Guest Review by Tennessee Jed
Historical dramas can be meandering, tedious affairs, more often than not drawn from overly long epic novels. Award nominations, if any, tend to be for costumes, set design, or cinematography. Even when done well, these films may take two and a half hours or more, a real drawback in a world where attention spans can wane after only two.
The Duellists, nearly 35 years old, doesn’t fall into this trap and is worthy of your attention.
Set in France during the Napoleonic Wars, The Duellists is an examination of the ancient custom of duelling, which became especially prevalent in 18th and early 19th century Europe. To be sure, the film is highlighted by spectacular cinematography, set design, and wonderfully accurate costumes. But at only 100 minutes, it largely avoids the ponderous subplots so often found in this genre. The reason lies in its faithful adaption of a short story by Joseph Conrad which, in turn, was developed from an actual account of two soldiers in Napoleon’s army who fought a series of duels over 19 years.
Of particular interest to viewers today, The Duellists is the directorial feature film debut of Ridley Scott, with early starring roles for both Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel.
Background - Lieutenants Armand dʼHubert (Carradine) and Gabriel Feraud (Keitel) are both Hussar (light cavalry) officers in Napoleon’s Grand Army, each from separate regiments. The film opens in Strasbourg in 1800 during a lull in the military action. In the first scene, Feraud is engaged in a duel with a civilian whom he nearly kills. The injured man is a nephew of the local mayor, and since dueling is not only illegal, but expressly frowned upon by Napoleon himself, the mayor demands justice. The garrison commander dispatches dʼHubert, a staff officer who “vaguely knows of Feraud” to inform the duellist he is to place himself under house arrest until further notice.
dʼHubert finds Feraud at a soiree and relays the orders. Feraud is neither happy about being interrupted, nor does he understand why he is being punished since he was the “aggrieved” party. As they walk back towards quarters, Feraud continues to argue with dʼHubert, and quickly seizes upon an off hand comment to demand satisfaction. It is clear Feraud is an obsessive, looking for even the slightest provocation, yet circumstances force dʼHubert to engage him. He wounds Feraud, then leaves. The commanding General Treillard is, of course, furious and tells dʼHubert to place himself under arrest until a court of inquiry is convened. However, when war resumes, charges against both are dropped. The two then fight a series of duels across Europe over the next 15 years with neither able to finish off the other.
By the time Napoleon has suffered his final defeat at Waterloo, both have risen to the rank of general. Afterwards, dʼHubert becomes a royalist while Feraud remains loyal to the Emperor, setting up one final confrontation which resolves the storyline. That outcome is not revealed here as it would be an obvious plot spoiler.
The Art of the Duel - In this context, duelling can be defined as combat between two individuals according to pre-arranged codified rules, typically to settle a “point of honor.” Arrangements and officiating were usually completed by “seconds” chosen by the participants to insure fairness and adherence to the code of honor. The offended party usually cared less about killing his opponent than “obtaining satisfaction.” By risking his own life, the duellist proves the importance of retaining his honor. Duelling was practiced well back into medieval times or beyond, and long considered socially acceptable. Much of it evolved from a soldier’s sense of “death before dishonor,” similar to the code of Bushido among Samurai in Japan. Even in countries where it had become technically illegal, duelling was rarely prosecuted if it had been determined the fight was fair.
In this film, one of the two protagonists, Feraud, is obviously a skilled duellist, obsessive about winning, and something of a bully who enjoys humiliating his opponents. dʼHubert, on the other hand, has no obvious interest in duelling, but the soldier’s Code of Honor prevents him from walking away. The mentality driving their behaviors represents the theme of the story. Author Conrad, a native Pole living in England, was known for having a sense of tragic futility that is clearly in evidence.
What Works Particularly Well - The use of simple, straightforward plotting and reasonable pacing keeps The Duellists from bogging down, but to no surprise, it is ultimately the accuracy of the costumes, sets, and cinematography that most makes the film memorable. Scott is said to have been truly impressed with Stanley Kubrick’s classic, Barry Lyndon, which also featured a dramatic duel and authentic period sets. Indeed, I believe Scott’s primary motivation was to do his own interpretation of a similar type of film. For a first time feature director, he did a superb job, perhaps signaling things to come. The film was nominated for BAFTA awards for costume design and cinematography, and Scott won at Cannes for “best first work.” Harvey Keitel, in particular, is effective in bringing out the uncompromising obsession of Feraud and his genuine dislike of the “staffer” dʼHubert. It is clear both actors received excellent coaching in duelling technique. This is no Errol Flynn or Three Musketeers style sword fighting; rather a very real and violent portrayal.
What Turns Out To Be “Not so Much“ - Even though the film takes only 100 minutes, there are only so many ways to show the same two characters duelling each other (swords, horseback, pistols). Also, the two romantic relationships developed for dʼHubert, which I did not bother to describe, never really grab the viewer. They somehow feel like they are considered necessary “add ons” to the story.
In order for a story like this to truly work, the characters must ultimately make you care about them. Feraud is clearly the villain, but I think he could have been much more interesting if a little more effort had been made to develop his character. Most of what we know about him is either assumed or inferred from what Keitel brings to the role. Similarly, dʼHubert, though not exactly one dimensional, might also have been more interesting had he been more complex and less obviously “the good guy.” Given the relative brevity of the movie, the audience is not given enough chance to truly appreciate how thoroughly the practice of duelling was woven into the societal norms of the period. Thus, although we have all had to do things we did not like, it is hard to actually imagine ourselves in this situation because it is so foreign to our own experience.
Conclusions - This film was quite entertaining for me, particularly in its attention to authentic detail in costumes and sets. Upon subsequent viewing, I was able to concentrate specifically on the framing of each scene, which turned into an enjoyable exercise. While the ending is hardly a true plot “twist,” it is appropriately suspenseful and satisfying, and not overtly telegraphed. This is hardly a great or classic film, but if you like skillful cinematography, historical realism, and haven’t seen it, by all means give The Duellists a try.
Are there other historical dramas you have seen that either avoid or fall into the traps I have outlined?
[-] Collapse Post...
With Obama's approval ratings approaching 0.0% like a Delta House GPA, we need a replacement. And there's nowhere better to look for said replacement than Hollywood!
