitter. I think that is why the movie didn't do as well as most and was mostly ignored by the public. Th..."
Still a good film though.Sometimes too much CGI & Hollywood destroys a movie.

The movie diverges from the book in some pretty extreme ways, but is still fairly good on its own merits. Some of the movie's biggest changes, off the top of my head:
1) making the two men adversarial until near the end, unlike the book where they become warm friends before ever setting off on the quest,
2) Marcus only freeing Esca at the climax and under duress, instead of before they ever set out and purely out of respect,
3) Esca being angry and bitter instead of at peace with his life,
4) Marcus not having a plan, nor having much sensitivity at all towards Celtic cultures all throughout the film, contrasted with the book where he was very respectful, masqueraded convincingly as an eye doctor among them, and extensively planned out how to overcome his obstacles with Esca
5) the movie kills a few kids to show how brutal the Sea People and Marcus can be; nothing of the kind in the book

I've a more in-depth discussion/review of both book and movie at my blog here.

The book is better by far. But I like the movie for several reasons. For one, the look and feel of the film (cinematography?) sort of conveys a similar texture to Sutcliff's writing: Artfully aware of the natural landscape, the grit and the dirt, the beauty in melancholy lighting, etc. The sounds, too: the movie, like Sutcliff, appreciates moments of quiet, of listening to the sounds of nature. Of the effects of weather, and the mundane realities of life in Roman Britain. I recently bought the movie on Blu-Ray and was especially impressed by this side of it. Too easily could a Hollywood movie have cleaned everything up or gone for a totally different tone, but I think the movie does a decent job of capturing some of Sutcliff's tone in the book.

Also, I highly recommend on the deleted scenes on the Blu-Ray. They have the chariot scene! Yes! And it's great! It's a little different from the book's scene, but he's still racing Cradoc and having a bit of insight into Celtic culture. It's really fun and neat, and I really wish they'd left it in the film. It would have greatly enhanced the movie!