The book was a great read. My concerns are: Why did the mother-in-law take almost all the household staff on here day trip; and what happened to the one maid that had been left with Marguerite?
Obviously she detested / not trusted Marguerite. Remember that at the time she was considered the daughter of a traitor, that was no small deal in the XIV century.
@@cherier9875 I think that she might have been bribed. The mother in law needed the money since her husband died. So I can see her getting everyone out of house.
So I spent some time reading some primary and secondary sources in French (all from before the 20th century to avoid biased bullcrap like Jager) and came to the conclusion he didn't do it, which seems to be the consensus among sources that talk about the case. Basically, the most likely scenario is that the woman was indeed raped, but not by Le Gris. She told her husband when he came back home from Scotland and he used that to shit on Le Gris that he had been hating for a few years due to envying him for various political reasons. It must be noted that Carrouges was an extremely violent man who had apparently beaten his first wife to death. And his second wife, Marguerite, wasn't an old stronk woman like in the movie but actually a meek and very young woman. So basically Carrouges forced her to frame Le Gris and despite Le Gris being found innocent in several trials, he managed to obtain a duel by whining directly to the King's parliament. While on the ground and about to be finished by Carrouges, Le Gris swore his innocence (instead of confessing like people usually did before execution) with God as his witness. Several sources mention that some years later, a man sentenced to death for another crime confessed before his execution to be the one who had actually raped Marguerite de Carrouges. It's also mentioned that after her husband's death, she spent the rest of her life in a convent instead of remarrying (despite being still young) to attone for the fact she had framed an innocent. Source: That 1858 French history work on the topic on judiciary duels in France, that uses all the contemporary sources that treated the topic (Froissart, Jean Le Coq, Juvénal des Ursins, Chronique de St-Denis) If you can read French (page 128 to page 148): www.google.fr/books/edition/Le_Combat_judiciaire_en_Normandie/H1hiAAAAcAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=%22Jacques+le+Gris%22&printsec=frontcover
Why do you think she was raped at all then? He could have made up any shit at all if he wanted to frame him for something. I don't buy your thesis here. Flimsy at best
@@matko-cro-can I suggest another option /scenario for you… 😉 What if she was never raped but had an affair, falls pregnant, husband finds out (I have not been with you for a month how the hell can you be pregnant) & (like you said) forces her to lay the rape charge as a means to an end?
I like how this dude starts off with primary sources and some horse manure about being able to read French and then just ends up giving us his own made up theory with absolutely zero historical evidence to back it.
What I’m curious about, is that, in the film, Marguerite is unaware of the possible punishment she may receive because of her accusations before she makes them. I had been under the impression that she knew the possible consequences of her claim (and that further validated it in my opinion).
Yes of course she knew. The movie was great but not perfect, and this plot hole was quite annoying and made no sense historically or within the plot of the film.
this is one of the 'based on true events/story' movies that actually holds to the integrity of the true story its based upon. it plays well, and the actors are wearing their roles, as opposed to the roles wearing the actor. the pomposity and, well, corniness of the era kinda works well for the actors. i laughed at serious scenes bc im weird and derive joy from counter intuitive stuff. for example, the meticulous expo dumps via dialogue in the beginning gave me a couple laughs: 'but, ever since your wife and child died, you've never been the same... - AND I'M YOUR FRIEND!' like, you're supposed to show, not tell, and you're already showing he's de carrouge's friend, cause this scene is sculpted around two friends having a conversation. we know! but it doesnt detract from it, like i said. the pacing picks up once you hit the 3 forks, and after that, ridley scott does his thing. i thoroughly enjoyed it, i will definitely watch it again when it comes out digitally. maybe even see it in the theater again, there was a sense of uniqueness to it that just got stronger with time. music was insane, i love organs and gothic stuff, it suited the setting really well, for me. audio and visuals were just gorgeous. even if you just go for the spectacle, i'd say you could certainly do worse than the last duel. ridley scott has a way of trimming the fat where you feel like he doesnt hold the viewer in contempt, and presume we are overly stupid. there are those expo dumps, like i said, but he's clearly cut any of the stuff you'd expect to see, like them on the nose stating this duel would be the last duel sanctioned by the french court, or something along those lines. or, well, nevermind i'm not gonna go into spoilers. ok thats all for me, i have to vent my opinions bc its late and i just came back from the movie, had a great time. as i left tonight, i found myself searching for an answer to what made me see this movie, why did i come out here tonight, what motivated me? the answer i thought of in the car ride home, i will leave with you: Ridley Scott: 2 hours of Mullett Damon for 11 bucks, any takers ? me: M'lady, everything I have is yours.
I thought the movie was excellent. I suspect it will wind up becoming one of those "box office bombs" that becomes a sleeper hit over the course of time. (Also, I doubt the armor was a factor at the box office. HEMA enthusiasts and online history fanatics have a distorted notion of how much the rest of the public cares about that sort of thing. It's also not all that important to the story.)
The book is about the investigation of a true historical event. But it is a Pre-feminist story, and there are complex issues around medieval justice and a woman's place medieval society.
Great movie. I haven't read the book..but I was horrified at how women were treated back then . The fact that she could have been burnt at the stake for those reasons.
While i tend to agree that Margruite was telling the truth - there's plenty of hypothetical reasons why she (and her husband) might have made it up. LeGrite was despised by her husband, killing him solved some of their problems and indeed, their position improved markedly after the duel. Even though the film says "he died on a few years later on Crusade" - that's not quite telling the story. She might have been having an affair and he spurned her or she felt guilty. She had met LeGrite once in her life before the alleged rape - he might have been impersonated and been a different person. But on balance, the evidence shows she was likely telling the truth and was very courageous. Unlike many women even today, she raised the alarm immediately and publicly and maintained her allegation throughout the processes that followed. This is very different to the historical claims that often emerge today, years and years after the alleged events.
The movie was freaking amazing Something I find interesting… After more than 4 years together would it not be reasonable to assume the baby was not the husbands Something that also bothers me (that no-one seems to comment on) isn’t it a little convenient that she is pregnant immediately after 1 incident? Conspiracy theory: Any chance that she had multiple encounters with him and after maybe discovering she was pregnant made up this story to sqaush any rumours her “lover” might have spread about “them”? I find it amazing that with a knife to his throat, he would still swear on his innocence…
It only takes the one time that conception happens to happen - whether with your long term partner or an assailant. As for the other point, he’s about to die regardless, what does he have to gain by confession? If anything, him confessing will sully his family’s name and history - which it did anyway since he lost the duel, and decades after the case there’s still evidence of his family trying to bribe and add caveats to the books to try and clear his name posthumously - which actually did work for a couple hundred years, until modern historians looked into the details more.
it's my pet theory that the baby was Pierre's. it wasn't explicitly indicated in the film, but there were a couple or a few shots of Pierre and even one of his wife giving him a sideways glance during the duel. i think the film made it clear that although Marguerite was raped, she wasn't exactly 100% honest about everything surrounding the incident (no judgement here) which could include whose child she bore. the film made it explicitly obvious she was disgusted by her husband sexually throughout the lifetime of her marriage, and she might have even taken active measures to make sure she did not conceive Jean's child as a result of her opinion of his character. i didn't read the book and that may have been a departure from the book, but it's how i interpreted the ending.
What was the testimonies of Adam Lavell (sp) he was supposed to have been there in what you say in your book (which I have not read) and in the Movie (which I did see)? just interested.
It is sad to me, that dueling has been removed as a consideration, to address individual wrongs. Since childhood, I have wished for it's return. I see it as a manner, by which international leaders can address wrongs, thereby no longer needing to have wars....which include millions of deaths.
@@julianmitchell5776 Maybe not julian. Where I come from, here's how the rule works; Never insult a Man, you dont intend to Fight. Never Fight a Man you dont intend to Kill, for he may be trying to Kill you. That's what these men were about. Another rule for you. There are worse things than being dead. These men understood both rules Do you?
Did Le Gris do it or not? His last words as he was about to die was that on the damnation of his soul he didn’t rape her. THIS is a huge deal for a medieval era man - they would not want to say that right before they died unless they believed it! It’s possible her husband coerced her to do this as he hated Le Gris for previous disputes and he was an experienced warrior so he knew he would kill him in a duel.
Matt Damon as knight heard those words. But back then did the King and anyone in his entourage sitting in the far away stage seating area heard those word. Did anyone really heard those words???
It could also just be that he truly doesn’t believe he raped her, like many other rapists, he could’ve convinced himself that “she really wanted it”, really wanted him, so it’s not rape in his eyes. The other possibility is that he wouldn’t want to sully the le Gris name in history by confessing to rape, and rape of a married noblewoman at that. There is documented historical evidence and theories that the Le Gris family added in a byline that someone else confessed to the rape on their death bed years later (to clear their ancestor’s name) and that was accepted for a while, until modern historians re-examined the evidence and found no proof of such a confessor, hence lending credibility back to the original story that Le Gris (whose alibi fell apart when the man vouching for him, was him self tried for rape in Paris) most probably did commit the rape.
The bar for consent was extremely low. Women were merely more valuable than inanimate objects. In his mind, he only had sex with her. The profile of the husband (an insufferable man who was obsessed with what is right) does not indicate he wanted a duel over a grudge. There would have been some indication or doubt over his motives, and none of the contemporaries who talked about the event mention things which could indicate this was the case. He put himself in incredible danger since the count wanted him dead for this. The guy was brash, but he wasn't stupid to risk his wife and child just to kill his rival. Furthermore, this simply was not the mindset. Nobles simply did not try to kill other nobles, not even on the battlefield, where they would rather capture and ransom each other. The very fact he asked for a confession before trying to kill him is a very strong evidence to the fact he believed his wife, and it wasn't about their previous rivalries. Finally, he was 56, about to be a father (hopefully with a son, which every single male in the middle ages wanted), still very tired and ridden with fever from the Scottish campaign. A terrible time to decide to settle your scores in duel to the death.
I'm not surprised this film flopped, as it took the wrong approach. The film is called "the Last Duel," the climax of which is gonna be two guys fighting. You build up to that moment by fleshing out their relationship. That's what the book did. Jean Le Carouges was mostly portrayed as a sympathetic hero out to exact justice. You were deeply afraid for him and his wife. The film took a feminist angle and made Jean's wife the central focus, which was a well intentioned but structural mistake. I wish the filmmakers trusted their source material.
It's an interesting thing, book to film, film to book.... I have found that books are usually great and films seldom live up to their literary counterparts. In some rare instances, and even if not entirely true to the books, some films, like The Godfather, will live up to the book version. However, I decided some time ago that I would either read the book, or watch the film, but not both. I was halfway through a Song of Ice and Fire when I decided to put it down and start watching the TV show because of all of the hype. It's something that I would come to regret much later. Now, I did see this film, The Last Duel, but I made a decision to never read the book, which I was ok with. I really liked this film, so I think I made a pretty good decision. It's a tough thing to do, reading the book and watching the movie version of that book; at it is least for me. If you have already read the book, I hope it worked out for you.
Interesting conversation. Well done! Yes, sanctioned judicial duels continued sporadicly into the 1580s. Interestingly, Froissart's account was contemporary, but not eyewitness. He was out the country when the duel occurred. Upon returning, Froissart found this to still be an incredibly sensational event and all the talk of nobility and commoner alike, so he collected up the popular version and chronicled the fight. There were several actual eyewitnesses who chronicled as well and these are relatively consistent with one another and differ somewhat from Froissart's version. For example, the joust does not appear to have actually occurred at all. While Jean and Jaques appeared on the field on horseback, as would be fitting for such and occasion, it seems that the field "was not arranged properly" for mounted combat and they dismounted and fought entirely on foot. Also, while grappling was something that knights and squires trained in, it was not preferred to be on the ground with one's opponent when avoidable, for obvious reasons. It seems that Le Gris was thrown to the ground and dispatched via long sword thrust to his exposed posterior (because he was armed for horseback...) by Carrouges while standing, not via dagger while sitting on his chest. Personally, I agree with Froissart. A good joust and a final wrestle makes for a much better story... As far as the movie goes, a "true story film" centered on a knightly contest of arms as its climax, should have tried harder to both stick to the actual chronicled fight (Froissart or otherwise), which was well documented and plenty exciting, and not had complete trash-fantasy armor. Audiences of historical film are more sophisticated today. This utter travesty of costume design may have been one of the the things that contributed to the movie's economic failure.
The book was a great read. My concerns are: Why did the mother-in-law take almost all the household staff on here day trip; and what happened to the one maid that had been left with Marguerite?
Obviously she detested / not trusted Marguerite. Remember that at the time she was considered the daughter of a traitor, that was no small deal in the XIV century.
I wondered the same. Maybe she was bribed or distracted away by Le Gris and/or Louvel, since they had clearly planned this in advance?
Even had she been in earshot of the attack, I don't know if her testimony would have been allowed.
@@cherier9875 I think that she might have been bribed. The mother in law needed the money since her husband died. So I can see her getting everyone out of house.
You’ve got such a great voice and the interview was highly informative!
This Was “ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!” And “THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!” For “SHARING!!”…
First. I read the book years ago, it was great. I hope the movie lives up to it.
The movie looks pretty good. I heard Jodie comer has An amazing performance as Margerite
@@CashanovaXTREME Matt Damon too, for me.
Lower expectations. The movie is still riveting, I want it to win an Oscar .
it's on HBO HBO Max now
You don't forget the face of an attacker. It gets seared Into your memory.
great discussion, it really adds to the experience of this amazing movie. looking forward to get the book also
This podcast deserves many more likes than it currently has. 3k views and no where near that many likes?! Come on, people!
I also cannot wait to read this book! Just ordered it
I believe Marguerite. It was very brave of her to make the actuation .
Really enjoyed this conversation
So I spent some time reading some primary and secondary sources in French (all from before the 20th century to avoid biased bullcrap like Jager) and came to the conclusion he didn't do it, which seems to be the consensus among sources that talk about the case.
Basically, the most likely scenario is that the woman was indeed raped, but not by Le Gris.
She told her husband when he came back home from Scotland and he used that to shit on Le Gris that he had been hating for a few years due to envying him for various political reasons.
It must be noted that Carrouges was an extremely violent man who had apparently beaten his first wife to death. And his second wife, Marguerite, wasn't an old stronk woman like in the movie but actually a meek and very young woman.
So basically Carrouges forced her to frame Le Gris and despite Le Gris being found innocent in several trials, he managed to obtain a duel by whining directly to the King's parliament.
While on the ground and about to be finished by Carrouges, Le Gris swore his innocence (instead of confessing like people usually did before execution) with God as his witness.
Several sources mention that some years later, a man sentenced to death for another crime confessed before his execution to be the one who had actually raped Marguerite de Carrouges.
It's also mentioned that after her husband's death, she spent the rest of her life in a convent instead of remarrying (despite being still young) to attone for the fact she had framed an innocent.
Source: That 1858 French history work on the topic on judiciary duels in France, that uses all the contemporary sources that treated the topic (Froissart, Jean Le Coq, Juvénal des Ursins, Chronique de St-Denis)
If you can read French (page 128 to page 148):
www.google.fr/books/edition/Le_Combat_judiciaire_en_Normandie/H1hiAAAAcAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=%22Jacques+le+Gris%22&printsec=frontcover
Why do you think she was raped at all then? He could have made up any shit at all if he wanted to frame him for something. I don't buy your thesis here. Flimsy at best
@@matko-cro-can I suggest another option /scenario for you… 😉
What if she was never raped but had an affair, falls pregnant, husband finds out (I have not been with you for a month how the hell can you be pregnant) & (like you said) forces her to lay the rape charge as a means to an end?
@@rynoopperman5010 Sure. That is much more logical. But there is zero proof of that as well.
I like how this dude starts off with primary sources and some horse manure about being able to read French and then just ends up giving us his own made up theory with absolutely zero historical evidence to back it.
@@lucashawks2160 just read the book moron. I follow the view of most normal historians
Thanks for the good, clear interview. I really loved the movie and the story, though my favorite actor was not the 'good guy'.
The discussion with Eric Jager was great,helped me understand the small details of the movie.
What I’m curious about, is that, in the film, Marguerite is unaware of the possible punishment she may receive because of her accusations before she makes them. I had been under the impression that she knew the possible consequences of her claim (and that further validated it in my opinion).
Yes of course she knew. The movie was great but not perfect, and this plot hole was quite annoying and made no sense historically or within the plot of the film.
this movie was friggin awesome. I like this session you have here too. Nicely done
this is one of the 'based on true events/story' movies that actually holds to the integrity of the true story its based upon. it plays well, and the actors are wearing their roles, as opposed to the roles wearing the actor. the pomposity and, well, corniness of the era kinda works well for the actors. i laughed at serious scenes bc im weird and derive joy from counter intuitive stuff. for example, the meticulous expo dumps via dialogue in the beginning gave me a couple laughs: 'but, ever since your wife and child died, you've never been the same... - AND I'M YOUR FRIEND!' like, you're supposed to show, not tell, and you're already showing he's de carrouge's friend, cause this scene is sculpted around two friends having a conversation. we know!
but it doesnt detract from it, like i said. the pacing picks up once you hit the 3 forks, and after that, ridley scott does his thing. i thoroughly enjoyed it, i will definitely watch it again when it comes out digitally. maybe even see it in the theater again, there was a sense of uniqueness to it that just got stronger with time. music was insane, i love organs and gothic stuff, it suited the setting really well, for me. audio and visuals were just gorgeous. even if you just go for the spectacle, i'd say you could certainly do worse than the last duel.
ridley scott has a way of trimming the fat where you feel like he doesnt hold the viewer in contempt, and presume we are overly stupid. there are those expo dumps, like i said, but he's clearly cut any of the stuff you'd expect to see, like them on the nose stating this duel would be the last duel sanctioned by the french court, or something along those lines. or, well, nevermind i'm not gonna go into spoilers.
ok thats all for me, i have to vent my opinions bc its late and i just came back from the movie, had a great time. as i left tonight, i found myself searching for an answer to what made me see this movie, why did i come out here tonight, what motivated me? the answer i thought of in the car ride home, i will leave with you:
Ridley Scott: 2 hours of Mullett Damon for 11 bucks, any takers ?
me: M'lady, everything I have is yours.
I will watch it but half a helmet?
I thought the movie was excellent. I suspect it will wind up becoming one of those "box office bombs" that becomes a sleeper hit over the course of time. (Also, I doubt the armor was a factor at the box office. HEMA enthusiasts and online history fanatics have a distorted notion of how much the rest of the public cares about that sort of thing. It's also not all that important to the story.)
The book is about the investigation of a true historical event.
But it is a Pre-feminist story, and there are complex issues around medieval justice and a woman's place medieval society.
Great discussion, particularly with the author himself.
What a great interview!
fantastic yet succinct, economic introduction Danielle!
Great movie. I haven't read the book..but I was horrified at how women were treated back then . The fact that she could have been burnt at the stake for those reasons.
Best movie I’ve seen in years. My wife and I were transfixed and delighted!
Young Lady : His name is Yay- -----ger-------the J is given a Y sound instead.
While i tend to agree that Margruite was telling the truth - there's plenty of hypothetical reasons why she (and her husband) might have made it up. LeGrite was despised by her husband, killing him solved some of their problems and indeed, their position improved markedly after the duel. Even though the film says "he died on a few years later on Crusade" - that's not quite telling the story. She might have been having an affair and he spurned her or she felt guilty. She had met LeGrite once in her life before the alleged rape - he might have been impersonated and been a different person. But on balance, the evidence shows she was likely telling the truth and was very courageous. Unlike many women even today, she raised the alarm immediately and publicly and maintained her allegation throughout the processes that followed. This is very different to the historical claims that often emerge today, years and years after the alleged events.
The movie was fucking incredible
The movie was freaking amazing
Something I find interesting…
After more than 4 years together would it not be reasonable to assume the baby was not the husbands
Something that also bothers me (that no-one seems to comment on) isn’t it a little convenient that she is pregnant immediately after 1 incident?
Conspiracy theory:
Any chance that she had multiple encounters with him and after maybe discovering she was pregnant made up this story to sqaush any rumours her “lover” might have spread about “them”?
I find it amazing that with a knife to his throat, he would still swear on his innocence…
Nope. At that point you will say anything to try to save your own life.
It only takes the one time that conception happens to happen - whether with your long term partner or an assailant. As for the other point, he’s about to die regardless, what does he have to gain by confession? If anything, him confessing will sully his family’s name and history - which it did anyway since he lost the duel, and decades after the case there’s still evidence of his family trying to bribe and add caveats to the books to try and clear his name posthumously - which actually did work for a couple hundred years, until modern historians looked into the details more.
@@eshna2012 Exactly!
No.
it's my pet theory that the baby was Pierre's. it wasn't explicitly indicated in the film, but there were a couple or a few shots of Pierre and even one of his wife giving him a sideways glance during the duel. i think the film made it clear that although Marguerite was raped, she wasn't exactly 100% honest about everything surrounding the incident (no judgement here) which could include whose child she bore. the film made it explicitly obvious she was disgusted by her husband sexually throughout the lifetime of her marriage, and she might have even taken active measures to make sure she did not conceive Jean's child as a result of her opinion of his character. i didn't read the book and that may have been a departure from the book, but it's how i interpreted the ending.
What was the testimonies of Adam Lavell (sp) he was supposed to have been there in what you say in your book (which I have not read) and in the Movie (which I did see)? just interested.
I have seen the movie this week "the last duel "
Great podcast. As far as the film, I just can't get over the atrocious half visors during the duel... ridiculousness
It is sad to me, that dueling has been removed as a consideration, to
address individual wrongs.
Since childhood, I have wished for it's return.
I see it as a manner, by which international leaders can address wrongs, thereby no longer needing to have wars....which include millions of deaths.
You’d get your ass kicked though lol
@@julianmitchell5776
Maybe not julian.
Where I come from, here's how the rule works;
Never insult a Man, you dont intend to Fight.
Never Fight a Man you dont intend to Kill, for he may be trying to Kill you.
That's what these men were about.
Another rule for you.
There are worse things than being dead.
These men understood both rules
Do you?
You can catch our review of The Last Duel at ua-cam.com/video/0Ul-Gvrmc0E/v-deo.html
de gris was "the friend" no one wants
Magnificent.
Did Le Gris do it or not?
His last words as he was about to die was that on the damnation of his soul he didn’t rape her. THIS is a huge deal for a medieval era man - they would not want to say that right before they died unless they believed it!
It’s possible her husband coerced her to do this as he hated Le Gris for previous disputes and he was an experienced warrior so he knew he would kill him in a duel.
Matt Damon as knight heard those words.
But back then did the King and anyone in his entourage sitting in the far away stage seating area heard those word. Did anyone really heard those words???
It could also just be that he truly doesn’t believe he raped her, like many other rapists, he could’ve convinced himself that “she really wanted it”, really wanted him, so it’s not rape in his eyes. The other possibility is that he wouldn’t want to sully the le Gris name in history by confessing to rape, and rape of a married noblewoman at that. There is documented historical evidence and theories that the Le Gris family added in a byline that someone else confessed to the rape on their death bed years later (to clear their ancestor’s name) and that was accepted for a while, until modern historians re-examined the evidence and found no proof of such a confessor, hence lending credibility back to the original story that Le Gris (whose alibi fell apart when the man vouching for him, was him self tried for rape in Paris) most probably did commit the rape.
Did they heard them ?????!!!! Please everyone . Please tell me . DID THEY HEARD THEM ???
The bar for consent was extremely low. Women were merely more valuable than inanimate objects. In his mind, he only had sex with her. The profile of the husband (an insufferable man who was obsessed with what is right) does not indicate he wanted a duel over a grudge. There would have been some indication or doubt over his motives, and none of the contemporaries who talked about the event mention things which could indicate this was the case. He put himself in incredible danger since the count wanted him dead for this. The guy was brash, but he wasn't stupid to risk his wife and child just to kill his rival. Furthermore, this simply was not the mindset. Nobles simply did not try to kill other nobles, not even on the battlefield, where they would rather capture and ransom each other. The very fact he asked for a confession before trying to kill him is a very strong evidence to the fact he believed his wife, and it wasn't about their previous rivalries. Finally, he was 56, about to be a father (hopefully with a son, which every single male in the middle ages wanted), still very tired and ridden with fever from the Scottish campaign. A terrible time to decide to settle your scores in duel to the death.
I'm not surprised this film flopped, as it took the wrong approach. The film is called "the Last Duel," the climax of which is gonna be two guys fighting. You build up to that moment by fleshing out their relationship. That's what the book did. Jean Le Carouges was mostly portrayed as a sympathetic hero out to exact justice. You were deeply afraid for him and his wife. The film took a feminist angle and made Jean's wife the central focus, which was a well intentioned but structural mistake. I wish the filmmakers trusted their source material.
Bullshit, Lady Carouge's role is essential for context and drama.
@@harvestcanada Essential but she should not have been the main character. Take a nap.
@@kermitfrog593 she is a real person so her biography matters.
Go and watch Transformers if you want that sort of thing. 😊
@@harvestcanada Absolutely retarded comment.
Just see the movie.
forget this crap &
the lousy trailer.
The whole thing was a frame up.
I did not like Scott's portrayal; incredibly feminine. I'm content it flopped.
This is so interesting! I can't wait to read the book. I watched the movie yesterday and it was fantastic.
It's an interesting thing, book to film, film to book.... I have found that books are usually great and films seldom live up to their literary counterparts. In some rare instances, and even if not entirely true to the books, some films, like The Godfather, will live up to the book version. However, I decided some time ago that I would either read the book, or watch the film, but not both. I was halfway through a Song of Ice and Fire when I decided to put it down and start watching the TV show because of all of the hype. It's something that I would come to regret much later. Now, I did see this film, The Last Duel, but I made a decision to never read the book, which I was ok with. I really liked this film, so I think I made a pretty good decision. It's a tough thing to do, reading the book and watching the movie version of that book; at it is least for me. If you have already read the book, I hope it worked out for you.
I boycott everything Hollywood, sorry, no movie for me...Too woke and dishonest.
It's not as bad as a lot of recent ones...no odd ethnicities popping up as European nobility.
Interesting conversation. Well done!
Yes, sanctioned judicial duels continued sporadicly into the 1580s.
Interestingly, Froissart's account was contemporary, but not eyewitness. He was out the country when the duel occurred. Upon returning, Froissart found this to still be an incredibly sensational event and all the talk of nobility and commoner alike, so he collected up the popular version and chronicled the fight. There were several actual eyewitnesses who chronicled as well and these are relatively consistent with one another and differ somewhat from Froissart's version.
For example, the joust does not appear to have actually occurred at all. While Jean and Jaques appeared on the field on horseback, as would be fitting for such and occasion, it seems that the field "was not arranged properly" for mounted combat and they dismounted and fought entirely on foot. Also, while grappling was something that knights and squires trained in, it was not preferred to be on the ground with one's opponent when avoidable, for obvious reasons. It seems that Le Gris was thrown to the ground and dispatched via long sword thrust to his exposed posterior (because he was armed for horseback...) by Carrouges while standing, not via dagger while sitting on his chest.
Personally, I agree with Froissart. A good joust and a final wrestle makes for a much better story...
As far as the movie goes, a "true story film" centered on a knightly contest of arms as its climax, should have tried harder to both stick to the actual chronicled fight (Froissart or otherwise), which was well documented and plenty exciting, and not had complete trash-fantasy armor. Audiences of historical film are more sophisticated today. This utter travesty of costume design may have been one of the the things that contributed to the movie's economic failure.