I felt like showing her story last was intentional, not dismissive. It sorta shows that behind the rhetoric, behind the justification, the duel was a vehicle for their egos. Ultimately, despite mask of justice, her opinion as the victim in all this is, is the last thing in their mind.
Historically accurate to most historical duels. Sometimes I'm not even sure it was ego; just bizarre social obligation. Sometimes it was "I like to kill people and this is legal".
I think that kinda ruins it tho Like it’s a classic storytelling motif of “you see both sides of the story but it’s up to the audience of who’s telling the truth” But just straight up going “this is what happened.” Is so lame and kinda kills the intrigue
Young men, and anybody with sons need to see this movie. Never fight for a woman. Never believe a woman. And most importantly, always do a DNA test, so you don't end up as the fool raising another's child and leaving your estate to your rival and your wife's love child, and become the laugh of the millennium even 600+ years after you are dead and buried.
My cousin - the type of guy who makes his own chainmail, he was giving me historical critique the whole time - and I watched it together, and we both absolutely glowed when she told HER story, and we just saw her MANAGE THE ESTATE. That was the first time we were invested. We both turned to each other and said "Why were we even paying attention to the men?" And that's when I knew it didn't work as a Metoo film, the men just weren't interesting to follow. They tell stories we've already seen. Her story was the one that hadn't been told before. The cruelty of Hollywood was it couldn't just be her film.
Yo, I want to watch a castle management movie. How they going to get the funds to survive next year when there's a war going on and the yield is low? Tell me!
I think that is actually the desired outcome. Two people coming out thinking they shouldn’t have listened to the men is an endorsement, not a criticism, for this story.
I've only read the book, but 'If Beale Street Could Talk,' is the only novel I've come across that deals with false accusation in a sensitive or nuanced way. It's about a black man who is falsely accused though it's heavily implied the woman was raped, just not by him. It's mostly told from the perspective of the man's pregnant lover. It's more about the incarceration system, than rape specifically, but it's there.
One thing I found fascinating about the three tellings: The one the wife tells has her hair covered (other than in the section where she's attending the formal picnic and wearing a respectable formal braided hairstyle) indicating her respectability. The de Gris section has her hair uncovered the most. As a contrast, Carrouges's mother is never shown without her hair covered. As someone who read A Distant Mirror when it was first published, I found the hair a fascinating detail.
That's something I hadn't noticed and you're absolutely right. Growing up in a conservative Muslim family where women's modesty was always a sensitive topic, I found this film scarily relatable to my own taught cultural values. Sexual abuse was always somehow traced to the woman's behaviour especially if she didn't cover her hair.
In terms of good Me Too movies: The Assistant is the first one to come to mind. It's very slow and quiet, but I think it adds to its power. I do think it's interesting that the story isn't told from a victim's perspective (at least directly, she's a victim of the culture that leads to the SA but isn't directly a victim of it, from what I can remember), but I like that the film focuses on someone who does try to report the events, tries to be there for one of the victims, and is being affected by this culture in other ways.
@clownpendotfart really? I don't know anything about it and what this other person said about it made me interested, but if they are going to just dismiss the victim, it might be too triggering for me. I'm a r*pe survivor and the fallout afterwards was in many ways more traumatizing than the actual assault
@@msjkramey We know the girl is taken advantage of. It's ambiguous how aware she is of the situation. We don't know if it's an assault or a coercion or just a transaction. The protagonist is in a morally grey situation trying to figure out what the right way forward is. She tries to report the abuse of power and it doesn't do anything except backfire on her. It's a movie about the bystanders of abusive systems. How do you break into a career that requires you to be in an abusive system? Can you remake the system or are you tainted by participating at all? So the situation with the girl at the hotel, we know it's abuse, but we don't know if it is an assault. It very much could be. That isn't clear. It really captures that, 'I think something bad happened but I don't know if it was bad or if the victim just doesn't know it was bad,' conundrum.
@@msjkramey There's no actual rape depicted. It's about an assistant at a production company who is handed lots of crap work (for example, she's supposed to lie on her boss' behalf about his whereabouts when his wife calls, and then write an apology letter to him when she didn't do so to his satifaction), which the employees accept like hazing as just part of working your way up. She's miffed that young women with less experience than her are being brought in and put up in hotels while she has to commute at ridiculous hours, but she doesn't interact enough with these women to actually know what's going on with them. She has a meeting with an HR rep (played by Matthew McFayden), but nothing comes of it.
I've read an interview in which Ridley Scott proudly declares "I don't make movies for the unwashed masses" which frankly is rich coming from the guy who made Gladiator, which is probably one of the lowest common denominator historical epics that sacrifices historicity for the sake of drama and effect. Yes, it does it incredibly well, but don't tell me that's a movie for an intellectual audience. Especially galling since Gucci does exactly the same thing, he takes an old money center Italy family but bends them out of shape into Italian-American parvenu immigrants stereotypes (which 1- being Italian American obviously are still conditioned by the "American" part and 2- most immigrants were lower class and from the south, so a lot of their mannerisms aren't the same as what is an *old money* family from *Tuscany* ) from a bad Saturday Night Live skit, and he thinks *that* isn't a movie for "unwashed masses!?" Something tells me that Scott is probably not as smart as he thinks he is about the subjects of his movies.
Some of his "best writing" was by other people - Rutger Hauer wrote his own famous lines for that last scene of his in Blade Runner, for example. The rhythmic chanting of the Germanic tribes in Gladiator was taken from the movie Zulu. And so on...
I never understood the appeal of Gladiator. Even for the time the CGI was ropey and the story was rubbish, the acting was crap. No, Maximus, I wasn't entertained. I'm tired of being told what I should like.
I'd say he's another example of "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" but Scott was evidently a bastard as far back as Blade Runner. This is extra disappointing for me as 1) three of my--deservedly--favorite movies were directed by him in his heyday and 2) he rides his past successes HARD, giving him continuing opportunities after an extended string of failures while other skilled (but far less established) directors slip not nearly as much and can't get their projects funded.
My disinterest in Last Duel stemmed from not really trusting that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck would be able to meaningfully tackle the subject matter, nor do I think they’re the right people to do so considering their very long relationship with Harvey Weinstein and Ben being accused of assault himself. I love a historical epic, Green Knight was one of my favourites of the year, but this wasn’t the story or storytellers I wanted to tackle this subject.
@@JackSparrow_sexyman there was also giants, a talking fox, ghosts, and a man made of tree. I wasn’t looking for accuracy. Why is Dev Patel’s ethnicity where you draw the line for your suspension of disbelief?
I really liked the movie when I first watched it. I was happy that they were finally doing Marguerite's side of the story and presenting it as the truth, but your commentary made me realize I was accepting the bare minimum because of how little I expect when it comes to these types of stories and how they've been done in media. As you point out, the movie still does 2 sexual assault scenes and the mens POV, particularly Les Gris, which just gives certain people a chance to argue that the situation was vague and use it for Les Gris favor. I am glad you pointed out how much they actually watered down the historical account to make Les Gris POV more vague. I had read the book it was based on as well, and it was anger inducing to realize how much they left out to not make him "too" guilty and deplorable. I imagine the casting of Adam Driver, who has many fans, was also used to paint a more sympathetic view of him, people are quicker to forgive or listen to attractive and charming people, when the real guy was actually in his 50s and Marguerite was like 20. Side note: I got Nebula just because I was so excited for this video that I did not want to wait, but so glad I did because found so many more creators and videos I would not have otherwise so thank you and cannot wait for what you do next
This is a weird video and I enjoyed it greatly. Just as an aside, "edging with pathos" is by far the funniest explanation of courtly love I've ever heard. Thank you.
I'm imagining a John Wick movie where you are shown in graphic detail the bad guys beating his dog to death, but John Wick doesn't get to take any revenge or do much of anything himself, and the bad guys get to smirk and lord over him until somebody else, who merely kicks dogs, defeats them.
The problem with the film is that the 3 different versions of the story aren’t different, where the film’s third title cards make out that the 2 men’s stories are false, they’re not different enough in any major way, Adam Driver being led on in his version for example.
An amazing drama, and quite honestly the best drama I've ever seen, in regards to sexual assault is the turkish drama, Fatmagül'ün Suçu Ne? (What is Fatmagül's Fault) While the story does go into the different perspective of everyone around her, including her assaulters, the story is HER story and it is done incredibly well. We get to see her mental and the growth of her character through therapy and real conversations. It is graphic for the first episode and the evil dies a very slow death, but I promise you, you won't regret watching it. I have yet to see anything come close to this drama.
Oh good God this unlocked a memory! Nothing about this show irritated me more than everyone's treatment of Mukades; the sole instigator and villain of the series and yet, no matter how many times her schemes and treachery was revealed, everyone continued to forgave her. Even until the end, where got to live on a farm with Fatamgul's brother, when her ass should've been put in prison. Also, Mustafa is the greatest example of an absolutely pathetic character from start to finish.
@@vodka9384 Yep ALL this💯 I too was disappointed Mukades didn't get hers. She was definitely the devil at Fatmagül's side while Meryem was her Angel. Thank god Meryem found her and helped her. Mustafa was a coward till the end. No doubt their marriage would've been a terrible one and Fatmagül would have no where to run to.
@@vodka9384 I absolutely agree with this as well. Now this is my take , but I believe Mustafa would've definitely taken advantage of her in their marriage, especially in the sexual realm. He also seemed like the type to cheat, but would be insecure around Fatmagül interacting with any man, and he would def project his insecurities onto her.
That is exactly why I refuse to watch this movie. After witnessing Matt Damon victim blame all the women that were r*ped by his buddy Harvey Weinstein on Jimmy Kimmel a few years back, I refuse to see anything that involves him in the production in any way, shape or form. For those who missed it, Damon questioned why any woman allow themselves to be alone with Weinstein if they thought he was a creeper. The problem wasn't Weinstein (or any other Hollywood r*pist) being a violent predator, it was that his victims "allowed" it to happen somehow. I just can't with him anymore now. He repulses me.
@@tatehildyard5332 I tend to believe the rumour that Disney just let all the Fox Studios pictures that were in the can before the merger die on the vine. And the only reason that other Jodie Comer film, Free Guy, escaped that fate, is because Ryan Reynolds is better at self-promotion than any actor in Hollywood. Even the Rock!
man I REALLY loved the film and loved the 3 pov because Legris's pov serves to deconstructs de Carrouges's self agrandising's story and set up what is ultimately his true character. It's definitely a bit of a male target audiance and more ABOUT Marguerite then Marguerite's movie but I'm glad it got made and I got to watch it.
I actually found it to be mostly an exploration of the human condition, and how people of wealth and status in society who long to increase their power, wealth and influence will swiftly try to attach themselves to noble causes in the public eye when really it's a cover for them to actually pursue personal agendas or goals regardless if it's at the expense of innocent people.
I feel like that simple change--having her story first and actually showing the assault--would have made such a drastic difference. Visceral, relatable, entirely believable account up front, then both these weaselly ass men overhauling the story to save face, culminating in a cathartic battle to the death. It could have been way more impactful.
I don't think it would have been enough to save this. Having her story first would only have underlined that half of the movie, the backstory of the two mens relationship, is mostly irrelevant when it comes to the other half, her story and the story of the crime and the duel.
Having her story last cements it in our minds and makes sure we're fully on board with her innocence, seeing the men's delusional POVs first allows us to look out for things to debunk and by the final POV we know that it's all true. If it were given away at the start, it'd be a much less compelling film and there would be no point seeing the men's POVs, which I thought were important for understanding the story.
@@Frogface91 That depends on what you think the story is. If it is the story of two men who used to be close falling out and the tragedy of the duel then her POV is irrelevant as she is just the last straw. If the story is her attempts to get justice after being raped than most of the men's POV is irrelevant.
@@grif0716 I disagree, I felt that the story was all about her while highlighting how much people can delude themselves. I thought the men's POVs served to highlight their flaws and make it clear how their perspective affected their claims. I think without their POVs the story would have felt dull and fallen flat. That's just my opinion though 🙂
While I don't think her story was lessened by being placed last (and it could have been even more impactful for it, framing her story as the true last word) I agree that it ultimately did still feel secondary to the story of these two men. I understand there's the source material and historicity to take into account, but the focus felt too evenly split, even if the two men both looked like fools by the end. Any commentary this movie might've had about assault felt dulled by the glossing over of De Carrouge's assault after Marguerite informs him of her rape, and the fact that end barely felt like a victory for her. She had nearly no agency in her vindication, and was only believed (if she even truly was) because her awful husband happened to win a fight that felt more like a question of his honor rather than her truth. The whole thing just rang a bit hollow.
I mean, isn't that hollow feeling at the end intentional? Marguerite's rapist gets his comeuppance but it's not as cathartic as we'd like because it's limited by the confines of the patriarchal medieval society that all the characters live in. In the film, Marguerite's rape and the subsequent trial is pretty much equated to property damage and a property dispute because her society regards her as a piece of property for men to fight over. The main reason that De Carrouge married Marguerite in the first place was to acquire a prized plot of land from her father as the dowry. The whole bittersweet hollow ending is intentional, it's the subtle denouncement of patriarchy and how even if a woman "wins", it doesn't genuinely feel like a victory because it's framed and limited by the patriarchal society in which Marguerite and the other characters live in.
@@ajiththomas2465but that's undercut by giving more screen time to the men. The medium is the message. The book avoids that issue by focusing on the trial in an academic perspective.
@@ajiththomas2465 That's an entirely fair reading, and I honestly thought they might've had Le Gris win just to drive home the hopelessness and brutality of it all. Felt like it would've been easier to sit in that hollowness if they hadn't gone on to try and show us the happy peaceful future.
History itself can often feel like grasping at straws for information so no one could make an entirely accurate Historical Drama. The same problem has been brought up regarding the Cleopatra "docu-series" and I think I at least do not want to participate in a losing battle. There are plenty of people smarter than me who have already given their two cents about this stuff. I have no doubt that it will not change Ridley Scott's mind at all. I don't want to give energy to this BS
Considering Sean Young said ridley scott forced a rape scene on her in Blade Runner as punishment for her not fucking him, it doesn't shock me his so-called me-too movie misunderstood the assignment
2049 has always been the superior blade runner since coming out. hell i'd maybe put 80's blade runner at number 3 after both 2049 and shinichiro watanabe's "blackout" short.
What really got me going about this movie was the fact that she would go to such lengths (even heartbreakingly sacrifying her being a mother to her child) to prove her innocence and to punish who did this to her in a world when nobody cared what happened to her because it was "normal" (like carrouge's mother says), she stood up for herself against a system that set her up for failure yet she was successful in the end, even though such success sadly didn't depend on her. I love the part when she's holding the baby and says "a baby needs her mother more than a mother needs to be right" and I think that perfectly sums up why many (most?) women choose to keep silent, because we think that how we feel is not that important in comparison to our duty as mothers.
I cannot HANDLE you showing BBC Merlin behind the courtly love section, of COURSE Arthur and Merlin exemplify this extramarital romance, I am reeling from this realization
I guess I'm weird, but I thought seeing the men's incorrect perspectives was great for giving the final perspective more weight and giving a clear insight into how people can twist the truth, I also liked that it wasn't a stereotypical, super obvious r*pe because it will hopefully open people's eyes to what it's often like, rather than it being only considered legit if it's an ugly stranger in an alleyway being super violent.
I don’t think you’re weird. To me, that’s what it felt like the movie was going for. It’s challenging and horrible to engage with that POV, but that feels by design, and certainly makes the final act hit harder. It forces you to come to terms with that being how a perpetrator of such a crime feels. That doesn’t make him sympathetic; if anything, it’s the opposite - it makes the crime even more troubling and horrific. Him romanticising the event does not equal the film romanticising it in my eyes. But I think some people hate a perspective like that being shown at all, and I can understand it being sickening enough that some reject it outright. But it felt eye-opening to me. As a bit of a sidenote, that use of differing perspectives is one of the things that made this film stand out against other historical epics (I didn’t think it felt old-fashioned at all). Some criticisms call this film out of touch and samey, but to me, that’s the only criticism I can’t personally understand.
On my opinion the fact that Ridley Scott states unambigously that Marguerite's POV is the truth is what saves the movie from just being " Rashomon in Medieval France". That movie is about how it is impossible to find an objective interpretation of reality. This movie is about how every person has his own interpretation of a set of facts , but it is also about the fact that sometimes women are not believed when they denounce a rape ,although they are telling the truth.
@@Daughterofminerva I didn't know that about Rashimon (haven't seen it) but that was a big part of what worked for me, too, and it had me so invested in the outcome of the duel as I didn't look up in advance who had won it.
So I do agree that ultimately this story is probably better if it centers marguerite and wastes waaaaay less time on the two dudes. That said I think it does something kind of unique in showing us how rapists see themselves vs the actual reality of what they do. In most movies rapists are random criminal psychopaths that revel in pain and destruction. In reality most are just people you already know who don't care enough about consent and are willing to bend reality to justify themselves. "She was kissing me earlier so it must be ok to do this now" "she would have said yes if she was drunk" "we've done this so many times before its gotta be ok now". This movie shows us that kind of rapists perspective and contrasts it with the actual reality of what happened. I do think there's a much better way to make this point that doesn't add that layer of doubt into marguerite's story and has a lot more empathy for her and less for legris. But I was kind of impressed they even tried? Maybe my standards are too low.
Totally agree when you say that once you introduce doubt about what happened it doesn't go away. Although it's obvious to me (and hopefully most of the audience) that Marguerite's version is THE truth, I've heard others say things like "well the movie shows that at the end of the day the truth is just a question of point of view", and that's not right lol. Also loved the Merlin clips playing in the background during the explanation of courtly love. Great video!
@@chideraalexanderdex547ah,but the point of the movie is not the narration of an historical event. This is a movie ,it is inspired to facts,but it doesn' t need to adhere strictly to facts. The aim of Ridley Scott in my opinion was not just to show that an objective interpretation of reality is really difficult,even impossible to find (he achieved this by showing that Le Gris and de Carrouges' POVs on the events and on their relationships with Marguerite are totally different), but he explicitly wants to denounce the fact that about the event told by the movie ( the story,not the historical fact ) Marguerite 's version is the right one. That she was raped and she never asked for Le Gris' attentions. This is why Scott writes at the beginning of Marguerite's POV that her version is the truth. Clearly to denounce the fact that sometimes women are not believed when they denounce a rape.
@@Daughterofminerva yes but that can be misleading since it presses his opinion unto historical facts as truth. Some may take it to mean that we know for sure that historical le gris committed the crime Also that whole 'always believe' mantra is not one worthy of any human male or female, men and women lie for different reasons and we shouldn't always believe any one gender just because of their gender. People lie, evidence is supreme
@@chideraalexanderdex547yeah, I agree that both men and women lie ,so you should not hold everything they say like gold. When I wrote my comment I was specifically thinking of the importance not to dismiss a woman or belittle what she says when she denounces that she was raped or that she was object of any type of sexual assault. We are in 2023 and I still hear of cases of women who denounce a rape after ,for example, going dancing and people say :" yes,but she was wearing provocative clothes" , or " yes but she gave me such a look,I know that deeply she wanted it ". Of course you must prove that the rape happened , but in a fair world a woman should never hear such comments when she opens her mouth to denounce.
Hey, Princess Weekes! I'm 10 days late, but as a moderator of the r/AdamDriver subreddit, I wanted to comment how much I appreciate you taking the time to tackle "The Last Duel" as a film. It seems like most historians tend to either love or hate the film for the reasons you mention, with David Perry, Sara McDougall, and myself being in the "hate it" camp.
I didn’t see the last duel, but I remember the trailer very well. It seemed to me that they were trying to keep it a mystery, like… is she lying or not? That’s basically why I didn’t want to watch it. I didn’t know the story was shown through multiple perspectives.
The Last Duel is one of the films that was made for a much different time than now. Everything about it looked old, stale, and rehashed---except for Jodie Comer. Ridley Scott is running on fumes as a filmmaker, and Comer's departure from his newest flick, "Napoleon" was the smartest move she's made as she emerges from the wreckage of Killing Eve's final season.
I think shes a smart actor and most of all, a businesswoman. All actors have to make good business decisions as well as personal, emotional decisions. They don't care about our opinions but it should be said that we are all human.
even from the aggressor's POV i found their "sex scene" to be disturbing, so to be forced to see it again was very hard for me. i couldn't look away i was just so baffled they'd do that
It’s my 1st time commenting after months of absorbing your content, and I just wanted to say, you're a highly intelligent young woman, who really opens the door of the mind to the type of conversations; in which should be discussed. Thank you for that. ❤
I just wanted to comment that though I've loved your channel and your insights for a while now, I did used to struggle with the naturalistic and freeflowing presentation with my ADHD brain. However your recent videos have gotten more and more accessible to follow while still keeping the same grounded style. I did notice the silent title cards helpfuly marking the transitions in topic, but I think there's more that I'm not enough of an editor to notice. I just want to share my appreciation for the evolution of your presentation. Hyper-editing can hack my brain quicker, but I really like that I can watch a more grounded style of video essay without having to struggle comparitively. So thank you!
thank you for making this and including the details about le gris and his actual legal argument. I felt weird after this movie (carried heavily on Jodie's shoulders) but that really illuminates a HUGE shortcoming. And how someone could spend 100 million dollars and just include such a jarringly weird and inaccurate version of le gris perspective :?????
Fantastic breakdown. Was so glad you dropped all the info on Courtly Love because so few seem to grasp its got a specific structure and 'function' for both the men and the women involved. This is also just more of a pet-peeve and me being very specifically blasé about this, but I think I'm just straight up done with mud&blood aesthetic in historical fiction. Fantasy can still get away with it for me, but I don't give a shit about drab, all-black wearing knights grimacing and talking about the severity of all the war crimes they want to do later. It makes the Medieval Era feel even more dour and patriarchal and just boring as all shit. I don't care for the hyper-macho choices on how these men look and as a historical fencer I appreciate far less their caveman club-swinging choreography to try and make sword fights look more "brutal". I want the colour, both in the actors cast and in the clothing they wear. I want the joy and almost toxic positivity of the art at the time, the way everyone was so obsessed with extreme emotion and expression. And I want the queerness, at least from the modern perspective. Ideal depictions of men back then were basically buff femboys by modern standards (though maybe with moustaches). Finally, I know we're in the Anglosphere, but can we stop with the Anglocentric hallway of history from Ancient Greece to England and France? We only have movies about Greece, Rome, then France and England, recently more often "Vikings", and occasionally something in Renaissance Italy. We know why, they want to cast maximum white actors while pretending it's for 'accuracy'. But I'm done, I'm so done. If we're sticking with Europe give me more Spain, give me Byzantium, and the HRE, and Medieval Greece, the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and Morocco, and do the Crusades from the Muslim Perspective. Give me El Cid but with an actual Spanish or Hispanic actor who isn't the shittiest NRA advocate ever. And then, obviously, how about we DON'T just stick with Europe.
The US is born from Western civilization, specifically connected to the English. Very few have interest in places like Spain or the HRE, let alone outside of Europe.
I'm done with the mud and blood aesthetic in fantasy and science fiction as well. It's consistent use is one of the main reasons I now believe that Game of Thrones has done harm than good to the fantasy genre as a whole; along with the constant casual depictions of SA and its insecurity about magic and fantastical elements. The boring grimdark and constant brown has been enough for me to lose interest in a film or work of fiction and the only thing of value lost by doing so is Mad Max: Fury road.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Oh yeah? Nobody cares about Japan? I don't need the current interest explained to me, I know it's there, if I didn't then I wouldn't want to change it. However I think it's bullshit, audiences regularly enjoy things out of that wheelhouse, the problem is that capitalism doesn't want extra work done to achieve results that do anything except push profit. And I don't care what capitalists want. I care about changing things rather than just doing what is popular.
How is it not accurate? Europeans are/were white, historically. Or did I misinterpret what you wrote? I personally like the Medieval European stuff in film, but that's mostly because of an ancestry-related interest. I could do without all the gruesome execution scenes, though.
@@AmandaFromWisconsin There's more to Europe than England and France, and they want to see that in their media. What we call 'Accurate' is formed from less than 1% of a picture about this time so it probably had more diverse colours and people than the influence of old fantasy novels would like to admit.
Yes yes yessss! I agree with everything and loved listening to this analysis. I'd immediatley been uninterested in the movie due to the subject matter but then when Scott and the think pieces basically came out complaining that the MeToo supporters weren't showing up to this Truly Monumental and Important Film really had them showing their ass. They totally thought that this was just an underserved demographic of particularly vindictive feminists auddenly being able to complain about their Pet Peeve, instead of... Thousands of women using the hashtag to signal the bitter reality that indeed, they too had experienced sexual harrassment or assault. It was a way of making a statistic many of us are aware of, more tangible and visible, and to show solidarity with other victims while still being able to say as little as possible in order to protect yourself, that was the "moment" this movie was made as a "reaction" to, and it while it's clear they misunderstood, it feels more that they blatantly miscalculated how easily they could take advantage of this latest trend. It read to me like the dude wanted an extra project, or paycheck, found an audience of old rich guys to market to for investment, got the dosh, made the movie those same old men would find worthy of their dollars then acted all *shocked* when throngs of traumatized women didn't line up in droves, during a global crisis, to watch another women act out and then relive --in the most catastrophically high stakes scenario of scrutiny one could imagine, mind you-- an assault and the events leading up to it, for nearly 3 hours! It was a ridiculous showing by Ridley Scott, and I say this as an unabashed Prometheus Enjoyer. Edgar Wright was also kind of Like This about Last Night in Soho but thats a whole other kettle of dudes not getting it!
Something that I think you touched on a bit but could have been expanded is the framing around "here's all the sides of this story" inherently devalues the actual crime. Yes, it's weird that it starts with the two men's stories before it got to the woman's story, but even if it started with her perspective it's still framing SA as.... a series of stories and perspectives rather than a crime that happens, y'know? Like it discusses SA inherently from an outsider perspective - it's not an objective thing that happens in reality or a thing that can or even has happened to YOU, the audience member, it's a series of stories that you hear from other people. I hope I'm making sense here lol
You've nailed on the head exactly why the movie felt 'off' to me. He's telling the story of SA but somehow can't fathom the immediacy and stark reality of such actions. There's this cushion present of 'This thing is bad, but it happened to somebody else.' with this strange, assured distance that this could never touch you, not directly- Scott puts forward the husband and the perpetrator first because their perspectives are more personally plausible to him than Margerite's, which is not what people go into story framed as '#MeToo' looking for.
The biggest problem of this movie is: the writer has not understood the whole concept of the "Rashomon effect" in storytelling. The "Rashomon effect", named after the classic Akira Kurosawa movie, "Rashomon", works like this: You have an event, that is being told by different characters who were part of it and every version of the story is different and often contradicts the other version and it´s told from that person´s perspective, adding another "puzzle piece" so to speak and in the end, we get the "whole picture". In many cases, it is even left ambiguous what really happened and we as the viewers have to decide what actually happened. In Kurosawa´s "Rashomon", a bandit is accused of murdering a Samurai & r*ping his wife. We get 5 different, contradicting versions of what happened and only in the end we get the whole picture and Kurosawa even leaves it a little bit ambiguous, if that 5th version is even how everything happened. In "The Duel" we have a similar scenario. Noble woman accuses another noble, that he r*ped her. We get: 1). the version of the events from her perspective 2). the version form the perspective of the accused 3). the "truth", which is basically version 1 all over again! It´s baffling how bad the writing in this movie is, from a story telling aspect!
I’m just going to assume you didn’t actually watch the movie. The first chapter wasn’t her perspective…and the third chapter is actually quite different being it is her perspective // the truth. You’re whole critique of the movie is based off of the storytelling that you clearly didn’t understand…
Yet another A+ take! You're also right that Nanisca killing that asshole was indeed satisfying as hell. I'd be super duper interested in your thoughts on the new Django series when/if you get a chance to watch it! The Reconstruction era feels way underutilized as a setting for historical fiction and Django has fun with the spaghetti-western vibes while at the same time being thoughtful about multiple characters' perspectives on the political context.
Thank you for this examination of the film. I didn't see the movie (mostly because I did not want to watch a movie all about sexual assault). I think your analysis makes good points, and it was a helpful introduction to the film.
I loved the book and think you nailed it when you said the meat is in the trial not the set up. I think the book did a great job showing how horribly women were treated. It did it in a way that made me think about how little things have changed.
Describing courtly love as "edging with pathos" is going to live in my head forever now. I will have to use that phrase whenever explaining it to anyone now
If we’re gonna talk about how the movie didn’t make money let’s also address how ridiculously expensive it is to go see movies; tickets alone at my local AMC can cost up to $20-$30 PER TICKET. And that’s not factoring in concessions, baby sitters if you’re a parent, and time that people have to have a night off. People are kinda forced to be picky about what movies they want to pay to go see and that’s going to impact the sales. The target audience for this movie already was pretty small especially how they marketed it as a “is she lying” (which I know turned a lot of my friends who love historical dramas off from seeing it).
I'm no fan of Ridley Scott, and while I enjoyed "The Last Duel," it wasn't my favorite movie of that year by any means. I also haven't read the book that the film was based off, so I can only judge the work by its film at this point, and I have next to no knowledge of the historical accuracy of the film. That being said, I can't say I agree with the many critiques that this video has of the movie. For one, I see no value in crafting a movie in order to avoid misreadings by the worst possible people. Centering Marguerite more, I also believe, removes some of the nuances that the film is trying to bring to the table. On paper, I think it would have been a more "righteous" thing to do, but it would have resulted, thematically, in a less interesting work of art. By bringing in two male perspectives, the film is also showing audiences the narrative that men have either been taught by society or teach themselves in order to justify their treatment of women. In different ways, both Carrouges and Les Gris have completely deluded themselves into believing themselves to be powerful, respectable men, and part of that delusion is upheld by the way they use Marguerite. Carrouges straight up marries Marguerite for her dowry, uses her only for childbearing, and then, when she tells him she was raped, interprets that to mean Les Gris did it to insult HIS honor. Les Gris, on the other hand, believing himself to be romantic and well-read, haughtily believes he is better suited for Marguerite. He badly misinterprets her "affectionate" behavior, which she did partly because she was forced to and partly so she can smooth the relationship between Les Gris and her husband. For me, when I watched Les Gris' perspective, I felt more repulsed than anything. Nothing about it felt particularly romanticized; it was only romantic to a sleazy rapist like Les Gris. The world is full of men who abuse women because they think they've been "led on" by women who are simply being the bare minimum of nice. All of his delusions and all of the ways his behavior is reinforced by the people around him led to that rape; and all of that prevented him from fully understanding the monstrosity of his crime. Overall, both Carrouges and Les Gris' perspectives highlighted the kind of culture and thinking that perpetuates the objectification and rape of women. Having their viewpoints, to me, was just as important as having Marguerite's. It was like putting a mirror in front of men's faces and forcing them to grapple with the kind of teaching and thinking they've grown up with. Having Marguerite's perspective at the end, and having her perspective be emphasized as the Absolute Truth, had the effect of completely shattering whatever delusions someone may have about the two men who have used her for their own ends. It cuts through the entire movie up until this point and recontextualizes everything that we've seen, and the effect is devastating. The film is not about women's empowerment or bravery. It is not a movie about triumph. To me, it reads more like a tragedy. After everything she's been put through, she chose to speak up about her rape, and in the end, her fate was placed back in the hands of the very two men who have used her. Nothing about her story is meant to be uplifting, but it had to be told. It's hard to say whether this film is a "Me Too" film or, perhaps more fittingly, a "post-Me Too" film. It's been one year since the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial, and while public sentiment has somewhat shifted towards Heard, the damage that trial has caused still haunts me. One of the things I really connected to with "The Last Duel" was it raised many interesting questions that we still have to grapple with today. What happens when a woman, when speaking the Truth, is ultimately judged on likeability? What happens when society automatically knocks down her likeability as soon as she accuses someone of rape or abuse? What happens when the person she accuses is charming and tells a counter-narrative that, while wrong and delusional, is more pleasing to the public's ears? How do we, as a society still living in rape culture, learn how to distinguish brutal, hard-to-swallow Truth from romantic fiction? This is, personally, why I think it was necessary to bring in Carrouges and Les Gris' perspectives. To some, it might cause ambiguity and thereby muddy the film. But for me, having the ambiguity get set up before completely shattering it with Marguerite's Truth felt much more real and visceral. I think for us to truly appreciate the film, we have to meet it where it's at. I found myself paying close attention to all of the tiny, subtle changes between perspectives. I think some people have stated they found the repetitiveness boring, but I found it riveting. My biggest problem with this video's critique is it felt unwilling to see the film for what it is, and instead tried to project what it wanted instead. And what it wanted, ultimately, was to kowtow to the kind of people who would never empathize with Marguerite's perspective in the first place. Why appease these kinds of people? I find it all very frustrating and very sad.
I thought the film was ok when I saw it, but just being ok really isn't enough when it comes to watching films post-vaccination. Really, it was the fact that I had a cineworld unlimited card (so I could get in for free) that made it not a disappointment. Also, I fully agree with your assessment. The Rashomon plot structure wasn't necessary. It's like the leads of the film thought that they needed to justify why the men did what they did, and it could've been covered with some testimony at the trial itself. Of course the husband will think that everything was hunky dory and invoke the duel behind his wife's back. And even if LeGris is being honest about how he interpteted things, he's still a creep! It feels like they did the structure just so they got more screen time. Which is a pretty cynical motive.
The audience has changed, and directors are out of touch. Directors then get mad. A lot of people don't read the original source overall. I been there. I had to post videos of the text. For example, I posted about Ahuitzotl, based on text and source images. Fan images don't look like that, but people treat the fan art to be true. There's movie ideas that haven't been touched, so it would be new on the big screen, but leaving that in my mind.
A few random comments about this video: 1. In Ryunosuke Akatagawa's short story _In a Grove_ (from which _Rashomon_ is adapted) there is an interesting plot twist as to who actually kills the samurai. Although he is mortally wounded by a small sword thrust in his heart, he does not immediately die because the sword is left in place. It is not until the woodcutter steals the sword that the samurai dies, as told by the medium. In the movie the woodcutter is shown as compassionate because he adopts an abandoned baby, and it is the second wayfarer at the Rashomon gate who suggests that he had stolen the sword. 2. The nonfiction book _The Last Duel_ is a good read! Two points are brought up that don't figure in the movie: a) In the middle ages it was believed that a woman could not conceive without an orgasm. You would think that this is a win for women, but not so when it comes to rape. Carrouges and his wife Marguerite had been married some time without conceiving, and she was only found pregnant after Le Gris rapes her. (*trigger warnings*) b) Le Gris was eligible to choose to be tried by an ecclesiastical court because he was a cleric, but he did not do so, even though he was urged to by his lawyer. In an ecclesiastical court, if you were to be found guilty you would just be given a slap on the wrist. When he died in the duel, he was not given Christian burial, but was dragged to the gibbets where he would hang for awhile until he received the final ignominy of a common grave. (*end trigger warnings*) 3. The ideal of courtly love originated in the Middle East and was brought back to Europe by the Crusaders (or at least what the Crusaders thought was the Middle Eastern ideal of love). I wonder if this is one of several reasons why Middle Easterners have tried to dissociate themselves from _The One Thousand and One Nights._
Nope! As a middle Eastern person, there have been many arab TV shows based on the one thousand and one night. It's something our intellectuals are proud of as they know that arab literature and poetry have helped shape world literature.
Making a 100mil, 2.5 hour movie about a r trial was pretty self indulgent, while turning around and blaming anyone but himself for its failure was just plain entitlement
On the subject of The Green Knight, I was so hyped for that movie. I like Dev Patel. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is one of my favorite stories. That said, I HATED the movie. They kept some similar plot points from the legend, but they made Gawain the exact opposite of who he was in the story. The movie also felt like a video game, like it was split into levels. The whole point of the story is that Gawain is the most honorable knight, even when it's easier not to be, and he proves it to Morgana. He also puts himself forward to protect his king. The movie Gawain was a coward and had no honor. They also took the fun out of the crazy story. I thought the green knight looked beautiful, but that's the only thing I liked. They literally showed what would happen if Gawain continued to be a coward and that's why he decided to change and accept that the Green Knight might kill him. He didn't even learn anything on his journey. It was so dumb!
1:01 THIS!!! Ridley Scott came across so out of touch with reality when he spoke about this film's lack of box office success. "The millennial do not ever want to be taught anything unless you are told it on the cell phone." Or...maybe don't spend $100mil making a movie about SA and release it to theatres during a lockdown. Even if he'd made it for half the money, and cut down the run time, at best the audience for this story was going to be limited. The general movie-going audience is there for a good time, to be entertained. This is not material that will leave most people feeling good, so they didn't go see it.
As someone who went into the movie completely blind, the way the movie handled the rape scene was really weird. In the 1st story we hear from Marguerite that she was raped. In the 2nd story we see it and, yeah, it was definitely a rape. So we basically have 2 takes on the rape saying that it was definitely a rape and it upset her. I was wondering what exactly the 3rd take of the scene from her POV would add to the understanding of the situation, and the third take addition was…. apparently she orgasmed during the rape. Besides that, pretty much identical to the 2nd version. Like…. OK? Sure? If the filmmaker’s goal was me watching a rape scene again while now desensitized to the event and thinking about this woman’s pregnancy issues with her husband, then they sure did achieve that.
The rape scene was shown twice because their are both totally different scenes. When you see Jacques version of it she's saying No, but with the hint of lust behind it. When you see the version from Marguerite's prespective shes actually screaming and is horrified.
@@miguelpu4129 They're not totally different scenes. The only difference is that in the 2nd story during the rape the camera favors Le Gris face and some of Marguerite's sounds are missing, and in the 3rd story the camera favors Marguerite's face and Marguerite's sounds of struggling and crying are edited in. The actions, dialogue, the death threat, and the fact that she ran from him and did not consent at all during the entire scene is the exact same. A woman being a little bit turned on by sex during a rape when everything happening is coercive isn't really a game-changer here. If raising the idea that she might have been into the rape was the point, that is also very heavily trod ground in this film. There is at least 10 minutes of the film already dedicated to other characters raising that she must have been turned on by Le Gris or being raped by him for various reasons. If getting the exact same dish twice but with a little more traumatized woman flavoring the 2nd time made a big difference for you, that's cool, but for me a little more flavor doesn't help the fact that I'm already full on a less visceral version of that scene. IMO if it was me editing the film, I would just have cut the Le Gris' take on the rape (after him entering the castle) because it weakens his POV for the rest of his story (b/c from that point on he's very obviously a delusional rapist), and because it weakens the impact of the rape scene in Marguerite's POV. The minute differences in the editing and acting in the doubled up scenes might hit with some people, but all I'm thinking when I'm watching them is "this movie could've had tighter editing".
You somehow managed to completely misinterpret her POV. If you thought her screams of horror and pain were her orgasming, there is really no hope for you. I can only assume you’re a man because that’s not how women work, and I despair for any woman unlucky enough to sleep with you.
I have no idea how Ridley Scott is still able to convince studios to give him so much money. It has been so long since he made a successful movie and he still gets to work with some really big budgets.
@@Dell-ol6hb yes, but it doesn't seem particularly smart when you look in his box office returns in the past 10 years. I know that Hollywood works based on connections and fame, but it's just a stupid way to invest money.
@Booper Dooper he hasn't made a non-DC movie since 2013. 300 was successful, Sucker Punch and Watchmen weren't. The two that he did for Netflix did Ok. He hasn't directed that many movies actually.
I love your videos Princess Weekes, but for the love of Jodie Comer, please make your audio louder. I have to boost the volume to hear you but then the commercials kill my ear drums.
Many of your critiques are on-target, but putting Margueritte's POV last makes perfect sense in the context of this movie. How a movie ends plays outsized importance in how it is to be interpreted, and is naturally more salient in terms of what the audience will remember. It is also standard narrative convention to place reveals in the last act (even in Memento, where the chronology is backward), and thus that is the act which should contain "the truth". There is a problem with a film trying to depict Margueritte's "truth" since she didn't actually get to write her own account for us to read and all we have instead is a trial in which the feud between two men naturally took prominence (the title is "The Last Duel" after all). My problem with abandoning Le Gris' alibi is that his witness being unable to testify because he was arrested for another such crime is one of those perfect bits that a comedy writer would add for a film.
What a great video! On top of all that was said Scott also went out of his way to alienate the small core audience that could have been the most vocal supporters: History nerds, HEMA-enthusiasts, reenactors and the like. But we all startet mocking the blue filter, the mud and the ugly ass helmets as soon as the first trailer dropped. And with good reason. Just hire someone like Dr. Capwell as a consultant goddammit.
I am a medieval hobbiest and my friends know it. They had me review The Green Knight which while the story is poorly adapted is an excellent presentation of a medieval story in cinema. I refused to review The Last Duel because it wasn't about medieval story telling right from the trailer. I'm sick of bland grayscale dreary medieval dramas. The Last Duel is both a poor story telling and poor medieval representation. People think they have to adapt medieval stories to be "modern" for modern audiences (likeaking this a me too story) but based on my friends and those I've talked to I think a modern audience can not only handle a.medieval story but actually enjoy it. Hollywood doesn't want to do that and it's such a missed opportunity. The way MCU movies feel washed up now and it's a good sign and opportunity to do something different. The Last Duel feels a waste and forgettable. Thanks for the analysis
I sort of like the movie as is. It shows how toxic masculinity can be. How men make up stories about themselves to seem like they are good guys. There is even a scene where carrogue(sp) thinks that Marguerite is into him when he is negotiating her dowery with her father.
the Rashomon-ing was completely not necessary. I did not want to see her get raped on a big screen three times in detail. And honestly... yeah I'm with you, it wasn't her movie, it was all about them menz. I... was not terribly happy with that doubt-planting. That said, I did go on to write a paper for grad school on Christine de Pizan and the "Debate of the Rose" because that woman was NOT THE ONLY ONE that had issues with the Romance of the Rose back then lol.
Theoretical, I would be into The Last Duel, because its this medieval trial and I loved Cadfael growing up but honestly, I really didn't want to see it because why couldn't it be about Marguerite and the trial? Also, I need to see Woman King.
I'm really glad you shared "A Distant Mirror," it's a great dissection of our stereotypes of the High Medieval Era and how it differed from the documented reality
never heard of this movie but it sounds awful. if the rapist alleges he wasn't there, then his POV sequence isn't what he's claiming. so it's supposed to be what he genuinely believes? it's not compatible at all with her perspective so like... what is the point? it seems like it can't be actually his perspective, and it's not his testimony, but it's just a weird romanticization of the events that he knows isn't what happened and also never claimed did happen?
Another great video!! I always come away with a new perspective from a Princess video : ) and I’m obsessed with the Chibi Usa Helios I spotted in the background. Obsessed.
I liked the northmen I think it was good at deconstructing the narrative around Vikings & vengeance story. It was better then the last duel. Yea I think ancient historical epic flick is def in a dry spell.
I actually loved The Last Duel. It had me thinking about how different people's perception of reality are. How a rapist could genuinely think he was in the right. I just think the marketing sucked and that's why it bombed. Most people don't want to watch a MeToo story.
excellent and thoughtful video as always. watching men opine this film as the death of the adult movie (usually helmed by some man who made movies they loved from the 90s) was genuinely infuriating. sorry brendon maybe the subject matter was 1) unpleasant and 2) poorly framed! just a thought!
As soon as the trailer dropped I knew I was going to see this movie, since I like Jodie Comer, Adam Driver, and historical epics. But I also knew that I wasn't going to be watching it in theatres. I wait a while before watching movies I know will feature SA just so I can read content advisories and prepare if I learn the scene is going to be intense. Even if I know the scene won't be intense, I like to give myself the leeway to pause and come back or skip ahead if I need to, which I can't do in the theatre as easily. It's a shame because I feel like this movie could have made some point through the trial about how the scrutiny that women face when they come forward has not changed that much since the fucking 1300's. Unfortunately that's not what we got. My favourite MeToo media was definitely I May Destroy You as well, literally one of the best shows I've ever watched, the last episode just left me speechless. Another show I liked was Unbelievable.
I went to see this movie when it came out and I enjoyed it, maybe because I tried to take something different from what you where asking from it. You wanted this movie to be more centered around Marguerite and unfortunately it wasn't. But to me it was maybe on pourpose. I saw it more as the story of how men can exploit and manipulate the story of a woman in order to make it about their own honor while actually not caring about her. That's why two of the point of view are from the men's perspective. If the story was more about whether the rape actually happened or not, probably the point of view would have been only from the perspective of Marguerite and Le Gris. And to that I also find more effective telling her side of the story as last one because it made stronger the disgust in seeing how Jean's only interest is to use her wife's rape as a way to climb up the social ladder and make himself look like a victim. All this is shown in the fact that the climax of the movie is not at the actual trial but at the duel, the situation where Marguerite, the woman, is the most powerless. I'm not saying it was okay to make the story not about her, but maybe this explains why you felt this movie wasn't the story you wanted.
Framing her story being last as bad, a mistake or failure for no real reason is in my opinion bad media literacy. The point was so her account would be the final word on what happened and by extension the truth.
Watched on Nebula. Commenting for the algorithm. You make the book sound more interesting. Because it’s a short one, I might check it out but the SA stuff sounds really upsetting.
Interesting. I suppose the fundamental problem here is that the og script and Scott's film, are actually more interested in why Men rape and how they get away with it, than how women experience or deal with it. I think in a way they're interested in how do people end up siding with the men instead of the truth?? But you're right, doing that ends up reinforcing these things not deconstructing them as you may have intended. 100% agree it didn't feel fresh. I decided I didn't want to see it in cinemas because a) covid still made me nervy b) did not enjoy Scott's Robin Hood c) his discourse about why it wasn't doing great REALLY turned me off because ffs dinosaur get over yourself. So when I did see it, I was kinda surprised. Because I thought it would be a lot worse and less sympathetic to the woman than it was. I could see they were *trying* to do it from a "rape bad" perspective. But you're right to take it to task for not doing that in a way that's actually successful in that aim.
way out of left field, but I love your tarot cards up on the wall. I have both the set and just the major arcana. I have no opinion on the movie or book, I avoid media that I know is going to make me rage and media focused on a woman's violation without catharsis (which I knew this movie was going to have) was right in line with that, but your analysis for this and other topics has been really interesting and enjoyable. Keep up your amazing work!
I had this movie in my backlog for sometime and my first impression was exactly what you commented at first, too long and redundant. By the time you reach the lady marguerite story, the retelling gimmick of the movie has lost it's charm, specially because your time has been wasted in unneeded and repeated scenes. So when you realize the movie truly is about her, you wonder why she has been absent from the narrative for more than half the movie, and then she is taken away again in the titular last duel when she becomes an espectador just like us. The duel was gruesome and graphic tho, so my caveman brain was sorta happy at the end.
This just randomly showed up in my sidebar, and I thought I'd watch a few minutes and get bored given I haven't seen the movie, but it was a really interesting video with some points I don't think I'd have had occur to me on my own, even if I had seen the video. Really well done!
all other things aside, I think Scott misjudged how we (all generations) watch things now and maybe have for the last 20 or 30 years. Not just teens on their phones. Don't worry, Mr Scott, we'll all keep off your lawn. I'm 48. My family went to the pictures regularly went to the pictures as a family. It was affordable. But even then people didn't watch highbrow stuff en masse. They went to the pictures to see entertainment that made them feel, not think. For entertainment that makes you think, you watched it when it came on the telly and then when video became a thing, you hired it and then you bought it. I saw straight away it was going to be a Shawshank Redemption type film - something that tanked at the box office, but would find its feet and its audience in streaming. The pictures are so expensive now, it's nearly £50 for a family of four to go see something and again, if I'm paying out £30 as a couple, I want something that's going to entertain me in a feeling way. The pictures is no longer value for money, when I got a mortgage, the cost of living is spiralling and my eldest is out of work. If I have 30 quid spare, I'll put it on clothes, because I haven't bought new clothes in 6 years. Or on a video game in a sale, because i get more value for money to own something i can replay/watch. Or a dvd/download for a tenner, same reason. I would rather watch a film that's going's to entertain me in a thinking way at home, in private, where I can rewatch it and savour it, get a cup of tea when I want one. Where i can decide if this scene is going to trigger me or not. Where I can turn it over in my mind and come back to it, day and weeks and months later. There's more vying for our time and money now than there was 30 years ago and I don't think Scott understood how the landscape had changed, nevermind in the time of covid when people were afraid to go out to the few cinemas that were open and restricting entry numbers. The film came out at a bad time, it's not the kind of thing people were watching when they starved of entertainment in a dire situation and tbh, it's not the kind of thing people are going to pay over the odds to see at any time. I am familiar with both courtly love and the culture of the middle ages. I enjoyed the film after watching it on streaming and I've seen it several times now. I think it will become a classic film, if never universally loved. But I'll die on the hill of Scott misunderstanding his audience and how it's changed, both in the case Princess is making and the one I've observed.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
I felt like showing her story last was intentional, not dismissive. It sorta shows that behind the rhetoric, behind the justification, the duel was a vehicle for their egos. Ultimately, despite mask of justice, her opinion as the victim in all this is, is the last thing in their mind.
Historically accurate to most historical duels. Sometimes I'm not even sure it was ego; just bizarre social obligation. Sometimes it was "I like to kill people and this is legal".
Agreed. I also think it helps to keep her story freshest in your mind.
I think that kinda ruins it tho
Like it’s a classic storytelling motif of “you see both sides of the story but it’s up to the audience of who’s telling the truth”
But just straight up going “this is what happened.” Is so lame and kinda kills the intrigue
You're absolutely right. It's story telling
Young men, and anybody with sons need to see this movie. Never fight for a woman. Never believe a woman. And most importantly, always do a DNA test, so you don't end up as the fool raising another's child and leaving your estate to your rival and your wife's love child, and become the laugh of the millennium even 600+ years after you are dead and buried.
If accuracy was taken into account, Adam Driver would play the count. The book describes Le Gris as a man who is nearly 50.
Affleck was originally supposed to play Le Gris, but he switched to the smaller role, probably for scheduling reasons.
My cousin - the type of guy who makes his own chainmail, he was giving me historical critique the whole time - and I watched it together, and we both absolutely glowed when she told HER story, and we just saw her MANAGE THE ESTATE. That was the first time we were invested. We both turned to each other and said "Why were we even paying attention to the men?" And that's when I knew it didn't work as a Metoo film, the men just weren't interesting to follow. They tell stories we've already seen. Her story was the one that hadn't been told before. The cruelty of Hollywood was it couldn't just be her film.
Yo, I want to watch a castle management movie. How they going to get the funds to survive next year when there's a war going on and the yield is low? Tell me!
@@jjj7790 Read Ken Follett's novels!
I think that is actually the desired outcome. Two people coming out thinking they shouldn’t have listened to the men is an endorsement, not a criticism, for this story.
I've only read the book, but 'If Beale Street Could Talk,' is the only novel I've come across that deals with false accusation in a sensitive or nuanced way. It's about a black man who is falsely accused though it's heavily implied the woman was raped, just not by him. It's mostly told from the perspective of the man's pregnant lover. It's more about the incarceration system, than rape specifically, but it's there.
The movie was beautiful too
One thing I found fascinating about the three tellings: The one the wife tells has her hair covered (other than in the section where she's attending the formal picnic and wearing a respectable formal braided hairstyle) indicating her respectability. The de Gris section has her hair uncovered the most. As a contrast, Carrouges's mother is never shown without her hair covered.
As someone who read A Distant Mirror when it was first published, I found the hair a fascinating detail.
That's something I hadn't noticed and you're absolutely right. Growing up in a conservative Muslim family where women's modesty was always a sensitive topic, I found this film scarily relatable to my own taught cultural values. Sexual abuse was always somehow traced to the woman's behaviour especially if she didn't cover her hair.
In terms of good Me Too movies: The Assistant is the first one to come to mind. It's very slow and quiet, but I think it adds to its power. I do think it's interesting that the story isn't told from a victim's perspective (at least directly, she's a victim of the culture that leads to the SA but isn't directly a victim of it, from what I can remember), but I like that the film focuses on someone who does try to report the events, tries to be there for one of the victims, and is being affected by this culture in other ways.
It is such a good movie. Incredibly unsettling. The horror of the ordinary.
My recollection is that she wasn't that sympathetic toward the young women the boss preyed on.
@clownpendotfart really? I don't know anything about it and what this other person said about it made me interested, but if they are going to just dismiss the victim, it might be too triggering for me. I'm a r*pe survivor and the fallout afterwards was in many ways more traumatizing than the actual assault
@@msjkramey We know the girl is taken advantage of. It's ambiguous how aware she is of the situation. We don't know if it's an assault or a coercion or just a transaction. The protagonist is in a morally grey situation trying to figure out what the right way forward is. She tries to report the abuse of power and it doesn't do anything except backfire on her. It's a movie about the bystanders of abusive systems. How do you break into a career that requires you to be in an abusive system? Can you remake the system or are you tainted by participating at all? So the situation with the girl at the hotel, we know it's abuse, but we don't know if it is an assault. It very much could be. That isn't clear. It really captures that, 'I think something bad happened but I don't know if it was bad or if the victim just doesn't know it was bad,' conundrum.
@@msjkramey There's no actual rape depicted. It's about an assistant at a production company who is handed lots of crap work (for example, she's supposed to lie on her boss' behalf about his whereabouts when his wife calls, and then write an apology letter to him when she didn't do so to his satifaction), which the employees accept like hazing as just part of working your way up. She's miffed that young women with less experience than her are being brought in and put up in hotels while she has to commute at ridiculous hours, but she doesn't interact enough with these women to actually know what's going on with them. She has a meeting with an HR rep (played by Matthew McFayden), but nothing comes of it.
I've read an interview in which Ridley Scott proudly declares "I don't make movies for the unwashed masses" which frankly is rich coming from the guy who made Gladiator, which is probably one of the lowest common denominator historical epics that sacrifices historicity for the sake of drama and effect.
Yes, it does it incredibly well, but don't tell me that's a movie for an intellectual audience.
Especially galling since Gucci does exactly the same thing, he takes an old money center Italy family but bends them out of shape into Italian-American parvenu immigrants stereotypes (which 1- being Italian American obviously are still conditioned by the "American" part and 2- most immigrants were lower class and from the south, so a lot of their mannerisms aren't the same as what is an *old money* family from *Tuscany* ) from a bad Saturday Night Live skit, and he thinks *that* isn't a movie for "unwashed masses!?"
Something tells me that Scott is probably not as smart as he thinks he is about the subjects of his movies.
His englishnes is showing
Some of his "best writing" was by other people - Rutger Hauer wrote his own famous lines for that last scene of his in Blade Runner, for example. The rhythmic chanting of the Germanic tribes in Gladiator was taken from the movie Zulu. And so on...
I never understood the appeal of Gladiator. Even for the time the CGI was ropey and the story was rubbish, the acting was crap. No, Maximus, I wasn't entertained. I'm tired of being told what I should like.
I'd say he's another example of "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain" but Scott was evidently a bastard as far back as Blade Runner.
This is extra disappointing for me as 1) three of my--deservedly--favorite movies were directed by him in his heyday and 2) he rides his past successes HARD, giving him continuing opportunities after an extended string of failures while other skilled (but far less established) directors slip not nearly as much and can't get their projects funded.
Rich people tend to think they are so smart and refined in the arts. But money alone doesn't make you more intelligent or give you artistic merit.
As someone who has also read the reddit threads on Succession, one thing I definitely won't miss about the show is reading people's bizarre Shiv takes
Shiv was sexist bait and many people bit. It's tiresome
What do you mean?
@@Δ-Δ-Δ-Δ I think that Shiv was made unlikable by the writers to prove a point about sexism. I think it's lazy and wish they did anything else
@@mitcharendt2253 I haven't seen Succession.
I guess you mean the daughter of the protagonist? The blonde one.
Look into Hillary Clinton history, snd you will find Shiv to be believable. Unless you think women can’t be problematic themselves.
My disinterest in Last Duel stemmed from not really trusting that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck would be able to meaningfully tackle the subject matter, nor do I think they’re the right people to do so considering their very long relationship with Harvey Weinstein and Ben being accused of assault himself.
I love a historical epic, Green Knight was one of my favourites of the year, but this wasn’t the story or storytellers I wanted to tackle this subject.
YES . . . they are shallow actors.
Bruh, Green Knight (with its casting of Indian actor to play medieval British knight) vs The Last Duel? You're funny.
@@JackSparrow_sexyman there was also giants, a talking fox, ghosts, and a man made of tree. I wasn’t looking for accuracy. Why is Dev Patel’s ethnicity where you draw the line for your suspension of disbelief?
@@taniamorin4355legendary response to that closet racist
@@JackSparrow_sexyman Because as we all know, Indian people famously never moved to or lived in England at any time, ever.
*sarcasm mode engaged*
I really liked the movie when I first watched it. I was happy that they were finally doing Marguerite's side of the story and presenting it as the truth, but your commentary made me realize I was accepting the bare minimum because of how little I expect when it comes to these types of stories and how they've been done in media.
As you point out, the movie still does 2 sexual assault scenes and the mens POV, particularly Les Gris, which just gives certain people a chance to argue that the situation was vague and use it for Les Gris favor. I am glad you pointed out how much they actually watered down the historical account to make Les Gris POV more vague. I had read the book it was based on as well, and it was anger inducing to realize how much they left out to not make him "too" guilty and deplorable. I imagine the casting of Adam Driver, who has many fans, was also used to paint a more sympathetic view of him, people are quicker to forgive or listen to attractive and charming people, when the real guy was actually in his 50s and Marguerite was like 20.
Side note: I got Nebula just because I was so excited for this video that I did not want to wait, but so glad I did because found so many more creators and videos I would not have otherwise so thank you and cannot wait for what you do next
This is a weird video and I enjoyed it greatly. Just as an aside, "edging with pathos" is by far the funniest explanation of courtly love I've ever heard. Thank you.
I'm imagining a John Wick movie where you are shown in graphic detail the bad guys beating his dog to death, but John Wick doesn't get to take any revenge or do much of anything himself, and the bad guys get to smirk and lord over him until somebody else, who merely kicks dogs, defeats them.
The problem with the film is that the 3 different versions of the story aren’t different, where the film’s third title cards make out that the 2 men’s stories are false, they’re not different enough in any major way, Adam Driver being led on in his version for example.
An amazing drama, and quite honestly the best drama I've ever seen, in regards to sexual assault is the turkish drama, Fatmagül'ün Suçu Ne? (What is Fatmagül's Fault) While the story does go into the different perspective of everyone around her, including her assaulters, the story is HER story and it is done incredibly well. We get to see her mental and the growth of her character through therapy and real conversations. It is graphic for the first episode and the evil dies a very slow death, but I promise you, you won't regret watching it. I have yet to see anything come close to this drama.
Oh good God this unlocked a memory! Nothing about this show irritated me more than everyone's treatment of Mukades; the sole instigator and villain of the series and yet, no matter how many times her schemes and treachery was revealed, everyone continued to forgave her. Even until the end, where got to live on a farm with Fatamgul's brother, when her ass should've been put in prison. Also, Mustafa is the greatest example of an absolutely pathetic character from start to finish.
@@vodka9384 Yep ALL this💯 I too was disappointed Mukades didn't get hers. She was definitely the devil at Fatmagül's side while Meryem was her Angel. Thank god Meryem found her and helped her. Mustafa was a coward till the end. No doubt their marriage would've been a terrible one and Fatmagül would have no where to run to.
@@lexyzim6755 Mr. Gaslight-Gatekeep-Too-Late would've been absolutely terrible, I say even worse than the Terrible Trio.
@@vodka9384 I absolutely agree with this as well. Now this is my take , but I believe Mustafa would've definitely taken advantage of her in their marriage, especially in the sexual realm. He also seemed like the type to cheat, but would be insecure around Fatmagül interacting with any man, and he would def project his insecurities onto her.
It is based on a true story.
Honestly id say The Last Duel's box office failure might have more to do with its unironic casting of Matt Deimon
Also it’s marketing made almost 0 effort. Hell, most of House of Gucci’s marketing was just the gays memeing the hell out of it.
That is exactly why I refuse to watch this movie. After witnessing Matt Damon victim blame all the women that were r*ped by his buddy Harvey Weinstein on Jimmy Kimmel a few years back, I refuse to see anything that involves him in the production in any way, shape or form. For those who missed it, Damon questioned why any woman allow themselves to be alone with Weinstein if they thought he was a creeper. The problem wasn't Weinstein (or any other Hollywood r*pist) being a violent predator, it was that his victims "allowed" it to happen somehow. I just can't with him anymore now. He repulses me.
@@tatehildyard5332 I tend to believe the rumour that Disney just let all the Fox Studios pictures that were in the can before the merger die on the vine. And the only reason that other Jodie Comer film, Free Guy, escaped that fate, is because Ryan Reynolds is better at self-promotion than any actor in Hollywood. Even the Rock!
The Last Duel was brilliant. It probably failed mainly because of a lack of promotion.
man I REALLY loved the film and loved the 3 pov because Legris's pov serves to deconstructs de Carrouges's self agrandising's story and set up what is ultimately his true character. It's definitely a bit of a male target audiance and more ABOUT Marguerite then Marguerite's movie but I'm glad it got made and I got to watch it.
I actually found it to be mostly an exploration of the human condition, and how people of wealth and status in society who long to increase their power, wealth and influence will swiftly try to attach themselves to noble causes in the public eye when really it's a cover for them to actually pursue personal agendas or goals regardless if it's at the expense of innocent people.
Woof. Combo of fundermemtal mistakes and good old fashioned dumbass mistakes went into this movie huh?
Hello, my beautiful content-creator. Will you be telling us more over on your channel?
You mean this video.
I feel like that simple change--having her story first and actually showing the assault--would have made such a drastic difference. Visceral, relatable, entirely believable account up front, then both these weaselly ass men overhauling the story to save face, culminating in a cathartic battle to the death. It could have been way more impactful.
I actually liked her story being last because the duel centers on her and since we just saw her story the audience feels more connected to her
I don't think it would have been enough to save this.
Having her story first would only have underlined that half of the movie, the backstory of the two mens relationship, is mostly irrelevant when it comes to the other half, her story and the story of the crime and the duel.
Having her story last cements it in our minds and makes sure we're fully on board with her innocence, seeing the men's delusional POVs first allows us to look out for things to debunk and by the final POV we know that it's all true. If it were given away at the start, it'd be a much less compelling film and there would be no point seeing the men's POVs, which I thought were important for understanding the story.
@@Frogface91 That depends on what you think the story is. If it is the story of two men who used to be close falling out and the tragedy of the duel then her POV is irrelevant as she is just the last straw. If the story is her attempts to get justice after being raped than most of the men's POV is irrelevant.
@@grif0716 I disagree, I felt that the story was all about her while highlighting how much people can delude themselves. I thought the men's POVs served to highlight their flaws and make it clear how their perspective affected their claims. I think without their POVs the story would have felt dull and fallen flat. That's just my opinion though 🙂
While I don't think her story was lessened by being placed last (and it could have been even more impactful for it, framing her story as the true last word) I agree that it ultimately did still feel secondary to the story of these two men.
I understand there's the source material and historicity to take into account, but the focus felt too evenly split, even if the two men both looked like fools by the end. Any commentary this movie might've had about assault felt dulled by the glossing over of De Carrouge's assault after Marguerite informs him of her rape, and the fact that end barely felt like a victory for her. She had nearly no agency in her vindication, and was only believed (if she even truly was) because her awful husband happened to win a fight that felt more like a question of his honor rather than her truth. The whole thing just rang a bit hollow.
I mean, isn't that hollow feeling at the end intentional? Marguerite's rapist gets his comeuppance but it's not as cathartic as we'd like because it's limited by the confines of the patriarchal medieval society that all the characters live in. In the film, Marguerite's rape and the subsequent trial is pretty much equated to property damage and a property dispute because her society regards her as a piece of property for men to fight over. The main reason that De Carrouge married Marguerite in the first place was to acquire a prized plot of land from her father as the dowry. The whole bittersweet hollow ending is intentional, it's the subtle denouncement of patriarchy and how even if a woman "wins", it doesn't genuinely feel like a victory because it's framed and limited by the patriarchal society in which Marguerite and the other characters live in.
@@ajiththomas2465but that's undercut by giving more screen time to the men. The medium is the message. The book avoids that issue by focusing on the trial in an academic perspective.
@@ajiththomas2465 That's an entirely fair reading, and I honestly thought they might've had Le Gris win just to drive home the hopelessness and brutality of it all. Felt like it would've been easier to sit in that hollowness if they hadn't gone on to try and show us the happy peaceful future.
History itself can often feel like grasping at straws for information so no one could make an entirely accurate Historical Drama. The same problem has been brought up regarding the Cleopatra "docu-series" and I think I at least do not want to participate in a losing battle. There are plenty of people smarter than me who have already given their two cents about this stuff. I have no doubt that it will not change Ridley Scott's mind at all. I don't want to give energy to this BS
@@ashlybuck5706 Ridley Scott is on the phone Ashly, he`d like to discuss his movie with you, do you have time for him or should he call back ? 😬
Considering Sean Young said ridley scott forced a rape scene on her in Blade Runner as punishment for her not fucking him, it doesn't shock me his so-called me-too movie misunderstood the assignment
Jesus Christ
Yeah, that made Harrison Ford/Deckard look so bad. That sax didn't help to try romance a goddamned r*pe scene. The hell is wrong with boomers.
2049 has always been the superior blade runner since coming out.
hell i'd maybe put 80's blade runner at number 3 after both 2049 and shinichiro watanabe's "blackout" short.
Is there any evidence to verify this?
What really got me going about this movie was the fact that she would go to such lengths (even heartbreakingly sacrifying her being a mother to her child) to prove her innocence and to punish who did this to her in a world when nobody cared what happened to her because it was "normal" (like carrouge's mother says), she stood up for herself against a system that set her up for failure yet she was successful in the end, even though such success sadly didn't depend on her. I love the part when she's holding the baby and says "a baby needs her mother more than a mother needs to be right" and I think that perfectly sums up why many (most?) women choose to keep silent, because we think that how we feel is not that important in comparison to our duty as mothers.
I cannot HANDLE you showing BBC Merlin behind the courtly love section, of COURSE Arthur and Merlin exemplify this extramarital romance, I am reeling from this realization
I guess I'm weird, but I thought seeing the men's incorrect perspectives was great for giving the final perspective more weight and giving a clear insight into how people can twist the truth, I also liked that it wasn't a stereotypical, super obvious r*pe because it will hopefully open people's eyes to what it's often like, rather than it being only considered legit if it's an ugly stranger in an alleyway being super violent.
I don’t think you’re weird. To me, that’s what it felt like the movie was going for. It’s challenging and horrible to engage with that POV, but that feels by design, and certainly makes the final act hit harder. It forces you to come to terms with that being how a perpetrator of such a crime feels. That doesn’t make him sympathetic; if anything, it’s the opposite - it makes the crime even more troubling and horrific. Him romanticising the event does not equal the film romanticising it in my eyes. But I think some people hate a perspective like that being shown at all, and I can understand it being sickening enough that some reject it outright. But it felt eye-opening to me.
As a bit of a sidenote, that use of differing perspectives is one of the things that made this film stand out against other historical epics (I didn’t think it felt old-fashioned at all). Some criticisms call this film out of touch and samey, but to me, that’s the only criticism I can’t personally understand.
@@Jezzascmezza Thanks for your PoV, I definitely agree with you.
On my opinion the fact that Ridley Scott states unambigously that Marguerite's POV is the truth is what saves the movie from just being " Rashomon in Medieval France". That movie is about how it is impossible to find an objective interpretation of reality. This movie is about how every person has his own interpretation of a set of facts , but it is also about the fact that sometimes women are not believed when they denounce a rape ,although they are telling the truth.
@@Daughterofminerva I didn't know that about Rashimon (haven't seen it) but that was a big part of what worked for me, too, and it had me so invested in the outcome of the duel as I didn't look up in advance who had won it.
So I do agree that ultimately this story is probably better if it centers marguerite and wastes waaaaay less time on the two dudes.
That said I think it does something kind of unique in showing us how rapists see themselves vs the actual reality of what they do. In most movies rapists are random criminal psychopaths that revel in pain and destruction.
In reality most are just people you already know who don't care enough about consent and are willing to bend reality to justify themselves. "She was kissing me earlier so it must be ok to do this now" "she would have said yes if she was drunk" "we've done this so many times before its gotta be ok now".
This movie shows us that kind of rapists perspective and contrasts it with the actual reality of what happened. I do think there's a much better way to make this point that doesn't add that layer of doubt into marguerite's story and has a lot more empathy for her and less for legris.
But I was kind of impressed they even tried? Maybe my standards are too low.
Totally agree when you say that once you introduce doubt about what happened it doesn't go away. Although it's obvious to me (and hopefully most of the audience) that Marguerite's version is THE truth, I've heard others say things like "well the movie shows that at the end of the day the truth is just a question of point of view", and that's not right lol. Also loved the Merlin clips playing in the background during the explanation of courtly love. Great video!
In the movie, yes her version is the truth, in real history, we really don't know
@@chideraalexanderdex547ah,but the point of the movie is not the narration of an historical event. This is a movie ,it is inspired to facts,but it doesn' t need to adhere strictly to facts. The aim of Ridley Scott in my opinion was not just to show that an objective interpretation of reality is really difficult,even impossible to find (he achieved this by showing that Le Gris and de Carrouges' POVs on the events and on their relationships with Marguerite are totally different), but he explicitly wants to denounce the fact that about the event told by the movie ( the story,not the historical fact ) Marguerite 's version is the right one. That she was raped and she never asked for Le Gris' attentions. This is why Scott writes at the beginning of Marguerite's POV that her version is the truth. Clearly to denounce the fact that sometimes women are not believed when they denounce a rape.
@@Daughterofminerva yes but that can be misleading since it presses his opinion unto historical facts as truth. Some may take it to mean that we know for sure that historical le gris committed the crime
Also that whole 'always believe' mantra is not one worthy of any human male or female, men and women lie for different reasons and we shouldn't always believe any one gender just because of their gender. People lie, evidence is supreme
@@chideraalexanderdex547yeah, I agree that both men and women lie ,so you should not hold everything they say like gold. When I wrote my comment I was specifically thinking of the importance not to dismiss a woman or belittle what she says when she denounces that she was raped or that she was object of any type of sexual assault. We are in 2023 and I still hear of cases of women who denounce a rape after ,for example, going dancing and people say :" yes,but she was wearing provocative clothes" , or " yes but she gave me such a look,I know that deeply she wanted it ". Of course you must prove that the rape happened , but in a fair world a woman should never hear such comments when she opens her mouth to denounce.
That’s the essence of a unsolved event where multiple parties have conflicting account.
The audience doesn’t know…they can only think what is true.
Hey, Princess Weekes! I'm 10 days late, but as a moderator of the r/AdamDriver subreddit, I wanted to comment how much I appreciate you taking the time to tackle "The Last Duel" as a film. It seems like most historians tend to either love or hate the film for the reasons you mention, with David Perry, Sara McDougall, and myself being in the "hate it" camp.
Engagement for the engagement god! Subs for the sub throne! Watched this early on Nebula!
❤️❤️❤️ thank you for the support xxx
I didn’t see the last duel, but I remember the trailer very well. It seemed to me that they were trying to keep it a mystery, like… is she lying or not? That’s basically why I didn’t want to watch it. I didn’t know the story was shown through multiple perspectives.
The Last Duel is one of the films that was made for a much different time than now. Everything about it looked old, stale, and rehashed---except for Jodie Comer. Ridley Scott is running on fumes as a filmmaker, and Comer's departure from his newest flick, "Napoleon" was the smartest move she's made as she emerges from the wreckage of Killing Eve's final season.
I think shes a smart actor and most of all, a businesswoman. All actors have to make good business decisions as well as personal, emotional decisions. They don't care about our opinions but it should be said that we are all human.
It was good I don't know what you guys are on
Killing Eve ended?
@@falconeshieldit went out with a whimper and a fart, don’t even bother with the last season
@@ashlybuck5706 As someone once said in an 80s song from Level 42: "We`re only human after all..."
It took me way too long to realize that you were saying courtly love an not Courtney Love. Time to rewind
even from the aggressor's POV i found their "sex scene" to be disturbing, so to be forced to see it again was very hard for me. i couldn't look away i was just so baffled they'd do that
Maybe the Death Wish audience wanted to wank off ridiculously overused rape as motive scenes one last time
Right like from his POV he's still a r*pist
It’s my 1st time commenting after months of absorbing your content, and I just wanted to say, you're a highly intelligent young woman, who really opens the door of the mind to the type of conversations; in which should be discussed. Thank you for that. ❤
"edging with pathos" is my new favorite phrase (and incredibly accurate)
The funniest part is when Scott blamed the 'Millenials' for his movie's failure who they are now in their 30s. Crazy old fool.
Older ones are in their 40s now. I guess the idiot still thinks Gen Z eat lollipops
I just wanted to comment that though I've loved your channel and your insights for a while now, I did used to struggle with the naturalistic and freeflowing presentation with my ADHD brain. However your recent videos have gotten more and more accessible to follow while still keeping the same grounded style.
I did notice the silent title cards helpfuly marking the transitions in topic, but I think there's more that I'm not enough of an editor to notice. I just want to share my appreciation for the evolution of your presentation. Hyper-editing can hack my brain quicker, but I really like that I can watch a more grounded style of video essay without having to struggle comparitively. So thank you!
thank you for making this and including the details about le gris and his actual legal argument. I felt weird after this movie (carried heavily on Jodie's shoulders) but that really illuminates a HUGE shortcoming. And how someone could spend 100 million dollars and just include such a jarringly weird and inaccurate version of le gris perspective :?????
They wanted a clear villain and no ambiguity whatsoever. I'd prefer to have the actual story and not the made up stuff.
Fantastic breakdown. Was so glad you dropped all the info on Courtly Love because so few seem to grasp its got a specific structure and 'function' for both the men and the women involved.
This is also just more of a pet-peeve and me being very specifically blasé about this, but I think I'm just straight up done with mud&blood aesthetic in historical fiction. Fantasy can still get away with it for me, but I don't give a shit about drab, all-black wearing knights grimacing and talking about the severity of all the war crimes they want to do later. It makes the Medieval Era feel even more dour and patriarchal and just boring as all shit.
I don't care for the hyper-macho choices on how these men look and as a historical fencer I appreciate far less their caveman club-swinging choreography to try and make sword fights look more "brutal". I want the colour, both in the actors cast and in the clothing they wear. I want the joy and almost toxic positivity of the art at the time, the way everyone was so obsessed with extreme emotion and expression. And I want the queerness, at least from the modern perspective. Ideal depictions of men back then were basically buff femboys by modern standards (though maybe with moustaches).
Finally, I know we're in the Anglosphere, but can we stop with the Anglocentric hallway of history from Ancient Greece to England and France? We only have movies about Greece, Rome, then France and England, recently more often "Vikings", and occasionally something in Renaissance Italy. We know why, they want to cast maximum white actors while pretending it's for 'accuracy'.
But I'm done, I'm so done. If we're sticking with Europe give me more Spain, give me Byzantium, and the HRE, and Medieval Greece, the Polish-Lithuanian Empire and Morocco, and do the Crusades from the Muslim Perspective. Give me El Cid but with an actual Spanish or Hispanic actor who isn't the shittiest NRA advocate ever. And then, obviously, how about we DON'T just stick with Europe.
The US is born from Western civilization, specifically connected to the English. Very few have interest in places like Spain or the HRE, let alone outside of Europe.
I'm done with the mud and blood aesthetic in fantasy and science fiction as well. It's consistent use is one of the main reasons I now believe that Game of Thrones has done harm than good to the fantasy genre as a whole; along with the constant casual depictions of SA and its insecurity about magic and fantastical elements.
The boring grimdark and constant brown has been enough for me to lose interest in a film or work of fiction and the only thing of value lost by doing so is Mad Max: Fury road.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Oh yeah? Nobody cares about Japan?
I don't need the current interest explained to me, I know it's there, if I didn't then I wouldn't want to change it. However I think it's bullshit, audiences regularly enjoy things out of that wheelhouse, the problem is that capitalism doesn't want extra work done to achieve results that do anything except push profit.
And I don't care what capitalists want. I care about changing things rather than just doing what is popular.
How is it not accurate? Europeans are/were white, historically. Or did I misinterpret what you wrote?
I personally like the Medieval European stuff in film, but that's mostly because of an ancestry-related interest. I could do without all the gruesome execution scenes, though.
@@AmandaFromWisconsin There's more to Europe than England and France, and they want to see that in their media. What we call 'Accurate' is formed from less than 1% of a picture about this time so it probably had more diverse colours and people than the influence of old fantasy novels would like to admit.
Excited to watch this 1000% more than the film. Appreciate your essays. Thank you!
Yes yes yessss! I agree with everything and loved listening to this analysis.
I'd immediatley been uninterested in the movie due to the subject matter but then when Scott and the think pieces basically came out complaining that the MeToo supporters weren't showing up to this Truly Monumental and Important Film really had them showing their ass. They totally thought that this was just an underserved demographic of particularly vindictive feminists auddenly being able to complain about their Pet Peeve, instead of... Thousands of women using the hashtag to signal the bitter reality that indeed, they too had experienced sexual harrassment or assault. It was a way of making a statistic many of us are aware of, more tangible and visible, and to show solidarity with other victims while still being able to say as little as possible in order to protect yourself, that was the "moment" this movie was made as a "reaction" to, and it while it's clear they misunderstood, it feels more that they blatantly miscalculated how easily they could take advantage of this latest trend.
It read to me like the dude wanted an extra project, or paycheck, found an audience of old rich guys to market to for investment, got the dosh, made the movie those same old men would find worthy of their dollars then acted all *shocked* when throngs of traumatized women didn't line up in droves, during a global crisis, to watch another women act out and then relive --in the most catastrophically high stakes scenario of scrutiny one could imagine, mind you-- an assault and the events leading up to it, for nearly 3 hours!
It was a ridiculous showing by Ridley Scott, and I say this as an unabashed Prometheus Enjoyer.
Edgar Wright was also kind of Like This about Last Night in Soho but thats a whole other kettle of dudes not getting it!
Something that I think you touched on a bit but could have been expanded is the framing around "here's all the sides of this story" inherently devalues the actual crime. Yes, it's weird that it starts with the two men's stories before it got to the woman's story, but even if it started with her perspective it's still framing SA as.... a series of stories and perspectives rather than a crime that happens, y'know? Like it discusses SA inherently from an outsider perspective - it's not an objective thing that happens in reality or a thing that can or even has happened to YOU, the audience member, it's a series of stories that you hear from other people. I hope I'm making sense here lol
You've nailed on the head exactly why the movie felt 'off' to me. He's telling the story of SA but somehow can't fathom the immediacy and stark reality of such actions. There's this cushion present of 'This thing is bad, but it happened to somebody else.' with this strange, assured distance that this could never touch you, not directly- Scott puts forward the husband and the perpetrator first because their perspectives are more personally plausible to him than Margerite's, which is not what people go into story framed as '#MeToo' looking for.
@GiRayne I'm with you.
The biggest problem of this movie is: the writer has not understood the whole concept of the "Rashomon effect" in storytelling.
The "Rashomon effect", named after the classic Akira Kurosawa movie, "Rashomon", works like this:
You have an event, that is being told by different characters who were part of it and every version of the story is different and often contradicts the other version and it´s told from that person´s perspective, adding another "puzzle piece" so to speak and in the end, we get the "whole picture". In many cases, it is even left ambiguous what really happened and we as the viewers have to decide what actually happened.
In Kurosawa´s "Rashomon", a bandit is accused of murdering a Samurai & r*ping his wife. We get 5 different, contradicting versions of what happened and only in the end we get the whole picture and Kurosawa even leaves it a little bit ambiguous, if that 5th version is even how everything happened.
In "The Duel" we have a similar scenario. Noble woman accuses another noble, that he r*ped her.
We get: 1). the version of the events from her perspective
2). the version form the perspective of the accused
3). the "truth", which is basically version 1 all over again!
It´s baffling how bad the writing in this movie is, from a story telling aspect!
I suppose Marguerite's version being listed as "the truth" was in homage to her husband's victory over her rapist in the trial by combat.
I’m just going to assume you didn’t actually watch the movie. The first chapter wasn’t her perspective…and the third chapter is actually quite different being it is her perspective // the truth. You’re whole critique of the movie is based off of the storytelling that you clearly didn’t understand…
Already watched on nebula. Watching again here because, duh.
Yet another A+ take! You're also right that Nanisca killing that asshole was indeed satisfying as hell.
I'd be super duper interested in your thoughts on the new Django series when/if you get a chance to watch it! The Reconstruction era feels way underutilized as a setting for historical fiction and Django has fun with the spaghetti-western vibes while at the same time being thoughtful about multiple characters' perspectives on the political context.
Thank you for this examination of the film. I didn't see the movie (mostly because I did not want to watch a movie all about sexual assault). I think your analysis makes good points, and it was a helpful introduction to the film.
Oh that Hundred Years War which actually lasted off and on for 150 years.
they rounded down i guess 😂
I loved the book and think you nailed it when you said the meat is in the trial not the set up. I think the book did a great job showing how horribly women were treated. It did it in a way that made me think about how little things have changed.
Describing courtly love as "edging with pathos" is going to live in my head forever now. I will have to use that phrase whenever explaining it to anyone now
Honestly, nothing about how Last Duel was marketed made me want to see it at all.
If we’re gonna talk about how the movie didn’t make money let’s also address how ridiculously expensive it is to go see movies; tickets alone at my local AMC can cost up to $20-$30 PER TICKET. And that’s not factoring in concessions, baby sitters if you’re a parent, and time that people have to have a night off.
People are kinda forced to be picky about what movies they want to pay to go see and that’s going to impact the sales. The target audience for this movie already was pretty small especially how they marketed it as a “is she lying” (which I know turned a lot of my friends who love historical dramas off from seeing it).
That axolotl squish is SO CUTE ohmyGOD
'Spotlight,' is the only movie I can think of that is good and has an outsider's perspective on sexual abuse and rape.
I'm no fan of Ridley Scott, and while I enjoyed "The Last Duel," it wasn't my favorite movie of that year by any means. I also haven't read the book that the film was based off, so I can only judge the work by its film at this point, and I have next to no knowledge of the historical accuracy of the film. That being said, I can't say I agree with the many critiques that this video has of the movie. For one, I see no value in crafting a movie in order to avoid misreadings by the worst possible people. Centering Marguerite more, I also believe, removes some of the nuances that the film is trying to bring to the table. On paper, I think it would have been a more "righteous" thing to do, but it would have resulted, thematically, in a less interesting work of art.
By bringing in two male perspectives, the film is also showing audiences the narrative that men have either been taught by society or teach themselves in order to justify their treatment of women. In different ways, both Carrouges and Les Gris have completely deluded themselves into believing themselves to be powerful, respectable men, and part of that delusion is upheld by the way they use Marguerite. Carrouges straight up marries Marguerite for her dowry, uses her only for childbearing, and then, when she tells him she was raped, interprets that to mean Les Gris did it to insult HIS honor. Les Gris, on the other hand, believing himself to be romantic and well-read, haughtily believes he is better suited for Marguerite. He badly misinterprets her "affectionate" behavior, which she did partly because she was forced to and partly so she can smooth the relationship between Les Gris and her husband. For me, when I watched Les Gris' perspective, I felt more repulsed than anything. Nothing about it felt particularly romanticized; it was only romantic to a sleazy rapist like Les Gris. The world is full of men who abuse women because they think they've been "led on" by women who are simply being the bare minimum of nice. All of his delusions and all of the ways his behavior is reinforced by the people around him led to that rape; and all of that prevented him from fully understanding the monstrosity of his crime. Overall, both Carrouges and Les Gris' perspectives highlighted the kind of culture and thinking that perpetuates the objectification and rape of women. Having their viewpoints, to me, was just as important as having Marguerite's. It was like putting a mirror in front of men's faces and forcing them to grapple with the kind of teaching and thinking they've grown up with.
Having Marguerite's perspective at the end, and having her perspective be emphasized as the Absolute Truth, had the effect of completely shattering whatever delusions someone may have about the two men who have used her for their own ends. It cuts through the entire movie up until this point and recontextualizes everything that we've seen, and the effect is devastating. The film is not about women's empowerment or bravery. It is not a movie about triumph. To me, it reads more like a tragedy. After everything she's been put through, she chose to speak up about her rape, and in the end, her fate was placed back in the hands of the very two men who have used her. Nothing about her story is meant to be uplifting, but it had to be told.
It's hard to say whether this film is a "Me Too" film or, perhaps more fittingly, a "post-Me Too" film. It's been one year since the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial, and while public sentiment has somewhat shifted towards Heard, the damage that trial has caused still haunts me. One of the things I really connected to with "The Last Duel" was it raised many interesting questions that we still have to grapple with today. What happens when a woman, when speaking the Truth, is ultimately judged on likeability? What happens when society automatically knocks down her likeability as soon as she accuses someone of rape or abuse? What happens when the person she accuses is charming and tells a counter-narrative that, while wrong and delusional, is more pleasing to the public's ears? How do we, as a society still living in rape culture, learn how to distinguish brutal, hard-to-swallow Truth from romantic fiction? This is, personally, why I think it was necessary to bring in Carrouges and Les Gris' perspectives. To some, it might cause ambiguity and thereby muddy the film. But for me, having the ambiguity get set up before completely shattering it with Marguerite's Truth felt much more real and visceral.
I think for us to truly appreciate the film, we have to meet it where it's at. I found myself paying close attention to all of the tiny, subtle changes between perspectives. I think some people have stated they found the repetitiveness boring, but I found it riveting. My biggest problem with this video's critique is it felt unwilling to see the film for what it is, and instead tried to project what it wanted instead. And what it wanted, ultimately, was to kowtow to the kind of people who would never empathize with Marguerite's perspective in the first place. Why appease these kinds of people? I find it all very frustrating and very sad.
I thought the film was ok when I saw it, but just being ok really isn't enough when it comes to watching films post-vaccination. Really, it was the fact that I had a cineworld unlimited card (so I could get in for free) that made it not a disappointment.
Also, I fully agree with your assessment. The Rashomon plot structure wasn't necessary. It's like the leads of the film thought that they needed to justify why the men did what they did, and it could've been covered with some testimony at the trial itself. Of course the husband will think that everything was hunky dory and invoke the duel behind his wife's back. And even if LeGris is being honest about how he interpteted things, he's still a creep!
It feels like they did the structure just so they got more screen time. Which is a pretty cynical motive.
I got irrationally hyped noticing the BBC Merlin series in the background in the explanation of courtly love.
Marge: C'mon, Homer, Japan will be fun. You like Rashoman.
Homer: That's not how I remember it.
I watched the Northman in theatres but I have never heard of the Last Duel and I consider myself a very active moviegoer.
wait no I need that succession take please
The audience has changed, and directors are out of touch. Directors then get mad.
A lot of people don't read the original source overall. I been there. I had to post videos of the text. For example, I posted about Ahuitzotl, based on text and source images. Fan images don't look like that, but people treat the fan art to be true.
There's movie ideas that haven't been touched, so it would be new on the big screen, but leaving that in my mind.
omg where did you get the betty and veronica shirt it’s so cute 🥹
A few random comments about this video:
1. In Ryunosuke Akatagawa's short story _In a Grove_ (from which _Rashomon_ is adapted) there is an interesting plot twist as to who actually kills the samurai. Although he is mortally wounded by a small sword thrust in his heart, he does not immediately die because the sword is left in place. It is not until the woodcutter steals the sword that the samurai dies, as told by the medium. In the movie the woodcutter is shown as compassionate because he adopts an abandoned baby, and it is the second wayfarer at the Rashomon gate who suggests that he had stolen the sword.
2. The nonfiction book _The Last Duel_ is a good read! Two points are brought up that don't figure in the movie:
a) In the middle ages it was believed that a woman could not conceive without an orgasm. You would think that this is a win for women, but not so when it comes to rape. Carrouges and his wife Marguerite had been married some time without conceiving, and she was only found pregnant after Le Gris rapes her.
(*trigger warnings*)
b) Le Gris was eligible to choose to be tried by an ecclesiastical court because he was a cleric, but he did not do so, even though he was urged to by his lawyer. In an ecclesiastical court, if you were to be found guilty you would just be given a slap on the wrist. When he died in the duel, he was not given Christian burial, but was dragged to the gibbets where he would hang for awhile until he received the final ignominy of a common grave.
(*end trigger warnings*)
3. The ideal of courtly love originated in the Middle East and was brought back to Europe by the Crusaders (or at least what the Crusaders thought was the Middle Eastern ideal of love). I wonder if this is one of several reasons why Middle Easterners have tried to dissociate themselves from _The One Thousand and One Nights._
Nope! As a middle Eastern person, there have been many arab TV shows based on the one thousand and one night. It's something our intellectuals are proud of as they know that arab literature and poetry have helped shape world literature.
Making a 100mil, 2.5 hour movie about a r trial was pretty self indulgent, while turning around and blaming anyone but himself for its failure was just plain entitlement
Good video. I dont agree that her story being last is bad. It is done because last is supposed to have the greatest impact.
On the subject of The Green Knight, I was so hyped for that movie. I like Dev Patel. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is one of my favorite stories. That said, I HATED the movie. They kept some similar plot points from the legend, but they made Gawain the exact opposite of who he was in the story. The movie also felt like a video game, like it was split into levels. The whole point of the story is that Gawain is the most honorable knight, even when it's easier not to be, and he proves it to Morgana. He also puts himself forward to protect his king. The movie Gawain was a coward and had no honor. They also took the fun out of the crazy story. I thought the green knight looked beautiful, but that's the only thing I liked. They literally showed what would happen if Gawain continued to be a coward and that's why he decided to change and accept that the Green Knight might kill him. He didn't even learn anything on his journey. It was so dumb!
I was an undergraduate in medieval European history and didn’t hear about the film while it was in theatre. The marketing was terrible
1:01 THIS!!! Ridley Scott came across so out of touch with reality when he spoke about this film's lack of box office success. "The millennial do not ever want to be taught anything unless you are told it on the cell phone." Or...maybe don't spend $100mil making a movie about SA and release it to theatres during a lockdown. Even if he'd made it for half the money, and cut down the run time, at best the audience for this story was going to be limited. The general movie-going audience is there for a good time, to be entertained. This is not material that will leave most people feeling good, so they didn't go see it.
As someone who went into the movie completely blind, the way the movie handled the rape scene was really weird.
In the 1st story we hear from Marguerite that she was raped. In the 2nd story we see it and, yeah, it was definitely a rape. So we basically have 2 takes on the rape saying that it was definitely a rape and it upset her.
I was wondering what exactly the 3rd take of the scene from her POV would add to the understanding of the situation, and the third take addition was…. apparently she orgasmed during the rape. Besides that, pretty much identical to the 2nd version.
Like…. OK? Sure?
If the filmmaker’s goal was me watching a rape scene again while now desensitized to the event and thinking about this woman’s pregnancy issues with her husband, then they sure did achieve that.
The rape scene was shown twice because their are both totally different scenes. When you see Jacques version of it she's saying No, but with the hint of lust behind it. When you see the version from Marguerite's prespective shes actually screaming and is horrified.
@@miguelpu4129 They're not totally different scenes. The only difference is that in the 2nd story during the rape the camera favors Le Gris face and some of Marguerite's sounds are missing, and in the 3rd story the camera favors Marguerite's face and Marguerite's sounds of struggling and crying are edited in.
The actions, dialogue, the death threat, and the fact that she ran from him and did not consent at all during the entire scene is the exact same. A woman being a little bit turned on by sex during a rape when everything happening is coercive isn't really a game-changer here. If raising the idea that she might have been into the rape was the point, that is also very heavily trod ground in this film. There is at least 10 minutes of the film already dedicated to other characters raising that she must have been turned on by Le Gris or being raped by him for various reasons.
If getting the exact same dish twice but with a little more traumatized woman flavoring the 2nd time made a big difference for you, that's cool, but for me a little more flavor doesn't help the fact that I'm already full on a less visceral version of that scene.
IMO if it was me editing the film, I would just have cut the Le Gris' take on the rape (after him entering the castle) because it weakens his POV for the rest of his story (b/c from that point on he's very obviously a delusional rapist), and because it weakens the impact of the rape scene in Marguerite's POV.
The minute differences in the editing and acting in the doubled up scenes might hit with some people, but all I'm thinking when I'm watching them is "this movie could've had tighter editing".
@jjj7790 I mean, there are quite a few changes. Yes, the words are the same, but the acting, directing, and editing are different.
You somehow managed to completely misinterpret her POV. If you thought her screams of horror and pain were her orgasming, there is really no hope for you. I can only assume you’re a man because that’s not how women work, and I despair for any woman unlucky enough to sleep with you.
I have no idea how Ridley Scott is still able to convince studios to give him so much money. It has been so long since he made a successful movie and he still gets to work with some really big budgets.
Because the Ridley Scott name is still very famous
@@Dell-ol6hb yes, but it doesn't seem particularly smart when you look in his box office returns in the past 10 years. I know that Hollywood works based on connections and fame, but it's just a stupid way to invest money.
He probably has a better box office record than both the Wachowskis and Zack Snyder and they kept getting big budgets for years as well.
@@digitaljanus Snyder's box office returns are much, much better. The Wachovskis made far less movies than Scott.
@Booper Dooper he hasn't made a non-DC movie since 2013. 300 was successful, Sucker Punch and Watchmen weren't. The two that he did for Netflix did Ok. He hasn't directed that many movies actually.
I love your videos Princess Weekes, but for the love of Jodie Comer, please make your audio louder. I have to boost the volume to hear you but then the commercials kill my ear drums.
Many of your critiques are on-target, but putting Margueritte's POV last makes perfect sense in the context of this movie. How a movie ends plays outsized importance in how it is to be interpreted, and is naturally more salient in terms of what the audience will remember. It is also standard narrative convention to place reveals in the last act (even in Memento, where the chronology is backward), and thus that is the act which should contain "the truth". There is a problem with a film trying to depict Margueritte's "truth" since she didn't actually get to write her own account for us to read and all we have instead is a trial in which the feud between two men naturally took prominence (the title is "The Last Duel" after all).
My problem with abandoning Le Gris' alibi is that his witness being unable to testify because he was arrested for another such crime is one of those perfect bits that a comedy writer would add for a film.
What a great video! On top of all that was said Scott also went out of his way to alienate the small core audience that could have been the most vocal supporters: History nerds, HEMA-enthusiasts, reenactors and the like. But we all startet mocking the blue filter, the mud and the ugly ass helmets as soon as the first trailer dropped. And with good reason. Just hire someone like Dr. Capwell as a consultant goddammit.
I am a medieval hobbiest and my friends know it. They had me review The Green Knight which while the story is poorly adapted is an excellent presentation of a medieval story in cinema. I refused to review The Last Duel because it wasn't about medieval story telling right from the trailer. I'm sick of bland grayscale dreary medieval dramas. The Last Duel is both a poor story telling and poor medieval representation. People think they have to adapt medieval stories to be "modern" for modern audiences (likeaking this a me too story) but based on my friends and those I've talked to I think a modern audience can not only handle a.medieval story but actually enjoy it. Hollywood doesn't want to do that and it's such a missed opportunity. The way MCU movies feel washed up now and it's a good sign and opportunity to do something different. The Last Duel feels a waste and forgettable. Thanks for the analysis
Enjoyed the BBC Merlin cameo while describing courtly love ahaha
Watch his earliest work. The Duelists with Harvey Cartel.
Now that was a good film.
Great fencing scenes.
For someone who doesn’t respect the language, that “denouement” at 13:44 was pretty good!
I sort of like the movie as is. It shows how toxic masculinity can be. How men make up stories about themselves to seem like they are good guys. There is even a scene where carrogue(sp) thinks that Marguerite is into him when he is negotiating her dowery with her father.
the Rashomon-ing was completely not necessary. I did not want to see her get raped on a big screen three times in detail. And honestly... yeah I'm with you, it wasn't her movie, it was all about them menz. I... was not terribly happy with that doubt-planting. That said, I did go on to write a paper for grad school on Christine de Pizan and the "Debate of the Rose" because that woman was NOT THE ONLY ONE that had issues with the Romance of the Rose back then lol.
Theoretical, I would be into The Last Duel, because its this medieval trial and I loved Cadfael growing up but honestly, I really didn't want to see it because why couldn't it be about Marguerite and the trial?
Also, I need to see Woman King.
I'm really glad you shared "A Distant Mirror," it's a great dissection of our stereotypes of the High Medieval Era and how it differed from the documented reality
never heard of this movie but it sounds awful. if the rapist alleges he wasn't there, then his POV sequence isn't what he's claiming. so it's supposed to be what he genuinely believes? it's not compatible at all with her perspective so like... what is the point? it seems like it can't be actually his perspective, and it's not his testimony, but it's just a weird romanticization of the events that he knows isn't what happened and also never claimed did happen?
Haven't seen the film, but don't need to now, after this intelligent, apposite and thorough discussion--thank you Princess.
Another great video!! I always come away with a new perspective from a Princess video : ) and I’m obsessed with the Chibi Usa Helios I spotted in the background. Obsessed.
I liked the northmen I think it was good at deconstructing the narrative around Vikings & vengeance story. It was better then the last duel.
Yea I think ancient historical epic flick is def in a dry spell.
I actually loved The Last Duel. It had me thinking about how different people's perception of reality are. How a rapist could genuinely think he was in the right.
I just think the marketing sucked and that's why it bombed. Most people don't want to watch a MeToo story.
excellent and thoughtful video as always. watching men opine this film as the death of the adult movie (usually helmed by some man who made movies they loved from the 90s) was genuinely infuriating. sorry brendon maybe the subject matter was 1) unpleasant and 2) poorly framed! just a thought!
As soon as the trailer dropped I knew I was going to see this movie, since I like Jodie Comer, Adam Driver, and historical epics. But I also knew that I wasn't going to be watching it in theatres. I wait a while before watching movies I know will feature SA just so I can read content advisories and prepare if I learn the scene is going to be intense. Even if I know the scene won't be intense, I like to give myself the leeway to pause and come back or skip ahead if I need to, which I can't do in the theatre as easily. It's a shame because I feel like this movie could have made some point through the trial about how the scrutiny that women face when they come forward has not changed that much since the fucking 1300's. Unfortunately that's not what we got. My favourite MeToo media was definitely I May Destroy You as well, literally one of the best shows I've ever watched, the last episode just left me speechless. Another show I liked was Unbelievable.
I went to see this movie when it came out and I enjoyed it, maybe because I tried to take something different from what you where asking from it. You wanted this movie to be more centered around Marguerite and unfortunately it wasn't. But to me it was maybe on pourpose. I saw it more as the story of how men can exploit and manipulate the story of a woman in order to make it about their own honor while actually not caring about her. That's why two of the point of view are from the men's perspective. If the story was more about whether the rape actually happened or not, probably the point of view would have been only from the perspective of Marguerite and Le Gris. And to that I also find more effective telling her side of the story as last one because it made stronger the disgust in seeing how Jean's only interest is to use her wife's rape as a way to climb up the social ladder and make himself look like a victim. All this is shown in the fact that the climax of the movie is not at the actual trial but at the duel, the situation where Marguerite, the woman, is the most powerless.
I'm not saying it was okay to make the story not about her, but maybe this explains why you felt this movie wasn't the story you wanted.
Framing her story being last as bad, a mistake or failure for no real reason is in my opinion bad media literacy.
The point was so her account would be the final word on what happened and by extension the truth.
Watched on Nebula. Commenting for the algorithm. You make the book sound more interesting. Because it’s a short one, I might check it out but the SA stuff sounds really upsetting.
Interesting. I suppose the fundamental problem here is that the og script and Scott's film, are actually more interested in why Men rape and how they get away with it, than how women experience or deal with it.
I think in a way they're interested in how do people end up siding with the men instead of the truth?? But you're right, doing that ends up reinforcing these things not deconstructing them as you may have intended.
100% agree it didn't feel fresh. I decided I didn't want to see it in cinemas because
a) covid still made me nervy
b) did not enjoy Scott's Robin Hood
c) his discourse about why it wasn't doing great REALLY turned me off because ffs dinosaur get over yourself.
So when I did see it, I was kinda surprised. Because I thought it would be a lot worse and less sympathetic to the woman than it was. I could see they were *trying* to do it from a "rape bad" perspective. But you're right to take it to task for not doing that in a way that's actually successful in that aim.
way out of left field, but I love your tarot cards up on the wall. I have both the set and just the major arcana. I have no opinion on the movie or book, I avoid media that I know is going to make me rage and media focused on a woman's violation without catharsis (which I knew this movie was going to have) was right in line with that, but your analysis for this and other topics has been really interesting and enjoyable. Keep up your amazing work!
I had this movie in my backlog for sometime and my first impression was exactly what you commented at first, too long and redundant. By the time you reach the lady marguerite story, the retelling gimmick of the movie has lost it's charm, specially because your time has been wasted in unneeded and repeated scenes. So when you realize the movie truly is about her, you wonder why she has been absent from the narrative for more than half the movie, and then she is taken away again in the titular last duel when she becomes an espectador just like us.
The duel was gruesome and graphic tho, so my caveman brain was sorta happy at the end.
Ohhhhh I'm early for the tea! I have been wanting to hear your thoughts
This just randomly showed up in my sidebar, and I thought I'd watch a few minutes and get bored given I haven't seen the movie, but it was a really interesting video with some points I don't think I'd have had occur to me on my own, even if I had seen the video. Really well done!
Saw 'The Last Duel' in theatre. Loved it.
dancing in my kitchen to your end credits making waffles great vid as usual ❤❤❤
THANK YOU
Ok more seriousy, this was a great watch, love the references you brought in.
all other things aside, I think Scott misjudged how we (all generations) watch things now and maybe have for the last 20 or 30 years. Not just teens on their phones. Don't worry, Mr Scott, we'll all keep off your lawn.
I'm 48. My family went to the pictures regularly went to the pictures as a family. It was affordable. But even then people didn't watch highbrow stuff en masse. They went to the pictures to see entertainment that made them feel, not think.
For entertainment that makes you think, you watched it when it came on the telly and then when video became a thing, you hired it and then you bought it.
I saw straight away it was going to be a Shawshank Redemption type film - something that tanked at the box office, but would find its feet and its audience in streaming. The pictures are so expensive now, it's nearly £50 for a family of four to go see something and again, if I'm paying out £30 as a couple, I want something that's going to entertain me in a feeling way. The pictures is no longer value for money, when I got a mortgage, the cost of living is spiralling and my eldest is out of work.
If I have 30 quid spare, I'll put it on clothes, because I haven't bought new clothes in 6 years. Or on a video game in a sale, because i get more value for money to own something i can replay/watch. Or a dvd/download for a tenner, same reason.
I would rather watch a film that's going's to entertain me in a thinking way at home, in private, where I can rewatch it and savour it, get a cup of tea when I want one. Where i can decide if this scene is going to trigger me or not. Where I can turn it over in my mind and come back to it, day and weeks and months later.
There's more vying for our time and money now than there was 30 years ago and I don't think Scott understood how the landscape had changed, nevermind in the time of covid when people were afraid to go out to the few cinemas that were open and restricting entry numbers. The film came out at a bad time, it's not the kind of thing people were watching when they starved of entertainment in a dire situation and tbh, it's not the kind of thing people are going to pay over the odds to see at any time.
I am familiar with both courtly love and the culture of the middle ages. I enjoyed the film after watching it on streaming and I've seen it several times now. I think it will become a classic film, if never universally loved. But I'll die on the hill of Scott misunderstanding his audience and how it's changed, both in the case Princess is making and the one I've observed.
comment for the algorithm! thank you very much for this video!