Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Last Duel - Ridley Scott

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,554 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Seriously though really enjoyed it. Similar vein to Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven but more depth...



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,847 ✭✭✭✭ShaneU


    Could have easily cut an hour out of this movie by not telling the same event three times over with minor changes. Third time around I couldn't care less.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Thats pretty much the core of the film I would say, there were differences in all three which were important.

    It follows a rashomon style narrative.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,527 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Telling the story three different ways was kinda the point!



  • Posts: 2,827 [Deleted User]


    Good movie. Good to see the Director, Affleck, and Damon doing quality work.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,322 ✭✭✭p to the e


    And which version of the three stories would you have kept?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,841 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    They could have easily shown the differences with showing the parts that were all but the exact same.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,554 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    I wonder was there sufficient overlap between Damon's story and the wife's to the point where they could have combined the two...



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,482 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    The overlap is the point. We're meant to take account of what's the same and what's different, and note how the characters see an event very differently. It's an exercise in cinematic perspective and unreliable narration.

    To be clear, I don't think it does this as well as Rashomon does, especially since The Last Duel very overtly tells us which account to believe. But the whole point of the film is to be a little repetitive and let us see three perspectives on the same events. While Matt Damon's character might see one of his actions as heroic, it becomes clear from another perspective that that's not how everyone else perceived it. And yes there will be some common ground, but perhaps a single remark seen as throwaway by one character is seen as sinister by another. You can't simply cut or merge a perspective without ending up with a wildly different film in the process.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭homerun_homer


    I didn't feel there was enough of a difference in the perspectives, except that Jean de Carrouges is far more noble, heroic and affectionate as a husband in his perspective. When it comes to the crux of why we have these perspectives, to deal with the assault itself, it was clear cut in both versions that depict it that Le Gris rapes Marguerite. I would have thought going into the film that his perspective would have shown that scene play out as playful, flirty and consensual, but it wasn't enough to fully justify the multiple perspectives on the situation. It just dragged out the running time.

    I was called to be an extra on the film and was annoyed to miss it due to the day job. Bad timing.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It was a decently good film overall imo - notwithstanding the bemoaned lack of differentiation they had to show the third perspective of the wife as she and Le Gris were the only two present at the rape (obviously).

    Each subsequent perspective was shorter than the preceding one so it was just about ok in that regard.

    The actual duel was visceral and well done.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,770 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    But Le Gris see's what he done very differently even though it was the same physical act,

    Remember his point of view to Pierre was that it was not rape because he loved her & it was right to do it as she also had feeling for her,

    You have to remember back in those days the act of rape was not a crime against the women but a crime against her husbands as she is seen as her property ,

    Basically La Gris thought she also felt love for him but refused do do anything out of respect of her husband & La Gris felt this gave him the right to do it,



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,153 ✭✭✭Did you smash it


    Anybody Able to explain why The movie has two King Charles VIs?



  • Registered Users Posts: 30,581 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Alex Lawther is King Charles.

    Ben Affleck plays Pierre d'Alençon who is a high ranking nobleman but not the King.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,153 ✭✭✭Did you smash it


    Watchable If not hugely engaging or satisfactory movie

    spoilers …


    Like other posters I didnt really get de gree’s flashback either. He wasnt innocent of The charges in his own version. He entered The castle under false pretences, got told no, chased his victim up a stairs and forced himself on her and told her not to tell anyone.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,770 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    You have to remember the time this all happened ,Le Gris think its ok to do what he did because he loves her & because in his mind she showed interest, Remember at that time in France rape was not a crime against the women but a crime against her husband because its seen as a crime against his property ,

    Le Gris tells Pierre exactly what happened but refuses to call it rape ,

    Its a completely different time with completely different views of things ,They try to remind you of this in the court room when the guys says obviously she could not get pregnant by rape as science says you can only get pregnant if you enjoy it,



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,153 ✭✭✭Did you smash it


    Ah indeed…but did it really work or enhance the story? It didn’t for me and others but others again it seemed to.


    I kind of know and think is pretty natural that in a time of constant war and intense physical labour that the physically most prepared will gain supremacy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,770 ✭✭✭✭yourdeadwright


    For me it did , it showed what he was like as a man ,



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,153 ✭✭✭Did you smash it


    Yeah it did, overall it just didnt put enough extra sauce in the story for me



  • Registered Users Posts: 483 ✭✭Fred Astaire


    It can be very, very on the nose at times - basically everything with the horse. And I would have rathered if they didn't actually confirm the correct account.

    But it's a good movie, and by todays appalling mainstream standard that's almost rare.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 86,700 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    Just seen this advertised for RTE1 on Monday night



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,113 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    Never seen this in the cinema. I blame the Pandemic for that. Kinda glad do as just like "Oppenheimer" I think I would have fell asleep watching this in the cinema but at home watching it on RTE on my own TV I found it very good and the acting was excellent. I would watch it again. Its sad that it was such a huge flop in the cinema. It deserved to do well was just unlucky with the timing of its release.

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



Advertisement