The Last Duel

The Last Duel

Caught this on Disney+ after it had been unceremoniously dumped there, following a slightly less than stellar theatrical run which can’t have lasted more than a month or so. 

I can see why, too—up against the likes of Dune (Part One!), released while we’re still mid-pandemic and saddled with both a tricky subject matter (viz: rape) and a 2.5-hour run time, not to mention Matt Damon AND Ben Affleck with dodgy facial hair, it’s a wonder this got made at all. Director Sir Ridley Scott can blame millennials all he wants for this failure, but honestly it’s the kind of movie that probably belongs on streaming these days, not the theater.

The movie is based on historical events, and the first thing I did when I heard about this movie was look it up on Wikipedia and let me tell you, HOT DAMN JESUS WHOO CHRISTING SHIT the reality of said duel is incredible.

Which is a shame, because the movie isn’t.

It’s not a bad movie, though the casting choices (and beards) are a little odd and the insistence on realistic indoor lighting gave me eye strain. No, mostly it isn’t that great because it is just plain old too damn long.

The Last Duel does the Rashomon thing of retelling the same story three times from the perspectives of the three main characters: First, Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon), a prickly knight with easily wounded pride and a penchant for suing people; second, Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a dashing, womanizing squire and favorite of the local Count (Ben Affleck), who is accused of raping Jean’s wife; and last, Jean’s wife herself, Marguerite de Carrouges (Nicole Holofcener).

It strikes me as an odd way to construct the story, because I thought the whole point of Rashomon was that none of the versions was trustworthy, and everyone distorts the story to fit their viewpoint. So you’re not sure who is telling the truth, or if an objective “truth” is even an achievable thing.

Whereas The Last Duel very definitely does NOT want you to have any doubt about what really happened. Each chapter begins with a title card saying “The Truth According to (Character Name)” then fades to black, except for Lady Marguerite’s version, where the words “The Truth” remain on the screen for a second or two. The movie wants to you accept that her version is fact, the others fiction.

But the structure of the movie actively works against that conclusion. Her version is presented after two very slanted alternatives, first Jean’s in which he is painted as a noble warrior done dirty by an unappreciative liege lord and his sly, cunning favorite Jacques, and then a second in which Jacques claims the encounter was consensual and no rape occurred. So when we are presented with Marguerite’s story of an aloof and uncaring husband and lecherous, libidinous squire, she comes across as too perfect; we are already primed to be suspicious of these stories.

But the movie can’t doubt Marguerite. 

You simply can't imply that she's lying about the whole thing. Not now, not in this day and age, not in this climate, not in this economy. She must be telling the truth.

This fact takes the wind out of the whole "conflicting stories" structure. What's worse, it's not even a movie about finding out the truth. The second half goes to great lengths to point out that the whole trial had absolutely nothing to do with the truth at all. So why, I cannot help but wonder, employ a technique designed for a movie about the murkiness of the truth when your whole movie is about how nobody is interested in the truth? Techniques should be used for a purpose. This one isn't.

The only thing the retellings achieve is shed a little light on the mentality of the characters, especially the two male protagonists, but that’s not really enough to justify going through the whole thing three times. Yes, we get that Jean is less worried about the harm to his wife than to his honor and reputation. Yes, we get that Jacques is so used to getting his way with women that he cannot even conceive his advances are unwelcome. He remains convinced no rape occurred because in his mind, none did. 

We could still get all of that with a straightforward chronological retelling, without the structural trickery.

The production design and performances don’t really do anything to elevate the material. As I said, the movie feels wonderfully authentic in all its dimness and Monty Python and the Holy Grail esque muck, but it can be a trifle hard to make out what is happening at times. It’s not quite desaturated, but does feel as if a blue filter has been applied to everything to make it all feel a bit cool and damp. 

Meanwhile Adam Driver is as watchable as always, and Holofcener is solid if unremarkable, but Damon is an odd choice for a blustering bully, and Affleck is positively bizarre as the buffoonish libertine Count Pierre d’Alencon, totally out of step with the tone of the rest of the movie.

The actual duel itself I thought got off to a good start, but became a bit too Hollywood fight scene for my taste. In the actual duel, Jean was clearly outmatched, just getting his arse constantly handed to him, but here they have to do all these little action moves and reversals and surprises and I actually found it LESS entertaining than just reading the boring old words on the boring old page.