The Last Duel 2021 - 2.5 hrs R
There is nothing that Ridley Scott and Scott Free Productions cannot do, it would seem any more, with all of the groundbreaking cinema successes that he’s had. And as far as cinematography is concerned, this is another film that could easily define what that term means. Most likely an Oscar for the Photography.
My immediate surface takeaway is that “truth triumphs over love”. So, that means that one of those must suffer. It seems in this story’s presentation by Sir Ridley that one cannot have love and the truth, or truth together with love.
The last image we have of the conflicting part of the story, “the wrap” as it were, is of the bloody, truthful, knight riding through the wide gate into the open, and facing only the unfinished cathedral in the 1300s. So the knight crosses himself, subservient to God, the Church, and the “holy alliance” of church and state, with obvious approval by all. All except of course we, the audience, the Lady, and the primacy of whatever it is we ultimately choose to believe in this “case” which…incidentally has been tried not by God, not by jury, and not by church judgement, or settled privately, but…by Ridley Scott.
Who would we choose to believe? It would seem, hands down if a poll is taken, that the Lady will be believed. Her perspective is not only the last we see of the 3 main participants that the plot is built around, but also the one that we can gain the most sympathy with as we progress through the story. We quite naturally do not side with our “supposedly noble night”, although he certainly puts up a good case of the Charlie Browns. And we cannot morally support the handsome squire played by Adam Driver, as his position is corrupted by the gain of property, maidens (same thing here), licentiousness, male-domination, and class power. The way that the “illegal entry” of said Knight is framed, no matter which view is taken, IS technically rape. Therefore, logic alone would suffice to state that the Lady is innocent, her cause just. We are left then to the cruel happenstance of the laws of this time, coupled with a child king whose emotions make him giggle at the idea of anyone dying. This leaves us, the audience, helpless in the director’s choice, which “seems” to lean in the direction of the Knight whose desires are more “inherently sincere” (our dark knight who has a great love of Latin, sincerity of Love by declaration, and whose viewpoint allows that the woman really wanted him, really deep down desired to be “free of” her base designation of chattel, living in denigration, etc...and of course the perspective that allows that she "took" off her shoes at the bottom of the staircase, rather than tripping over them in her haste to flee).
So Ridley, not to be politically incorrect, decides in our new era-of-the-day known as the era of “the Woman”, coupled with that of Post-Christianity (as a religion per se), to behead men, truth, and the Church all at once in a brilliant stroke of cinematic and rhetorical near-genius (nod to Ben Affleck, co-writer and scene-stealer), and in favor of…Love. In this case it is equated in our minds upon this viewing as the Truth. Well, Love and Truth are supposed to be the same, are they not?
I mean…weren’t we supposed to side with the noble knight embodied in Matt Damon? Why didn’t we? Was he really pathetic? Yeah, why is he pathetic? Is it the scars on his face, maybe that ghastly hairdo? Why did the film, the story…end with him riding triumphantly through the streets of a dark age of France and into the open before the symbol of an age of organized religion, giving complete acquiescence by crossing himself, and we still suspiciously feel inwardly distrustful of that ending? Why is he not a true hero? Why did his blessing on a child’s head with his bloodied hand inside of an iron glove almost seem a mockery? Untrue…unjust even?
We have no room for either male contender in our conclusion. They are both wrong, both adjudicated as guilty in one way or another. One is guilty of chivalry which leaves one dry and wanting for genuine relationships, and freedom for the female to be who she truly must be, on equal grounds, having only a myopic vision of marriage, women, love, sex in general, a lonely and isolated viewpoint, as per this version of history presented to us, which is highly accurate, historically in any case. And the other…debauchery, usury, and a continual claim over women that is not in any way perceived to be “better” than that of the noble knight. Also highly accurate. They are on opposite, but equal grounds.
So in the end, we’re left with the triumph of the woman, who sits in a field of flowers with her child, smiling at the little one, and we learn that our noble knight dies in a war, and she inherits in perpetuity the ownership of said estate and a lifelong existence without any man at all (and we most rightly conclude that this particular woman, in any case, had good reason to abstain from the male form).
Bravo Ridley, great job. You have cut off the head of said dragons and skewered manhood once and for all. Thank you so much for clearing that up for us.
There are no heroes, and nothing to believe in. Absolutely nothing. Everyone sucks, religion is dead, and we’re all better off giggling our way forward much like the teenage king here, which reminds me very much of a number of "adolescent adults" that I’ve observed as they sit in front of a game console with more, and never-exhausted weapons at their disposal with which to kill and giggle at their opponents. Sorry Gamers, I love games and playing as well at times, so this is only an analogy, not a slam against all gamers, ok?
You’ll say, “ok, well that’s what it was like then”. And I say that dramatic films are never about “then”, they’re always about Now. Just like there is no such thing as a real documentary either, IMNSHO.
- agitatus
There is nothing that Ridley Scott and Scott Free Productions cannot do, it would seem any more, with all of the groundbreaking cinema successes that he’s had. And as far as cinematography is concerned, this is another film that could easily define what that term means. Most likely an Oscar for the Photography.
My immediate surface takeaway is that “truth triumphs over love”. So, that means that one of those must suffer. It seems in this story’s presentation by Sir Ridley that one cannot have love and the truth, or truth together with love.
The last image we have of the conflicting part of the story, “the wrap” as it were, is of the bloody, truthful, knight riding through the wide gate into the open, and facing only the unfinished cathedral in the 1300s. So the knight crosses himself, subservient to God, the Church, and the “holy alliance” of church and state, with obvious approval by all. All except of course we, the audience, the Lady, and the primacy of whatever it is we ultimately choose to believe in this “case” which…incidentally has been tried not by God, not by jury, and not by church judgement, or settled privately, but…by Ridley Scott.
Who would we choose to believe? It would seem, hands down if a poll is taken, that the Lady will be believed. Her perspective is not only the last we see of the 3 main participants that the plot is built around, but also the one that we can gain the most sympathy with as we progress through the story. We quite naturally do not side with our “supposedly noble night”, although he certainly puts up a good case of the Charlie Browns. And we cannot morally support the handsome squire played by Adam Driver, as his position is corrupted by the gain of property, maidens (same thing here), licentiousness, male-domination, and class power. The way that the “illegal entry” of said Knight is framed, no matter which view is taken, IS technically rape. Therefore, logic alone would suffice to state that the Lady is innocent, her cause just. We are left then to the cruel happenstance of the laws of this time, coupled with a child king whose emotions make him giggle at the idea of anyone dying. This leaves us, the audience, helpless in the director’s choice, which “seems” to lean in the direction of the Knight whose desires are more “inherently sincere” (our dark knight who has a great love of Latin, sincerity of Love by declaration, and whose viewpoint allows that the woman really wanted him, really deep down desired to be “free of” her base designation of chattel, living in denigration, etc...and of course the perspective that allows that she "took" off her shoes at the bottom of the staircase, rather than tripping over them in her haste to flee).
So Ridley, not to be politically incorrect, decides in our new era-of-the-day known as the era of “the Woman”, coupled with that of Post-Christianity (as a religion per se), to behead men, truth, and the Church all at once in a brilliant stroke of cinematic and rhetorical near-genius (nod to Ben Affleck, co-writer and scene-stealer), and in favor of…Love. In this case it is equated in our minds upon this viewing as the Truth. Well, Love and Truth are supposed to be the same, are they not?
I mean…weren’t we supposed to side with the noble knight embodied in Matt Damon? Why didn’t we? Was he really pathetic? Yeah, why is he pathetic? Is it the scars on his face, maybe that ghastly hairdo? Why did the film, the story…end with him riding triumphantly through the streets of a dark age of France and into the open before the symbol of an age of organized religion, giving complete acquiescence by crossing himself, and we still suspiciously feel inwardly distrustful of that ending? Why is he not a true hero? Why did his blessing on a child’s head with his bloodied hand inside of an iron glove almost seem a mockery? Untrue…unjust even?
We have no room for either male contender in our conclusion. They are both wrong, both adjudicated as guilty in one way or another. One is guilty of chivalry which leaves one dry and wanting for genuine relationships, and freedom for the female to be who she truly must be, on equal grounds, having only a myopic vision of marriage, women, love, sex in general, a lonely and isolated viewpoint, as per this version of history presented to us, which is highly accurate, historically in any case. And the other…debauchery, usury, and a continual claim over women that is not in any way perceived to be “better” than that of the noble knight. Also highly accurate. They are on opposite, but equal grounds.
So in the end, we’re left with the triumph of the woman, who sits in a field of flowers with her child, smiling at the little one, and we learn that our noble knight dies in a war, and she inherits in perpetuity the ownership of said estate and a lifelong existence without any man at all (and we most rightly conclude that this particular woman, in any case, had good reason to abstain from the male form).
Bravo Ridley, great job. You have cut off the head of said dragons and skewered manhood once and for all. Thank you so much for clearing that up for us.
There are no heroes, and nothing to believe in. Absolutely nothing. Everyone sucks, religion is dead, and we’re all better off giggling our way forward much like the teenage king here, which reminds me very much of a number of "adolescent adults" that I’ve observed as they sit in front of a game console with more, and never-exhausted weapons at their disposal with which to kill and giggle at their opponents. Sorry Gamers, I love games and playing as well at times, so this is only an analogy, not a slam against all gamers, ok?
You’ll say, “ok, well that’s what it was like then”. And I say that dramatic films are never about “then”, they’re always about Now. Just like there is no such thing as a real documentary either, IMNSHO.
- agitatus
