The Duellists
|
Our Price: $27.99 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $20.23 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of The Duellists
Movie Review: Always Duel the Right Thing?
Summary: 5 Stars
In 1977, a young director named Ridley Scott brought his painterly sense of beauty to "The Duellists," based on Joseph Conrad's story about honor taken to absurd levels. The movie was shot across a wide variety of outdoor backdrops, which look spectacular thanks to Scott's talent for framing and his frequent use of natural light. On a screenplay level, Gerald Vaughan-Hughes gets the adrenaline flowing early and rarely lets up afterward. This is a satisfying action-adventure, the best pure entertainment that year behind George Lucas' "Star Wars."
The movie centers around two French soldiers, who are opposites both in appearance and temperament: the tall, gaunt, but gentlemanly Leftenant Armand D'Hubert (Keith Carradine), and his counterpart, the stocky, mercurial Leftenant Feraud (Harvey Keitel). The film opens in Stratburg, France, during the year 1800, where Feraud has just skewered another man. D'Hubert is dispatched to escort him back to headquarters. Unfortunately, he makes a few off-hand remarks that incite the hot-headed soldier, who challenges D'Hubert to combat.
At first, D'Hubert does not take him seriously. Then Feraud draws his sword, and threatens bodily harm if D'Hubert will not draw his. "I believe you are really quite a madman," the more reasonable man says. So begins their feud, which, thanks to Feraud's skewed sense of honor (he does not consider the matter closed until one of them receives a mortal wound from the other), spans three decades, several countries, and notable changes in hand-to-hand weaponry. Outside forces constantly intervene to keep the feud boiling. During the first duel, for example, D'Hubert seems to be doing well, but Feraud's wife leaps upon his back.
Shortly after that initial skirmish, Feraud goes looking for D'Hubert in the streets of Stratburg. D'Hubert, however, would just as soon forget the whole thing ever happened. He views himself as the unwitting participant of that first duel. Feraud had drawn, so he had to defend his reputation, if not his life. Since that regrettable incident, however, he has had to constantly look over his shoulder, in order to avoid the fatalistic rival and his associates.
"The enemies of reason have a certain blind look," says D'Hubert's friend Jacquin (Tom Conti), a surgeon who commiserates with him.
And this proves true. Harvey Keitel imbues Feraud with laser-eyed intensity, which seems to countermand any hope of being reasoned with. He challenged his last victim on the grounds that he supposedly "spit on the colors of the flag." D'Hubert questioned whether this was reason enough to have fought, and earned Feraud's undying emnity. Not about to skirmish a second time with someone so temperamental, D'Hubert explores his options. If he wants to keep his honor intact, Jacquin tells him, he must secure a promotion (officers cannot be challenged to duels by their inferiors), pray that his regiment stays far removed from Feraud's, or hope that Napoleon keeps the wars going indefinitely.
"Keep away from him, keep ahead of him, and put your faith in Bonaparte," sums up Jacquin's advice. But alas, this proves easier said than done.
"The Duellists" follows D'Hubert as he continuously finds himself face-to-face with his old adversary. This means the brunt of the movie consists of the same two men fighting mano-a-mano in settings both secretive and picaresque. But the movie never gets repetitive, thanks to constantly changing locations and an ever-evolving choice of weapons. Also, D'Hubert undergoes personality changes, as he ascends in rank, endures much hardship, and clashes with Feraud again and again.
The movie culminates with both characters circling each other through the crumbled ruins of a castle outside Paris. Scott effectively draws in the viewer by leaving out background music, and applying a very patient pace. The climactic "dance of death" features a shot that greatly impressed me with its use of depth-of-field: Through the stationary camera, we can see D'Hubert stalking the foreground. A moment later, Feraud appears behind, although he lies in the distance. Neither man sees the other, and soon they pass out of the frame in opposite directions. Scott, a former art student-turned-filmmaker, has endured both highs and lows in the twenty-eight years since making "The Duellists." Even then, however, he seems to have had a gift for building tension. His two subsequent movies, the much-lauded "Alien" (1980) and "Blade Runner" (1982) featured similarly-sonambulant, highly-effective last acts.
"I have submitted long enough to your notions of honor. You will now submit to mine."
Ridley Scott's first four features-the costumed actioner "The Duellists," the sci-fi/horror thrill ride "Alien," the sci-fi film noir "Blade Runner," and the Grimm-style fairy tale "Legend"-represent the period where he chiefly dealt with fantastic situations and characters. Production design quality, especially in the middle two films, was never less than groundbreaking. But given the close attention paid to the technical aspects, and how their sheer visual brilliance often garnered most of the accolades from audiences and critics, Ridley Scott-bashers took to pigeon-holing him as all-style, very little substance.
While I agree that characterization is weak in certain examples of Scott's work (and this is more a result of genre constraints), any flimsiness in "The Duellists'" screenplay must be forgiven. After all, it compresses thirty years into a scant one-hundred minute running time. Perhaps Feraud could have been fleshed out more, but that's like criticizing Spielberg's "Jaws" because the shark never evolves past a one-dimensional eating machine.
D'Hubert's nemesis, although enigmatic, is never less than effective. Also, notice how, in his final appearance, he resembles a certain French Emperor who had recently been exiled to Elba. Is Feraud, with his stocky build and broad hat, supposed to represent Napoleon? That depends on whether you think Ridley Scott had more on his mind than mere mise-en-scene.
I think he did. If I had to try and sum up the main theme of "The Duellists," it's that society, not individuals, define what is considered honorable. The military, for example, counts as a society. After surviving several pitched battles with Feraud--which he had to participate in even after being promoted (As fate would have it, his adversary received a promotion to the exact same rank)--D'Hubert understandably wants no more to do with the man who nearly killed him. But pressure from the soldiers under his command forces him to continue. "We're now fighting this duel," D'Hubert says incredulously, "as a compliment to the cavalry."
Also, when Feraud chooses to make D'Hubert his lifelong enemy, he is acting more as an insulted Frenchman than as an independent individual. Going back to the original cause of their dispute, Feraud asks D'Hubert, "Would you have let this man insult Napoleon?" "Napoleon has nothing to do with it," D'Hubert replies. But as far as Feraud is concerned, he has everything to do with it. France has achieved unprecedented military glory. The leader of those conquering forces shines like a beacon of national pride. Therefore, a slight at Napoleon is a slight against everything great about being French. Feraud did not reply to such insults as Feraud; on the contrary, he replied as a member of a proud society.
But inevitably, societies change. As they do, the rules governing honor also change. Honor by combat finds itself replaced with glory by contract. D'Hubert seems well-suited to this new kind of battlefield, as he succeeds at wooing the young daughter of his landowning neighbor, and thereby increases his fortune. Feraud, meanwhile, does not fare as well. No silver-tongued charmer like D'Hubert, he ends up in straits very similar to the general he served-marginalized, alone with no one to fight. Now he must submit to "new" notions of honor, as decreed by D'Hubert and a rising class of pro-royalists. Feraud must, or he will cease to exist. He cannot appeal to his foes for some alternative, even if they are not the enemies of reason, with that certain blind look.
Movie Review: Fencing is a Science, Loving is a Passion, The Duellist is an Obsession
Summary: 5 Stars
The Scott brothers have always prided themselves on having come from very intense and sophisticated art backgrounds, specifically painting. Who could ever deny it? Their pictures are the equivalent of walking through the most heaven sent art galleries. But enough about the brothers. I want to focus on Ridley, and his staggering first film, which is actually by my reckoning, the second greatest directorial debut I've ever seen. Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941) is the first. Having said that, I suppose that means I love "The Duellists." Wrong. That isn't high enough praise. I worship this picture beyond limits you can't even begin to fathom, and I am going to highlight why worshipping "The Duellists" is the type of essential pure movie love that is vital for anyone reckoning to become a film director.
Should cinematography enhance a film's narrative or devour it completely, thereby eclipsing the merit of the written text? Well, I have always believed that it is an argument that doesn't really provide a definitive answer. Personally, I adore beautifully executed cinematography. You must understand there are so many elements to the purely visual film experience that are an instant given. The look of a film is so fundamental to the creation of a motion picture, that people tend to take its actual artistic merit for granted. This saddens me because the look of a film can be so influential and decisive. It can literally shape the entire emotional landscape of the motion picture framework. That is the unbridled power that can be achieved through the visual eloquence of cinematography. I am being more adamant than usual about image alone because "The Duellists" is a test case example that proves to us beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Ridley Scott is one of the most visually skillful directors in world cinema for good reason. Cinematography truly does become an art form in Scott's hands in masterpieces like "Alien" (1979), "Blade Runner" (1982) and even the vastly underrated "Someone To Watch Over Me" (1987). Yes, they are all staggeringly beautiful pictures. But none of them are more aesthetically perfect than Scott's debut, "The Duellists."
There is something so essential that I always find myself reiterating, whenever I take a highly impassioned stance in favor of "The Duellists" being an unprecedented masterpiece of world cinema. Very simply, the argument is this. One assumes that because the source material of the picture is a Joseph Conrad novella, this automatically means that the lack of emotional substance is retroactive, and therefore defeats the purpose of the picture being so visually astonishing. OK, let me make this extremely clear. To make that point about "The Duellists" is the equivalent of saying that one simply does not love the art of movies. That is the truth. Because the reality here is that the style is the substance. The image alone, not the depiction of the tale, is what makes the movie a cinematic treasure for all time. In short, if "The Duellists" did not have a single word of dialogue to express and advance its central narrative, in other words if it was actually a silent film, I would absolutely be mesmerized by the movie as whole. I'll take it even one step further. The imagery alone would move me to tears, and the imagery alone does tell the story. In fact, it tells the story even better than the text itself. So you see, "The Duellists" can exist as a modern movie masterpiece, even if it was completely devoid of spoken dialogue. How can I praise the picture any higher than that?
These two central performances of the movie are almost as sublime in their perfection and beauty as the images themselves. From one film to the next, Harvey Keitel has shown us consistently why he is one of America's most enigmatic, powerful actors. In "The Duellists," he is a veritable force of nature to be reckoned with. His physical look in the movie is superbly evocative of the period itself. It is something like a cross between Diaghilev and Napoleon fused together with a demonic flourish. His character is such a borderline demented grudgebearer, yet he simply knows no other way. At heart, he is a soldier, and the duel in and of itself, is a necessary means to an end to prove his superiority, find peace with himself and obliterate Keith Carradine. The irony is that the series of duels they end up having over the course of several years, is a wonderfully subtle metaphor for the inherent futility of war. So you see, the imagery and wonderful Keitel performance alone is what conveys the thematic resonance and narrative metaphor. "The Duellists" is an intensely emotional, highly literate film experience. As for the woeful Keith Carradine, what else can I say except that he is the overriding humanity, that defines the very meaning of "The Duellists" at its extremely soulful core. His ethical strength gradually begins to erode, and he is worn down to a level of near dementia by a rival who simply does not know when to quit. With the exception of the gorgeous Cristina Raines as Carradine's bride, the supporting cast of "The Duellists" are a who's who of British cinema giants. In their vividly realized performances, Edward Fox, Albert Finney, Alun Armstrong, Tom Conti and Robert Stephens are all outstanding in a film that has the time and patience to establish mood through stunningly drawn characters.
When one refers to the overall vision of Ridley Scott's "The Duellists," it is virtually impossible not to refer to the stirring confrontations themselves. They are truly a wonderful series of confrontational setpieces, and they define and extend the notions of fighting between evenly matched combatants. Swords at dawn. Pistols at dusk. Whatever the case happens to be, their obsessive feud actually ends up lasting over a period of thirty years, and it becomes increasingly incredible as the years go by. In any one else's hands other than Ridley Scott, it is a narrative concept and premise that may seem equally thin and ludicrous. And yet, "The Duellists" is anything but that. Scott has always been a master of composition and light. In short, there is not a single director working in world cinema today, that is better or more visually adept at creating entire worlds. And that is the mastery behind all of Ridley Scott's films. It is his unmatched ability to create the total physical universe of his films, which ostensibly always works to expand and comment metaphorically, on the stories of the pictures themselves. Whether it is the future worlds of "Alien" or "Blade Runner," the ethereal fantasy landscapes of "Legend" (1986) or the historical worlds of the past seen in "Gladiator" (2000) and "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005), Ridley Scott has done more to expand and stimulate cinematic language than perhaps any other living director. There are incomparable grace notes of irony in "The Duellists," that make the movie so much richer than your average run of the mill historical costume drama. "The Duellists" is the fusion of high storytelling art and striking images helmed by a master. Pure visual cinema. Brilliant.
Movie Review: Obsession
Summary: 5 Stars
Driven by a compulsion to fight a duel at the slightest insult, Harvey Keitel plays Lt. Feurandin the French army during the time of Napleon who lives by the sword. When Keith Carradine's D'Hubert is sent out to convey a message from their French commander to cease fighting duels after badly injuring the mayor of a town, Keitel's character finds the message and delivery insulting enough to--yes--challenge Carradine to a duel then and there. Carradine ends the duel by knocking Keitel's character out with a block from the butt of his sword.From there they both spiral into the madness and obsession of Feruand and D'Hubert's need to win at all costs. Fighting over the years, they lose loved ones and, in a sense, lose themselves as the passion for the fight becomes everything. By the end neither man understands why they are truly fighting or what they are fighting for.
Ridley Scott's first feature film was his fourth attempt at making a full length film. Based on a short story by Conrad that eventually became part of a much larger narrative canvas, "The Duelists" catches Scott in perfect form the first time out. While Scott expanded his scope in higher profile films ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma and Louise" and "Gladiator"), his visual and narrative style blossomed in his very first "epic" (made for a paltry $1 million)film.
The powerful performances by the international cast manages to overcome the minor differences in accents (Keitel's Brooklyn accent vs. Carradine's California twang vs. Tom Conti's British accent, etc.). Visually and thematically powerful, "The Duelists" remains one of Scott's best films.
The anamorphic widescreen transfer looks marvelous despite some minor blemishes. Paramount has Packed this film with extras including a commentary from Scott: "Dueling Directors" featuring director Kevin Reynolds interviewing Scott; Scott's first short film "Boy on a Bike" (featuring his brother and future director Tony Scott); isolated score and commentary by Howard Shore as well as the theatrical trailer. The sound although not quite up to the standard of current films (it was made, afterall, in 1977), has a splendid range and there's minimal distoriton.
This sharply directed and written film deserves as much attention as Scott's other more mainstream features. Although no Scott film is without merit (even "Someone to Watch Over Me" and the Hammer-like "Hannibal"), "The Duelists" deserves its spot as one of Scott's five or six best films.
Movie Review: Uncompromisingly a five-star flick...
Summary: 5 Stars
Based on Joseph Conrad's book "The Duel", the true story of a 30-year feud between two Napoleonic cavalry officers, "The Duellists" was Ridley Scott's first major film. Starring Keith Carradine as the pompous D'Hubert and a particularly menacing Harvey Keitel as Feraud, the film climbs inside the minds of two men for whom honor is more important than life itself.The two antagonists begin their series of bloody encounters when D'Hubert is ordered by his commanding general to arrest Feraud for wounding the local mayor's nephew in a duel. Feraud, in a hopelessly irrational state, challenges D'Hubert to a duel, which is carried out more or less on the spot. D'Hubert comes off slightly better in the initial encounter, which only serves to fuel Feraud's rage, and the course of the film is set.
The cinematography of this film, shot by Frank Tidy, is almost beyond comparison. The previous versions on VHS simply looked muddy and rather washed out. The colors lacked any real saturation, rendering Feraud's bottle-green dolman black and it almost looked like a poor quality black and white in some scenes, especially those set in Napoleon's abortive Russian campaign.
The DVD transfer, by contrast, is staggeringly beautiful and releases colors, which I did not realize existed in the original. I am, by coincidence, a professional cameraman and I rate this as the best shot film I have ever seen. The only criticism I have is a somewhat inconsistent use of graduated filters, which, whilst they were probably quite innovative for their day, don't always work well. Grads are always a problem and any film made since will tend to suffer the same way. A very minor point.
The costumes and settings; mostly in The Dordogne, make the film not only totally authentic but defy the viewer to believe that it was made on a shoestring budget. The visual splendour challenges any modern filmaker to create the same effect without spending a vault full of money to achieve it. That is only part of the appeal of the film.
The acting performances, particularly by Keitel, want for nothing. The scene with Feraud standing on a cliff overlooking the river valley, taken in context, makes you realise that his life and pretensions to honor have been for nothing. His mania for revenge has cost him everything. Melded to the other performances with superlative skill by Ridley Scott, this film is a masterpiece and has now gone from a film I liked a lot to one which is now firmly wedged in my top ten. Like as not, it will stay there for a long time.
Movie Review: Best Film of Period Dueling
Summary: 5 Stars
I first saw this film in 1978, just after it was first released. A Canns Award winner in 1977, it was no big success here in the U.S., but it was an underground successs at least.
I was a competitive fencer for nearly 20 years and a lifelong recreational fencer, who has also done some theatrical work. I was nearing the height of my competitive career when this film was released. I knew former national champions, Olympic team members and trained with them and many others. Everyone agreed that this film portrays dueling, which fencing is based on, more accurately than any other film before or since- including "By the Sword."
Willliam Hobbs, the fight director in this film and a former competitive fencer from Australia, makes a cameo appearence in the scene of the second encounter where D'Hubert is practicing with him in the background as Faraud rides up. (Hobbs shows up in all his films somewhere - check out Polanski's Macbeath). Hobbs has many films to his credit and at least was a top if not the top fight director in the 70s and 80s. I think this is his best work since it shows dueling most realistically. How do I know? Trust me, I know. Fencers tend to be intolerant of nonsense. But one may also consult Aldo Nadi's book on fencing and read his description of a real duel he fought in the 1920s.
Based on a short story by Joseph Conrad who wrote on a real series of duels between two antagonists that began during the Napleonic Wars, The Duellists is informative and beautiful. The calvary duel is particularly so as it is realistic. We can imagine the feelings of a man who has no wish to be repeatedly drawn into duels by a nemises who will not let him be. It is glimse into the Western tradition of chivalric honor and the ancient rule of trial by combat that makes this film so fascinating.
Supported by a wonderful caste of British character actors, Americans Keith Carrdine and Harvey Keitel are only slightly out of place. Keitel moreso with his Brooklyn accent. Regardless Keitel overcomes this with a convincing portrayal of a hotheaded zealot, unreasoning in his pursuit of his self created foe. A great line offered up by a doctor describing him to D'Hubert after their first encounter "The enemies of reason have a certain blind look. He has that look, don't you think?"
A great film for a rainy afternoon.