The Duellists is really well shot, considering it was his first film. The zoom out shots remind me of Barry Lyndon. I liked the concept but couldn't connect to the characters. The narration felt cheap and unnecessary but I guess a lot of debuts have narration. The liked the ending very much, it left me thinking about honor, how we interpret it and is it worth fighting for.
141 Reviews
Cult Movies 44
TYLERdurden7415 November 1998
44. THE DUELLISTS (drama, 1977) The time is France, 1800. During the Napoleonic Wars Lt. Feraud (Harvey Keitel) wounds a man after a duel. His superior dispatches Lt. D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) with a message that he's to be brought under house arrest, since the wounded man is cousin to a Major. Feraud takes offense at D'Hubert's "insult", and seeks his satisfaction in a duel. Feraud is furthered angered when he loses and wants a rematch. Disrupted by war, their own attrition spans 15 years becoming increasingly more personal and savage. The two are destined to meet in a final duel.
Critique: Ridley Scott's impressive directorial debut deals with the themes of honor, obsession and violence. However, more importantly, is the message that wars (be it personal or political) are ultimately futile and without merit. As the 2 'duel' they forget who is the aggressor and victim, the voice of reason or right. Battle lines and tactics are forsaken for the ultimate personal satisfaction, death.
Scott's direction is very good throughout; keeping us interested in the characters' resolution. The film's highlight involves the duels, which are meticulously staged and choreographed. Taking place in open, closed, wet, dry spaces, Scott has skill in creating a tense setting.
Production design is also superb. Street scenes and every day life are realistically captured. The excellent cast headed by Harvey Keitel is a standout as the 'bully', counterpointing Carradine's honorable constraint.
Based on Joseph Conrad's "The Duelists", the film won many awards including 'Best Debut Film' at the 1977 Cannes film festival. More importantly it launched the career of one of the most prominent filmmakers in cinema.
QUOTE: D'Hubert: "You have kept me at your beg and call for 15 years. I shall never do what you demand of me. I shall simply declare you dead."
Critique: Ridley Scott's impressive directorial debut deals with the themes of honor, obsession and violence. However, more importantly, is the message that wars (be it personal or political) are ultimately futile and without merit. As the 2 'duel' they forget who is the aggressor and victim, the voice of reason or right. Battle lines and tactics are forsaken for the ultimate personal satisfaction, death.
Scott's direction is very good throughout; keeping us interested in the characters' resolution. The film's highlight involves the duels, which are meticulously staged and choreographed. Taking place in open, closed, wet, dry spaces, Scott has skill in creating a tense setting.
Production design is also superb. Street scenes and every day life are realistically captured. The excellent cast headed by Harvey Keitel is a standout as the 'bully', counterpointing Carradine's honorable constraint.
Based on Joseph Conrad's "The Duelists", the film won many awards including 'Best Debut Film' at the 1977 Cannes film festival. More importantly it launched the career of one of the most prominent filmmakers in cinema.
QUOTE: D'Hubert: "You have kept me at your beg and call for 15 years. I shall never do what you demand of me. I shall simply declare you dead."
Polished and professional...but what's the point?
moonspinner557 November 2009
In 1800 France, an officer with Napoleon's Army is sent as a messenger to locate and instruct a fellow officer that he is to be arrested for the killing of the mayor's nephew in a duel; taking personal offense at the way in which this was handled, the second officer--who harbors an unexplained psychotic side--challenges the messenger to a duel with swords in the courtyard...but this time loses face (though not his life). Perhaps proving that bullying went on even in 19th century France, Ridley Scott's directorial debut is adroitly cognizant of time and place, beautifully detailed and spread out in sumptuously muted colors, yet doesn't have anything gripping going on underneath its facade. Keith Carradine's peace-seeking officer, without really knowing why Harvey Keitel is his sudden 'sworn enemy' (or being able to articulate what the feud is all about), extends numerous offers to patch things up, yet is called upon to defend his honor over and over throughout many years' time. One can become absorbed in the plotting, or by the intense dueling (which is well-choreographed), however this may come at the expense of understanding these characters. Expanded from Joseph Conrad's short story "The Duel", the movie is paced well and, despite not passing for French, performed admirably by the leads. Unfortunately, since we are not privy to motivation, it fails to work as a study of character. **1/2 from ****
Brilliant, understated, and thoroughly human.
lucretius36596 April 2002
This /is/ one of the best sword-fighting movies ever made, in that the choreography doesn't look like choreography. In the fight sequences, there's that rare sense of reticence, chance, uncertainty: of men thinking while they fight and trying to stay alive (The battle scenes in Kurosawa seem to me to share the same quality).
What sets this film apart (beyond its sheer visual gorgeousness) is its unremitting humanity and realism. Carradine as the protagonist is a decent enough, reasonable enough chap trying to live by an unreasonable and inflexible code. Keitel as Feraud is a cipher: charged with a wholly unreasonable hate the sources of which we never see. The movie steps through the ups and downs of war, fashion, politics. Though the film's structured around a series of violent combats, the struggle is finally a moral one. One man finally transcends the ideal of honor that's kept him a prisoner for fifteen years. The other is unable to.
This is a movie to watch, and to recommend to one's friends. It's lamentably not available yet in DVD, but can be found occasionally as a rental. Watch it for the costumes, the lighting, and the gorgeous camerawork. Watch it again for a movie that takes on The Big Issues. Brilliant.
What sets this film apart (beyond its sheer visual gorgeousness) is its unremitting humanity and realism. Carradine as the protagonist is a decent enough, reasonable enough chap trying to live by an unreasonable and inflexible code. Keitel as Feraud is a cipher: charged with a wholly unreasonable hate the sources of which we never see. The movie steps through the ups and downs of war, fashion, politics. Though the film's structured around a series of violent combats, the struggle is finally a moral one. One man finally transcends the ideal of honor that's kept him a prisoner for fifteen years. The other is unable to.
This is a movie to watch, and to recommend to one's friends. It's lamentably not available yet in DVD, but can be found occasionally as a rental. Watch it for the costumes, the lighting, and the gorgeous camerawork. Watch it again for a movie that takes on The Big Issues. Brilliant.
One of the few great, timeless movies.
matija6 May 2000
Often, when you watch a movie, you can tell when it was made.
It deals with the mores and prejudices of the time it was made. The costumes are done without attention to detail or the hair-styles of the leading actors don't belong to the time when the movie is supposed to be taking place.
Not this movie.
It deals with timeless themes: courage, fate, inevitability,
honor. The costumes are impeccable, and even the hair-styles change as time progresses, exactly as the fashions changed during the times of the Napoleon. Without knowing the actors (though the cast is composed of excellent, justifiably famous artists), there is no way to tell it was made in 1977. It might have been made yesterday, or it might have been filmed on the spot.
If you enjoy a movie where attention was paid to every detail to make it a true piece of art, if you enjoy dramatic photography thoughtful themes, and just the barest suggestion of dry humor, this is the movie for you.
It deals with the mores and prejudices of the time it was made. The costumes are done without attention to detail or the hair-styles of the leading actors don't belong to the time when the movie is supposed to be taking place.
Not this movie.
It deals with timeless themes: courage, fate, inevitability,
honor. The costumes are impeccable, and even the hair-styles change as time progresses, exactly as the fashions changed during the times of the Napoleon. Without knowing the actors (though the cast is composed of excellent, justifiably famous artists), there is no way to tell it was made in 1977. It might have been made yesterday, or it might have been filmed on the spot.
If you enjoy a movie where attention was paid to every detail to make it a true piece of art, if you enjoy dramatic photography thoughtful themes, and just the barest suggestion of dry humor, this is the movie for you.
The Casting Of A Perfect Shadow
schogger1316 April 2003
The Duellists is remarkable in lots of ways. For one, it's a masterpiece debut. It's also one of the very rare films putting a director on the map who keeps delivering what the debut already displayed in abundance. What's more, it is even rarer in so far that this movie hasn't aged a single day, which can't be explained away with the fact that it's a period piece. It stands the test of time as flawlessly as two other legendary debuts, Orson Welles's Citisen Kane and John Huston's Maltese Falcon. The flipside displays a mystery. The Duellists is an almost totally unknown film. To this day it hasn't earned what it had cost to make it in 1977: 900.000$. That, without doubt, makes it the most underrated masterpiece by one of THE directors of his generation.
The basis was simple and commanding: The adaptation of the classic Joseph Conrad story 'The Duel'. The result is a lesson in perfect cinematic storytelling. And it's also a lesson in the forgotten art of low budget moviemaking. Not a single frame suggests that 'more' would've been better. The required economy of every single aspect of production always finds its perfect answer in the execution of the story. What you can't see or hear doesn't need to be there. It's as simple as that. Suffice to say, Ridley Scott being the director he is, The Duellists is visually superb and at the same time devoid of a single frame just being there to look good. His visual style is completely dependent on the substance of the story as well as the acting. That becomes blindingly obvious in his weaker films, where he resorts to 'beautifying' an empty shell. No other great director is as much a slave of the story's quality, before he can become its master. But once a strong moment, a powerful dialogue, a strong character hits his senses, he 'translates' their life into his unique visual language. In that he is almost without comparison. What we sometimes later perceive as only beautiful is always as essential to the story as a note in a symphony is essential to the next one to make 'sense'. The almost hauntingly arcadian, rural opening shot of the movie is a perfect example. The little girl with her geese leads us through innocence and peace across the screen... and bumps with us into the towering Husar blocking the path. No words. Just eyes making the girl lead her geese away from the path, away from what the Husar is guarding against unwanted onlookers. We're already hooked into the story on more than one level, and the cut to the duellists on the open field tells us where paradise ends. That's Ridley Scott in his purest form. The beauty of his style is in fact visual drama, and the power of his language is as visible now as it was in 1977. In 'Gladiator', watch the transition from Maximus's cornfild dream to the tortured earth of the battlefield in Germania and you'll see what I mean. That's why Scott is also an actor's director. He always makes sense to them and the characters with every move of the camera and sets them in the best possible light for what's required. He likes good actors, which isn't as normal as one might think. There isn't a hollow second to be found in each and every performance on The Duellists. That the casting is flawless down to the last extra helped, of course. All this explains much of the ageless quality of the movie. No hollow set pieces to 'jazz it up a bit'. Only authentic locations and no built sets. Costumes, makeup, props... everything totally convincing and fitting to the period. It's virtually impossible to determine the movie's age without knowing the actors. Scott turned an ageless story into an ageless movie. An excellent script and extremely good acting all round helped him do it.
For me The Duellists is the first of 3 consecutive masterpieces (the other two are, of course ALIEN and Blade Runner), unrivalled since John Huston's first 3 films.
10 out of 10 Ulrich Fehlauer
The basis was simple and commanding: The adaptation of the classic Joseph Conrad story 'The Duel'. The result is a lesson in perfect cinematic storytelling. And it's also a lesson in the forgotten art of low budget moviemaking. Not a single frame suggests that 'more' would've been better. The required economy of every single aspect of production always finds its perfect answer in the execution of the story. What you can't see or hear doesn't need to be there. It's as simple as that. Suffice to say, Ridley Scott being the director he is, The Duellists is visually superb and at the same time devoid of a single frame just being there to look good. His visual style is completely dependent on the substance of the story as well as the acting. That becomes blindingly obvious in his weaker films, where he resorts to 'beautifying' an empty shell. No other great director is as much a slave of the story's quality, before he can become its master. But once a strong moment, a powerful dialogue, a strong character hits his senses, he 'translates' their life into his unique visual language. In that he is almost without comparison. What we sometimes later perceive as only beautiful is always as essential to the story as a note in a symphony is essential to the next one to make 'sense'. The almost hauntingly arcadian, rural opening shot of the movie is a perfect example. The little girl with her geese leads us through innocence and peace across the screen... and bumps with us into the towering Husar blocking the path. No words. Just eyes making the girl lead her geese away from the path, away from what the Husar is guarding against unwanted onlookers. We're already hooked into the story on more than one level, and the cut to the duellists on the open field tells us where paradise ends. That's Ridley Scott in his purest form. The beauty of his style is in fact visual drama, and the power of his language is as visible now as it was in 1977. In 'Gladiator', watch the transition from Maximus's cornfild dream to the tortured earth of the battlefield in Germania and you'll see what I mean. That's why Scott is also an actor's director. He always makes sense to them and the characters with every move of the camera and sets them in the best possible light for what's required. He likes good actors, which isn't as normal as one might think. There isn't a hollow second to be found in each and every performance on The Duellists. That the casting is flawless down to the last extra helped, of course. All this explains much of the ageless quality of the movie. No hollow set pieces to 'jazz it up a bit'. Only authentic locations and no built sets. Costumes, makeup, props... everything totally convincing and fitting to the period. It's virtually impossible to determine the movie's age without knowing the actors. Scott turned an ageless story into an ageless movie. An excellent script and extremely good acting all round helped him do it.
For me The Duellists is the first of 3 consecutive masterpieces (the other two are, of course ALIEN and Blade Runner), unrivalled since John Huston's first 3 films.
10 out of 10 Ulrich Fehlauer
Duet of dudes duel to a draw during the decades
helpless_dancer14 October 1999
Two French officers duel with swords and pistols off and on over a 15 year span. The tiff started when one of the officers, a raging psychopath, felt his honor had been compromised. He really just wanted a reason to kill again. The film made me think it was really in the early 1800's, very realistic and the scenery was beautiful. The finale, which was shot in and around an old ruin, complimented the show perfectly. 4 stars.
the best understanding of Napoleon's age ever (thanks to Conrad)
arieleviacavafollis15 May 2005
The best issue about this movie, other than, of course, the aesthetic perfection, is its absolute fidelity to Conrad's short novel. I think this is very good in the movie because the book is so good, and it would have made no sense try to change it in the least way, as it often happens when movies come out of books (for example, Kubrick always made his films somehow look different from the books they are taken from, and I should say often improved them, but in many other cases it's true the opposite). It's noteworthy saying that in another, more popular, Ridley Scott's movie such as Blade Runner, always derived from a novel, important changes have been made from the original story ( in that case, all the part about the 'empathy' religion doesn't appear in the movie, and I think it was a good choice to omit it). But ' The Duelists' had to stick to the book! The point about the Duelists is all about the rich simplicity of its being a movie: Ridley Scott just takes the story as it is, and it's a damn good one, and he tells it to us in the best possible way, with an incredible attention to the graphical details (the duel scenes are just one better than the other), and an amazing use of the camera (the boxing scene, the horse riding duel). Now, going back to the story, in less than 100 pages, Conrad managed in explaining everything about the great illusion of Napoleon's empire, without the emperor ever appearing in it. It's incredible how he managed making the ever lasting duel between the two officials a great metaphor of that age, still keeping the two characters real and alive. The movie gives you all this. Watch it!
good period film
funkyfry10 February 2008
This is a very interesting early movie from Ridley Scott, who's best known for his early sci-fi classics "Blade Runner" and "Alien" as well as his later film "Gladiator." As usual, his direction is excellent, but a lot of the times the quality of Scott's movies ultimately rests on the screenplay and story. In this case we have a very literate adaption of a story from Joseph Conrad that matches his formal style well.
The story is very simple; basically it is about two officers in Napoleon's army who strike up a dispute when the more placid and circumspect of the two, D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) is sent to fetch the arrogant and violent duelmaster Feraud (Harvey Keitel), to which Feraud takes great exception. Later it turns out that at least D'Hubert believes the conflict may actually be about a woman, Adele (Christina Raines). All the historical events that take place in the story are just side-lines to the conflict between these two men, which takes place over the course of several decades all across Europe from the peaceful farms of France to the wasted plains of Russia.
First of all the photography in this movie, by Frank Tidy, is really excellent. A lot of aspects of this film remind me of Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and this not the least. But unlike Kubrick, Scott and his producers have used original instead of period music, and the score that Howard Blake is really wonderful, referencing the period music just enough but bringing a fresh and human touch to the film. IN general I'd say this film is an attempt to use some of the conventions of the "period" genre but to make the whole thing ostensibly "modern" by concentrating on the very human dynamics between the two characters. However the whole concept of building a film around "honor" didn't really appeal to me personally. Even though the theme isn't terribly engaging for me, I was drawn into the drama and the story.
Carradine's performance is very good, and I didn't spend much time thinking about the fact that he and Keitel are so American and so many other actors are so British but they are all supposed to be French. Keitel has almost no dialog in this film so everything that we imagine about his motives is pretty much a big guess. I liked that aspect of the film; nothing in the film is important except these two guys, but since we only really hear about or see one of them it gives the whole film a sort of mysterious air.
The story is very simple; basically it is about two officers in Napoleon's army who strike up a dispute when the more placid and circumspect of the two, D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) is sent to fetch the arrogant and violent duelmaster Feraud (Harvey Keitel), to which Feraud takes great exception. Later it turns out that at least D'Hubert believes the conflict may actually be about a woman, Adele (Christina Raines). All the historical events that take place in the story are just side-lines to the conflict between these two men, which takes place over the course of several decades all across Europe from the peaceful farms of France to the wasted plains of Russia.
First of all the photography in this movie, by Frank Tidy, is really excellent. A lot of aspects of this film remind me of Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and this not the least. But unlike Kubrick, Scott and his producers have used original instead of period music, and the score that Howard Blake is really wonderful, referencing the period music just enough but bringing a fresh and human touch to the film. IN general I'd say this film is an attempt to use some of the conventions of the "period" genre but to make the whole thing ostensibly "modern" by concentrating on the very human dynamics between the two characters. However the whole concept of building a film around "honor" didn't really appeal to me personally. Even though the theme isn't terribly engaging for me, I was drawn into the drama and the story.
Carradine's performance is very good, and I didn't spend much time thinking about the fact that he and Keitel are so American and so many other actors are so British but they are all supposed to be French. Keitel has almost no dialog in this film so everything that we imagine about his motives is pretty much a big guess. I liked that aspect of the film; nothing in the film is important except these two guys, but since we only really hear about or see one of them it gives the whole film a sort of mysterious air.
Just great
liderc29 March 2004
A really wonderful movie that lives from the great script, the exceptionally good actors (from the major to the minor roles), the very well done directing and an outstanding score. The cast is really good, from the main actors to Diana Quick and to such interesting and sadly underrated actors as Morgan Sheppard and Liz Smith. This movie shows that, provided with a good script, Ridley Scott once was able to do really good movies. If you think this movie is heartless just compare this debut with the first movie done by Ridley's brother Tony, the hollow "The Hunger". The only drawback is his taste for sometimes overdone and unnatural photography. The script is surprisingly faithful to the original story by Joseph Conrad (that one really should read). If you are looking for a movie full of style and grace you will find it here!
Enjoyable costumer about an interminable duel with sensational outdoors
ma-cortes26 October 2011
Ridley Scott's first film set on Napoleonic wars in which two French Husars battle a relentless duel . We are in 1800, in the garrison town of Strasbourg, on the Rhine and set during the grand, sweeping Napoleonic age and the disastrous Russian campaign . An officer named D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) in the French army insults another named Feraud (Harvey Keitel) and set out in pursuit each other on a life-long enmity . The two officers had fought a series of duels in the midst of great wars on some futile pretext .Both of them , fencing is a science ,loving is a passion and dueling is an obsession . The two officers cross swords time and time again in an attempt to obtain justice and preserve their honor ."The Duellists" is based on a story written by Joseph Conrad, which, according to the novelist , was itself based on a real story whose origins sprang from a ten-line paragraph in a small Southern France local newspaper. That brief paragraph reported the fatal ending of a duel between two officers in Napoleon's Grand Army . As the showdown pretext was never disclosed, Joseph Conrad invented one.
This is first rate action/fencing/drama/ epic film that benefits from intelligent screenplay and visual dynamics, however is overlong for its skeletal plot . Interesting story contains action , romance , battles , impressive duels, being ravishingly photographed and carefully made . Colorfully cinematography like paintings brought to life by Frank Tidy , showing spectacular landscapes filmed in Aquitaine, France ,Aviemore, Highland, Scotland,Château de Commarques, Dordogne, France (final pistol duel),Dordogne, France ,Highland, Scotland, London, England, UK ,Sarlat, Corrèze,Sarlat-la-Canéda, Dordogne, France , Strand, London, England, UK(interiors) . Evocative and touching musical score by Howard Blake . The motion picture produced by the prestigious David Puttman is glamorously directed by Ridley Scott , at his best and as stylish as ever , similarly his subsequent film ¨Someone to watch over me¨ and others as ¨Blade runner¨, ¨Black rain¨ , ¨Legend¨ in which his visual style is breathtaking . The picture belongs to his speciality ,the historical genre , as ¨Gladiator¨ , ¨Kingdom of heaven¨ , ¨Black Hawk down¨ and ¨Robin Hood¨ . Rating : Above average . Essential and indispensable watching for Ridley Scott followers .
This is first rate action/fencing/drama/ epic film that benefits from intelligent screenplay and visual dynamics, however is overlong for its skeletal plot . Interesting story contains action , romance , battles , impressive duels, being ravishingly photographed and carefully made . Colorfully cinematography like paintings brought to life by Frank Tidy , showing spectacular landscapes filmed in Aquitaine, France ,Aviemore, Highland, Scotland,Château de Commarques, Dordogne, France (final pistol duel),Dordogne, France ,Highland, Scotland, London, England, UK ,Sarlat, Corrèze,Sarlat-la-Canéda, Dordogne, France , Strand, London, England, UK(interiors) . Evocative and touching musical score by Howard Blake . The motion picture produced by the prestigious David Puttman is glamorously directed by Ridley Scott , at his best and as stylish as ever , similarly his subsequent film ¨Someone to watch over me¨ and others as ¨Blade runner¨, ¨Black rain¨ , ¨Legend¨ in which his visual style is breathtaking . The picture belongs to his speciality ,the historical genre , as ¨Gladiator¨ , ¨Kingdom of heaven¨ , ¨Black Hawk down¨ and ¨Robin Hood¨ . Rating : Above average . Essential and indispensable watching for Ridley Scott followers .
One of Ridley's Finest Moments
Tweetienator13 August 2018
An early masterpiece by Ridley Scott with two superb actors playing the two main characters (two officers of the French Grande Army): Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. This is not your usual swashbuckler or costume movie but a fine look into a past time and into a very different code of honor and bravery. I watched it a couple of times and I dare to say: timeless and a must-watch.
Nice, but what has it got to do with anything?
rasmus-savolainen-124 April 2006
My main problem with the movie was its complete lack of depth: the characters remained completely aloof and distant which made the whole movie feel very, very, very distant altogether. The reason for this, at least for me, was that the motives and personalities of the two protagonists were at best vague: nowhere did anyone ever explain why Honour is such a big thing for anyone and why should two completely reasonable men be compelled to fight to the death because of honour. Other than that the movie had no serious flaws - except that the costumes and fashions of 19th century are just too goddamn gay. And Keith Carradine's performance was also very gay - too gay in fact. I couldn't stand it without an occasional burst of laughter. Oh yes and the settings were completely fabulous; they must've spent hours on hours looking for the right places. All in all it was completely enjoyable and pointless movie.
Not Great Scott
axsmashcrushallthree20 January 2009
This is Ridley Scott's first film, based upon a particularly interesting Joseph Conrad story of two career soldiers who maintain a long feud over a singular incident.
Scott's dynamic media style is already more than in abundance here - striking widescreen shots, sumptuous overall cinematography, brilliant art direction, evocative score, and meticulous costume design make for a strong viewing experience.
However, this isn't anywhere close to Scott's classic films, and it's not just that Scott was getting his feet wet. In general, Ridley Scott is not a director who does much with character studies in isolation - his main characters are borne from the fruit of their dilemmas. This lends the expectation that the plot and associated physical action carry the weight of the story to create these dilemmas. This is the general thrust of most successful Scott efforts, including "Alien", "Blade Runner", and "Gladiator".
However, in "The Duellists", the dilemmas in the original story are reduced to basically a series of confrontations within differing physical environments. Since not much is happening within the story, the burden of proof, so to say, is thrown back on the characters to carry the film.
That doesn't happen here. Carradine and Keitel, both reasonably competent actors in certain mediums, are miscast, as is Diana Quick. The two male leads try hard, but Carradine lacks the physicality for the Jean Valjean-type main character and Keitel, while energetic enough, doesn't communicate enough sense of protocol to convince us that he is anything but a simpleton of a boor. In Keitel's favor, his last scene is definitely right on, but it's a bit late in the game. I found Keitel's muted Brooklyn accent to be unintentionally funny in some scenes.
The dueling scenes are surprisingly disappointing, particularly because one assumes that these career military dragoons are very skilled swordsman. The power and technical skill of the scenes pales in comparison to films such as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", "The Prisoner of Zenda", "Cyrano De Bergerac" (both versions), and "The Scarlet Pimpernel" with its brief sequences.
It's nice to see Meg Wynn-Owen from "Upstairs, Downstairs" in an extended bit. Overall, this is 5 out of 10, mainly of interest as a part of Scott's catalog and his signature stylistics.
Scott's dynamic media style is already more than in abundance here - striking widescreen shots, sumptuous overall cinematography, brilliant art direction, evocative score, and meticulous costume design make for a strong viewing experience.
However, this isn't anywhere close to Scott's classic films, and it's not just that Scott was getting his feet wet. In general, Ridley Scott is not a director who does much with character studies in isolation - his main characters are borne from the fruit of their dilemmas. This lends the expectation that the plot and associated physical action carry the weight of the story to create these dilemmas. This is the general thrust of most successful Scott efforts, including "Alien", "Blade Runner", and "Gladiator".
However, in "The Duellists", the dilemmas in the original story are reduced to basically a series of confrontations within differing physical environments. Since not much is happening within the story, the burden of proof, so to say, is thrown back on the characters to carry the film.
That doesn't happen here. Carradine and Keitel, both reasonably competent actors in certain mediums, are miscast, as is Diana Quick. The two male leads try hard, but Carradine lacks the physicality for the Jean Valjean-type main character and Keitel, while energetic enough, doesn't communicate enough sense of protocol to convince us that he is anything but a simpleton of a boor. In Keitel's favor, his last scene is definitely right on, but it's a bit late in the game. I found Keitel's muted Brooklyn accent to be unintentionally funny in some scenes.
The dueling scenes are surprisingly disappointing, particularly because one assumes that these career military dragoons are very skilled swordsman. The power and technical skill of the scenes pales in comparison to films such as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", "The Prisoner of Zenda", "Cyrano De Bergerac" (both versions), and "The Scarlet Pimpernel" with its brief sequences.
It's nice to see Meg Wynn-Owen from "Upstairs, Downstairs" in an extended bit. Overall, this is 5 out of 10, mainly of interest as a part of Scott's catalog and his signature stylistics.
The slippery pair of boots
chaos-rampant30 August 2012
I come to this after a week of heavily mulling over Nolan's Batman world and the failure of logical tools to explain beyond themselves. And here is a film about a deeply-seated illogical drive, and by one who inspired Nolan, by his own admission, and you can perhaps see that in the series of escalating encounters with a madness that trumps reason.
And the immersive world. Scott usually aims for this, and this is from a time he did it well. He takes from Kubrick the idea of natural light that, once the camera locks in, will look and move (and slightly breathe) like a Romantic painting. The era is Napoleon's, and at least the wintry march back from Russian defeat provides opportunity for some astonishing images.
Some words exhaust their meaning, when thrown without care; so it's not enough to call this existentialist. The story is that an army officer bears an inexplicable grudge that spans 20 years and half of Europe.
Everything you need to know is in the last scene, expertly executed. The idea is that something deeply not-logical gnaws and eats at man's soul and sniffs for blood. And that men, this is strictly male, have lived with this aspect of self for so long, we have developed separate not-logical tools that allow us to not only instinctively respond to the call, however reluctantly, and in spite of recognition of how insane it is, but to silently respect and defend it as its own kind of logic (in our case, the concept of honor).
In the last scene, we have two men seeking each the other to eliminate him from existence, as simple as that. It's the oldest game men have played, and the same thrill resurfaces across poker tables and football. It's got to have something of death in it, if it is to matter at all.
And I have a book called Bushido: The Soul of Japan here with me, retrieved from a shelf because the film sparked an interest, that explains how the blade is the samurai's extension of soul and imbued with the same discipline.
The two rivals have fenced for the entire film, but settle on pistols for the deciding duel, and wander about in a forest, two shots each, meaning they will be able to instantly discharge what is in their soul.
Each man in the shot he takes reveals who they are, one of them rash and impertinent, and fires first, they other level-headed and reserved. The subtle context of the scene is that politics do decide war from afar, in our case the slippery (faulty) pair of boots of the aristocratic boot-maker.
Which is, in a third level, a beautiful way of putting the subtle discord strummed by the universe that creates a slippery world and illogical selves of us, dumb chance as fate.
And suffice to say, the film is British, so you will not learn it here, but in spite of the probably British-started legend, the French are historically the best tactical warriors in Europe. There is a reason why nearly every word in the modern lexicon of war is originally French, and that includes honour.
And the immersive world. Scott usually aims for this, and this is from a time he did it well. He takes from Kubrick the idea of natural light that, once the camera locks in, will look and move (and slightly breathe) like a Romantic painting. The era is Napoleon's, and at least the wintry march back from Russian defeat provides opportunity for some astonishing images.
Some words exhaust their meaning, when thrown without care; so it's not enough to call this existentialist. The story is that an army officer bears an inexplicable grudge that spans 20 years and half of Europe.
Everything you need to know is in the last scene, expertly executed. The idea is that something deeply not-logical gnaws and eats at man's soul and sniffs for blood. And that men, this is strictly male, have lived with this aspect of self for so long, we have developed separate not-logical tools that allow us to not only instinctively respond to the call, however reluctantly, and in spite of recognition of how insane it is, but to silently respect and defend it as its own kind of logic (in our case, the concept of honor).
In the last scene, we have two men seeking each the other to eliminate him from existence, as simple as that. It's the oldest game men have played, and the same thrill resurfaces across poker tables and football. It's got to have something of death in it, if it is to matter at all.
And I have a book called Bushido: The Soul of Japan here with me, retrieved from a shelf because the film sparked an interest, that explains how the blade is the samurai's extension of soul and imbued with the same discipline.
The two rivals have fenced for the entire film, but settle on pistols for the deciding duel, and wander about in a forest, two shots each, meaning they will be able to instantly discharge what is in their soul.
Each man in the shot he takes reveals who they are, one of them rash and impertinent, and fires first, they other level-headed and reserved. The subtle context of the scene is that politics do decide war from afar, in our case the slippery (faulty) pair of boots of the aristocratic boot-maker.
Which is, in a third level, a beautiful way of putting the subtle discord strummed by the universe that creates a slippery world and illogical selves of us, dumb chance as fate.
And suffice to say, the film is British, so you will not learn it here, but in spite of the probably British-started legend, the French are historically the best tactical warriors in Europe. There is a reason why nearly every word in the modern lexicon of war is originally French, and that includes honour.
Conrad + Scott = Great Film
trenton_scott16 December 1999
With Conrad's story-telling ability and Scott's superb eye, how can you miss? You cannot! This is a superb film. It is my favorite Scott feature and resides in my top-five list. Now, if only Scott would adapt another of Conrad's great short-stories....
Quest for honor in swordplay
Atavisten21 May 2005
How good this is caught me totally off guard, with 'Alien' and 'Bladerunner' I knew that Ridley Scott could turn out a good movie, but to do great sci-fi and then go on to a dueling duo in the times of the Napoleon wars is truly something.
Because of an insult Feraud cant seem to duel back his honor easily from D'Hubert and the obsession with which he keeps the feud alive has the determination of a true madman. D'Hubert has second thoughts all the time, but keeps bumping into Feraud a number of times during the passing of the Napoleon wars as they both serve in the army and for the sake of his honour he cant very well refuse to duel with him. Feraud on the other hand is ice cold and after revenge for something so small and silly that he probably has forgot.
Harvey Keitel fits perfectly as Feraud and together with his role in 'Bad Lieutenant' makes him a brilliant actor. Keith Carradine plays D'Hubert very convincing as well. To set them up against each other was a good idea.
Something that is often lost in bigger scale fight scenes is the tension and dynamics that is excellently brought forth here. From the stances and four - five - six powerful strikes afterwards one of them are potentially dead. In fact I don't know of fight scenes with as much power as seen here, though 'Gladiator' comes close. For pure action Ridley Scott is a master.
Without having read the book by Joseph Conrad it can truly be said that the script is a successful adaptation of it, one of many similar traits with 'Barry Lyndon'.
The outdoor scenes are so fresh that you feel the morning mist on your breath and the compositions has some sense of the art of the time, the sense that is also present when a stilleben of bread and wine is framed. Also similar to 'Barry Lyndon' is the fine use of the zoom lens. How this could be a debut is beyond me, but the other Scott, namely Tony also made a damn fine debut with 'The Hunger'. Too bad he couldn't follow up as Ridley did.
Flutes and violins add up to a perfect score.
Because of an insult Feraud cant seem to duel back his honor easily from D'Hubert and the obsession with which he keeps the feud alive has the determination of a true madman. D'Hubert has second thoughts all the time, but keeps bumping into Feraud a number of times during the passing of the Napoleon wars as they both serve in the army and for the sake of his honour he cant very well refuse to duel with him. Feraud on the other hand is ice cold and after revenge for something so small and silly that he probably has forgot.
Harvey Keitel fits perfectly as Feraud and together with his role in 'Bad Lieutenant' makes him a brilliant actor. Keith Carradine plays D'Hubert very convincing as well. To set them up against each other was a good idea.
Something that is often lost in bigger scale fight scenes is the tension and dynamics that is excellently brought forth here. From the stances and four - five - six powerful strikes afterwards one of them are potentially dead. In fact I don't know of fight scenes with as much power as seen here, though 'Gladiator' comes close. For pure action Ridley Scott is a master.
Without having read the book by Joseph Conrad it can truly be said that the script is a successful adaptation of it, one of many similar traits with 'Barry Lyndon'.
The outdoor scenes are so fresh that you feel the morning mist on your breath and the compositions has some sense of the art of the time, the sense that is also present when a stilleben of bread and wine is framed. Also similar to 'Barry Lyndon' is the fine use of the zoom lens. How this could be a debut is beyond me, but the other Scott, namely Tony also made a damn fine debut with 'The Hunger'. Too bad he couldn't follow up as Ridley did.
Flutes and violins add up to a perfect score.
A bit overrated
mpalanco2 September 2005
A recurring duel lasting 15 years between two napoleonic hussars with American accent, serves Ridley Scott to film a bland picture. The production is, literally and appropriately, named "An Enigma" and Conrad's original story is transmuted into a series of pictorially sumptuous and vacuous portraits of the Napoleonic Wars.
Harvey Keitel (Feraud) and Keith Carradine (D'Hubert), with their tiny plaits and allegedly elegant uniforms, show us that ridicule is nothing to be scared of. Resentful though motiveless Feraud embarks himself on a consistently interrupted sword-fight against an even-tempered D'Hubert. In an age where honour is an appetite, Feraud is apparently the only one who suffers from an eccentric kind of hunger for satisfaction.
Even though echoes of Barry Lyndon run through the film, they are distant and lacking Kubrick's attention to utmost detail and his narrative structure. In fact, it is difficult to establish which aspect of the story Ridley Scott is interested in. There are no attempts at inventiveness in the plot, original mise-en-scène, characters properly drawn or understanding of this fascinating period.
However there are no ostensibly off putting elements and his craftsmanship, acquired as a set designer for the BBC and as director of thousand of TV commercials, becomes palpable. In spite of the fact that it is not an inspired debut, "The Duellist" is of an acceptable standard and probably above average for Scott's career, which unfortunately will not derive much benefit from evolution.
Harvey Keitel (Feraud) and Keith Carradine (D'Hubert), with their tiny plaits and allegedly elegant uniforms, show us that ridicule is nothing to be scared of. Resentful though motiveless Feraud embarks himself on a consistently interrupted sword-fight against an even-tempered D'Hubert. In an age where honour is an appetite, Feraud is apparently the only one who suffers from an eccentric kind of hunger for satisfaction.
Even though echoes of Barry Lyndon run through the film, they are distant and lacking Kubrick's attention to utmost detail and his narrative structure. In fact, it is difficult to establish which aspect of the story Ridley Scott is interested in. There are no attempts at inventiveness in the plot, original mise-en-scène, characters properly drawn or understanding of this fascinating period.
However there are no ostensibly off putting elements and his craftsmanship, acquired as a set designer for the BBC and as director of thousand of TV commercials, becomes palpable. In spite of the fact that it is not an inspired debut, "The Duellist" is of an acceptable standard and probably above average for Scott's career, which unfortunately will not derive much benefit from evolution.
A hidden Gem
bubatd24 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
a beautiful movie with exquisite photography & score that evokes splendidly what the Napoleonic era could very well have been like, the premise is very simple but i really enjoyed the way it was explored, a seemingly insignificant incident based on a misunderstanding escalates into a ridiculous decade long series of duels between two antagonists, one of which is really rather reluctant and the other completely driven by this desire to avenge what he perceives as a slight to his honor, all set against a backdrop of the sweeping events of the Napoleonic Wars raging across Europe
The cast, Locations and atmosphere are fantastic, i'm really surprised this film isn't more well know, a classic movie in my book,
The cast, Locations and atmosphere are fantastic, i'm really surprised this film isn't more well know, a classic movie in my book,
A little Boring
VikingBurialService8 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Not bad, but just kind of boring. Basically, two guys have ongoing duels over the course of several years in Napoleonic era France. The actual duels were good, but the best ones were at the start, and the later ones were sort of lackluster and didn't show as much choreographic effort. I got less and less engaged as the movie went on.
This should be ranked much higher
tempestnam24 December 2009
Unlike films of critical acclaim like "The GodFather" or "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" - this classic movie goes completely unnoticed by the Public.
I don't know how to explain the 7.4, I can't find fault with this film as to why one would rate it that low other than the budget didn't allow for the same Epic making of other classic films. Or maybe the ambiguous ending, but to me the ending made perfect since for both the main characters personalities.
Without a doubt the best sword fighting scenes I have ever seen in a movie. Pirates of the Caribbean has nothing on this. The scenes look entirely natural (not CGId or seemingly choreographed, but what real sword fighting might be like...at times elegant, at times sloppy merely surviving) I think a difference is many people give films like The Godfather, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the 10 out of 10 nod because EVERYONE does. Without objectively viewing and determining the film for themselves they believe it is great. This film is just as good as those films and on a much smaller budget.
I don't know how to explain the 7.4, I can't find fault with this film as to why one would rate it that low other than the budget didn't allow for the same Epic making of other classic films. Or maybe the ambiguous ending, but to me the ending made perfect since for both the main characters personalities.
Without a doubt the best sword fighting scenes I have ever seen in a movie. Pirates of the Caribbean has nothing on this. The scenes look entirely natural (not CGId or seemingly choreographed, but what real sword fighting might be like...at times elegant, at times sloppy merely surviving) I think a difference is many people give films like The Godfather, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, the 10 out of 10 nod because EVERYONE does. Without objectively viewing and determining the film for themselves they believe it is great. This film is just as good as those films and on a much smaller budget.
paints a natural picture
SnoopyStyle26 August 2016
In Napoleonic France, Lieutenant Armand d'Hubert (Keith Carradine) is sent to arrest Lieutenant Gabriel Feraud (Harvey Keitel) for fighting a duel. Feraud takes offense at a slight during the arrest and challenges him to a duel. The men fight but are stopped by Feraud's mistress. D'Hubert is sent back to the front with his men. Months later, Feraud challenges d'Hubert once again. D'Hubert is severely injured. After recovering, they fight again but this time to a standstill. D'Hubert is promoted to captain and it's forbidden for different ranks to duel. Years later, Feraud is now a captain. He runs into d'Hubert and they clash once again. Their paths continue to cross and their duel is reignited again and again.
Director Ridley Scott paints a natural picture of the era. The fights are visceral and real. There is a pointlessness to these fights that is based on old ideas of honor. It can get repetitive. The actors are fine and Keitel is compelling whenever he gets on the screen. Keitel's obsessive character is far more interesting than d'Hubert and would be a much more intense character study. This is a somewhat meandering story that is punctuated whenever Keitel shows up. It's an impressive theatrical directorial debut for Ridley Scott.
Director Ridley Scott paints a natural picture of the era. The fights are visceral and real. There is a pointlessness to these fights that is based on old ideas of honor. It can get repetitive. The actors are fine and Keitel is compelling whenever he gets on the screen. Keitel's obsessive character is far more interesting than d'Hubert and would be a much more intense character study. This is a somewhat meandering story that is punctuated whenever Keitel shows up. It's an impressive theatrical directorial debut for Ridley Scott.
A Flawless Miracle.
eyesour27 December 2012
Ridley Scott obviously recruited God as his Assistant Director in this, one of the two or three most marvellous films I've seen. After 75 years I've seen a few. Perfectly cast, perfectly written, perfectly acted, perfectly directed and perfectly shot. Towards the end Ridley simply said: we need to bathe the scene in sunlight here; and God obliged. The scene is reminiscent of a famous painting by Caspar David Friedrich.
At a certain point Ridley thought it would add spice if the horses started to love each other, and God agreed. There are the usual occasional half-witted reviews, by people who can't understand what the story is about, or who object to the accents. Do these people have the faintest idea what early 19th century French sounded like? Keitel and Carradine were perfect in their parts, accent-wise and every other-wise.
Given the reported budget of a farcical $900,000, these actors must all have played their parts for nothing. So Finney walked off with a crate of champagne.
It is sadly true, and must be accepted, that Scott must have taken some notice of clunky Barry Lyndon, in particular the natural lighting. It's as if Scott said to himself, I think I can see what you're trying to do, Stanley. I'll just show you how to do it.
I saw Kubrick's Lyndon, many years ago, and, except for the lighting, it struck me, end to end, as utterly tedious, pointless garbage. Kubrick was essentially little more than a somewhat mediocre stills photographer.
The Duellists is multi-layered, subtle, thought-provoking; historically, politically, socially, psychologically, stimulating. It raises questions, and suggests answers.
It is known that Conrad fairly closely based his tale on the animosity recorded between two actual Napoleonic officers, named Dupont and Fournier. Fournier gained the soubriquet "El Demonio". These two fought at least 30 duels over a 19 year period, starting in 1794. Dupont referred to Fournier as "the worst subject of the Grande Armée". Look them up.
The Duellists reminds me of what Polanski said about Chinatown: that he didn't realise he had created what others called a masterpiece. It's time the public, and perhaps Scott himself, began to understand that with this film he created a true masterpiece, for all ages. But the self-appointed connoisseurs voted for Vertigo, God Help Us.
At a certain point Ridley thought it would add spice if the horses started to love each other, and God agreed. There are the usual occasional half-witted reviews, by people who can't understand what the story is about, or who object to the accents. Do these people have the faintest idea what early 19th century French sounded like? Keitel and Carradine were perfect in their parts, accent-wise and every other-wise.
Given the reported budget of a farcical $900,000, these actors must all have played their parts for nothing. So Finney walked off with a crate of champagne.
It is sadly true, and must be accepted, that Scott must have taken some notice of clunky Barry Lyndon, in particular the natural lighting. It's as if Scott said to himself, I think I can see what you're trying to do, Stanley. I'll just show you how to do it.
I saw Kubrick's Lyndon, many years ago, and, except for the lighting, it struck me, end to end, as utterly tedious, pointless garbage. Kubrick was essentially little more than a somewhat mediocre stills photographer.
The Duellists is multi-layered, subtle, thought-provoking; historically, politically, socially, psychologically, stimulating. It raises questions, and suggests answers.
It is known that Conrad fairly closely based his tale on the animosity recorded between two actual Napoleonic officers, named Dupont and Fournier. Fournier gained the soubriquet "El Demonio". These two fought at least 30 duels over a 19 year period, starting in 1794. Dupont referred to Fournier as "the worst subject of the Grande Armée". Look them up.
The Duellists reminds me of what Polanski said about Chinatown: that he didn't realise he had created what others called a masterpiece. It's time the public, and perhaps Scott himself, began to understand that with this film he created a true masterpiece, for all ages. But the self-appointed connoisseurs voted for Vertigo, God Help Us.
" Honor is restored when both sides decide that living is more important than dying "
thinker169122 June 2012
War during the 19th century is fought on a grand scale, with thousands of soldiers butchering each other without really knowing why. Originating from an original true story written by noted novelist Joseph Conrad, this movie is called " The Duellists. " Directed by none other than Ridley Scott, it relates the tale of two Officers Lt. D'Hubert and Lt. Feraud ( Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel) who elect to duel over a trivial matter which spans the length of 15 years. In the backdrop of the Napoleonic war, their personal duel is swallowed up by the events of the era. The drama takes the audience across boarders and in all seasons. The acting is superior as well as the locations in which this film is set. Among the familiar faces is Pete Postlethwaite, Albert Finney, Edward Fox, Tom Conti, Alun Armstrong and narrated by Stacy Keach. All in all, this is one of those rare film which will in time become a Classic for the director as well as the stellar cast. Great movie and easily recommended. ****
Napoleon without Napoleon
Criticalstaff31 August 2023
I enjoyed watching the first half of this film, during the second I became incredibly bored. It was truly a chore to finish. Yes, the settings and costumes are amazing and the film looks spectacular, but the characters are awfully underdeveloped and the story is incredibly bland. Every time someone started talking I could fall asleep. Dialog scenes are very dull, and it turns out not even that important. There legit just there to set up the next duel. The first two duels are kinda cool, but there is so little happening in between the duel sequences that it makes you lose interest in the whole affair. You spend the movie literally waiting for the next duel to happen. And it isn't exactly riveting. It does not help that Harvey Keitel, the most charismatic actor, has very few lines. The story ends up being told form the point of view of Keith Carradine. He might be a good looking dude, but he is the most soporific protagonist.
It was only towards the end of the film, literally after the last duel, that the meaning of the film dawned on me. It turns out it was film about Napoleon, but told in an roundabout metaphoric kind of way. On paper I love that. Even though the film adopts a quite Anglo-British reading on the character, it's fine. The movie juxtaposes the duellists' confrontations with the ongoing Napoleonic campaigns. Each duel is set up at noteworthy places and you get to feel those wars from the inside so to speak. That is very cool.
The only issue is that the movie only works on that level, i.e. The metaphorical one; it only works if you see d'Hubert as an avatar of the Enlightment and Ferraud as Napoleonic ruthlessness. As such it completely neglects the immediate story of its actual characters. The film is permeated with delicate indirect meaning and subtle references (my favorite is in a quick shot in a crowed pub where we see Ferraud with the Legion of Honor pinned on his chest, exemplifying that he is the type of character that this type of regime would promote and celebrate). Yet, it is crucially devoid of direct meaning and outright significance. In other words, the plot makes no sense and these two guys have little reason to be duelling all the time.
It is very reminiscent of Barry Lyndon and you also get an effort of visual composition in this film. However, I would categorically rate Kubrick's film higher. Here it seems the vision is similar but the script is too weak to deliver a movie that stands on its own. I guess it is an entertaining film if you're a true Napoleon nerd. It is a slow film with a rather thin import, if you aren't an eager history buff then unfortunately there is not much to go on.
It was only towards the end of the film, literally after the last duel, that the meaning of the film dawned on me. It turns out it was film about Napoleon, but told in an roundabout metaphoric kind of way. On paper I love that. Even though the film adopts a quite Anglo-British reading on the character, it's fine. The movie juxtaposes the duellists' confrontations with the ongoing Napoleonic campaigns. Each duel is set up at noteworthy places and you get to feel those wars from the inside so to speak. That is very cool.
The only issue is that the movie only works on that level, i.e. The metaphorical one; it only works if you see d'Hubert as an avatar of the Enlightment and Ferraud as Napoleonic ruthlessness. As such it completely neglects the immediate story of its actual characters. The film is permeated with delicate indirect meaning and subtle references (my favorite is in a quick shot in a crowed pub where we see Ferraud with the Legion of Honor pinned on his chest, exemplifying that he is the type of character that this type of regime would promote and celebrate). Yet, it is crucially devoid of direct meaning and outright significance. In other words, the plot makes no sense and these two guys have little reason to be duelling all the time.
It is very reminiscent of Barry Lyndon and you also get an effort of visual composition in this film. However, I would categorically rate Kubrick's film higher. Here it seems the vision is similar but the script is too weak to deliver a movie that stands on its own. I guess it is an entertaining film if you're a true Napoleon nerd. It is a slow film with a rather thin import, if you aren't an eager history buff then unfortunately there is not much to go on.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
