Ask any film-goer familiar with Ridley Scott’s work and the
movies he will be associated with are likely to be one of his blockbusters such
as Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Blade
Runner, Black Hawk Down, Hannibal, or even Prometheus, all of which Scott directed. But it is unlikely that
anyone will have seen or could recall his debut film The Duellists, which if re-released today could possibly make the
box office jingle in response to the footfalls of knowledgeable cineastes.
The Duellists is
a small budget film that resembles a big budget movie, tastefully photographed with
a host of remarkable performances by a handful of talented actors. It is a film
with finesse and subtlety rarely encountered among debut films. It is a film
that introduces the viewer to a director who loves his craft and can hone it to
perfection. It is not surprising that The
Duellists went on to win the Cannes film festival’s best debut film award
in 1977. None of his later, more popular Oscar-nominated films ever made the
competition grade of the Cannes or the Berlin Film Festivals. The Venice film
festival thought Scott’s film Legend
(1985) was good enough for its competition line-up but the film failed to win
any award. If we discount the three unsuccessful Oscar nominations for his
later films, the Cannes festival award for The
Duellists is truly Scott’s crowning artistic achievement to date. And yet
few moviegoers today are even aware of this lovely impressive work that is
superior to his later commercially successful works.
Honorably waiting for the duelling opponent to arrive |
Now Ridley Scott is not a director who can develop his own
original screenplay for his movies. He is one of those directors who utilize
published works that are crying out loud to be made into great works of cinema.
It takes talent to spot such works, and Ridley Scott found it in Joseph
Conrad’s The Duel, a novella of some
60-odd pages. Various directors of repute have attempted to film Conrad’s works
and have tasted success—Richard Brooks with Lord Jim (1965), Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse, Now (1979) that cleverly in incorporated Conrad’s Heart of Darkness into a modern Vietnam war tale, Hitchcock
with Sabotage (1936) incorporating
Conrad’s The Secret Agent, and Polish
director Andrzej Wajda with his Shadow
Line (1976). Conrad’s written works, like Shakespeare’s works, often make
great movies, provided they are well directed. Ridley Scott’s adaptation of
Conrad’s The Duel falls in that
category.
Directors who choose to film Conrad’s works are interested
in delving into unusual human characters:
their moral growth, their hubris and eventually their fall from grace.
Conrad did not develop heroes, he developed anti-heroes. Conrad’s father
introduced his son to the works of Victor Hugo (specifically Toilers of the Sea)—and although to this
critic’s knowledge no literary or movie critic has perceived the closeness of
Hugo’s Les Miserables and Conrad’s The Duel, the two works have distinct
parallel plot developments.
Playing with light and shadows indoors: the cinematography capturing the mind of the principal character, with books strewn on the floor... |
..and the picture postcard exteriors of cinematographer Frank Tidy |
The Duellists is about two honorable
officers Gabriel Ferraud (Harvey Keitel) and Armand d’Hubert (Keith Carradine) of two
different French Hussar regiments of
Napoleon’s army. Ferraud is brash and
argumentative, while d’Hubert is quiet and reflective. That they are excellent soldiers is apparent
as the film and novella reveals—eventually over decades both characters get
promoted from mere Lieutenants to Brigadiers-General in their respective
regiments. Early in Conrad’s tale,
d’Hubert unfortunately was ordered by his superior to arrest Ferraud for having
grievously hurt a politically connected man in a fair duel, and d’Hubert does
locate Ferruad in the company of a noble lady to reveal his purpose. For
Ferruad, this was a dishonorable act as he was shamed in front of a lady, and
challenges d’Hubert to a duel forthwith. Thus begins a series of honorable
duels between the two officers in the novella/movie.
Ferraud (Kietel) and d'Hubert (Carradine) duel |
Laura (Diane Quick) realizes that "nothing cures a duellist" |
No duel is completed as in each duel one of the duellists is
grievously hurt. For Ferraud, the duel has to be completed even after decades
of incomplete duelling as he sees it as a matter of honor and challenges
d’Hubert whenever their paths cross. Armand d’Hubert loses Laura, his mistress,
over these series of absurd unending series of duels. Laura had come to realize
that “nothing cures a duellist” and even taunts Ferraud as a man who could beat
a woman to death. But at the final duel between
the two principal characters, there is a
winner and a loser. Intrinsically the tale is very much like Hugo’s Les Miserables where an honorable
convict is pursued by a policeman who believes it is his honorable mission to
arrest the convict again, over the decades long pursuit.
Ridley Scott was making his first feature film and he used
the adapted screenplay written by Gerald Vaughan-Hughes, a screenplay-writer
who had only one obscure but entertaining movie called Sebastian (1968) to his credit apart from some TV movies. One
cannot guess how much Scott contributed to the screenplay and how much of the
final work belonged to Vaughan-Hughes. Between the two of them, they recreated a
brilliant opening sequence, a fascinating end sequence, and an incredible
sequence of the two principal characters meeting in Russia as Napoleon’s army
is defeated by the freezing cold temperatures. The visuals—whether it is the
white geese in the opening shot or the clouds over a deep and silent river in
the final shot—tell a psychological story that complements the actions of the
principal characters.
These afore-mentioned three sequences in The Duellists will be indelible from
the memory of any student of good cinema. These three sequences show the mettle
of the director and screenplay-writer.
The opening sequence is how a young girl, guiding a gaggle of geese,
perceives the absurdity of bloody duels between adults—a lovely picture of innocence
versus gory games of “honor.” Conrad’s tale was just about that and Scott/ Vaughan-Hughes
introduce the viewer to just that only a few minutes into the film.
Similarly, the final scene shows Ferraud (Kietel) contemplating a river flowing below silently for several minutes. Nothing happens. Not a word is spoken. Scott and Vaughan-Hughes achieve in this sequence what most other directors would have achieved with dialog. Here visuals and the silence do the talking.
An innocent girl watches the outcome of a gory duel |
Offering a drink in cold Russia to a duelling opponent--honor of a different kind |
Similarly the actions of Ferraud and d’Hubert in the Russia
sequence reveal the differences and commonality of what honor means to both the
principal characters. Again the spoken words are minimized—the verbal
interaction is replaced by body movements. This is pure cinema that Conrad would
have been proud to see on screen if he were alive—better than Peter O’Toole’s
Lord Jim or Marlon Brando’s Kurtz. Scott had chosen Kietel and Carradine over
the original choice of Oliver Reed and Michael York because of budgetary constraints,
but the performances of the former duo tuned out to be exquisite. So are the brief roles of Albert Finney, Robert Stephens, Diane Quick, Tom Conti, Edward Fox, John McEnery and the late Pete Postlethwaite (in his first screen appearance). Kietel’s brash and argumentative personality
serves as the opposite of Carradine’s reserved and calculating persona of two
very honorable Hussar officers. Ridley
Scott was able to guide the viewer inside the mind and soul of the anti-hero in
each of us, to re-evaluate the concepts of honor and the variants acceptable to
different audiences. Conrad was concerned with differing mindsets that led to
the Napoleonic wars,
The final scene: clever play of light and shadow with not a word spoken |
Ridley Scott was offering the viewer a chance to question
why we take “honorable“ positions on various subjects—social and political, and
duel to the death. Scott is to be appreciated for this delectable and wholesome
film, but more so, the genius of Joseph Conrad that the film brings on screen.
A sensitive viewer will dwell on the importance of the final silent scene and
that makes the work a treat for the mind of the viewer.
P.S. Richard Brook's Lord Jim, another adaptation of a Joseph Conrad tale, was reviewed on this blog earlier.
I agree .nuff said
ReplyDeleteSir, it's so edifying to read your insightful film critiques... and this one is no different (I am sure a lot of thought and research would have gone into it too). It brought back, so vividly, to my eyes all the lovely sequences from this exception Ridley Scott movie which is very close to my heart (it was you who had introduced me to it... as so often is the case). Come to think of it, the comparison that your have drawn with Hugo's Les Miserables is indeed quite apt. Another movie that comes to my mind while speaking of "The Duellists" is Stanley Kubrick's masterful period drama Barry Lyndon. I would love to see it reviewed on your blog... hope you won't keep me waiting for long!!!
ReplyDelete