The Last Duel
Year: 2021
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jodie Comer, Matt Damon & Adam Driver
Runtime: 153 mins
BBFC: 18
Published: 07/12/21
Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jodie Comer, Matt Damon & Adam Driver
Runtime: 153 mins
BBFC: 18
Published: 07/12/21
When someone who’s so heavily into film as myself sees a film like The Last Duel bomb at the box office it’s incredibly worrying for a number of reasons. This is a film directed by Ridley Scott, one of the greatest directors working in Hollywood and the man behind the likes of Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator; as well as this it stars Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, and Ben Affleck, they are all huge names that should be able to sell any film on star power alone…but yet The Last Duel scraped together under $30 million on a budget of $100 million. A film that by any stretch of the imagination should have been successful is one of the biggest financial disasters in Hollywood this year. But what’s even more disturbing is I didn’t even know the film existed until I knew it bombed. So, let’s take a look at The Last Duel and work out what went wrong, and whether the film deserves to have a life on the home entertainment circuit.
Based on the true story of Lady Marguerite De Carrouges (Jodie Comer) in fourteenth century France; The Last Duel tells the tale of Lady Marguerite’s marriage to Jean De Carrouges (Matt Damon), a knight of King Charles VI, her rape at the hands of Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), squire to Count Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck), and the resulting duel between the two men to decide the fate of Lady Marguerite.
The film is divided into three acts where the same events are told from the viewpoint of each of the films three protagonists. Act One comprises of Carrouges' perspective as a decorated war hero, his proud marriage, his subsequent wrongdoing by d’Alencon and Gris regarding his estates, and his discovery of his wife’s rape where he is supportive of her.
Act Two shows the same events from Gris’ perspective, showing that Carrouges isn’t as beloved or respected as he believes himself to be, and is in fact penniless trash that happens to be reasonably skilled with a sword, as well as Gris’ passionate affair with Lady Marguerite. Act Three presents Lady Marguerite’s truth, showing both men to be liars and that the resulting duel for her honour is little more than the two men finally settling their financial and personal debts to each other.
Based on the true story of Lady Marguerite De Carrouges (Jodie Comer) in fourteenth century France; The Last Duel tells the tale of Lady Marguerite’s marriage to Jean De Carrouges (Matt Damon), a knight of King Charles VI, her rape at the hands of Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), squire to Count Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck), and the resulting duel between the two men to decide the fate of Lady Marguerite.
The film is divided into three acts where the same events are told from the viewpoint of each of the films three protagonists. Act One comprises of Carrouges' perspective as a decorated war hero, his proud marriage, his subsequent wrongdoing by d’Alencon and Gris regarding his estates, and his discovery of his wife’s rape where he is supportive of her.
Act Two shows the same events from Gris’ perspective, showing that Carrouges isn’t as beloved or respected as he believes himself to be, and is in fact penniless trash that happens to be reasonably skilled with a sword, as well as Gris’ passionate affair with Lady Marguerite. Act Three presents Lady Marguerite’s truth, showing both men to be liars and that the resulting duel for her honour is little more than the two men finally settling their financial and personal debts to each other.
In an interview on the WTF podcast with Marc Maron, Ridley Scott blamed smartphone obsessed millennials for the film’s disappointing commercial performance. However there have been a few notable problems with this remark. First of all, Scott doesn’t seem to understand that the millennial generation are currently between the ages of twenty-five and forty, arguably the target demographic for this sort of film…however you’ll be hard pressed to find many people over the age of thirty who are smartphone obsessed in the way he expressed in the interview. Whether that is the case or not, the film depicts in gratuitous detail the rape of a woman and then her subsequent public shaming and ridicule in an attempt to draw parallels between the way rape survivors were treated then and the way they are treated in the modern day. This kind of sensitive subject matter is rarely going to want to make people go to the cinema, and even worse I personally feel as though the film doesn’t handle the matter as well as it needed to be.
As well as this, a story about the rape of a woman with relatively little input from women in the creative process is about as useful or respectable as the films titular duel for trying to solve the same issue. As is always the issue, the voices being heard here aren’t the ones that should be.
I didn’t even know the film existed until I heard of the disappointing box office results, at which point I looked up what cinemas near me were showing it (basically any cinema within Zones 1-3 of London) and there were only a very small handful of places providing showings at around noon on weekdays, or after eleven P.M at night. This film is two and a half hours in length, I am not going to watch it at eleven o’clock at night, nor travel over half an hour by public transport to do so when I have more than five cinemas within walking distance of my house (only one of which was showing the film, but not even for a full week and with only one showing per day). The film was so poorly marketed, and showings were so difficult to come by that it’s no surprise that it bombed. Every single person I have spoken to recently about films hadn’t heard of it, even those who follow film, with many thinking House of Gucci was the only Ridley Scott film releasing anytime soon. Even online discourse surrounding the film and its marketing indicate that there wasn’t very much, and what little marketing there was, was generally misleading.
It seems that for Ridley Scott a monochrome poster of swords and a trailer that pitches the film as a generic period action flick that were seen by almost nobody is sufficient marketing for his film, sufficient enough to blame the films poor success on his target audience not being interested. Words of a madman in denial I am sure, just a shame to see them come out of the mouth of such a great filmmaker.
As well as this, a story about the rape of a woman with relatively little input from women in the creative process is about as useful or respectable as the films titular duel for trying to solve the same issue. As is always the issue, the voices being heard here aren’t the ones that should be.
I didn’t even know the film existed until I heard of the disappointing box office results, at which point I looked up what cinemas near me were showing it (basically any cinema within Zones 1-3 of London) and there were only a very small handful of places providing showings at around noon on weekdays, or after eleven P.M at night. This film is two and a half hours in length, I am not going to watch it at eleven o’clock at night, nor travel over half an hour by public transport to do so when I have more than five cinemas within walking distance of my house (only one of which was showing the film, but not even for a full week and with only one showing per day). The film was so poorly marketed, and showings were so difficult to come by that it’s no surprise that it bombed. Every single person I have spoken to recently about films hadn’t heard of it, even those who follow film, with many thinking House of Gucci was the only Ridley Scott film releasing anytime soon. Even online discourse surrounding the film and its marketing indicate that there wasn’t very much, and what little marketing there was, was generally misleading.
It seems that for Ridley Scott a monochrome poster of swords and a trailer that pitches the film as a generic period action flick that were seen by almost nobody is sufficient marketing for his film, sufficient enough to blame the films poor success on his target audience not being interested. Words of a madman in denial I am sure, just a shame to see them come out of the mouth of such a great filmmaker.
But is the film good? Well, yes and no. I’ve already addressed the concern that I don’t feel as though Lady Marguerite’s ordeal wasn’t given adequate screen time. In a two-and-a-half-hour film her perspective is shy of thirty minutes in length, and considering she is supposed to be the main character and the person we are rooting for; more time is spent giving the men depth and allowing them to showcase their bravado in numerous battle sequences.
Beyond this I do feel that the performances from all involved were great, particularly Adam Driver whose performance puts him in the running for my favourite supporting actor this year.
I also love the way the film looks, with some gorgeous cinematography and costume design that portrays mid-millennia France just as strikingly as Scott achieved with Ancient Rome in Gladiator.
Whilst very bloody, brutal, and very well put together, the battle sequences do detract from the point of the film I feel. The titular duel is without a doubt the film's best scene, but Scott so frequently tries to take you away from the issue of Marguerite’s rape and put you back onto the field of war that it’s clear the screenplay written by Affleck & Damon wasn’t strong enough to support the content it contained, even with the very attempt to do so from fellow writer Nicole Holofencer.
It's yet to be seen if The Last Duel will be a success on the home entertainment circuit in the same way Scott’s 80’s sci-fi cult classic Blade Runner was; but should you give up the time to see The Last Duel? It’s certainly going to be an awards season darling with Oscar bait written all over it, but it’s a difficult film to recommend. The majority of The Last Duel was fine, but most of the discourse surrounding it is what’s causing me to take issue with it. If you like period dramas, tales of knights and fair maidens, and want to have all of that with a hefty dose of gritty realism then The Last Duel might do you fine, but personally I found myself often checking the time and disappointed with the lack of female representation in a film that’s entire point of existing is to call out violence against women.
Beyond this I do feel that the performances from all involved were great, particularly Adam Driver whose performance puts him in the running for my favourite supporting actor this year.
I also love the way the film looks, with some gorgeous cinematography and costume design that portrays mid-millennia France just as strikingly as Scott achieved with Ancient Rome in Gladiator.
Whilst very bloody, brutal, and very well put together, the battle sequences do detract from the point of the film I feel. The titular duel is without a doubt the film's best scene, but Scott so frequently tries to take you away from the issue of Marguerite’s rape and put you back onto the field of war that it’s clear the screenplay written by Affleck & Damon wasn’t strong enough to support the content it contained, even with the very attempt to do so from fellow writer Nicole Holofencer.
It's yet to be seen if The Last Duel will be a success on the home entertainment circuit in the same way Scott’s 80’s sci-fi cult classic Blade Runner was; but should you give up the time to see The Last Duel? It’s certainly going to be an awards season darling with Oscar bait written all over it, but it’s a difficult film to recommend. The majority of The Last Duel was fine, but most of the discourse surrounding it is what’s causing me to take issue with it. If you like period dramas, tales of knights and fair maidens, and want to have all of that with a hefty dose of gritty realism then The Last Duel might do you fine, but personally I found myself often checking the time and disappointed with the lack of female representation in a film that’s entire point of existing is to call out violence against women.