In Maureen O’Hara’s estimation, one of the films she made with John Wayne -The Wings of Eagles- was better than its reputation suggests, and had the potential to be so much more. Over a span of 21 years, the Hollywood actress made a total of five movies with “the Duke,“beginning withRio Grandein 1951 and ending withBig Jakein 1971.
Of the fiveJohn Wayne-Maureen O’Hara collaborations, it’s not hard to pick out their best work. It’s typically accepted thatThe Quiet Man, a John Ford-directed 1952 classic and an Academy Award winner - is the quintessential Wayne-O’Hara movie. Admittedly, it doesn’t have a great deal of competition, as bothBig JakeandMcClintock!failed to come anywhere near its iconic status.
Something similar can be said ofThe Wings of Eagles, which is arguably one ofJohn Wayne’s most overlooked movies. But to some, including Maureen O’Hara, it doesn’t get the credit it deserves.
Why The Wings Of Eagles Received So Much Criticism
After making two movies with John Ford (Rio GrandeandThe Quiet Man)John Wayne and Maureen O’Harareunited with the director for their third film, which was a biopic that told the story of Frank “Spig” Wead, a screenwriter and former U.S. Navy pilot.
Prior to finding work in Hollywood, the real Frank Wead was crucial to the U.S. Navy’s development of its aerial capabilities. With Wayne in the role of Frank Wead and O’Hara playing his wife, Ford’s movie explored Wead’s time in the Navy post-World War I, tragedies in his personal life, and his return to military duty in World War 2.
The Wings of Eagleswas a very personal project for John Ford, who was friends with the real-life Frank Wead. Wead died ten years before the movie’s release.
As reflected by its dismal 40% Rotten Tomatoes score,The Wings of Eagleswas deemed a poor outing for the actors. There was a sense among critics that the humor inThe Wings of Eagleswas too plentiful and out-of-place in a biographical film. But based on Michael Munn’sJohn Wayne: The Man Behind the Myth, there was a good reason for this approach.
Dan Dailey, one of the actors involved in the movie, defended its use of comedy, particularly in the first half of the movie, noting, “the story of Frank Wead was such a tragedy that you couldn’t just go straight into a heavy, tragic film.” To her, they “got the balance right.”
Dailey also disagreed with the notion thatThe Wings of Eagleswas wrong to infuse Wead’s story with comedy. As pointed out by O’Hara, the scene that depicts Wead crashing an airplane into a swimming pool was “hilarious,” but also something that happened to the real-life person.
According To Maureen O’Hara, The Wings Of Eagles Cut Some Of Its Best Scenes
Another major point of criticism regardingThe Wings of Eaglesis its lack of historical accuracy. John Ford’s movie adapts many key moments from Wead’s life, but leaves out and misconstrues some important details. But to Maureen O’Hara, some of these changes were justifiable, based on the circumstances.
For instance, the movie neglects the alcoholic lifestyle of Maureen O’Hara’s Min Wead, the wife of the main character. O’Hara says that they did film scenes that would have covered this adequately, but they were ultimately cut from the final product due to complaints from Wead’s family.
This was not a minor change, because not only did it leave a feeling thatThe Wings of Eagleswasn’t being honest about Wead’s life, but also because it robbed the movie of a potentiallygreat Maureen O’Hara performanceand some great character moments to breath life into the story. Concerning the cut material, O’Hara said, “I was bloody good in those scenes.”
In her autobiography, ‘Tis Herself, she described the work she did that had to be cut as “wonderfully dramatic.” O’Hara believed that decisions like this one were necessary under the circumstances, but at the same time, the movie “suffered” because of them.
What Went Wrong With The Wings Of Eagles
The historical inaccuracies and negative reception from critics account for some of the factors to blame for the failure ofThe Wings of Eagles.But its issues go a bit deeper than that, with John Wayne taking aim at the marketing years later. The way that the studio tried to sell the movie to audiences wasn’t true to the spirit of the film.
Comments from John Wayne in Munn’s book underscore the mistakes made behind the scenes. Wayne explained that the movie was treated like a “back-to-war picture” for the star, even though it was more of a biopic thana true John Wayne war movie. Wayne correctly pointed out that the title contributed to that false perception.
Wayne’s reasoning makes sense. If people went to the theaters expecting an action-packed war epic in the same vein as John Wayne’sSands of Iwo JimaorFlying Leathernecks, they likely didn’t get what they wanted fromThe Wings of Eagles.
