When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was at the theatre waiting to see another movie. The trailer didn't catch my attention until I noticed Adam Driver. I have known him after his Ben Skywalker performance in the contemporary Star Wars series. Not that I like him very much, it was just about recognizing a face, hence getting my attention to the rest of the trailer. At that point, I thought this movie was going to be about King Arthur.
Second time I saw the trailer for this movie, I was at the theatre waiting to see another movie. This time I remembered that I had seen this trailer before and this time I watched it more carefully. Then understood the story more correctly this time---it had nothing to do with King Arthur, my bad. From the trailer, one can deduce at least two things, it is a period movie and there is a woman to whom nobody believes she's telling the truth about something. This is something I can empathize with.
Finally, the movie came out and this time I went to the theatre to see the movie itself, not its trailer. Along the way, I had learned that the movie is based on a book and the book is based on a real story. Knowing this made the movie much more intense---it was already going to be an intense movie.
I have already mentioned Adam Driver. His performance was not bad. He played a bad guy. If he keeps playing bad guys in movies, I am afraid it might stick to him. Oh well, not my problem. Matt Damon looks very different in this movie. Not only he is older now but also the beard style and the hair they gave him makes him hard to recognize. His acting performance in this movie was definitely fantastic. Jodie Comer, you might remember her from Free Guy. Who knew she is gradually becoming a big actress. Her role, specifically, was a role that is tough to undertake. Ben Affleck looks very different in this movie, too. I had a hard time recognizing him even though I knew he was going to be in the movie (I know I am bad with faces but, I mean, they made him blond). I definitely wouldn't want to be friends with Ben Affleck's character---he is a horrible person.
The story of the movie takes place in 1300s. Right, you get to see how daily life was in those days. How their houses were, how their clothes were, etc. All that is good. But you also see how their understanding of science was in those days and how their understanding of justice was. This struck me the most. Of course, we all know science developed over the years so it was expected that they didn't know much in those days. Still, seeing them talk that way, was sad (and funny---because we know the right explanations now). It was extra painful to see the place of the women in that society. How hard they attacked the woman in the trial with such personal questions stupefied me.
You may wonder, well, this movie is called The Last Duel, but is it really the last duel? Yes, in fact, it is. The duel that takes place in this movie is the last judicial duel in France. Normally, it wasn't going to be the last duel, because the last duel had already happened---trial by combat was discontinued in the country. But there was an exception in this case and they were allowed to do trial by combat when the court hearing was inconclusive. So, here you go, you can watch the last officially recognized judicial duel at cinemas now. Of course, the person who allowed this duel to happen was King Charles. Speaking of which, maybe not earlier in the movie but later in the movie, the actor who plays Charles (Alex Lawther) performs spectacularly. Especially, you should pay attention to him when he is watching the duel.
The movie starts with the set up of the last duel, then takes us back to show the events that led to this duel, then concludes with how the duel went and who won. I must say the director is showing off with this movie. Ridley Scott is really a talented director. You may perhaps remember him---he was the director of the movie Alien. Let's look at "then takes us back to show the events that led to this duel" closer. It shows us the events in three chapters. No, not by breaking the timeline into three, but by breaking the perspectives into three. In all three chapters, the timeline and events are the same. Same scenes shot again and again. Each chapter is how the events took place in a main character's eyes. Things happen very differently in some instances and they are only slightly different in other instances. The last chapter is how events happened through the eyes of the woman. And they show it to you the last because only she knows the truth (and so you wait very anxiously till the end to see the truth---at least I did).
Now, you may wonder, wasn't it boring to watch the same events over and over again? The answer is no. It is true that the events were essentially the same but seen or interpreted by someone else each time so there were some differences. The first chapter is how Jean de Carrouges perceived the events and the second chapter is how Jacques Le Gris perceived the events. Since they were at war and at other places together, the first two chapters had many repeated events. But in the third chapter, when we are seeing the events from the eyes of Marguerite de Carrouges, things change up a bit since technically she was at home while the men were at war and she wasn't in the story until she married Jean. If the third chapter had repeated all the same as the first two chapters, I think it would probably have been boring but this wasn't the case so boredom was successfully avoided.
This method of showing the events was a nice touch on this movie. I had thought, since they were called 'chapters' on the movie screen too, that this was how the book was written. But, no. I checked the book and so this must really be the director's idea. Or, perhaps it's the writers of the movie which, I must add here, includes Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. In any case, the praise goes to the movie.
I give 8/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment