Movie Review: The Last Duel Is An Intense Film On Consent
By the end of The Last Duel, I had said, “Oh My God!” so much, I thought I was Christian. There were so many times I grimaced at the brutality and violence of the film because director Ridley Scott has a real knack for capturing the humanity that makes inhumanity so horrible like, Squid Games. The things people would do to get what they want is an alarming issue in human history, especially as it is defined by the several times we fought over property. Yet, when a human being, a woman, is considered something a man owns, consent never truly exists or do you care if a jar of Mayo wants to be opened? Sure, that sounds like a dark thought, but The Last Duel is dark and, on October 15, it throws its Medieval cap in the Oscars race/ in theaters and converts it into your thinking cap.
Based on a true story, The Last Duel takes place in 1386 Paris at “The Last Duel” ever recorded in its Medieval Era, and it was done for a crime that even today struggles to be prosecuted: rape. Divided into three parts, the first chapter is dedicated to Matt Damon’s Jean De Carrouges whom puts on his best “Jan 6. Mullet” and Capitol Riot shift his way through the screen to be the most “honorable,” dislikable guy. He measures life solely according to what he owns, which is why he DESPISES Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver): a squire rising in ranks through his talent, wits, and charm, of which Carrouges used his name and knightly brutality. The vindictiveness from these “once-friends” brews through irony at their complete unawareness of their self-centeredness and unkindness. In fact, most of the men that cross through the screen are so self-absorbent sponges are jealous of them.
Ben Affleck is a complete charm/ jerk at what might be the very first “publicist” of 14th century. His ability to spin a room or story to his favorite helps him protect Jacques but that protection wanes in the face of people’s desire for violence. If there is one thing I admired of Ben, Matt, and Nicole Holofcener’s screenplay is that it puts a mirror to human cruelty by showing its root in our vanity and desire to watch a tragedy. Perhaps, it is our very own penchants for jealousy and selfishness that makes us watch the “car-crash” unraveling before us or, in this case, the duel. Yet, Le Gris “one-ups the notch” by using vanity to assure the car drives off a cliff and burns to ash. He is completely oblivious to the fact that if a woman says, “No,” it is NO.
No matter how you frame consent, even with the “favorite tossed scenario” of “she wanted to but she was playing hard to get,” no means no. In the same way, that if a man wants something he will reveal it, so will a woman, and if you have doubt, trust it, and step aside. These are basic rules for human interaction, but Marguerite (Jodie Comer) is not human to either her husband (Jean) or rapist (Jacques). Both see her as some type of “land battle,” of which they fought over many properties . Though Jacques swears he is in love, he never cares for her consent or pleasure. Like her husband, he only sees what he can get out of her and how she makes him feel. Unfortunately, for Marguerite, if kindness is considered foolish to have as a man, it is dangerous to have as a woman.
As women, we live in a “damn if you do or don’t” situation, and Jodie Comer stunningly reveals the pain of never knowing what reaction will protect your from a man. If we shame a man, he can kills us,. If we are kind to a man, he can fall in love and then kill us. It is hard to measure when sweetness or sour will protect you from his desire because that is all that matter to him: his desire. Yet, despite their cruelty, the viciousness of the last duel makes you wonder what is justice without bloodlust, vengeance, and devastation guiding it. Like Marguerite, you know you want some type of resolution for the issued pain she is caused, but you cry with her as she discovers a virtue cannot prevail if it is defined by sins.
Jean wanted glory, Jacques wanted love, and Marguerite wanted justice. Yet, in a world that only applies value according to what and how much you own neither ever found their desired virtue. Systemic cruelty works not simply by deriving your worth materially, but assuring you do, as well, and even if you try to combat this very derivation, it will turn society against you so you fall in line. For poor Marguerite, her bravery was dragged in the mud because she wanted justice, not destruction, but in a “property-driven” world no one could tell the difference.
