The Last Duel (2021) (1 Viewer)

[usrunnr]

I can see that this film is extremely violent. Not for me.
I'll not see it. The previews are not inviting despite the star power.

I am not a millennial.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

It's interesting that Ridley Scott in 2021 is still blaming Pauline Kael for the weak box office of Blade Runner in 1982. And he's seemingly upset she didn't meet him before writing a critical review?? As he says, The New Yorker is a classy magazine, and somewhat intellectual. How could a review in such a place single-handedly bring a movie down? It doesn't make sense. I loved reading Pauline Kael's movie reviews back in the 80s and 90s in the New Yorker, and her reviews from the 60s and 70s, collected in her books, are also still worth reading. I often disagree with Kael, but her reviews are wonderfully written and insightful. Here's a link and some quotes in case any one is curious. To me this review is like a sophisticated version of an "honest trailer," just done Kael-style....

“Blade Runner,” Reviewed

Pauline Kael’s 1982 review of Ridley Scott’s futuristic thriller “Blade Runner,” starring Harrison Ford.

www.newyorker.com

"....The congested-megalopolis sets are extraordinary, and they’re lovingly, perhaps obsessively, detailed; this is the future as a black market, made up of scrambled sordid aspects of the past—Chinatown, the Casbah, and Times Square, with an enormous, mesmerizing ad for Coca-Cola, and Art Deco neon signs everywhere, in a blur of languages. “Blade Runner,” which cost thirty million dollars, has its own look, and a visionary sci-fi movie that has its own look can’t be ignored—it has its place in film history. But we’re always aware of the sets as sets, partly because although the impasto of decay is fascinating, what we see doesn’t mean anything to us. (It’s 2019 back lot.) Ridley Scott isn’t great on mise en scène—we’re never sure exactly what part of the city we’re in, or where it is in relation to the scene before and the scene after. (Scott seems to be trapped in his own alleyways, without a map.)....

Scott’s creepy, oppressive vision requires some sort of overriding idea—something besides spoofy gimmicks, such as having Deckard narrate the movie in the loner-in-the-big-city manner of a Hammett or Chandler private eye. This voice-over, which is said to have been a late addition, sounds ludicrous, and it breaks the visual hold of the material. The dialogue isn’t well handled, either. Scott doesn’t seem to have a grasp of how to use words as part of the way a movie moves. “Blade Runner” is a suspenseless thriller; it appears to be a victim of its own imaginative use of hardware and miniatures and mattes. At some point, Scott and the others must have decided that the story was unimportant; maybe the booming, lewd and sultry score by Chariots-for-Hire Vangelis that seems to come out of the smoke convinced them that the audience would be moved even if vital parts of the story were trimmed. Vangelis gives the picture so much film noir overload that he fights Scott’s imagery; he chomps on it, stomps on it, and drowns it....

All we’ve got to hang on to is Deckard, and the moviemakers seem to have decided that his characterization was complete when they signed Harrison Ford for the role. Deckard’s bachelor pad is part of a 1924 Frank Lloyd Wright house with a Mayan motif. Apart from that, the only things we learn about him are that he has inexplicably latched on to private-eye lingo, that he was married, and that he’s tired of killing replicants—it has begun to sicken him.....in the one really shocking and magical sequence, Daryl Hannah, as the straw-haired, acrobatic Pris, does a punk variation on Olympia, the doll automaton of “The Tales of Hoffmann.”

....But this replicant-detector test comes at the beginning of the picture, before we have registered that replicants have no early life. And it seems utterly pointless, since surely the Tyrell Corporation has photographic records of the models it has produced—and, in fact, when the police order Deckard to find and retire the four he is shown perfectly clear pictures of them. It might have been much cannier to save any testing until later in the movie, when Deckard has doubts about a very beautiful dark-eyed woman—Tyrell’s assistant, Rachael, played by Sean Young. Rachael, who has the eyes of an old Murine ad, seems more of a zombie than anyone else in the movie, because the director tries to pose her the way von Sternberg posed Dietrich, but she saves Deckard’s life, and even plays his piano. (She smokes, too, but then the whole atmosphere is smoking.) Rachael wears vamped-up versions of the mannish padded-shoulder suits and the sleek, stiff hairdos and ultra-glossy lipstick of career girls in forties movies; her shoulder comes into a room a long time before she does. And if Deckard had felt compelled to test her responses it could have been the occasion for some nifty repartee; she might have been spirited and touching. Her role is limply written, though; she’s cool at first, but she spends most of her screen time looking mysteriously afflicted—wet-eyed with yearning—and she never gets to deliver a zinger.....

The only character who gets to display a large range of emotions is the fourth of the killer replicants, and their leader—Roy Batty (the Crazed King?), played by the tall, blue-eyed blond Dutch actor Rutger Hauer, whose hair is lemon-white here. Hauer (who was Albert Speer in “Inside the Third Reich” on television last May) stares all the time; he also smiles ominously, hoo-hoos like a mad owl and howls like a wolf, and, at moments, appears to see himself as the god Pan, and as Christ crucified. He seems a shoo-in for this year’s Klaus Kinski Scenery-Chewing Award. As a humanoid in a homicidal rage because replicants are built to last only four years, he stalks through the movie like an evil Aryan superman; he brings the wrong kind of intensity to the role—an effete, self-aware irony so overscaled it’s Wagnerian. His gaga performance is an unconscious burlesque that apparently passes for great acting with the director, especially when Hauer turns noble sufferer and poses like a big hunk of sculpture. (It’s a wonder he doesn’t rust out in all that rain.) This sequence is particularly funny because there’s poor Harrison Ford, with the fingers of one hand broken, reduced to hanging on to bits of the cornice of a tall building by his one good hand—by then you’ve probably forgotten that he is Harrison Ford, the fellow who charms audiences by his boundless good humor—while the saucer-eyed Hauer rants and carries on. Ford is like Harold Lloyd stuck by mistake in the climax of “Duel in the Sun.”

....“Blade Runner” is musty even while you’re looking at it (and noting its relationship to Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” and to von Sternberg’s lighting techniques, and maybe to Polanski’s “Chinatown” and “Fellini’s Roma,” and so on). There are some remarkable images—for example, when the camera plays over the iron grillwork of the famous Bradbury Building in Los Angeles the iron looks tortured into shape. These images are part of the sequences about a lonely, sickly young toymaker, Sebastian (William Sanderson), who lives in the deserted building. Sebastian has used the same techniques employed in producing replicants to make living toy companions for himself, and since the first appearance of these toys has some charm, we wait to see them in action again. When the innocent, friendly Sebastian is in danger, we expect the toys to come to his aid or be upset or, later, try to take reprisals for what happens to their creator, or at least grieve. We assume that moviemakers wouldn’t go to all the trouble of devising a whole batch of toy figures only to forget about them. But this movie loses track of the few expectations it sets up, and the formlessness adds to a viewer’s demoralization—the film itself seems part of the atmosphere of decay. “Blade Runner” has nothing to give the audience—not even a second of sorrow for Sebastian. It hasn’t been thought out in human terms. If anybody comes around with a test to detect humanoids, maybe Ridley Scott and his associates should hide. With all the smoke in this movie, you feel as if everyone connected with it needs to have his flue cleaned."

I also enjoy reading Kael, even if and when I don't agree with her. I was not reading her as a kid in the 1970s nor even in the 1980s. I pretty much got into reading her in the 2000s. She was an outstanding film critic in that she wrote wonderfully, and her reviews are always interesting. I think her review of Blade Runner is great, but Scott is correct, he was ahead of her. This happens with critics quite often. Primarily because a weakness of many critics, and Kael certainly suffered from this weakness, is that they are judging the new films they see based upon past films they have seen. Blade Runner was a difficult picture to critique because it was a leap forward and so it was hard to see into the future in terms of how the film would later be perceived.

Another failing of Kael was, and this is no secret, she openly played favorites and crucified filmmakers she had it in for. I don't think she liked Scott's Alien, also ahead of its time and a leap forward, and I don't know what she thought of The Duelists. If I can lay hands on my Kael book I will see if she commented on it. Basically though, as Ridley states, he had not met her and this with working filmmakers at the time she held as a strike against them. I think she called Alien "juvenile" if I recall. Unless I am confusing her with someone else.

Funny thing for me was when I saw Blade Runner in a cinema when it came out...I and everyone I knew that saw it, thought it was one of the most magnificent films we had ever seen. I did not know it was considered a flop and a failure with critics until probably 15 years later. I just did not pay attention to critics back then and I had never spoken to someone that did not think it was a great film. Back then if Blade Runner came up in a conversation nobody I was speaking to ever, I mean ever, said "That film was terrible!" or "Boring!" as so many seem to throw at it now. I and everyone I had conversed with about it was mesmerized by it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

^I've heard it's actually pretty good. Personally, I think Ridley Scott is the most overrated director in history and the medieval setting never catches my attention so even being a fan of most of the actors in the movie, this wasn't a movie for me.

I don't find him overrated but I do find him at the mercy of his material. I will admit that due to this and his visual sense, his pictures can seem to be style over substance. He's made a lot of pictures and watching them it is pretty easy to see his first priority is the way they look. When he gets a good story to combine with his visual palette this is when you tend to get a tremendous film from him.

He's made a lot of pictures though and is not a Kubrick nor a Paul Thomas Anderson, nor a Scorsese. His calling card is visual stylist. I think he is a great filmmaker but one that has not really been as careful to attempt to make great films.

 

[JohnRice]

I don't find him overrated but I do find him at the mercy of his material. I will admit that due to this and his visual sense, his pictures can seem to be style over substance. He's made a lot of pictures and watching them it is pretty easy to see his first priority is the way they look. When he gets a good story to combine with his visual palette this is when you tend to get a tremendous film from him.

He's made a lot of pictures though and is not a Kubrick nor a Paul Thomas Anderson, nor a Scorsese. His calling card is visual stylist. I think he is a great filmmaker but one that has not really been as careful to attempt to make great films.

He's definitely not overrated, but he is uneven. I think your comments about his emphasis on visuals is valid. He's a calculated filmmaker, which I also find to be Spielberg's weakness.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I can see that this film is extremely violent. Not for me.
I'll not see it. The previews are not inviting despite the star power.

I am not a millennial.

It's not a great film so I think you won't miss a lot skipping it. I'd call it one for Scott fans or those that like this kind of period film. There are definitely things about it that people can be critical of.

On the violence, I did not think it was overly violent. The final fight between Driver and Damon is the primary violence in the film outside of the sexual violence of the rape. Which is not graphic and played different ways in the three different "truths."

The are a few brief battle scenes in the film that show Damon and Driver fighting for their king and country. There is some blood flying in these scenes but I thought they were well done.

In terms of disturbing or graphic violence, well, this picture pales in comparison to most other films that depict violence.

 

[TravisR]

He's made a lot of pictures though and is not a Kubrick nor a Paul Thomas Anderson, nor a Scorsese. His calling card is visual stylist. I think he is a great filmmaker but one that has not really been as careful to attempt to make great films.

To be fair to Scott, he is amazing in terms of his visuals. I still don't care for the vast majority of his movies but undeniably, he's got a great eye.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

To be fair to Scott, he is amazing in terms of his visuals. I still don't care for the vast majority of his movies but undeniably, he's got a great eye.

Yes, it is hard to fault his eye. In the special feature about the making of the film you get to see Ridley walking around finding his shots. He is remarkable and does so practically instantly when he looks at the set or location. The guy knows exactly where to place a camera. He makes his pictures so quickly because he is never fooling around looking for where the camera should be or searching for his shot. He walks on set or onto the location, walks around, looks at it and says "OK, put the camera here, the shot will track from here to here, this will give us a view of this from this perspective."

Obviously he has done it for so long now it is all just second nature to him. He's the ultimate professional. He's not looking through viewfinders or anything, he knows what the shot will look like and what he needs to shoot. I think there is one bit where he describes in seconds that they are going to shoot a scene with 5 cameras, where the 5 cameras need to be, how they will move, and what each camera needs to get. I'd bet you the house very few directors could do that and would spend a hell of a lot of time trying to figure out where the cameras needed to be and what they needed them to shoot. He knows instantly. I mean, I marvel at the man.

On quality of his pictures overall...well...the other thing about Ridley is he does not write. Scripts are brought to him and he sorts out how to shoot them. It's not like the auteur filmmakers that are obsessively making their films and involve themselves in every aspect and may work for years just to get a script where they want it. Ridley is more a commercial filmmaker but a great one. He did come from making TV commercials after all.

I have watched his films since the beginning of his career. I can tell you when he was at the point where he had only done The Duelists, Alien, and Blade Runner...well...I was not the only one that was thinking we have the next Kubrick on our hands...or the next amazing filmmaker.

Then he followed those three up with Legend, Someone to Watch Over Me, and Black Rain. I saw his first three films as masterworks. I saw the second three as "What happened to this guy?"

Legend was a bad script beautifully filmed. Someone and Black Rain were two more shots at doing modern noirs but again, not great scripts. Now, these three pictures are entertaining but not the work of an auteur filmmaker. Then he does Thelma and Louise which I thought looked like a long beer commercial but was a hit and you've got to hand it to Ridley he likes to give women their due in his films. I personally was not a big fan of Thelma and Louise. I thought it was OK but by this point I did wonder if he would make something I really thought was great again.

The next great film he did, in my opinion, was Gladiator. I realized though by this point this guy is not like a Kubrick or a Scorsese or that kind of filmmaker. He's making stuff to essentially make hit films. Ridley grasped the business and the art. In the end that makes a lot of his pictures just look like commercial stabs at hitting it at the box office.

What he is now out of step with is what will hit at the box office. He still approaches pictures as he wants to make stories about people that look drop dead gorgeous. Well, now all the big budget films look gorgeous but stories about people are no longer popular except on TV.

So, a big period film like The Last Duel is about 22 years out of step with what a mass audience wants to see in a cinema.

 

[Malcolm R]

So, a big period film like The Last Duel is about 22 years out of step with what a mass audience wants to see in a cinema.

And he's going to do it all over again with Kitbag. Big period piece. Likely tiny box office.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

And he's going to do it all over again with Kitbag. Big period piece. Likely tiny box office.

Probably, unless somehow something about it strikes a chord with a mass audience. I think people still recognize the name Napoleon. I mean I can't say with younger generations if they know who Napoleon is or not. I would hope so but I grant you history is not of interest to the "cell phone" generations.

Personally, I am super excited about his Napoleon film but I do think about sitting next to 20 somethings during Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and them having no clue who Charles Manson was and so the entire picture was a bit of a mystery to them.

That conversation, and many others I have had with people from younger generations have me convinced they are not looking back very far for the most part. I am not saying that they are stupid, it just seems they don't really look back at much history and I feel like due to technology their sense of time is totally different. To them a year ago is a long time ago. You could bring up a song from last year or a movie from three years ago and to them...that's old stuff. I feel like the older generations thought in terms of decades but younger generations, particularly ones that never knew a time without smart phones and the internet, think more in terms of weeks or months.

I think this is a result of technology and how fast everything comes at them now. They quickly see or hear it and then discard it because in literally seconds there will be something else to see or hear. So, the way humans actually function is changed by technology.

 

[David_B_K]

Reggie, I think that is a good estimation as to where Ridley Scott ranks in the pantheon of directors. The Duellists is one of my all time favorite films and still my favorite Scott film. It could be due to my interest in the age of Napoleon. While I get that Alien is a great movie, it is still a bit too scary for me to watch regularly. When I first saw it with some friends on the big screen of the (now defunct) Alabama theater in Houston I really wanted to leave; but I stayed for fear of being taunted as a total wuss if I had left. I did not care much for Blade Runner when I first saw it but it grew on me over the years to become a favorite.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I had read the same-titled nonfiction book on which The Last Duel was based. A friend had recommended it because he knows I am a voracious history reader. I did not feel there was much to the story when I read the book. Aside from lots of extra detail about the period, including how difficult it is to kill a heavily armored guy, I felt that the story rated a Wikipedia entry at best. It probably most belongs in a medieval history book as a footnote when the text mentions that dueling was outlawed. The footnote would read along the lines of "There was one more recorded duel in the 14th century between ..." So it is not surprising to me that the film was not a hit. To really work, there needed to be more of a story about the characters so that we would have something invested in the duel. If the story was the culmination of a season of a Game of Thrones type of show, the duel would have had more impact.

I mentioned in the Kitbag thread that the title was terrible. In all my reading on the Napoleonic Era, I never came across the word Kitbag. Supposedly it is based on a quote I often came across in my reading along the lines of "every French soldier carries a Marshal's baton in his knapsack". The phrase referred to the fact that the French Army of the First Empire was based on merit, and not on wealth and aristocratic ties as was the army of the Ancien Regime. Allegedly, a spectacular career with promotions could end with elevation to Marshal. To me, the only reason to use such a title would be if the story is about the rise of someone through the ranks of Napoleon's army who eventually becomes a Marshal. (I don't remember anyone actually becoming a Marshal from the ranks, unless he had been in the Ancien Regime's armies). I never heard the knapsack characterized as a kitbag, which sounds rather British to me.

I would certainly be interested in a movie about Napoleon as there have not been many. Bondarchuk's War & Peace and Waterloo both did a great job of showing some of the spectacle of the era. Gance's Napoleon had a great feel for the French Revolutionary period. His later Austerlitz is pretty poor. The British TV miniseries Napoleon & Love did a great job of showing Napoleon's (Ian Holm) private life. There have not been many films that really depicted Napoleon's genius for war and skill at running an empire while often on campaign. The trouble is that it was a period in which so much happened, how do you choose what to use as the basis of a film?

Here is a photo of my Napoleonic section in my cluttered book room:

 

[Keith Cobby]

These types of film, whatever their merits for history fans, will not attract family audiences. A film about Napoleon (who) starring the Joker and Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) called Kitbag! Will need some polish if it isn't to die at the box office.

 

[Tino]

For anyone interested The Last Duel is on sale on iTunes for $9.99. In 4K/Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I did not feel there was much to the story when I read the book.

I have not read the book but you are correct, it is not a great story and the decision to tell it three times from three perspectives does really stretch the whole thing out. I am not sure it gained much being told this way. Primarily I guess the reason to tell it that way was to get you more invested in each of the main characters. However, the film is primarily about Jodie Comer's character and her issues as a woman living in this period of time. So because the focus is so much on that, well, they really could have just told it from her perspective. We don't gain much from getting the Damon and Driver perspectives. Also really the film never asks us to choose which perspective is right, or which we agree with, or which seems the most honest, it just sort of lays it in our lap that Comer's character is the victim and most screwed because she really has no say and very likely is going to pay with her life for speaking up.

To really work, there needed to be more of a story about the characters so that we would have something invested in the duel.

Yes, a giant weakness I see here is that both the Damon and Driver characters are not at all likable and many people could very well hate them both. Again this really kind of points to the idea that they could have just told the story from the Comer character perspective because the entire way you feel about this story hinges on her and her situation.

There is only one reason to be invested in the duel and that is how it will play out for Comer's character. The two guys, her husband and Driver, really are not guys that you feel like you want to root for.

The giant point the film seems to want to make really is that women in medieval times were basically screwed. So, if that is the point of the story just tell it from the woman's perspective.

I mentioned in the Kitbag thread that the title was terrible.

Yes, I think everybody believes that is a temporary title. I don't see any connection to Napoleon with that title either and really if they are selling the film, well, we can hope that people still know who Napoleon is but I think even fewer people will grasp what a kitbag is and it will not scream out anything that the film is about.

I was talking to someone about this and I said they could just call it Napoleon or Napoleon and Josephine and he replied "You don't want to call it that because then people will think it is a history lesson! Nobody wants to watch a history lesson."

Maybe that's true but still, Kitbag says really nothing at all. I am guessing they change the title somewhere along the way.

I would certainly be interested in a movie about Napoleon as there have not been many. Bondarchuk's War & Peace and Waterloo both did a great job of showing some of the spectacle of the era.

I am also a fan of the Bondarchuk films. I really love Waterloo and the focus on that battle and how he was able to shoot it. I have to admit I was pretty geeked out when Ridley said his film is going to show 6 battles. I think that is a lot and I may have taken what he said wrong but I think he may have indicated Waterloo was not one of the 6 he will show. Anyway, I don't know how in-depth he will go into each battle but to cover 6 and his relationship with Josephine I am thinking this would need to probably be a 3 hour picture...or more...which I am fine with. It sounds ambitious as hell but my feeling is if you are going to make a film about Napoleon and do more than cover just a single event or battle...it should be an epic film.

 

[David_B_K]

I watched The Last Duel a couple of weeks ago after buying it for $9.99 on iTunes. Once again Ridley Scott succeeded in recreating an almost alien world. It really makes you think you were in Medieval land and it did not look like a hospitable place. After watching the film, I re-read the first half of the (nonfiction) book and got up to the beginning of the trial before the king. In many places, some of the dialog seemed to have been created from the textual descriptions from the book. At other times, things that were only “may have happened” moments were shown as having happened, such as when Jean de Carrouges (Mat Damon) stops at Count Pierre’s (Ben Affleck) palace on the way to Paric and taunts Le Gris (Adam Driver). The book said no one knows what was done or said at the meeting and said de Carrouges may have asserted his new knightly rank, but no one knows.

Some things were invented. The book said de Carrouges was a renowned warrior who had served the king faithfully. However, no mention was made of the battle in the film in which de Carrouges was overly impetuous when he charged the enemy (leading to a strategic defeat), so that episode was invented for the film. Also, while it was stated that de Carrouges and le Gris were friends, no mention was made of de Carrouges ever saving Le Gris’ life.

It always annoys me when historical films do not follow history. Some do it more egregiously than other. My main complaint about this film was the depiction of the rape, which differs markedly from the book which is based on Margurite’s (Jodie Comer) account.

In the film,

Spoiler

we see Louvel (Adam Nagaitis), Le Gris’ flunky gain admittance to the house while Marguerite is alone and he then allows Le Gris to enter. We then see Le Gris chase her up the stairs to her bedroom where he throws her face down on the bed and rapes her.

In the book, Louvel takes a more active role, and helps Le Gris carry her into the first room with a bed. She struggled so much that Louvel and Le Gris both had to hold one of her arms and legs apiece and eventually they had to tie her legs down in order to accomplish the rape. After suffering such humiliating treatment one can see why Marguerite chose not to remain silent about the rape.

What bothers me about this is the way the film tried to do a Rashomon styled story from thee points of view. Maybe the writers did not believe Marguerite’s story and chose to depict it differently? I can see that in some cases, where a historical incident is described by one person and the screen writers or biographer doubts that it happened that way and offers an alternative. However, in a Rashomon type of treatment, it seems the proper course would have been to show the rape from Le Gris’ view in which he seems to see it as “yeah, I raped her, but I could tell she wanted it”. Then when they did Marguerite’s version we could have seen the rape depicted as she described it. The whole story going back to the 14th century was based on her account. The writers and Ridley went to great pains to show that a married medieval woman was essentially allowed to be raped any time her husband wished it. It irritates me that when it came time to tell her story, they didn’t appear to believe her. Even if they didn’t, they still should have shown her version and let the viewer decide.

One thing I’m not sure I am remembering correctly from the film is the location of the rape. I seem to remember it occurring at the de Carrouges estate. It actually occurred at the chateau of de Carrouges’ mother (Harriet Walter). Louvel lived in the same village as she did and had been keeping a watchful eye out as to when Marguerite would be alone. When de Carrouges’ mother left on business and took the household staff with her, Louvel sent the word to le Gris that the time was ripe. I assume Louvel must have testified at some point in order for his perfidy to be described in such detail.

I didn’t re-read the book to the point of the duel and may do so this weekend. I am not sure if Marguerite was unaware that she would be burned alive if the duel went in Le Gris’ favor as depicted in the film. From what I read she was quite forceful about making sure Le Gris was punished.

 

[Citizen87645]

I watched this last night. The casting of Damon and Affleck as medieval figures didn't really work for me. Part of me was expecting the story to turn into a Python style parody.

I also agree that the Rashomon-style narrative didn't offer up much in the way of insights, but more perfunctory entertainment around who would take credit for doing or saying something noble. Or who would come off as being more the a-hole. Guess what? It's gonna be the other guy!

For example, when Jean and Le Gris apparently make peace at Crespin's party, the person who says there should be no ill will between servants of the King changes depending on who is telling the story. Finally in Marguerite's version, it's Crespin who says it, not the other two. It's funny, but offers nothing insightful about the two characters or humanity in general.

As far as why they didn't have Marguerite's perspective be consistent with what's in the historical record, that's a pretty brutal account and personally I wouldn't want to see that played out in a live action film. I think they made it egregious enough in the movie to get the point across.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I watched this last night. The casting of Damon and Affleck as medieval figures didn't really work for me. Part of me was expecting the story to turn into a Python style parody.

This! Well, for me, it was mostly Affleck that didn't work at all, especially how ridiculous he seemed in that very bright, flaxen blonde do (not to mention the goatee)... but yeah, the two of them combined just reminds too much of their old, comedic personae in prior flicks... Might've been fine if it was just Damon w/out Affleck...

I also agree that the Rashomon-style narrative didn't offer up much in the way of insights, but more perfunctory entertainment around who would take credit for doing or saying something noble. Or who would come off as being more the a-hole. Guess what? It's gonna be the other guy!

For example, when Jean and Le Gris apparently make peace at Crespin's party, the person who says there should be no ill will between servants of the King changes depending on who is telling the story. Finally in Marguerite's version, it's Crespin who says it, not the other two. It's funny, but offers nothing insightful about the two characters or humanity in general.

As far as why they didn't have Marguerite's perspective be consistent with what's in the historical record, that's a pretty brutal account and personally I wouldn't want to see that played out in a live action film. I think they made it egregious enough in the movie to get the point across.

Yeah, the whole multiple perspectives approach seemed a bit too underwhelming since that really lengthens the movie so much (and make that section rather repetitive) for so little payoff it seems.

Has there been any meaningful explanation/insights why they chose to tell the story that way? I can imagine why they may have originally wanted to tell it that way, except the actual execution just falls rather flat probably because there's just not enough substance, divergent details and/or drama to it...

_Man_

 

[Citizen87645]

I heard Affleck got a Razzie nomination for his performance, which is partly why I watched the movie, to see if it was as bad to warrant such an ignominious honor. I think in the big picture, Affleck is kind of the least of Last Duel's problems.

 

[Sam Posten]

For example, when Jean and Le Gris apparently make peace at Crespin's party, the person who says there should be no ill will between servants of the King changes depending on who is telling the story. Finally in Marguerite's version, it's Crespin who says it, not the other two. It's funny, but offers nothing insightful about the two characters or humanity in general.

I think you have very badly missed the whole point here. This is the foundation of he said she said and the heart of unreliable memory. It very much works in the favor of the abuser. “If victims can’t agree on details of the story how can you be sure the accused is guilty”. And imagine all the technology, literature and study that have advanced since this first rape case and imagine that all gone.

The whole point of the movie is that the legal process, society, male dominated power structures and gossip all conspire to ever letting victims get justice. It takes an extraordinary and dedicated woman to even make a go at it even today.

Hell the other women in the movie have been raped themselves and are working against this victim.

It’s amazing anyone ever gets justice

 

[Citizen87645]

I don't disagree with anything you just said. What I'm saying is that as salient and relevant as those issues are, the movie didn't say anything new or insightful about them. Unfortunately, because of the Damon/Affleck casting and "nothing new to say," this is not the movie to rally people to the cause. Others have mentioned "Millennials" aren't interested in this kind of movie. Well, it's not just the period setting that is the problem, it's that the point it's making has been made before, and better. And for some, they are past the point of just identifying injustices, they want to see something change so those injustices don't happen again. For me this just elicits a "yeah, I know, but what are you/we going to do about it?" reaction.

 

[Citizen87645]

This EW review by Leah Greenblatt graded it higher than I did, mainly because of the entertainment factor. The reviewer's misgivings loom a bit larger in my estimation of the movie; pulled out of context for emphasis.

Duel is entirely, often sensationally watchable without ever quite justifying why it needs to remind us what the world has done to women for centuries. (Or how it chooses to do that by playing out an extended rape scene not once but twice.)

Damon and Affleck cowrote the screenplay with writer-director Nicole Holofcener (Enough Said, Friends with Money), which was probably wise; a story so centered on sexual assault without a woman's voice in the script would feel frankly gross in the year of our Lord 2021.

I think there's also an unfortunate irony going on where the film is about the vanity of Jean and Le Gris, and how Marguerite ultimately bears the brunt of their feud, but then we have Damon and Affleck's miscasting, and the script they take some credit for, being such a distraction to the film's greater message and only true protagonist. The more I think about it, the more I dislike how the first half of the movie is so much about these two men and their relationship, when ultimately there's not much about them to garner so much attention / screen time.