'It does get bogged down in the Ridley Scott world building milieu...' ... this is why I went to watch it, what?! A Ridley Scott historical epic drama, sign me up. Totally delivered and more, I got so emotional once it got to the meat of the story. The world building was brilliant and drew me into the story, the violence was raw and impactful. The different versions of events were very well done, I found it fascinating. This is a 4 or 5 star film easily, can't believe it's bombing.
@@wildphantom1 Couldn’t agree more. In addition to the quality of the story/subject matter, this was among the most cinematic films I’ve seen since going back to the theatre last month (w/ Lamb & the Green Knight in that list). And the sound design was better than anything in the 2 Marvel films, The Suicide Squad, or No Time to Die. So glad I saw Stuckmann’s review yesterday. (BTW, haven’t seen Dune yet).
IKR? The first time I watched it for the plot, the second time I watched it to be more attentive to the differences in stories and if I watch it the third time it will be for the medieval athmosphere, milleu, deteils etc. It was brilliantly done.
Really enjoyed this movie. Finally, a new movie with character depth and an actual story. Definitely, worth a watch. And Simon, the subtlety in the versions IS what makes the approach so intriguing. For once, the audience are treated like adults. Like a jury, it is we who must study the differences to inform our decision.
Agreed. Just watched it tonight, Its fantastic. Maybe it reflects our modern age - very little attention span and not much interest in depth. Shame. Great cast also.
Agree that it’s definitely worth watching. But I can say definitively that it is not the position of Ridley & the writers that the audience be in the position of a jury & be able to conclude that Le Gris was wrongly accused. Hear me out. While the book presents the available information and is less definitive on the writer’s own conclusion (he has stated his in interviews etc. though) & thus does do what you suggest, the film has a declared position. “Chapter 3: The Truth according to Marguerite” is given the subtitle “The Truth” when those words are left on screen as the rest of the chapter title disappears. This isn’t to say that the differences in the POVs are irrelevant and shouldn’t be considered. We are meant to consider WHY they have their particular interpretations of the events. It is not the point of the film to relitigate a 600+yr old case. Both Jean & Jacques have had the benefit of 600+yrs of debate over their respective positions on the issue. Up until some time after (Nov 2021?) the release of this film they both even had lengthy Wikipedia entries while none existed for Marguerite as she had been mostly ignored in the history. She got this film instead. I hope pointing this out doesn’t then ruin your favourable view of the film as that is definitely not my intent. It’s just that I have seen in various comment sections on the film those making the case that the Le Gris POV was not rape instead of recognizing that it’s the depiction of the POV of somebody who’s entitlement doesn’t allow himself to see his actions as such. There are also those that contend that Le Gris is treated unfairly by the film thus ignoring that there has been hundreds of years of advocacy that Le Gris was indeed the victim. Ridley & the writers definitely wanted to provoke conversation on the topic and changed the claims of those involved in order to do so. Le Gris actually never suggested that there was consent. Rather he claimed that he was not even there and attempted to provide alibis. While Marguerite claimed that Le Gris friend/squire Adam Louvel participated in the assault by helping drag her up the stairway by the arms and legs, gaging her, and held her down on the bed during. In the film in both POVs Le Gris gains access to the home under false pretences & when Marguerite demands that they both leave Le Gris interjects and commands Louvel to leave thus removing any witnesses to how events unfolded from the foyer. So I’d suggest the point of the film is to ask us to consider how little has changed in the underlying issues at play on the topic & in how we deal with the issue between what we would consider a more “barbaric” time and today. The chivalric system was the matrix of it’s day so to speak.
It was very clear the first rape scene perceived from Le Gris’s viewpoint was a “no mean’s yes” “hard to get” version of it. Comer’s moans were like that of a Bond girl in a old rapey Bond film. where the lead actor forces himself onto the female only for the actress to cry feigned protests and act enjoys it. Sick I know but that was how Le Gris perceived it and was meant to show us just what sort of character and villain he was Where as the rape scene told from Comer’s perspective is very clearly a horrid gruesome and sickly vision.. not that the first one wasn’t but this was just amplified seeing her face and actually hearing agonising screams and dread, at least that’s how I felt when I watched it
Yeah. I think it was pretty critical to the movie to show how Le Gris “no means yes” version was in reality totally different from Margeurites perspective. I mean Le Gris’ version was rape regardless but it shows how Les Gris inserts ambiguity to justify his actions. The movie loses a lot of its force without the contrasting scenes. Removing the second version would create ambiguity that derails the movie, and removing the first scene make sure harder for us to understand how Les Gris understood the rape--he dies believing he was innocent .
Sadly... I think they should have been less subtle with the differences. I feel that many will share the views of Kermode and Mayo. I entirely agree with you btw.
I agree. I didn't like or dislike the movie. So, that's not the point here. But I definitely felt there were differences between the first and the second version of the sexual assault. It's quite subtle, but it is there. Many viewers also saw no difference between the two, but I expect someone who reviews movies to see that.
In a perfect world Jodie Comer would get all the attention, recognition, and praises she deserves for her subtle, nuanced, poignant, utterly brilliant and beautiful performance in 'The Last Duel'. It's a crime how much she's been overlooked this award season.
Really? I thought she was the only good thing in the movie. Ben affleck was unwatchable. Matt Damon’s hair was god awful. In fact, none of the American actors are good in it. Their accents are bad. And I didn’t need to see her get raped twice. The first time was uncomfortable enough. Absolutely terrible movie.
I couldn't disagree more, I felt the subtlety in the different interpretations added so much to the film. I dont see how he didn't see the differences between the SA scenes, thats disturbing in its own right.
I think you're right 👍 the accents are not fantastic the acting is great tho and this film is the truth about life then. I applaud the movie for showing the way , rape , was treated in those times. He even said she protested but was nothing more than the custom amount . Why didn't you scream was what was said to her . Then being questioned whether she enjoyed it even tho she was raped. Great movie imo.
@seanolaocha940 or maybe he shares the view of Adam's character and didn't see the difference of the scene between a girl saying "no" while laughing vs a girl begging and screaming for it to stop
I don't agree with a lot what has been said here in this review. I especially don't agree about the second scene of the rape portrayed as I felt there was a difference in the two scenes and it played on both characters perspective. The scene from Driver's perspective wasn't portrayed as much as an assault and more like the chasing he was doing a few scenes earlier. The second scene was portrayed far more as an assault compared to the other which was the point in terms of portraying opposing perspectives.
I agree with you. The "chase" narrative was pushed more in the Le Gris version but I feel that it was obvious in both versions that it was assault. Only Le Gris who is such a bloated bastard believes it is consensual.
@@cammunsta4088 Yes! But I'm not 100% sold on him thinking it was consensual. I think he knows it wasn't and yet keeps adorning things, as if "deep down" he knows that just saying so makes it possible. The scene of the party made quite more clear how a "game" of that sort would look like. He knew what he was doing, he did it, and he made the ridiculous love comments many attackers make to their victims
I entirely disagree regarding the second time we see the rape. The scene more or less plays out similarly, with some subtle differences, however these make all the difference. The first time we see it, yes we recognize it as rape. The second time we see it, we FEEL this far more as rape. The first was from the rapists perspective, and the second was from the victim’s perspective. It was absolutely not exploitative at all. If you think you so then you require a second viewing of the film
I have to say I agree with you and have commented in a similar way. I actually think it's short changing not only the film but also valued opinion on an important subject. If you think a film should only show something once, because is not needed to have a 2nd opinion, then maybe you are not the best person to review a film. For pacing reasons, or whatever the reason,is not a reason to remove, or not include, the pivital scene that everything has lead up to reveal. It should be seen that the point of the film was to examine opinion and see that there are different perspectives. To give a whole picture might lead to a truth, as Ridley himself has said this is about a woman who laid her life on the line to be heard, for the truth to come out. I think sometimes film is an ideal way to get an important message across, and you just hope people get that message. The subtlety with which this film does it obviously went over some heads, that is a shame. It is a beautifully written piece ,and shot with the respect it deserved
Though subtle, the two rape perspectives are quite different. From Jacques perceptive, when he is carrying her, Marguerite says, "no" several times with almost a giggle. Not at all the same as the screaming and crying in the version we see from Marguerite's perspective. I get that this is hard to watch a second time, but thinking the two scenes are the same, seems like a serious lack of awareness.
Wow, this review has either set it up for replies or hopefully will benefit by Porter, Leon, Ducko and Empath's response and input. I appreciate the insight of you all and agree in a lot of ways, thanks you saved me from a lot of set up myself. Additional points I take umbridge with from the review..men finding a way to battle, bogged down by time set up, dark dreary etc., seeing no or minimal subtle or dramatic difference between the 2 rape scenes etc., the duel was a heavy hammer to to deal with this, was about female jeopardy, rational structure did not deliver what it thought it could deliver and did not justify watching a woman being raped twice, impossible to come out of the movie without the belief that the males are guilty as charged. NO!!!! I appreciate Ridley Scott and the movies he chooses to make and the way he makes them. Definitely they make you think, stick with you looooong after you have seen them and are also just swashbuckling to boot. We are put in the French times of 1380-1386 its laws and customs. Many points of view and each is the truth from their perspective. Jean has been a husband and father, is a husband again - feels put upon for what he feels he deserves and has not received and fights for what He perceives to be right. Jacques, a single squire, he uses his personality and skills and gains favour and bounty from his liege, and believes himself to be in love, mutually? with Margarette. Margarette was her father's and is now her husbands property. This is a LIFE last duel. All perspectives are right. No Man or Woman is to blame for anything. THAT was the time. NEVER is this, in my eyes, AH! Men guilty as charged. WE are all able to what, observe, consider and discuss this from our time and our perspective. BLAME? The men keep referring to the enjoyment they hope the women have achieved carnally...lol so the prowess of Frenchmen... The mother in law was raped and believed she was correct to roll over and get on with things... the friend who said...you said he was handsome. Do I see that and say - aw o.k. she asked for it?? What about the feeling you may have had when you saw Jean and Margarette immediately go tell their family and friends, what about Margarette saying she wants to tell that she was raped.. how about Jean, a husband/partner who says yes let's share with the world that my partner/wife was raped. Those are pretty advanced thinking in my mind from our 21st century perspective. Are we so advanced or different today. Hmmmm. This is a GREAT Movie if it's got us talking like this. THIS SHOULD BE AS BIG A BLOCKBUSTER AS any other Scott movie. I believe this review let the public down. People you can DO BETTER!
I think there were a lot of subtle differences in the two rape scenes. In the first, she stops to take off her shoes, the chase up the stairs feels slower with Marguerite turning more often to look at Jacques and seeming to “point the way”, she calls for her servant only once and protests in a way that COULD be construed as a “no means yes” way while he grins and smiles. The two scenes are shot differently as well, as already pointed out, the second using more close-ups conveying the real struggle and feeling of being trapped felt by Marguerite. From Jacques’ pov Marguerite’s position is seen with just enough distance and missing detail to come off as what COULD have been seen -from a 14th C male perspective- as an albeit heated “gallant pursuit”. I also think it’s important to consider how the scene was set up for Jacques’ pov. He clearly lives a pampered life, the mud and grit of Jean’s reality are almost just in passing and only felt in the presence of Jean. The party scene where he gives similar chase to a woman around a room before dragging her to bed and “taking” her is an important parallel. He does this in front of several people and with the approval of his patron. It is how sex is for him, and even if Marguerite’s protests were sincere, his character even says she protested “as a lady”. He does feel remorse -for the adultery, not the rape per se- and confesses his sin in church. The discussions he has with the priest, the legal counsel and Pierre “confirm” (in his mind, this is his pov) that he is absolved of wrongdoing and somehow “in the right”. All of this in the context of the very different lives of all three characters, and the backdrop of the times. The rape scene was not included in the first retelling because Jean was not there. It was retold twice, through the eyes of the two other characters, with subtle but clear differences and imo could not be left out of the other two accounts, otherwise the whole concept of the film wouldn’t have worked.
It's a shame they didn't understand the nuances of the scenes that the brilliant Miss Comer showed, that made such a difference between the viewpoints.
Mark. Normally i listen to the way you articulate film and am fascinated by something that's unknown to me, but i absolutely can not get my head around how you think Ridley Scott's world building is a bad thing to build a film around. Im baffled.
I found the accents refreshing, much better than the usual ridiculous trope of using posh english accents for every single historical movie. And the final story was in deep contrast to the previous two. I was surprised how much I liked this movie, one of the best of the year so far.
I can't believe Simon said he sees no difference in the two rape scenes. I thought the difference between them was the difference between night and day. Really calls in in to question Simon's powers of perception. He should never be allowed to be an eyewitness.
@@KD--sj8eo I thought the scene from Jodie perspective was much worse like she said please I'm begging you and her cries were different in hers. than Adams who remembers it like she consented like that woman at court earlier in the film.
@@theloniousmorphy I just came back from the cinema and agree fully. While the differences were in the details, those details were important and the second scene was considerably worse. I actually had to look away from the screen and afterward put my jacket on because I felt cold after the second scene. I'm not saying that the first version was fine, but there was a world of difference. It's fascinating how individual perceptions of details can have such profound effects and I'm really impressed with how the movie managed to capture and portray that.
@KD6- 3.7 who gives a shit, the difference wasn't like in Rashomon, and makes it really distractive why the director does this, especially for someone who's seen Rashomon. Everyone sees a rape in both versions and none of the minor variations really change the moral foundation of the trial or anything.
I see the difference but it’s so irrelevant. Both scenes are clearly rape, and it should be clear for Le Gri too. The writers abruptly made him a fool who does not understand what's what.
This was a great film, a little bloated in parts but cleverly shot and has a very tense final act. There were reasons for the rape scene to be shown twice and you need to pay attention to notice and understand the difference that make these scenes so crucial.
Simon says there isn't enough of a difference between the 2nd and 3rd perspectives of the rape to justify showing them both,to say that shows the whole point of the film is lost,it is the difference between Ridley failing or succeeding at telling this story. The differences are subtle,thank goodness, but in film there is such thing as context and consolidation. The way a word is exchanged,a glance,the way her shoes are taken off to climb the stairs in the 2nd pov and the shoes are torn off her feet as she desperately struggles to escape up the stairs in the next. Many of the reviews have said the film does not need to go over the events 3 times, it's boring,the film should be shorter, I really do hang my head in shame not just for audience reactions but for humanity itself. This film is a stunning and intelligent examination of the grey areas,and his story, made by a master director at the height of his powers. Just because someone is not smart enough to keep up doesn't mean it has failed with its message. It does not pander to the lowest common denominator, and for that reason alone should be commended
@@chance757 I had the same gut reaction after just seeing the film & remembering this from before I had & came back to post my dismay. But upon a 2nd listen w/ the context, to be fair to Simon I believe what he’s saying is that as a viewer/witness the Le Gris POV isn’t any less a rape, merely the actions of a rapist who doesn’t recognize he is one. So I think he’s saying he didn’t need the Marguerite POV to make this judgement. What I still take issue w/ is that I don’t think that’s the point of the film (a debate over if). In real life there are rarely witnesses. To me the point is to suggest how little difference there is between what we might consider a more archaic barbaric time & how we handle such violations/assaults - both privately & in particularly publicly - today. Le Gris’ defence is still a common one & removing his POV & thus the parallel w/ his similar encounter at court in Pierre’s chambers would just turn him into a moustache twirling villain. Removing Marguerite’s POV wouldn’t do her experience nor her position in the ensuing events justice. The inclusion also honours how different people can see/experience the same events differently as determined by a wide variety of factors in their lives. So I now merely disagree that the “repetition” was unnecessary.
I think You guys have misunderstood Simon here. He’s making a quite enlightened point that he doesn’t see the difference between a woman having an orgasm during a rape (which happens, and is often a deep source of shame for the women who experience it) and a woman resisting throughout. Rape is rape regardless and there is no moral distinction, and that I think is was Simon is trying to express. It’s one of the many ways in which this film seriously missteps in dealing with the subject matter.
Disagree that it doesn't work, and I felt there was a clear difference when the rape was repeated. This film is all about the ways in which the two men view themselves and how they actually are and a lot of the most interesting parts in this film were when you got to compare them and notice the subtle shifts. The last third got really tense. This is thus far the best film of the year for me and also one of the best by Ridley Scott. Also the intricate worldbuilding is necessary when you are making a film about medieval society, I honestly can't see how that could be a fault, and this does such a good job of depicting those times. Loved it.
Agreed. The difference between the 2nd and 3rd Chapters are key to understanding how much of a devious narcissist Le Gris truly was. His version romanticizes his interactions with Margarite, versus the brash, ugly, one-sided reality of the situation. He truly believes he is innocent of any wrong doing even at death's door. I'm really disappointed they didn't pick up on that. It is far from a perfect film, but I really enjoyed the nuances in the storytelling.
Agree. It actually came as a shock to me that Marguerite’s truth (the real truth) of the event was so close to the others…. Which I think was partly the point.
I was reminded of the Accused with Jodie foster while watching this about Adam driver's charachters account of the happening, that she was inviting him and initiating the act by leaving her slipper on the steps and running around the room like a playful act enticing him. The people that commit rape just create a fantasy in their head to fit the narrative and their version of events from their point of view. Despite protestations, they use it as a "no means try harder" approach. Disturbing
I saw this today, and I'm baffled by the reference to Monty Python. Now sure, it's a popular film, but it was the farthest thing from my mind while watching it, but that's maybe some people's touchstones. Weird. Also to echo the comments elsewhere on this page, Simon... the two rape scenes were VERY different. Maybe you averted your eyes, but if you didn't notice the utter unsubtle differences in the performances, AS WELL as significantly different blocking, movements and tones of voice, then... did you notice the other hundreds of differences throughout the film?
I have never felt so seen watching a movie before and all of that is thanks to Jodie Comer’s masterfully nuanced and emotionally wrecking performance. My husband who rarely pays attention to movies was crying by the end of it. Her portrayal of Marguerite was so powerful.
I have never felt so seen watching a movie before and all of that is thanks to Jodie Comer’s masterfully nuanced and emotionally wrecking performance. She's such a brilliant actress, I cannot emphasise this enough. My husband who rarely pays attention to movies was crying by the end of it.
I wasn’t keen on seeing the rape twice knowing beforehand that was going to happen. However, I understand it’s necessity after viewing the movie. How you missed the differences between the two perspectives shocks me but you aren’t the only ones. Many of the differences are subtle, some very obvious. First off the dialog is exactly the same from when LeGris enters the home. Adam doesn’t really play it much differently and, perhaps, that’s why it seemed the same to you. However, Marguerite reacts quite differently. In LeGris’ version she seems less afraid and even inviting, up to a point. He does deliver the line about them not being able to help themselves both times, though the second time it’s said off screen as we watch Marguerite sobbing on the bed. In Marguerite’s version she’s clearly terrified as she runs to the bedroom and is screaming the entire time. The camera show her clawing the bed and desperately trying to get away. In LeGris version she, at some point stops fighting. While she’d not enjoying it he doesn’t notice or care.
Yes, but this just amounts to a difference between a rape, and an extremely violent and unpleasant rape. Le Gris's version shows a rape just leaving room for the possibility that Le Gris naively doesn't realise it's rape. Marguerite's version shows what a rape actually feels like to a victim. But for an audience deciding whom to believe, all you see is three accounts all agreeing that a rape took place.
@@saxbend That’s what we call dramatic irony. Of course we will process the three chapters differently from the three characters. But the film is explicit in each of the chapters that they are told from their perspectives. What sort of meaning you make from them is irrelevant to their perspectives.
@@saxbend incorrect. They are two very different scenes where the dialog and the inflection it is delivered with amounts to two very different outcomes.
@@saxbend That’s not what he/she said at all? Besides, you walk around barefoot in the streets of London. Your opinion is invalid. Get that sorted, mate. No offence.
I also felt like showing the rape twice was a lot to handle, but there are some key differences: she literally screams the second time, the shoes come off differently each time, etc. It makes a nice point that even in his mind it still looks like rape but is justifiable nontheless in the world and that’s interesting, but ultimately still questionable.
I feel they did “that scene” twice to show how similar they in fact were. Because i assumed le gris perspective would have been the complete opposite, as in her coming on to him. But how similar it was really hammers home how dillusional this man really is, and that he most certainly was guilty, because up to that point, some audience members may have thought otherwise. So I actually think it was necessary.
I believe that the similarity of the two rape scenes was intentional. The main difference between the two is that in the second one you can perceive a lot more pain and anguish. However, the first version still shows an express and clear rejection and lack of consent to show us that le gris did in fact perceive this, but he still felt justified in his actions. Despite what he saw, he considered that to be consensual.
I did late medieval socio-economics to PhD and I've been involved in TV and film depicting the era. We are 30 years on from medieval Europe being shown as a muddy landscape thanks to Monty Python roundly taking the piss out of it. Yes, it hides modern surroundings but so does camo netting and smoke machines. We can never recreate medieval speech because people will not be able to understand it, so speak in your normal accent and as Alan Rickman rightly said, the American accent is closer to a medieval one than modern British for reasons of British diaspora to 'the colonies' in the Early Modern era.
I find it a moot point when people say this film is just pandering to me too. As if, people haven’t been talking about sexual assault since time immemorial.
I hear you Noemie but it takes on a special significance in this political environment. Hollywood has for decades turned a blind eye to a horrible and exploitative culture against women and now has to virtue signal in order to hide it's unclean hands
@@danielevans5286 Yeah that's possible but at the same time I think a lot of creators were definitely part of the culture. I'm implying Ridley personally but there are always signs. Have you ever seen a movie and wondered why the actresses only role was to be sexually provocative and to be an object of lust? I've heard stories of many actresses who have come out to talk about how they were treated on set by creators and pressured into nude scenes and the like...pure exploitation from creators who were obviously getting off on it
The two rape scenes were important and actually genius because it showed that even from Adam Driver's characters erspective by our standards of today is was clearly and unequivocally rape without a doubt!! And there were many extremely significant but slightly subtle differences in the womans telling of the incident. Things such as him chasing her around the house being much more menacing and violent. The way he handled her was basically playfull in Driver's character's telling of the incident, he was seemingly romancing her almost, being firm but slightly flirtatious. In the victims recound he basically forcefully ripped her off the floor and ragdolled her around the house while she with great futilitly tried to fight him off. It was very very important for there to be two scenes. I keep seeing male reviewers (not even female reviewers) trying to say "oh it was gratuitous" "it wasn't necessary" and totally missing the importance. I think reflexively men feel to show virtue they have to complain about any scenes of sexual violence and the complaint that the scene was unnecessary is almost obligatory to be voiced by men to seem virtuous. This is actually ignorant in this case, I'm frustrated by yet another reviewer switching off during that scene and not bothering to actually take in the detail and instead hurrying to dismiss it as "oh it wasn't necessary" "they were doing it for shock and gratuitous and insensitive reasons" or "This is not fair on victims of assault". Please actually seriously consider what it means for victims of assault to tell their story, our social attitudes now and the comparison between the attitudes of the time of the movie, it will make so much sense when you consider that, why it is so important those two scenes were left it. It just wouldn't make sense without the other. It was genius that rather than make one be that she was totally excited and fully consenting we clearly see the truth that. it was a vile and nasty rape and by our standards that is clearly true and Adam Driver's character damned himself even by his own telling of the story.
I think you understand this film better than these two. They feel the need to express that they are very much against raping people and don’t get much further!
Really enjoyed this film. Structure worked well and the differences in how things were remembered were both close enough and different enough for them to be noticed when watching for first time. Lots of moments you go aah and think you're very smart when watching. One good example being their reconciliation where the two male leads remember who says the nice thing to the other differently (both coming off as the 'good' one in their own heads) while Marguerite's perspective it isn't said at all. The assaults were COMPLETELY different, Jacques recollection is, very purposefully, almost identical to his interaction with the prostitutes earlier in the film while Marguerite's is as uncomfortable and horrible as it needs to be. I usually feel the big things are more powerful if they aren't shown i.e. the rape and the actual duel at the end but both times in this film I was proven wrong, they earned them and they didn't use either cheaply. Ending especially where two big egos face off while the real victim is sat in silence having to deal with consequences from choices that she didn't want or make. Also worth adding 'The Truth' lingered longer for Marguerite's perspective after her name disappeared unlike the other two leads suggesting her recollection is the one to be trusted the most.
I disagree, I felt that the film benefited from it's story structure although I will say that the first act felt a bit clucky with prolonged battle scenes. I think Ridley Scott did an excellent job helming this film, the subtle use of shot composition between each perspective completely sells the idea of us seeing the story from each character's perspective. What really surprised me the most was the film's use of humour, which I really wasn't expecting from a film of this subject matter, but I think it is well interjected into the story.
In one version the rape scene Jolie Comer's character doesn't cry out as much, and doesn't try to stop Adam Driver's character as much as in the second retelling Also the Adam Driver version is quicker, the second is longer and lingers on the scene, the focus being much more on Jolie Comer, focusing on her face and emotionally state. I think it was justified. I really enjoyed this film, some costumes I questioned and some accents were a bit lame but on the whole I thought the performances were great, especially Adam Driver who can feel at one point Noble and charming, and then becomes an utter snake.
completely agree, I thought that the fact the differences were so subtle made it interesting. How a situation could be interpreted (and even believed) as different from each character - you've mentioned the r**e scene but also parts where someone would shout rather than just use a firm tone of voice, for example. I do see how the having to rewatch so much of the film could seem unjustified to many viewers though, especially as that particular scene was hard enough to watch the first time
Big differences if anyone else noticed, even the way he picked her up when he chased her, he was more romantic in his telling, in her telling it was so violent the way he picked her up, it wasn't cradling he was basically violently rag-dolling her! That was a big thing. It's crazy how people are criticising the two scenes, it simply wouldn't have made sense if it was only done once. The whole point is that even by Les Gris own retelling of the events it was clearly rape. It wouldnt have made sense with only retelling, it would have been more a "who done it" exploitation of rape as a plot device. Instead, with two scenes showing the significant contrasts but commonality that was it was clearly rape we have an incredibly poignant exploration of the crazy standards and repressive nature of those times. Le gris believes he is innocent because it does not take much twisting of the facts for him to technically not be a rapist. A woman giving "customary protestations" would still be blamed. And he could delude himself/ The fact the assault scene was done twice and made all that clear was just absolutely genius.
I've just read production was over $100million for this and it debuts at $4.8million in its opening weekend, not great. I don't think this looks particularly good but it's a shame original cinema often struggles while formulaic remakes like Halloween Kills do much better. Thankfully Dune seems to be doing well but if we want cinema that takes more risks with bigger budgets , people really need to support films like this and Dune.
@@ams914 this is a really good, very well acted film. It's an original story with beautiful costuming and production design and you don't even notice the time passing. I know which one I would rather watch.
@@ams914 original story with fantastic production, set design, world building. Halloween kills has terrible production, terrible acting, its contrived rubbish. Halloween was a great Slasher but that didn't need a remake or a sequel, this has purely been made for money and nothing else. And like Kermode said, there's no tension and its not even scary.
I did enjoy watching the review (as always from Kermode), but what I can say is that while I understood where the critiques are coming from, I do respectfully disagree on a good part of them. More notably (from Simon) regarding the difference(s) between the first and second scene of the rape from the perspectives of Le Gris and Marguerite. While maybe not a huge differences, I do think there are pieces of subtlety between the two perspectives that do make them different from one another (specially with how each scene was shot in a specific focal point and/or angle). I personally thought the film was great, but again, that's just my opinion on the matter.
Both Kermode and Mayo seemed completely unable to understand the nuances of the film or approach the film in its own reality, with Mayo himself being the worse of the two, but the most galling thing for me other than grossly misreading the rape scene (these calls for sensitivity are ultimately just call for censorship, as someone, somewhere will always percieve the depiction of such an act as 'sensationalist') is the ludicrous idea that the presences of troubadours in the 14th century is 'parodical and python-esque'. What do they think a 14th century court did for entertainment, turn on the tv and watch the football, switch on the radio? Courtly music, dancing and poetry were important sources of entertainment for the people of their era. Ridley Scott put more effort into recreating 14th century France than many others would, because he understands the psychology of an individual, their customs and their mores, is informed by the world they inhabit. And what the film really did with the two versions of the rape is show the psychology of a rapist and how a rapist interprets their own actions vs the truth, how they will see the exact same sequence of events in a fundamentally different way. Very few rapists believe themselves to be guilty, Adam Driver's character genuinely believed he did nothing wrong. He believed he had nothing to confess even when he had the dagger at his literal throat, unto death he believed he was innocent by his own standards. Which ultimately leads into the theme of self-mythologizing and ego-saving men, how they interpret themselves compared to how they are seen by others and how they ultimately are in reality.
Yep. Le Gris' last dying breath was an insistence on his innocence. His belief in his innocence (of rape, not adultery) was chilling and all too familiar.
this is not the only review i ve seen where the movie gets negative rep for showing the rape scene 'twice'. i think this reaction shows exactly that it is necessary to see those details 'again'. it is was makes this move so strong in its message and shows us (especially men) how twisted and horrible it is to go thru (even long after the rape) such events in a society where men had and have more power overall. this movie was a total surprise to me and i hope it gets many people thinking. i dont think its fair to downgrade this film just because you didnt felt comfy watching a rape scene. then you re kinda missing the point. cheers
It wouldn''t have even made sense if they only showed it once or showed it twice with one of them she was fully consenting and happy. The whole point is that even from Le Gris perspective he clearly raped her. There were extremely significant but subtle differences like in her retelling he was so menacing, he picked her up much more violently and it was a scary and violent scene. She displayed clear disgust at his overtures and the tone was different. The fact the scene was done twice was the most genius part of the movie. It's not a mystery movie. It would be a mystery for the people of that time, but for us? It was clearly rape by his own telling, it was such a brilliant writing decision. The people criticising the movie for this are reflexively signalling their virtue as that is the done thing as a male to say "oh it wasn't necessary" "it was gratuitious and exploits the pain of victims" But in this case it makes people saying that seem really ignorant because the movie simply wouldn't have made sense. The whole point was there were two different narratives/recollections about the incident and if it only showed one telling it would have been MORE exploitative. IT would have made rape a "ooh did it happen?" cheap mystery plot device. Instead it is a powerful element and theme exploration about what actually constitutes assault, we know that both tellings are rape. But in their time only one would have been so. It tells us how screwed up that time was and explores how Le Gris really did view himself as innocent because by the standards of the time, he could twist the facts just slightly and that would have meant it was just adultery not rape, the line was so ridiculously blurred by their standard.
I watched this movie with my wife and she was disgusted by both scenes in different ways. Le Gris version was subtle due to his justification and how he clearly justified it in his own mind eg taking off the shoes before going up the stairs. Then the second version "The truth" she found terrifying in it's brutality. I think a lot of people wanted a #metoo movie and they didn't get it.
@@frankschrodinger1424 So conflicted. There’s some good and bad. One moment the film does something really cool and another moment it does something really dumb. I need to rewatch it again soon though now that I know what happens.
@@megamoviez They showed the whole movie in their 2 and a half minute trailer. It smelled of desperation and looked terrible as was the 2018 movie. A waste of the talent involved.
I would instead carve: "Everyone was constantly complaining about story - while missing, his movies where the most beautiful looking ever." It really pisses me off that even professional critics ramble about plot, story and actors all the time and give the look of ridleys films 1-2 sentences. Its such conventional thinking. Film is a visual medium first while storys can be told in so many different mediums. Nobody is creating pictures like Ridley. I love even his movies that are not about something, they look better than 90% of the rest. And this is at least about an important human problem, not entertainment first. One of his finest works in my opinion. And acted so nuanced.
@@danieldzienian6607 What about the Story structure and it's landing? If I want to watch a massive medival battle scenes I might as well play a video game
I disagree with Mark here, while it’s not exactly like Rashomon with its narrative style, it does its purpose and makes it more interesting as you find out what other characters were doing when you were with another character. I don’t get them saying the rape scenes weren’t different, the second one is much more intense and horrific and will likely trigger people more. The ‘camp’ comment makes no sense since that’s what 14th Century France was like and you can see they wanted to put as much detail into the world building as possible. Overall, IMO, the film does work and was enjoyable the differences between the chapters are more subtle than Rashomon, and if you’re going to just compare it to Rashomon straight away then you’ll already dislike it with pre-existing ideas on what it should be.
I think Mayo is right in that the representation of the rape in le Gris' account doesn't at all correspond to his denial of it being a rape. There isn't enough disharmony between the two representations of the two scenes.
The irony of this review is that Mark and Simon are white knighting when discussing how the film depicts female jeopardy. Yes, it is appalling that the fate of Jodie Comer's character ultimately depends on which one of two men wins a duel...but that's the point of the story, and the film accurately depicts that horror. The fact there isn't a whole lot of difference between Driver and Damon's recollection of the story in contrast to Marguerite's experience is also the point, which totally justifies the Rashomon structure as it gets this point across.
I really enjoyed this film. I think it deserves a second viewing- lots of the differences in the stories are indeed very subtlety drawn. And as for the period realism- I thought it was very compelling and engaging. And I’ve never been quite so involved in a dramatised fight scene, since the fist fight to the death in Deadwood, as I was when they duelled- it was incredibly believable.
I thought the difference was from his perspective he thought, to quote the vile Robin Thicke 'I know you want it' where he thought she clearly liked him and that she only protested almost as a formality, therefore that she say no. Whereas in reality she hardly knew him and he'd dreamt up this fantasy about her where they were secretly in love and then he did what he did and she was not compliant at all. I thought the difference scenes weren't hugely different but that was deliberate. To show that the way two people see the same situation does not reflect what is going on, he saw it as almost inevitable and both thought it wrong but did it anyway whereas she knew that she had no interest and he forced himself upon her. It basically said when men who do this stuff they can look back on what they've done they imagine it completely differently and therefore say 'well she's lying' because they were so blinded by their desire. Honestly I thought it was more poignant because it showed the subtle difference that really really matters rather than the black and white yes or on scenario if in his account she had been entirely forthcoming and consensual during the scene rather than, well to paraphrase him she protested as a lady should.
So, did I get it right and Mark was basically saying: "Watch "The Lion in Winter" instead"? I mean, Christmas is approaching, so it's time for a rewatch anyway.
As a non spoilers comment. There are a lot of subtle differences between the 3 stories, and I'm assuming I didn't catch everything. Its the sort of thing that will make peoples opinion go up after a second watch.
Wow, I thought you had good taste. But all joking aside this movie was a breath of fresh air amid all the crap that has come out lately and I am surprised at this review.
No. At best AT BEST an Oscar nomination, but to expect an Oscar win is too much. As much as great the story is there is still too much mistakes and misteps to expect an Oscar win
He will win the Oscar with his upcoming House of Gucci film if it proves to be better than this. This film will definitely help the award voters take notice.
Did these guys watch the same movie that I did? It is one of the best acted, best scripted, best structured movies that I have seen in many a year. Probably since Batman trilogy (completely different genre but give me some rope - game recognises game). This was a proper movie that is sadly from a bygone era of movie making. Much better than any of the puff movies these guys typically gush over (e.g. Wes Anderson).
I have tickets to see this movie this coming weekend. I'm hesitant about seeing the rape twice, but I'm really glad to see quite a number of comments here, especially from male commentators here, indicating there is a significant difference in the 2 versions of the same rape based on the pov. I think this is still a very timely issue and reflects rape cases in current times.
I found it hard to watch the rape scene once let alone twice. However, it happened and does happen. There was something about having to face the reality of this abhorrent act that made it real. The beauty of the landscapes, costumes and castles balances the brutality of some episodes in the film.
Technical glitches aside...I did a double take to see Mark and Simon back in the studio. Much better for it. And...I've really enjoyed the reviews. You've sold me on this week's offerings
Have to disagree with most of this review. I think the movie was great and did work and does not look cheap or monty python like. Also you can't put your modern sensibilities on people from 700 years ago. The past as a foreign place, people did things differently there.
@@Ohnonono123 beg to differ, the whole point is to draw attention to how little has changed in how we handle this subject both privately & especially in the public sphere juxtaposed against the biases of our “modern” sensibilities that the duel & time period were much more barbaric.
I hope you enjoy it. I saw it last night and I had an absolute joy throughout the whole film. Definitely liked it more than Mark did. Performances, story and production were all very good for me
I feel like Ridley Scott made this entire 2.5 hour film for the single shot of Matt Damon bleeding from the crotch. I thought the movie was pretty good!
Was there a different version of the film that you guys reviewed? I thought the different perspectives were very clear and seemed quite realistic tellings of the same event. Perhaps the version I just watched on my TV was different to the cinema version?
Loved this movie! Even before the most realistic brutal medieval duel I've ever seen on film! Made Luc Besson's Joan of Arc, and Gladiator look like a little dust up! Epic final Duel!😳👏👍
"Female jeopardy" is a silly point to criticise here, if you ask me. What were they supposed to do, have Marguerite de Carrouges fight the duel herself, not have the duel at all, or play down the potential consequences of losing? Butcher the most basic facts of the case, in other words? Also, what really is this criticism? Is it impermissible to build suspense for an audience, based on the audience's concern for the fate of a character, if the character happens to be female? What? When did that memo go out? I thought this was an excellent film, from the world building and the technical aspects of filmmaking to the acting and the multiple perspective structure. A lot of critics seem to be reaching to find fault, like saying every individual aspect of the movie is great but it is "somehow" less than the sum of its parts. Riight.
My younger self was really looking forward to a film made about this event, but I have been very reserved about Damon and Affleck tackling this text. I am actually more excited seeing you two back in the studio!
Watched this film twice, only an idiot would detect any potential Monty Python references. Neither of them really got this film right. The differences in the telllings are actually bloody obvious.
Disagree with Kermode, the different interpretations were very engaging, and Maguerite's version was harrowing. The final scene was unbelievably tense, best film i've seen in a long time.
10:33 Yes, but if you come out of a Ridley Scott film, especially after Kingdom of Heaven, thinking anything historical has happened; and then apply this attitude towards history, is a terrible mistep. Ridley Scott doesn't give a toss about actual history, and from this review (I haven't seen the film) it seems no history is occurring, and only the typical tropes of Medieval life.
'It does get bogged down in the Ridley Scott world building milieu...' ... this is why I went to watch it, what?! A Ridley Scott historical epic drama, sign me up. Totally delivered and more, I got so emotional once it got to the meat of the story. The world building was brilliant and drew me into the story, the violence was raw and impactful. The different versions of events were very well done, I found it fascinating. This is a 4 or 5 star film easily, can't believe it's bombing.
@@wildphantom1 Couldn’t agree more. In addition to the quality of the story/subject matter, this was among the most cinematic films I’ve seen since going back to the theatre last month (w/ Lamb & the Green Knight in that list). And the sound design was better than anything in the 2 Marvel films, The Suicide Squad, or No Time to Die. So glad I saw Stuckmann’s review yesterday.
(BTW, haven’t seen Dune yet).
I have just watched it - fantastic film!!! Best Ridley Scott film in a long time.
You better not be scoring out of 10!
IKR? The first time I watched it for the plot, the second time I watched it to be more attentive to the differences in stories and if I watch it the third time it will be for the medieval athmosphere, milleu, deteils etc. It was brilliantly done.
Really enjoyed this movie. Finally, a new movie with character depth and an actual story. Definitely, worth a watch.
And Simon, the subtlety in the versions IS what makes the approach so intriguing. For once, the audience are treated like adults. Like a jury, it is we who must study the differences to inform our decision.
The jury analogy is very interesting Selwan!
exactamente
Agreed. Just watched it tonight, Its fantastic. Maybe it reflects our modern age - very little attention span and not much interest in depth. Shame. Great cast also.
Agree that it’s definitely worth watching. But I can say definitively that it is not the position of Ridley & the writers that the audience be in the position of a jury & be able to conclude that Le Gris was wrongly accused. Hear me out.
While the book presents the available information and is less definitive on the writer’s own conclusion (he has stated his in interviews etc. though) & thus does do what you suggest, the film has a declared position. “Chapter 3: The Truth according to Marguerite” is given the subtitle “The Truth” when those words are left on screen as the rest of the chapter title disappears.
This isn’t to say that the differences in the POVs are irrelevant and shouldn’t be considered. We are meant to consider WHY they have their particular interpretations of the events.
It is not the point of the film to relitigate a 600+yr old case. Both Jean & Jacques have had the benefit of 600+yrs of debate over their respective positions on the issue. Up until some time after (Nov 2021?) the release of this film they both even had lengthy Wikipedia entries while none existed for Marguerite as she had been mostly ignored in the history. She got this film instead.
I hope pointing this out doesn’t then ruin your favourable view of the film as that is definitely not my intent. It’s just that I have seen in various comment sections on the film those making the case that the Le Gris POV was not rape instead of recognizing that it’s the depiction of the POV of somebody who’s entitlement doesn’t allow himself to see his actions as such. There are also those that contend that Le Gris is treated unfairly by the film thus ignoring that there has been hundreds of years of advocacy that Le Gris was indeed the victim.
Ridley & the writers definitely wanted to provoke conversation on the topic and changed the claims of those involved in order to do so. Le Gris actually never suggested that there was consent. Rather he claimed that he was not even there and attempted to provide alibis. While Marguerite claimed that Le Gris friend/squire Adam Louvel participated in the assault by helping drag her up the stairway by the arms and legs, gaging her, and held her down on the bed during. In the film in both POVs Le Gris gains access to the home under false pretences & when Marguerite demands that they both leave Le Gris interjects and commands Louvel to leave thus removing any witnesses to how events unfolded from the foyer.
So I’d suggest the point of the film is to ask us to consider how little has changed in the underlying issues at play on the topic & in how we deal with the issue between what we would consider a more “barbaric” time and today. The chivalric system was the matrix of it’s day so to speak.
It was very clear the first rape scene perceived from Le Gris’s viewpoint was a “no mean’s yes” “hard to get” version of it. Comer’s moans were like that of a Bond girl in a old rapey Bond film. where the lead actor forces himself onto the female only for the actress to cry feigned protests and act enjoys it. Sick I know but that was how Le Gris perceived it and was meant to show us just what sort of character and villain he was
Where as the rape scene told from Comer’s perspective is very clearly a horrid gruesome and sickly vision.. not that the first one wasn’t but this was just amplified seeing her face and actually hearing agonising screams and dread, at least that’s how I felt when I watched it
Yeah. I think it was pretty critical to the movie to show how Le Gris “no means yes” version was in reality totally different from Margeurites perspective. I mean Le Gris’ version was rape regardless but it shows how Les Gris inserts ambiguity to justify his actions. The movie loses a lot of its force without the contrasting scenes. Removing the second version would create ambiguity that derails the movie, and removing the first scene make sure harder for us to understand how Les Gris understood the rape--he dies believing he was innocent .
Sadly... I think they should have been less subtle with the differences. I feel that many will share the views of Kermode and Mayo. I entirely agree with you btw.
Yes, thank you!
I agree. I didn't like or dislike the movie. So, that's not the point here. But I definitely felt there were differences between the first and the second version of the sexual assault. It's quite subtle, but it is there. Many viewers also saw no difference between the two, but I expect someone who reviews movies to see that.
Hit the nail on the head
In a perfect world Jodie Comer would get all the attention, recognition, and praises she deserves for her subtle, nuanced, poignant, utterly brilliant and beautiful performance in 'The Last Duel'. It's a crime how much she's been overlooked this award season.
Really? I thought she was the only good thing in the movie. Ben affleck was unwatchable. Matt Damon’s hair was god awful. In fact, none of the American actors are good in it. Their accents are bad. And I didn’t need to see her get raped twice. The first time was uncomfortable enough. Absolutely terrible movie.
Saw you write the exact comments on other videos on this movie. Are u getting paid? How much?
I couldn't disagree more, I felt the subtlety in the different interpretations added so much to the film. I dont see how he didn't see the differences between the SA scenes, thats disturbing in its own right.
I think you're right 👍 the accents are not fantastic the acting is great tho and this film is the truth about life then. I applaud the movie for showing the way , rape , was treated in those times. He even said she protested but was nothing more than the custom amount . Why didn't you scream was what was said to her . Then being questioned whether she enjoyed it even tho she was raped. Great movie imo.
I agree with you 100% but consider that usually, only heavy handed and clumsily executed exposition is noticed
What about "the truth" that does away with all interpretation?
As a woman, I agree and this has been eye opening
It was SA both times. It's far far far more concerning that you would think one of those wasn't SA
Just seen the film and come back to this review, like so many others I'm deeply surprised Simon didn't see the differences between the two assaults
@seanolaocha940 or maybe he shares the view of Adam's character and didn't see the difference of the scene between a girl saying "no" while laughing vs a girl begging and screaming for it to stop
I don't agree with a lot what has been said here in this review. I especially don't agree about the second scene of the rape portrayed as I felt there was a difference in the two scenes and it played on both characters perspective. The scene from Driver's perspective wasn't portrayed as much as an assault and more like the chasing he was doing a few scenes earlier. The second scene was portrayed far more as an assault compared to the other which was the point in terms of portraying opposing perspectives.
I agree with you. The "chase" narrative was pushed more in the Le Gris version but I feel that it was obvious in both versions that it was assault. Only Le Gris who is such a bloated bastard believes it is consensual.
@@cammunsta4088 Yes! But I'm not 100% sold on him thinking it was consensual. I think he knows it wasn't and yet keeps adorning things, as if "deep down" he knows that just saying so makes it possible. The scene of the party made quite more clear how a "game" of that sort would look like. He knew what he was doing, he did it, and he made the ridiculous love comments many attackers make to their victims
I entirely disagree regarding the second time we see the rape. The scene more or less plays out similarly, with some subtle differences, however these make all the difference. The first time we see it, yes we recognize it as rape. The second time we see it, we FEEL this far more as rape. The first was from the rapists perspective, and the second was from the victim’s perspective. It was absolutely not exploitative at all. If you think you so then you require a second viewing of the film
I have to say I agree with you and have commented in a similar way. I actually think it's short changing not only the film but also valued opinion on an important subject. If you think a film should only show something once, because is not needed to have a 2nd opinion, then maybe you are not the best person to review a film. For pacing reasons, or whatever the reason,is not a reason to remove, or not include, the pivital scene that everything has lead up to reveal. It should be seen that the point of the film was to examine opinion and see that there are different perspectives. To give a whole picture might lead to a truth, as Ridley himself has said this is about a woman who laid her life on the line to be heard, for the truth to come out. I think sometimes film is an ideal way to get an important message across, and you just hope people get that message. The subtlety with which this film does it obviously went over some heads, that is a shame. It is a beautifully written piece ,and shot with the respect it deserved
I agree, the subtleties matter
Though subtle, the two rape perspectives are quite different. From Jacques perceptive, when he is carrying her, Marguerite says, "no" several times with almost a giggle. Not at all the same as the screaming and crying in the version we see from Marguerite's perspective. I get that this is hard to watch a second time, but thinking the two scenes are the same, seems like a serious lack of awareness.
Wow, this review has either set it up for replies or hopefully will benefit by Porter, Leon, Ducko and Empath's response and input. I appreciate the insight of you all and agree in a lot of ways, thanks you saved me from a lot of set up myself. Additional points I take umbridge with from the review..men finding a way to battle, bogged down by time set up, dark dreary etc., seeing no or minimal subtle or dramatic difference between the 2 rape scenes etc., the duel was a heavy hammer to to deal with this, was about female jeopardy, rational structure did not deliver what it thought it could deliver and did not justify watching a woman being raped twice, impossible to come out of the movie without the belief that the males are guilty as charged. NO!!!! I appreciate Ridley Scott and the movies he chooses to make and the way he makes them. Definitely they make you think, stick with you looooong after you have seen them and are also just swashbuckling to boot. We are put in the French times of 1380-1386 its laws and customs. Many points of view and each is the truth from their perspective. Jean has been a husband and father, is a husband again - feels put upon for what he feels he deserves and has not received and fights for what He perceives to be right. Jacques, a single squire, he uses his personality and skills and gains favour and bounty from his liege, and believes himself to be in love, mutually? with Margarette. Margarette was her father's and is now her husbands property. This is a LIFE last duel. All perspectives are right. No Man or Woman is to blame for anything. THAT was the time. NEVER is this, in my eyes, AH! Men guilty as charged. WE are all able to what, observe, consider and discuss this from our time and our perspective. BLAME? The men keep referring to the enjoyment they hope the women have achieved carnally...lol so the prowess of Frenchmen... The mother in law was raped and believed she was correct to roll over and get on with things... the friend who said...you said he was handsome. Do I see that and say - aw o.k. she asked for it?? What about the feeling you may have had when you saw Jean and Margarette immediately go tell their family and friends, what about Margarette saying she wants to tell that she was raped.. how about Jean, a husband/partner who says yes let's share with the world that my partner/wife was raped. Those are pretty advanced thinking in my mind from our 21st century perspective. Are we so advanced or different today. Hmmmm. This is a GREAT Movie if it's got us talking like this. THIS SHOULD BE AS BIG A BLOCKBUSTER AS any other Scott movie. I believe this review let the public down. People you can DO BETTER!
I think there were a lot of subtle differences in the two rape scenes. In the first, she stops to take off her shoes, the chase up the stairs feels slower with Marguerite turning more often to look at Jacques and seeming to “point the way”, she calls for her servant only once and protests in a way that COULD be construed as a “no means yes” way while he grins and smiles.
The two scenes are shot differently as well, as already pointed out, the second using more close-ups conveying the real struggle and feeling of being trapped felt by Marguerite. From Jacques’ pov Marguerite’s position is seen with just enough distance and missing detail to come off as what COULD have been seen -from a 14th C male perspective- as an albeit heated “gallant pursuit”.
I also think it’s important to consider how the scene was set up for Jacques’ pov. He clearly lives a pampered life, the mud and grit of Jean’s reality are almost just in passing and only felt in the presence of Jean. The party scene where he gives similar chase to a woman around a room before dragging her to bed and “taking” her is an important parallel. He does this in front of several people and with the approval of his patron. It is how sex is for him, and even if Marguerite’s protests were sincere, his character even says she protested “as a lady”.
He does feel remorse -for the adultery, not the rape per se- and confesses his sin in church. The discussions he has with the priest, the legal counsel and Pierre “confirm” (in his mind, this is his pov) that he is absolved of wrongdoing and somehow “in the right”.
All of this in the context of the very different lives of all three characters, and the backdrop of the times.
The rape scene was not included in the first retelling because Jean was not there.
It was retold twice, through the eyes of the two other characters, with subtle but clear differences and imo could not be left out of the other two accounts, otherwise the whole concept of the film wouldn’t have worked.
It's a shame they didn't understand the nuances of the scenes that the brilliant Miss Comer showed, that made such a difference between the viewpoints.
There absolutely is a difference between the two sexual assault scenes. Don’t know what movie they watched.
Mark. Normally i listen to the way you articulate film and am fascinated by something that's unknown to me, but i absolutely can not get my head around how you think Ridley Scott's world building is a bad thing to build a film around. Im baffled.
I found the accents refreshing, much better than the usual ridiculous trope of using posh english accents for every single historical movie. And the final story was in deep contrast to the previous two. I was surprised how much I liked this movie, one of the best of the year so far.
The studio carpet looks well vacuumed
Nice carpet, goes quite well with the walls.
Licence fee well spent.
It really ties the room together
Tidy room, tidy mind.
the most ridiculous comment
I can't believe Simon said he sees no difference in the two rape scenes. I thought the difference between them was the difference between night and day. Really calls in in to question Simon's powers of perception. He should never be allowed to be an eyewitness.
@@attackpatterndelta8949 yes.
@@KD--sj8eo I thought the scene from Jodie perspective was much worse like she said please I'm begging you and her cries were different in hers.
than Adams who remembers it like she consented like that woman at court earlier in the film.
@@theloniousmorphy I just came back from the cinema and agree fully. While the differences were in the details, those details were important and the second scene was considerably worse. I actually had to look away from the screen and afterward put my jacket on because I felt cold after the second scene. I'm not saying that the first version was fine, but there was a world of difference. It's fascinating how individual perceptions of details can have such profound effects and I'm really impressed with how the movie managed to capture and portray that.
@KD6- 3.7 who gives a shit, the difference wasn't like in Rashomon, and makes it really distractive why the director does this, especially for someone who's seen Rashomon.
Everyone sees a rape in both versions and none of the minor variations really change the moral foundation of the trial or anything.
I see the difference but it’s so irrelevant. Both scenes are clearly rape, and it should be clear for Le Gri too. The writers abruptly made him a fool who does not understand what's what.
This was a great film, a little bloated in parts but cleverly shot and has a very tense final act. There were reasons for the rape scene to be shown twice and you need to pay attention to notice and understand the difference that make these scenes so crucial.
For me, the emotional climax of the film came when the "mother-in-law from hell" confided what had happened to her.
Superb old school movie. Where acting and story take center stage
Simon says there isn't enough of a difference between the 2nd and 3rd perspectives of the rape to justify showing them both,to say that shows the whole point of the film is lost,it is the difference between Ridley failing or succeeding at telling this story. The differences are subtle,thank goodness, but in film there is such thing as context and consolidation. The way a word is exchanged,a glance,the way her shoes are taken off to climb the stairs in the 2nd pov and the shoes are torn off her feet as she desperately struggles to escape up the stairs in the next. Many of the reviews have said the film does not need to go over the events 3 times, it's boring,the film should be shorter, I really do hang my head in shame not just for audience reactions but for humanity itself. This film is a stunning and intelligent examination of the grey areas,and his story, made by a master director at the height of his powers. Just because someone is not smart enough to keep up doesn't mean it has failed with its message. It does not pander to the lowest common denominator, and for that reason alone should be commended
Maybe if the Americans added Madonna, Sean Penn and Joe Biden to the cast it would be a box office success .....
Simon’s inability to understand the difference between the two rape scenes is deeply concerning…
THIS
Yes, yes, yes.
@@chance757 I had the same gut reaction after just seeing the film & remembering this from before I had & came back to post my dismay. But upon a 2nd listen w/ the context, to be fair to Simon I believe what he’s saying is that as a viewer/witness the Le Gris POV isn’t any less a rape, merely the actions of a rapist who doesn’t recognize he is one. So I think he’s saying he didn’t need the Marguerite POV to make this judgement.
What I still take issue w/ is that I don’t think that’s the point of the film (a debate over if). In real life there are rarely witnesses. To me the point is to suggest how little difference there is between what we might consider a more archaic barbaric time & how we handle such violations/assaults - both privately & in particularly publicly - today.
Le Gris’ defence is still a common one & removing his POV & thus the parallel w/ his similar encounter at court in Pierre’s chambers would just turn him into a moustache twirling villain. Removing Marguerite’s POV wouldn’t do her experience nor her position in the ensuing events justice. The inclusion also honours how different people can see/experience the same events differently as determined by a wide variety of factors in their lives.
So I now merely disagree that the “repetition” was unnecessary.
Or maybe this movie was goofy
I think You guys have misunderstood Simon here. He’s making a quite enlightened point that he doesn’t see the difference between a woman having an orgasm during a rape (which happens, and is often a deep source of shame for the women who experience it) and a woman resisting throughout. Rape is rape regardless and there is no moral distinction, and that I think is was Simon is trying to express. It’s one of the many ways in which this film seriously missteps in dealing with the subject matter.
Genius movie and superbly executed. The movie hooked me from minute one and didn’t let me go until the very end.
Agreed, and I've never been so invested in the outcome of a fight before.
Mark and Simon back in a studio! What a treat!
I can’t believe you guys got stuck on the accent and the mullet; this thing is a masterpiece from start to finish.
Agreed, the obsessed over wierd things that I thought worked fine.
@@wayner396 critics tend to do this
@@wildphantom1 like a Roman general with an Australian accent.. well Russell was hardly going to go off and learn an Italian accent ffs 🤣🤣
Yet these bozos say parasite was great!
Disagree that it doesn't work, and I felt there was a clear difference when the rape was repeated. This film is all about the ways in which the two men view themselves and how they actually are and a lot of the most interesting parts in this film were when you got to compare them and notice the subtle shifts. The last third got really tense. This is thus far the best film of the year for me and also one of the best by Ridley Scott. Also the intricate worldbuilding is necessary when you are making a film about medieval society, I honestly can't see how that could be a fault, and this does such a good job of depicting those times. Loved it.
Yep, completely agree. They probably had their noses in the popcorn during those scenes.
Agreed. The difference between the 2nd and 3rd Chapters are key to understanding how much of a devious narcissist Le Gris truly was. His version romanticizes his interactions with Margarite, versus the brash, ugly, one-sided reality of the situation. He truly believes he is innocent of any wrong doing even at death's door. I'm really disappointed they didn't pick up on that. It is far from a perfect film, but I really enjoyed the nuances in the storytelling.
Definitely, I really enjoyed it. The review was too smug and cynical.
Agree. It actually came as a shock to me that Marguerite’s truth (the real truth) of the event was so close to the others…. Which I think was partly the point.
Agree about the rape scenes. I thoroughly enjoyed the film too.
I was reminded of the Accused with Jodie foster while watching this about Adam driver's charachters account of the happening, that she was inviting him and initiating the act by leaving her slipper on the steps and running around the room like a playful act enticing him.
The people that commit rape just create a fantasy in their head to fit the narrative and their version of events from their point of view. Despite protestations, they use it as a "no means try harder" approach. Disturbing
well said.. the movie portrayed this fantasy aspect really well, thanks also to Adam's performance
I saw this today, and I'm baffled by the reference to Monty Python.
Now sure, it's a popular film, but it was the farthest thing from my mind while watching it, but that's maybe some people's touchstones. Weird.
Also to echo the comments elsewhere on this page, Simon... the two rape scenes were VERY different. Maybe you averted your eyes, but if you didn't notice the utter unsubtle differences in the performances, AS WELL as significantly different blocking, movements and tones of voice, then... did you notice the other hundreds of differences throughout the film?
I have never felt so seen watching a movie before and all of that is thanks to Jodie Comer’s masterfully nuanced and emotionally wrecking performance. My husband who rarely pays attention to movies was crying by the end of it. Her portrayal of Marguerite was so powerful.
She really was absolutely fantastic
I loved this film. One of the best I've seen in ages.
I want a review that gives me a sense of whether or not I will enjoy the movie. I do NOT want a summarization and recap of the movie.
I have never felt so seen watching a movie before and all of that is thanks to Jodie Comer’s masterfully nuanced and emotionally wrecking performance. She's such a brilliant actress, I cannot emphasise this enough. My husband who rarely pays attention to movies was crying by the end of it.
I wasn’t keen on seeing the rape twice knowing beforehand that was going to happen. However, I understand it’s necessity after viewing the movie. How you missed the differences between the two perspectives shocks me but you aren’t the only ones. Many of the differences are subtle, some very obvious.
First off the dialog is exactly the same from when LeGris enters the home. Adam doesn’t really play it much differently and, perhaps, that’s why it seemed the same to you. However, Marguerite reacts quite differently. In LeGris’ version she seems less afraid and even inviting, up to a point. He does deliver the line about them not being able to help themselves both times, though the second time it’s said off screen as we watch Marguerite sobbing on the bed.
In Marguerite’s version she’s clearly terrified as she runs to the bedroom and is screaming the entire time. The camera show her clawing the bed and desperately trying to get away. In LeGris version she, at some point stops fighting. While she’d not enjoying it he doesn’t notice or care.
Yes, but this just amounts to a difference between a rape, and an extremely violent and unpleasant rape. Le Gris's version shows a rape just leaving room for the possibility that Le Gris naively doesn't realise it's rape. Marguerite's version shows what a rape actually feels like to a victim. But for an audience deciding whom to believe, all you see is three accounts all agreeing that a rape took place.
@@saxbend That’s what we call dramatic irony. Of course we will process the three chapters differently from the three characters. But the film is explicit in each of the chapters that they are told from their perspectives. What sort of meaning you make from them is irrelevant to their perspectives.
@@saxbend incorrect. They are two very different scenes where the dialog and the inflection it is delivered with amounts to two very different outcomes.
@@Jumpman67 sounds like you don't recognise La Gris's version of the scene as rape.
@@saxbend That’s not what he/she said at all?
Besides, you walk around barefoot in the streets of London. Your opinion is invalid. Get that sorted, mate. No offence.
Good to see the guys back in the studio.
I thought the film was great and a lot smarter than Mark suggests.
I also felt like showing the rape twice was a lot to handle, but there are some key differences: she literally screams the second time, the shoes come off differently each time, etc. It makes a nice point that even in his mind it still looks like rape but is justifiable nontheless in the world and that’s interesting, but ultimately still questionable.
One of the weirdest and worst reviews he’s ever done. It is honestly disturbing that he didn’t see the differences between the r8pe scenes...
I feel they did “that scene” twice to show how similar they in fact were. Because i assumed le gris perspective would have been the complete opposite, as in her coming on to him. But how similar it was really hammers home how dillusional this man really is, and that he most certainly was guilty, because up to that point, some audience members may have thought otherwise. So I actually think it was necessary.
I believe that the similarity of the two rape scenes was intentional. The main difference between the two is that in the second one you can perceive a lot more pain and anguish. However, the first version still shows an express and clear rejection and lack of consent to show us that le gris did in fact perceive this, but he still felt justified in his actions. Despite what he saw, he considered that to be consensual.
I did late medieval socio-economics to PhD and I've been involved in TV and film depicting the era. We are 30 years on from medieval Europe being shown as a muddy landscape thanks to Monty Python roundly taking the piss out of it. Yes, it hides modern surroundings but so does camo netting and smoke machines. We can never recreate medieval speech because people will not be able to understand it, so speak in your normal accent and as Alan Rickman rightly said, the American accent is closer to a medieval one than modern British for reasons of British diaspora to 'the colonies' in the Early Modern era.
I mean they’re supposed to be speaking French so might as well go with whatever accent they want
Opening Marks wardrobe is like staring into a black hole
I find it a moot point when people say this film is just pandering to me too. As if, people haven’t been talking about sexual assault since time immemorial.
I hear you Noemie but it takes on a special significance in this political environment. Hollywood has for decades turned a blind eye to a horrible and exploitative culture against women and now has to virtue signal in order to hide it's unclean hands
@@benjaminshabu4406 it’s possible that for a long time creators weren’t allowed to make these types of films by the same people committing the crimes
@@danielevans5286 Yeah that's possible but at the same time I think a lot of creators were definitely part of the culture. I'm implying Ridley personally but there are always signs. Have you ever seen a movie and wondered why the actresses only role was to be sexually provocative and to be an object of lust? I've heard stories of many actresses who have come out to talk about how they were treated on set by creators and pressured into nude scenes and the like...pure exploitation from creators who were obviously getting off on it
I actually thought the three versions were different, and that was obvious!
The two rape scenes were important and actually genius because it showed that even from Adam Driver's characters erspective by our standards of today is was clearly and unequivocally rape without a doubt!!
And there were many extremely significant but slightly subtle differences in the womans telling of the incident. Things such as him chasing her around the house being much more menacing and violent.
The way he handled her was basically playfull in Driver's character's telling of the incident, he was seemingly romancing her almost, being firm but slightly flirtatious.
In the victims recound he basically forcefully ripped her off the floor and ragdolled her around the house while she with great futilitly tried to fight him off.
It was very very important for there to be two scenes.
I keep seeing male reviewers (not even female reviewers) trying to say "oh it was gratuitous" "it wasn't necessary" and totally missing the importance. I think reflexively men feel to show virtue they have to complain about any scenes of sexual violence and the complaint that the scene was unnecessary is almost obligatory to be voiced by men to seem virtuous.
This is actually ignorant in this case, I'm frustrated by yet another reviewer switching off during that scene and not bothering to actually take in the detail and instead hurrying to dismiss it as "oh it wasn't necessary" "they were doing it for shock and gratuitous and insensitive reasons" or "This is not fair on victims of assault".
Please actually seriously consider what it means for victims of assault to tell their story, our social attitudes now and the comparison between the attitudes of the time of the movie, it will make so much sense when you consider that, why it is so important those two scenes were left it.
It just wouldn't make sense without the other.
It was genius that rather than make one be that she was totally excited and fully consenting we clearly see the truth that. it was a vile and nasty rape and by our standards that is clearly true and Adam Driver's character damned himself even by his own telling of the story.
I think you understand this film better than these two. They feel the need to express that they are very much against raping people and don’t get much further!
I agree!
Very well said!
Really enjoyed this film. Structure worked well and the differences in how things were remembered were both close enough and different enough for them to be noticed when watching for first time. Lots of moments you go aah and think you're very smart when watching. One good example being their reconciliation where the two male leads remember who says the nice thing to the other differently (both coming off as the 'good' one in their own heads) while Marguerite's perspective it isn't said at all.
The assaults were COMPLETELY different, Jacques recollection is, very purposefully, almost identical to his interaction with the prostitutes earlier in the film while Marguerite's is as uncomfortable and horrible as it needs to be. I usually feel the big things are more powerful if they aren't shown i.e. the rape and the actual duel at the end but both times in this film I was proven wrong, they earned them and they didn't use either cheaply. Ending especially where two big egos face off while the real victim is sat in silence having to deal with consequences from choices that she didn't want or make.
Also worth adding 'The Truth' lingered longer for Marguerite's perspective after her name disappeared unlike the other two leads suggesting her recollection is the one to be trusted the most.
Will add Rashomon to my watch list. If The Last Duel is a poorly done version of this structure would be interesting to see it done well
I disagree, I felt that the film benefited from it's story structure although I will say that the first act felt a bit clucky with prolonged battle scenes. I think Ridley Scott did an excellent job helming this film, the subtle use of shot composition between each perspective completely sells the idea of us seeing the story from each character's perspective. What really surprised me the most was the film's use of humour, which I really wasn't expecting from a film of this subject matter, but I think it is well interjected into the story.
There was humor?
@@johnpijano4786 I guffawed when one of the prosecutors said something along the lines of "It's scientifically proven that..."
THEY’RE FINALLY BACK IN THE STUDIO! Mark’s Wi-Fi can finally rest!
@@boorhaave5880 *carrier pigeon
Hi from the States!! Huge fan! Love seeing you back in the studio
In one version the rape scene Jolie Comer's character doesn't cry out as much, and doesn't try to stop Adam Driver's character as much as in the second retelling
Also the Adam Driver version is quicker, the second is longer and lingers on the scene, the focus being much more on Jolie Comer, focusing on her face and emotionally state. I think it was justified.
I really enjoyed this film, some costumes I questioned and some accents were a bit lame but on the whole I thought the performances were great, especially Adam Driver who can feel at one point Noble and charming, and then becomes an utter snake.
completely agree, I thought that the fact the differences were so subtle made it interesting. How a situation could be interpreted (and even believed) as different from each character - you've mentioned the r**e scene but also parts where someone would shout rather than just use a firm tone of voice, for example. I do see how the having to rewatch so much of the film could seem unjustified to many viewers though, especially as that particular scene was hard enough to watch the first time
Big differences if anyone else noticed, even the way he picked her up when he chased her, he was more romantic in his telling, in her telling it was so violent the way he picked her up, it wasn't cradling he was basically violently rag-dolling her!
That was a big thing.
It's crazy how people are criticising the two scenes, it simply wouldn't have made sense if it was only done once.
The whole point is that even by Les Gris own retelling of the events it was clearly rape.
It wouldnt have made sense with only retelling, it would have been more a "who done it" exploitation of rape as a plot device.
Instead, with two scenes showing the significant contrasts but commonality that was it was clearly rape we have an incredibly poignant exploration of the crazy standards and repressive nature of those times.
Le gris believes he is innocent because it does not take much twisting of the facts for him to technically not be a rapist. A woman giving "customary protestations" would still be blamed. And he could delude himself/
The fact the assault scene was done twice and made all that clear was just absolutely genius.
The film is brilliant, Comer is absolutely amazing. All of them do very well. Some parts were slightly clunky, but I thought they were realistic.
The rape scene from Marguerite's perspective clearly showed her crying, the other one didn't.
I've just read production was over $100million for this and it debuts at $4.8million in its opening weekend, not great. I don't think this looks particularly good but it's a shame original cinema often struggles while formulaic remakes like Halloween Kills do much better. Thankfully Dune seems to be doing well but if we want cinema that takes more risks with bigger budgets , people really need to support films like this and Dune.
@@ams914 this is a really good, very well acted film. It's an original story with beautiful costuming and production design and you don't even notice the time passing. I know which one I would rather watch.
@@ams914 original story with fantastic production, set design, world building. Halloween kills has terrible production, terrible acting, its contrived rubbish. Halloween was a great Slasher but that didn't need a remake or a sequel, this has purely been made for money and nothing else. And like Kermode said, there's no tension and its not even scary.
@@BHCha- agree 👍
WHY are all these videos "breaking up" part way through, and then the sound is unsynchronised??
I thought no one would comment about this.
This was a great film. Kermode must’ve been drunk watching this one.
@@IncredibleGoliath It definitely is an accurate period hairstyle. Kermode is guilty of imposing an anachronism here.
What are you talking about? He clearly explained his problems with the film. If you like it, good for you.
I did enjoy watching the review (as always from Kermode), but what I can say is that while I understood where the critiques are coming from, I do respectfully disagree on a good part of them. More notably (from Simon) regarding the difference(s) between the first and second scene of the rape from the perspectives of Le Gris and Marguerite. While maybe not a huge differences, I do think there are pieces of subtlety between the two perspectives that do make them different from one another (specially with how each scene was shot in a specific focal point and/or angle).
I personally thought the film was great, but again, that's just my opinion on the matter.
I see where the sound technician from GB News has ended up !
Lol
just makes me want to watch The Duellists
Both Kermode and Mayo seemed completely unable to understand the nuances of the film or approach the film in its own reality, with Mayo himself being the worse of the two, but the most galling thing for me other than grossly misreading the rape scene (these calls for sensitivity are ultimately just call for censorship, as someone, somewhere will always percieve the depiction of such an act as 'sensationalist') is the ludicrous idea that the presences of troubadours in the 14th century is 'parodical and python-esque'. What do they think a 14th century court did for entertainment, turn on the tv and watch the football, switch on the radio? Courtly music, dancing and poetry were important sources of entertainment for the people of their era. Ridley Scott put more effort into recreating 14th century France than many others would, because he understands the psychology of an individual, their customs and their mores, is informed by the world they inhabit.
And what the film really did with the two versions of the rape is show the psychology of a rapist and how a rapist interprets their own actions vs the truth, how they will see the exact same sequence of events in a fundamentally different way. Very few rapists believe themselves to be guilty, Adam Driver's character genuinely believed he did nothing wrong. He believed he had nothing to confess even when he had the dagger at his literal throat, unto death he believed he was innocent by his own standards. Which ultimately leads into the theme of self-mythologizing and ego-saving men, how they interpret themselves compared to how they are seen by others and how they ultimately are in reality.
Yep. Le Gris' last dying breath was an insistence on his innocence. His belief in his innocence (of rape, not adultery) was chilling and all too familiar.
this is not the only review i ve seen where the movie gets negative rep for showing the rape scene 'twice'. i think this reaction shows exactly that it is necessary to see those details 'again'. it is was makes this move so strong in its message and shows us (especially men) how twisted and horrible it is to go thru (even long after the rape) such events in a society where men had and have more power overall.
this movie was a total surprise to me and i hope it gets many people thinking.
i dont think its fair to downgrade this film just because you didnt felt comfy watching a rape scene. then you re kinda missing the point.
cheers
It wouldn''t have even made sense if they only showed it once or showed it twice with one of them she was fully consenting and happy.
The whole point is that even from Le Gris perspective he clearly raped her.
There were extremely significant but subtle differences like in her retelling he was so menacing, he picked her up much more violently and it was a scary and violent scene.
She displayed clear disgust at his overtures and the tone was different.
The fact the scene was done twice was the most genius part of the movie.
It's not a mystery movie. It would be a mystery for the people of that time, but for us? It was clearly rape by his own telling, it was such a brilliant writing decision.
The people criticising the movie for this are reflexively signalling their virtue as that is the done thing as a male to say "oh it wasn't necessary" "it was gratuitious and exploits the pain of victims"
But in this case it makes people saying that seem really ignorant because the movie simply wouldn't have made sense.
The whole point was there were two different narratives/recollections about the incident and if it only showed one telling it would have been MORE exploitative. IT would have made rape a "ooh did it happen?" cheap mystery plot device.
Instead it is a powerful element and theme exploration about what actually constitutes assault, we know that both tellings are rape. But in their time only one would have been so.
It tells us how screwed up that time was and explores how Le Gris really did view himself as innocent because by the standards of the time, he could twist the facts just slightly and that would have meant it was just adultery not rape, the line was so ridiculously blurred by their standard.
I watched this movie with my wife and she was disgusted by both scenes in different ways. Le Gris version was subtle due to his justification and how he clearly justified it in his own mind eg taking off the shoes before going up the stairs. Then the second version "The truth" she found terrifying in it's brutality. I think a lot of people wanted a #metoo movie and they didn't get it.
As usual with a Ridley Scott movie I will wait for the Director’s cut.
The Director's cut of Legend is sooo good.
Ridley Director’s Cut Scott.
Or the final cut
Scott can direct good script.
Seeing this in a double feature with Halloween Kills tonight. Can’t wait!
Halloween duels
Your poor arse! 😆
Your thoughts on Halloween kills?
@@frankschrodinger1424 So conflicted. There’s some good and bad. One moment the film does something really cool and another moment it does something really dumb. I need to rewatch it again soon though now that I know what happens.
@@megamoviez They showed the whole movie in their 2 and a half minute trailer. It smelled of desperation and looked terrible as was the 2018 movie. A waste of the talent involved.
"It was a better idea than it was a film"
They're going to have to carve that over Ridley Scott's Tombstone
I would instead carve: "Everyone was constantly complaining about story - while missing, his movies where the most beautiful looking ever." It really pisses me off that even professional critics ramble about plot, story and actors all the time and give the look of ridleys films 1-2 sentences. Its such conventional thinking. Film is a visual medium first while storys can be told in so many different mediums. Nobody is creating pictures like Ridley. I love even his movies that are not about something, they look better than 90% of the rest. And this is at least about an important human problem, not entertainment first. One of his finest works in my opinion. And acted so nuanced.
What are you talking about?
Ridley Scott has made many great films
@@danieldzienian6607 What about the Story structure and it's landing? If I want to watch a massive medival battle scenes I might as well play a video game
@@danieldzienian6607 that's cool bro
@@theloniousmorphy true, but plenty of clunkers too
I like the period detail by Ridley, it invests you in the era, movie and gets you to understand their lives.
Matt and Ben should do a sequel to Good Will Hunting set in space.
@Spencer aka Free Thrall Zero-G(ood Will)
Not without first securing a retaaaaaainer
I disagree with Mark here, while it’s not exactly like Rashomon with its narrative style, it does its purpose and makes it more interesting as you find out what other characters were doing when you were with another character. I don’t get them saying the rape scenes weren’t different, the second one is much more intense and horrific and will likely trigger people more.
The ‘camp’ comment makes no sense since that’s what 14th Century France was like and you can see they wanted to put as much detail into the world building as possible. Overall, IMO, the film does work and was enjoyable the differences between the chapters are more subtle than Rashomon, and if you’re going to just compare it to Rashomon straight away then you’ll already dislike it with pre-existing ideas on what it should be.
I think Mayo is right in that the representation of the rape in le Gris' account doesn't at all correspond to his denial of it being a rape. There isn't enough disharmony between the two representations of the two scenes.
Tonight I'm going to witness the mullet from hell. Woo!!
The irony of this review is that Mark and Simon are white knighting when discussing how the film depicts female jeopardy. Yes, it is appalling that the fate of Jodie Comer's character ultimately depends on which one of two men wins a duel...but that's the point of the story, and the film accurately depicts that horror. The fact there isn't a whole lot of difference between Driver and Damon's recollection of the story in contrast to Marguerite's experience is also the point, which totally justifies the Rashomon structure as it gets this point across.
I really enjoyed this film. I think it deserves a second viewing- lots of the differences in the stories are indeed very subtlety drawn.
And as for the period realism- I thought it was very compelling and engaging.
And I’ve never been quite so involved in a dramatised fight scene, since the fist fight to the death in Deadwood, as I was when they duelled- it was incredibly believable.
I thought the difference was from his perspective he thought, to quote the vile Robin Thicke 'I know you want it' where he thought she clearly liked him and that she only protested almost as a formality, therefore that she say no. Whereas in reality she hardly knew him and he'd dreamt up this fantasy about her where they were secretly in love and then he did what he did and she was not compliant at all. I thought the difference scenes weren't hugely different but that was deliberate. To show that the way two people see the same situation does not reflect what is going on, he saw it as almost inevitable and both thought it wrong but did it anyway whereas she knew that she had no interest and he forced himself upon her. It basically said when men who do this stuff they can look back on what they've done they imagine it completely differently and therefore say 'well she's lying' because they were so blinded by their desire. Honestly I thought it was more poignant because it showed the subtle difference that really really matters rather than the black and white yes or on scenario if in his account she had been entirely forthcoming and consensual during the scene rather than, well to paraphrase him she protested as a lady should.
So, did I get it right and Mark was basically saying: "Watch "The Lion in Winter" instead"? I mean, Christmas is approaching, so it's time for a rewatch anyway.
These humourless critics.
Matt Damon looked great! Him saying "carrouge" in his weird accent was fantastic stuff.
"mud and blood and fluttering poultry" LOL!
brilliantly sums up Ridley Scott
As a non spoilers comment.
There are a lot of subtle differences between the 3 stories, and I'm assuming I didn't catch everything. Its the sort of thing that will make peoples opinion go up after a second watch.
Ridley Scott is one of the best and one of the worst film-makers of all time
Yeah, no he's not (one of the worst).
I thought the film was fantastic
Wow, I thought you had good taste. But all joking aside this movie was a breath of fresh air amid all the crap that has come out lately and I am surprised at this review.
Adam Driver looked magnificent in every second of this film
Too bad Driver didn't sound good, also. His performance was underwhelming.
Ridley is a crafty old fox. This is perfect Oscar bait and may finally win him Best Director.
No. At best AT BEST an Oscar nomination, but to expect an Oscar win is too much.
As much as great the story is there is still too much mistakes and misteps to expect an Oscar win
@@johnpijano4786 Unfortunately you are 100% correct. He is getting older just give him a lifetime acheivement award
He will win the Oscar with his upcoming House of Gucci film if it proves to be better than this. This film will definitely help the award voters take notice.
Did these guys watch the same movie that I did?
It is one of the best acted, best scripted, best structured movies that I have seen in many a year. Probably since Batman trilogy (completely different genre but give me some rope - game recognises game). This was a proper movie that is sadly from a bygone era of movie making. Much better than any of the puff movies these guys typically gush over (e.g. Wes Anderson).
good to see them back on the studio.. i've missed watching the full picture of mark's hand gestures
I almost died at the very off-hand delivery of "fluttering poultry"
I feel like Mayo finds pretty much any graphic depiction to be exploitative.
This is definitely a movie to see, at least for the story behind it if not for anything else.
I have tickets to see this movie this coming weekend. I'm hesitant about seeing the rape twice, but I'm really glad to see quite a number of comments here, especially from male commentators here, indicating there is a significant difference in the 2 versions of the same rape based on the pov. I think this is still a very timely issue and reflects rape cases in current times.
I found it hard to watch the rape scene once let alone twice. However, it happened and does happen. There was something about having to face the reality of this abhorrent act that made it real.
The beauty of the landscapes, costumes and castles balances the brutality of some episodes in the film.
Technical glitches aside...I did a double take to see Mark and Simon back in the studio. Much better for it. And...I've really enjoyed the reviews. You've sold me on this week's offerings
Mark in the studio. Simon in the studio. That's how it should be.
Have to disagree with most of this review. I think the movie was great and did work and does not look cheap or monty python like. Also you can't put your modern sensibilities on people from 700 years ago. The past as a foreign place, people did things differently there.
@@Ohnonono123 beg to differ, the whole point is to draw attention to how little has changed in how we handle this subject both privately & especially in the public sphere juxtaposed against the biases of our “modern” sensibilities that the duel & time period were much more barbaric.
Is the stuttering in the middle of the video a toothing problem of being back in the studio?
Seeing it this weekend. Big Ridley Scott fan, so I should be able to find something good out of this.
I hope you enjoy it. I saw it last night and I had an absolute joy throughout the whole film. Definitely liked it more than Mark did. Performances, story and production were all very good for me
@@yasielromero8236 I absolutely did. One of the best of the year.
I feel like Ridley Scott made this entire 2.5 hour film for the single shot of Matt Damon bleeding from the crotch. I thought the movie was pretty good!
Was there a different version of the film that you guys reviewed? I thought the different perspectives were very clear and seemed quite realistic tellings of the same event. Perhaps the version I just watched on my TV was different to the cinema version?
Not exploitative. I was able to pick up on the subtle differences just fine - even in the rape scenes. And so it does indeed work.
I think this was a pretty good analogy and therefore commentary on the he said she said debate. Not enough has changed
Loved this movie! Even before the most realistic brutal medieval duel I've ever seen on film! Made Luc Besson's Joan of Arc, and Gladiator look like a little dust up! Epic final Duel!😳👏👍
I didn't get why he said it doesn't work...
"Female jeopardy" is a silly point to criticise here, if you ask me. What were they supposed to do, have Marguerite de Carrouges fight the duel herself, not have the duel at all, or play down the potential consequences of losing? Butcher the most basic facts of the case, in other words? Also, what really is this criticism? Is it impermissible to build suspense for an audience, based on the audience's concern for the fate of a character, if the character happens to be female? What? When did that memo go out?
I thought this was an excellent film, from the world building and the technical aspects of filmmaking to the acting and the multiple perspective structure. A lot of critics seem to be reaching to find fault, like saying every individual aspect of the movie is great but it is "somehow" less than the sum of its parts. Riight.
My younger self was really looking forward to a film made about this event, but I have been very reserved about Damon and Affleck tackling this text. I am actually more excited seeing you two back in the studio!
because of their relationship with Weinstein?
Why?
Loved it. The accents are bit mixed bag. Very realistic . It worked for me.
“It doesn’t work” ahhh ok so that’s that then
82 comments and no one mentioned the star of this movie. Matt Damon's half helmet!!!!
Watched this film twice, only an idiot would detect any potential Monty Python references. Neither of them really got this film right. The differences in the telllings are actually bloody obvious.
So good to see you both back in the studio
Disagree with Kermode, the different interpretations were very engaging, and Maguerite's version was harrowing. The final scene was unbelievably tense, best film i've seen in a long time.
10:33 Yes, but if you come out of a Ridley Scott film, especially after Kingdom of Heaven, thinking anything historical has happened; and then apply this attitude towards history, is a terrible mistep. Ridley Scott doesn't give a toss about actual history, and from this review (I haven't seen the film) it seems no history is occurring, and only the typical tropes of Medieval life.
I feel Ridley would have been better remaking "Joan of Arc" with Jodie.
His movies of late seem to suffer from bad casting. Matt Damon?!
Thank you. I couldn't hep but laugh at Matt in this.
He looked like a malcontent boar.