I also liked The Last Duel, but I have some conflicted thoughts about it.
CW: Rape
I liked The Last Duel, but I have some reservations about it. I read the book the movie is based on, The Last Duel by Eric Jager. It's a pop history book so the author doesn't give us translations of the original court records or le Gris' lawyer's journal. But he does give us both their versions. To the movie's credit, Marguerite's version of events is roughly the same from book to film. Her mother-in-law leaves her alone while her husband is in Paris. Adam Louvel comes to the door and Marguerite reluctantly unlocks it. Jacques le Gris comes inside, unannounced, chases her to her rooms, and rapes her with Louvel present.
Le Gris' argument in court is that he was not near the castle where Marguerite was raped, that he was fifty miles away, and puts forward the theory that Marguerite mistook the identity of her attacker for le Gris. Evidently even the court of Parliament in Paris thought this was a poor defense since they allowed the duel to go through.
But the movie isn't a courtroom drama and doesn't linger long on the trial. Instead the version of events from le Gris we get in the film is purely the invention of the film's writers. And they paint a picture of le Gris as a man caught up in rape culture. I remember the film has a sex game in it that mimics rape, which we see le Gris engage in consensually, and then later in his POV it seems as if Marguerite was also doing the steps from the game. So part of the movie is the question of: Does Jacques le Gris honestly believe no rape occurred? And I suppose that's an interesting angle for a story, but it's also kind of a weird change. At the end of the duel, le Gris cries out "there was no rape." In the book, this seems like an act of cowardice from a man who knows he is going to die and wants to try and avoid being condemned to hell and also having his name dishonored in the world of the living. In the movie though, le Gris might honestly believe that.
I don't know what my criticism is here, exactly, other than it felt like kind of a weird change. It almost felt like, in a perverse way, they were trying to make le Gris a more likable character up until we get Marguerite's POV. And I did like the parts earlier in the movie when le Gris seems fairly likable, because the book spells out that le Gris was well liked by his peers, a well-read, charming socialite, whereas Jean de Carrouges was seen as thuggish and dour. I really liked the movie, but seeing the rape from his perspective and the way that was presented was just a little off-putting. I guess I felt like the movie wanted me to feel like le Gris was himself a victim of rape culture, that it almost wasn't his fault but the fault of the French noble society itself.
Also, I just checked both the book and the film, and the rape was even more violent than Marguerite's POV in the film. First he offers her money in exchange for sex. She refuses. I wish I could read a direct translation of whatever original the author is working from, because he's extremely clear. Le Gris goes from smiling to being visibly angry and says "you'll come upstairs whether you want to or not." Louvel and le Gris carry her upstairs. She fought back and escaped le Gris grasp multiple times. Eventually he had to call in Louvel and they held her down, and lashed her to the bed frame. He stuffs a gag in her mouth. And I don't know, they could've changed some of that for the censors, but I don't see how a scene faithful to Marguerite's actual testimony could've worked in the writers' whole Rashomon, "le Gris was confused" deal.
I don't know, the movie's commentary about patriarchy and rape culture and justice (or rather, trying to find justice in an unjust system) are all really interesting and pretty good, and obviously are commentaries about modern society as much as medieval France. But I'm still conflicted about the changes.
I remember the film has a sex game in it that mimics rape, which we see le Gris engage in consensually, and then later in his POV it seems as if Marguerite was also doing the steps from the game. So part of the movie is the question of: Does Jacques le Gris honestly believe no rape occurred? And I suppose that’s an interesting angle for a story, but it’s also kind of a weird change. At the end of the duel, le Gris cries out “there was no rape.” In the book, this seems like an act of cowardice from a man who knows he is going to die and wants to try and avoid being condemned to hell and also having his name dishonored in the world of the living. In the movie though, le Gris might honestly believe that.
See I simply interpreted this as Le Gris being willing to lie to himself. For all we know the women who were present at the "consensual" orgy with the "game" that was "mimicking" rape were themselves coerced into that situation. Even if they'd gone along with it to make it easier on themselves, that doesn't really count as consent. Le Gris and everyone else present were obviously drunk, and the situation was obviously being controlled and coerced by the men in the room. It was also told from Le Gris's perspective, which as we find out later is a highly distorted perspective. Le Gris is simply incapable of imagining himself to be capable of rape. His medieval male understanding of rape is limited to something that is done at sword point in the middle of an episode of violent pillaging. The idea that he could rape a fellow educated socialite by coercing them at an adult gathering is something he does not understand. The rape culture of medieval europe is so pervasive and all-encompassing that there is almost zero consensual sex happening at all. The movie also explores how medieval marriage was entirely conceived as a property-transfer arrangement between the father-in-law and the groom. The woman's consent never figures into it. The movie goes out of its way to mention that Margeurite never remarries after Carrouges dies. It also goes out of the way to show how women will indirectly participate in the rape culture by not standing up for each other, and ostracizing each other out of fear of being targeted (Carrouges's mother and Margeurite's friend both do this, with Carrouge's mother in particular emphasizing that she herself was raped, and that rape is simply a normal thing that happens and Margeurite should get over it and do her duties as a wife). Margeurite's husband rapes her too. After the rape by Le Gris. He also rapes her before Le Gris. The tragedy is that none of what happens to Margeurite is consensual, and even her "victory" in the court case is a bittersweet farce because it is based on a medieval understanding of God's will rather than an actual evolution in France's attitude towards rape. Le Gris and and Carrouges are both rapists, but Carrouges's rape remains legal because it is within the bounds of marriage. Le Gris's self-imposed and apparent ideological confusion on whether or not he's actually a rapist is simply a result of the rape culture brainworms. Just because Le Gris doesn't think of himself as a rapist doesn't mean anything. This is evident in the scene where the liege lord Pierre cuts through his confusing bullshit and tells him to simply "everywhere and always deny" the allegations.
The artistic decision to show Le Gris as being this charming socialite is to contrast the two vastly different kinds of men: conservative and liberal, brutal and refined, uneducated and educated, as both being equally capable of rape and treating women as nothing more than property. The movie wants you to find Le Gris charming so that his actions are all the more shocking later on. The movie sells you this idea of the duel as being this exciting thing to watch, but by the time you actually get to it, you're so thoroughly disgusted with both men that you only want Carrouges to win so Margeurite doesn't get burned at the stake, rather than out of a sense that he is truly morally superior Le Gris.
These are all good points. I'd forgotten about the marital rape in the film because that isn't in the book (I read the book after seeing the film). Of course, because such a thing would never be brought up in a court in medieval France, and therefore wouldn't appear in the records the author worked from. I guess I'd just be happy if we got the movie as it is, except Marguerite's POV is more faithful to her testimony. Then again, if her entire POV is faithful to her testimony (which, since she wasn't actually allowed to accuse Jacques le Gris in the French parliament because of her gender, it's actually Jean de Carrouges' relaying her story to the courts) you'd get none of the other commentary regarding patriarchy and rape culture.
I think I might rewatch the film in light of the points you've raised here.
to be fair a lot of what I said is subtext that I gathered from my own understanding rather than something Ridley Scott et al. necessarily intended. Death of the Author and all that.
I also liked The Last Duel, but I have some conflicted thoughts about it.
CW: Rape
I liked The Last Duel, but I have some reservations about it. I read the book the movie is based on, The Last Duel by Eric Jager. It's a pop history book so the author doesn't give us translations of the original court records or le Gris' lawyer's journal. But he does give us both their versions. To the movie's credit, Marguerite's version of events is roughly the same from book to film. Her mother-in-law leaves her alone while her husband is in Paris. Adam Louvel comes to the door and Marguerite reluctantly unlocks it. Jacques le Gris comes inside, unannounced, chases her to her rooms, and rapes her with Louvel present.
Le Gris' argument in court is that he was not near the castle where Marguerite was raped, that he was fifty miles away, and puts forward the theory that Marguerite mistook the identity of her attacker for le Gris. Evidently even the court of Parliament in Paris thought this was a poor defense since they allowed the duel to go through.
But the movie isn't a courtroom drama and doesn't linger long on the trial. Instead the version of events from le Gris we get in the film is purely the invention of the film's writers. And they paint a picture of le Gris as a man caught up in rape culture. I remember the film has a sex game in it that mimics rape, which we see le Gris engage in consensually, and then later in his POV it seems as if Marguerite was also doing the steps from the game. So part of the movie is the question of: Does Jacques le Gris honestly believe no rape occurred? And I suppose that's an interesting angle for a story, but it's also kind of a weird change. At the end of the duel, le Gris cries out "there was no rape." In the book, this seems like an act of cowardice from a man who knows he is going to die and wants to try and avoid being condemned to hell and also having his name dishonored in the world of the living. In the movie though, le Gris might honestly believe that.
I don't know what my criticism is here, exactly, other than it felt like kind of a weird change. It almost felt like, in a perverse way, they were trying to make le Gris a more likable character up until we get Marguerite's POV. And I did like the parts earlier in the movie when le Gris seems fairly likable, because the book spells out that le Gris was well liked by his peers, a well-read, charming socialite, whereas Jean de Carrouges was seen as thuggish and dour. I really liked the movie, but seeing the rape from his perspective and the way that was presented was just a little off-putting. I guess I felt like the movie wanted me to feel like le Gris was himself a victim of rape culture, that it almost wasn't his fault but the fault of the French noble society itself.
Also, I just checked both the book and the film, and the rape was even more violent than Marguerite's POV in the film. First he offers her money in exchange for sex. She refuses. I wish I could read a direct translation of whatever original the author is working from, because he's extremely clear. Le Gris goes from smiling to being visibly angry and says "you'll come upstairs whether you want to or not." Louvel and le Gris carry her upstairs. She fought back and escaped le Gris grasp multiple times. Eventually he had to call in Louvel and they held her down, and lashed her to the bed frame. He stuffs a gag in her mouth. And I don't know, they could've changed some of that for the censors, but I don't see how a scene faithful to Marguerite's actual testimony could've worked in the writers' whole Rashomon, "le Gris was confused" deal.
I don't know, the movie's commentary about patriarchy and rape culture and justice (or rather, trying to find justice in an unjust system) are all really interesting and pretty good, and obviously are commentaries about modern society as much as medieval France. But I'm still conflicted about the changes.
sorry for the essay.
CW: Rape
See I simply interpreted this as Le Gris being willing to lie to himself. For all we know the women who were present at the "consensual" orgy with the "game" that was "mimicking" rape were themselves coerced into that situation. Even if they'd gone along with it to make it easier on themselves, that doesn't really count as consent. Le Gris and everyone else present were obviously drunk, and the situation was obviously being controlled and coerced by the men in the room. It was also told from Le Gris's perspective, which as we find out later is a highly distorted perspective. Le Gris is simply incapable of imagining himself to be capable of rape. His medieval male understanding of rape is limited to something that is done at sword point in the middle of an episode of violent pillaging. The idea that he could rape a fellow educated socialite by coercing them at an adult gathering is something he does not understand. The rape culture of medieval europe is so pervasive and all-encompassing that there is almost zero consensual sex happening at all. The movie also explores how medieval marriage was entirely conceived as a property-transfer arrangement between the father-in-law and the groom. The woman's consent never figures into it. The movie goes out of its way to mention that Margeurite never remarries after Carrouges dies. It also goes out of the way to show how women will indirectly participate in the rape culture by not standing up for each other, and ostracizing each other out of fear of being targeted (Carrouges's mother and Margeurite's friend both do this, with Carrouge's mother in particular emphasizing that she herself was raped, and that rape is simply a normal thing that happens and Margeurite should get over it and do her duties as a wife). Margeurite's husband rapes her too. After the rape by Le Gris. He also rapes her before Le Gris. The tragedy is that none of what happens to Margeurite is consensual, and even her "victory" in the court case is a bittersweet farce because it is based on a medieval understanding of God's will rather than an actual evolution in France's attitude towards rape. Le Gris and and Carrouges are both rapists, but Carrouges's rape remains legal because it is within the bounds of marriage. Le Gris's self-imposed and apparent ideological confusion on whether or not he's actually a rapist is simply a result of the rape culture brainworms. Just because Le Gris doesn't think of himself as a rapist doesn't mean anything. This is evident in the scene where the liege lord Pierre cuts through his confusing bullshit and tells him to simply "everywhere and always deny" the allegations.
The artistic decision to show Le Gris as being this charming socialite is to contrast the two vastly different kinds of men: conservative and liberal, brutal and refined, uneducated and educated, as both being equally capable of rape and treating women as nothing more than property. The movie wants you to find Le Gris charming so that his actions are all the more shocking later on. The movie sells you this idea of the duel as being this exciting thing to watch, but by the time you actually get to it, you're so thoroughly disgusted with both men that you only want Carrouges to win so Margeurite doesn't get burned at the stake, rather than out of a sense that he is truly morally superior Le Gris.
CW: Rape
These are all good points. I'd forgotten about the marital rape in the film because that isn't in the book (I read the book after seeing the film). Of course, because such a thing would never be brought up in a court in medieval France, and therefore wouldn't appear in the records the author worked from. I guess I'd just be happy if we got the movie as it is, except Marguerite's POV is more faithful to her testimony. Then again, if her entire POV is faithful to her testimony (which, since she wasn't actually allowed to accuse Jacques le Gris in the French parliament because of her gender, it's actually Jean de Carrouges' relaying her story to the courts) you'd get none of the other commentary regarding patriarchy and rape culture.
I think I might rewatch the film in light of the points you've raised here.
to be fair a lot of what I said is subtext that I gathered from my own understanding rather than something Ridley Scott et al. necessarily intended. Death of the Author and all that.