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…

What ho, Brinkley. So, do you think we’re going to get along, what?

Jeeves and Wooster 2.4: Jeeves in the Country  (aka Chuffy)
The plundering of Thank You, Jeeves elicits two more of the series’ best episodes, the first of which finds Bertie retiring to the country with a new valet, the insolent, incompetent and inebriate Brinkley (a wonderfully sour, sullen performance from Fred Evans, who would receive an encore in the final season), owing to Jeeves being forced to resign over his master’s refusal to give up the trumpet (“not an instrument for a gentleman”; in the book, it’s a banjulele).

Chuffnall Hall is the setting (filmed at Wrotham Park in Hertfordshire), although the best of the action takes place around Bertie’s digs in Chuffnall Regis (Clovelly, Devon), which old pal Reginald “Chuffy” Chuffnell (Marmaduke Lord Chuffnell) has obligingly rented him, much to the grievance of the villagers, who have to endure his trumpeting disrupting the beatific beach (it’s a lovely spot, one of the most evocative in the series).

Jeeves is snapped up into the e…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

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…

Don't give me any of that intelligent life crap, just give me something I can blow up.

Dark Star (1974)
(SPOILERS) Is Dark Star more a John Carpenter film or more a Dan O’Bannon one? Until the mid ‘80s it might have seemed atypical of either of them, since they had both subsequently eschewed comedy in favour of horror (or thriller). And then they made Big Trouble in Little China and Return of the Living Dead respectively, and you’d have been none-the-wiser again. I think it’s probably fair to suggest it was a more personal film to O’Bannon, who took its commercial failure harder, and Carpenter certainly didn’t relish the tension their creative collaboration brought (“a duel of control” as he put it), as he elected not to work with his co-writer/ actor/ editor/ production designer/ special effects supervisor again. Which is a shame, as, while no one is ever going to label Dark Star a masterpiece, their meeting of minds resulted in one of the decade’s most enduring cult classics, and for all that they may have dismissed it/ seen only its negatives since, one of the best mo…

Ruination to all men!

The Avengers 24: How to Succeed…. At Murder
On the one hand, this episode has a distinctly reactionary whiff about it, pricking the bubble of the feminist movement, with Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. On the other, it has Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. How to Succeed… At Murder (a title play on How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying, perhaps) is often very funny, even if you’re more than a little aware of the “wacky” formula that has been steadily honed over the course of the fourth season.

You just keep on drilling, sir, and we'll keep on killing.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)
(SPOILERS) The drubbing Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk received really wasn’t unfair. I can’t even offer it the “brave experiment” consolation on the basis of its use of a different frame rate – not evident in itself on 24fps Blu ray, but the neutering effect of the actual compositions is, and quite tellingly in places – since the material itself is so lacking. It’s yet another misguided (to be generous to its motives) War on Terror movie, and one that manages to be both formulaic and at times fatuous in its presentation.

The irony is that Ang Lee, who wanted Billy Lynn to feel immersive and realistic, has made a movie where nothing seems real. Jean-Christophe Castelli’s adaptation of Ben Fountain’s novel is careful to tread heavily on every war movie cliché it can muster – and Vietnam War movie cliché at that – as it follows Billy Lynn (British actor Joe Alwyn) and his unit (“Bravo Squad”) on a media blitz celebrating their heroism in 2004 Iraq …

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delightsmay well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vie…

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …