Skip to main content

I see no reason whatsoever for us to fight.

The Duellists
(1977)

Ridley Scott’s debut, and you can be quite sure he wouldn’t even consider making something as restrained, measured and thoughtful as this today. Or even 20 years ago, come to that. The Duellists announces him as a very different filmmaker to the one he has become. Sure, there’s the ever-present painterly eye, but one would take from this a director in thrall to the artistic sensibility rather than the commercial trough he’s mostly fed from since. This is a picture I maybe didn’t appreciate as much as I should have on first encounter, informed as I was by the more instantaneous delights of Alien and Blade Runner. But The Duellists fully deserves to stand along side those two as evidence of what Scott could do when he was still exploring his potential and hadn’t become frightened by his failures.


Comparison has been made with Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, not least by Scott himself (understandably, he was in awe of the film’s cinematography). Really, though, they don’t share all that much besides visual aplomb and a general sense of period (Lyndon ends 11 years before The Duellists begins). Sure, there are themes of honour and dishonour, running through both, but The Duellists (which isn’t to slight it at all) feels like a well-worn joke; one that has got more embellished with each telling while being fairly slight in essence. In contrast, Lyndon really fulfils its expansive remit of the rise and fall of Barry. Kubrick’s film is mockingly narrated as a twisted black comedy. Where it falls short is with a lead actor who is such a blank presence that, while Ryan O’Neal could be argued to both serve and reduce the tale’s impact, it’s difficult not to conclude his presence is an entirely commercial necessity rather than a particular asset.


Dr Jacquin: He fought a duel this morning.
Armand d’Hubert: Yes, He also fought a duel this afternoon.

The Duellists’ joke is ingrained in the premise. Two Hussars repeatedly duel each other over several decades, but neither quite knows why. That’s enough, but one can’t help but think someone other than Scott might have also mined the material (Joseph Conrad’s novella, adapted by Gerald Vaughan-Hughes) for its humorous potential. There’s the occasional amusing exchange (above), but Scott’s picture is a very sombre one.


It’s also very well cast. Filling out the support are great British actors like Robert Stephens, John McEnery, Tom Conti, and Albert Finney. However, leading duties are reserved for two American actors, Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. The narration would be provided by a third, Stacey Keach (much more perfunctory and less florid than Michael Horden’s in Lyndon). It’s a break with expectations (of English playing period, and period of any given nationality), and was effectively decreed by Paramount, but it works as a means of focusing our attentions on these two men apart. One has to wonder at the studio, however; what must they have been taking to seriously think these two leads might put bums on seats?


For Keitel, as Lieutenant Gabriel Feraud, this marked a period where he would make all sorts of pictures as if on a whim, ones that would frequently not pay off. Perhaps it was a consequence of being discarded from another adaptation of Conrad immediately prior, Apocalypse Now. He’s a glowering, vituperative ball of aggression throughout, perfectly cast on that level. We don’t need to interrogate further just why he takes such a dislike to Carradine’s Lieutenant Armand d’Hubert. He’s the kind of abrasive type who would pick a fight with anyone at the drop of a hat. He lives to be offended, and to nurture his seething contempt. Scott and Vaughan-Hughes presumably agree that little extra is required, as they concentrate on d’Hubert.


Carradine, never quite as prominent as his brother David, although he’s made more of an impact on TV in the past decade, initially displays a certain bemusement at Feraud’s unchecked aggression. Feraud is, after all, incredibly silly. But the realisation that these bouts aren’t going to stop any time soon, and continued brushes with mortal peril, encourage a diffidence only tempered by the code of honour requiring Armand, no matter what, to meet his adversary’s challenge. All else falls in line before this, including love and family. Carradine’s performance has a fragility to it, particularly set against Keitel’s blunt force, and works for a character who is nominally the hero, but only nominally.


As far as we can tell, Feraud’s beef is that d’Hubert was unlucky enough to be the one ordered to place him under house arrest for (of course) fighting a duel. He may also have perceived other slights; d’Hubert arrested him at the house of a significant local lady, and he doesn’t respond quickly enough to the suggestion that he’d allow an insult to the Emperor to go undefended. D’Hubert’s reactions (“I see no reason whatsoever for us to fight”; “This is too ridiculous”) become no more comprehending as time goes by; he just becomes more resigned to the inevitable, seemingly fated to these periodic encounters. He tells Dr Jaquin (Conti) “All in all, I’m far from certain myself” regarding the reasons for the affront. Jaquin suggests, “Keep away from him, keep ahead of him, put your trust in Bonaparte”.


Scott makes no bones about the duels being unpleasant ordeals. Injuries frequently occur, but Feraud is only preoccupied with continuing this aggression (“Next time, d’Hubert” he bellows when his opponent has to demur after being stabbed). On their third duel both are so exhausted they can hardly stand, until their seconds eventually intervene. Reason, even from Feraud’s own associates, comes to nothing; no one can assuage his belligerence.


And throughout, there is this curious sense of honour. “Sir, I cannot fight a man three times and then tell tales on him” d’Hubert informs Brigadier-General Treillard (Stephens). So the years pass, the military fashions change, and the mode of engagement shifts too (in 1806 they duel on horseback, just to mix things up a little). Another six years go by, and they reencounter each other during the retreat from Moscow. Despite teaming up to fight off Cossacks (d’Hubert, to no avail, perhaps thought he could break the ice amid the snow and ice), Feraud’s parting shot is “Pistols next time”.


It isn’t until the political landscape changes and so do, nominally, allegiances, that Feraud can actually claim some substance to his campaign. Napoleon is exiled. D’Hubert marries into the aristocracy, and then joins the king’s army after Waterloo. Feraud, who has declared d’Hubert a traitor, is detained for his loyalty to Napoleon. Unbeknownst to Feraud, d’Hubert gets him paroled (that honour again), which leads to the inevitable final meeting. With pistols. D’Hubert has the drop on Feraud, and instructs him “I have submitted to your notions of honour for long enough. You will now submit to mine”. Which entails d’Hubert now owning Feraud’s life. Feraud broodingly capitulates to the instruction that he will depart and conduct himself “as a dead man”.


Joseph Conrad’s short story The Duel was based on an actual account, as Keach informs us during the opening. The bare facts are remarkably faithful; Fournier took offence at Dupont’s message and challenged him, leading to (at minimum), 30 duels over the next 19 years (in that sense, Scott actually reins in the hyperbole) that were only curtailed after Dupont bested Fournier in a pistol match.


Despite the casting of very modern actors, Scott maintains a strong sense of period and manner. He touches on readily recognisable ideas, such as how they become minor celebrities through their constant sparring. There are also fanciful explanations for just why they are at each other’s throats (“He suggested you’d both been enemies in a previous life”). That’s no less plausible than the idea that The Duellists is a commentary on the pointlessness of war (why was it necessary for them to fight again?); it may be in there, but Scott has never been much good at developing subtexts, so it’s best to pick and choose it as you will.


This is a good film for cameos too. Besides those mentioned, Tom Howard from Howard’s Way (Maurice Colbourne) seconds Feraud during one passage. Norma from The Royle Family (Liz Smith) gives a tarot reading, and Pete Postlethwaite obliges Robert Stephens with a shave.


The picture marked the beginning of David Putnam’s prestige period as producer (one that ended abruptly and decisively with the hubris of accepting the position of studio head at Columbia), having previously dabbled in musical tinged fare with mad Ken Russell, David Essex and Alan Parker (Bugsy Malone). For about 10 years he would maintain generally strong form, although this was the first and last time he worked with Scott (the same for composer Howard Blake and cinematographer Frank Tidy).


As a Ridley Scott film, The Duellists is a curiosity. It’s as non-representative of what would follow as The Hunger was for his brother Tony’s first feature. What it does have in common with the three films that would follow, however, is a director allowing world building content to significant degree. His early work allows the viewer to get lost in the conjured celluloid. After a certain point, that is no longer the case. Scott now has his eye on the economy of the edit and favours the monotony of an image that no longer surprises, it merely repeats.


If you ask what attracted him to The Duellists, it was partly that it was public domain (he had wanted direct a movie, but needed to get there with limited resources), and then the Kubrick factor. Such lack of passion doesn’t adversely affect the film itself, however. None of his later historicals, not (the flawed but fascinating) 1492, not the acclaimed Gladiator, the leaden Kingdom of Heaven, pointless Robin Hood or bafflingly conceived Exodus: Gods and Kings, measure up to his first period piece. Scott was a much better director when he was exploring the possibilities of the motion picture.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.