I like how when he looked at the damage of his wound he whimpered, a very natural and human reaction and more believable than the Johnny Badass of most action movies that has a entire arm missing yet doesn’t bat a eye.
Sometimes, but not always. During Waterloo, Wellington’s aide famously lost his leg, glanced down and remarked, “By God sir, I’ve lost my leg.” To which Wellington replied “By God sir, so you have.”
@@Tempusverum Or (as the story goes) when Admiral Nelson was shot during the battle of Tenerife, woke up in the middle of having his arm amputated, and told the surgeon to hurry up with it, and was back in the fight half an hour later.
In Herat, Afghanistan leaving a meeting we had with the locals and we came under fire had a corporal with a hand (lost two fingers) and leg wounds that he wasn't even aware he'd been hit until our sergeant told him to sit still so our medic could get a look at him. Adrenaline is a warriors blessing.
@@Lightsoul1987 In the movie it's shown that he actually has a bad cold and probably wasn't really physically up to the duel. It's probably why he was bested so quickly in this round.
@@kamalindsey The character he's dueling played by Harvey Keitel is essentially a bully. It's implied and shown on at least one occasion in the film that he's maimed and killed men in many duels. He essentially pushes men into duels by exploiting their sense of honor and goades them into duels with a much more experienced duelist. He's also a Bonapartist and uses it as an excuse on one occasion by claiming his opponent said they would spit on the name of Napoleon or some such nonsense that the opponent never really said. My point is that he's not really an honorable man except when it suits what he wants or when he is publically constrained by it. He's in this duel to kill his opponent which is shown by his refusal to put aside the conflict despite having drawn his opponents blood. Normally an opponent showing that they are willing to spill their blood is supposed to be considered more than adequate. He's more bloodthirsty and egotistical than honorable really and likely either doesn't care that his opponent has a cold or believes it is some kind of cowardly ruse or both.
Yeah, but that was part of Kubrick's problem as a filmmaker. He was great at directing living portraits, but telling an actual story with characters was not his strong suit.
As an actual sport fencer training with the Italian National team, I can say that this is the best movie dueling scene I ever saw. In actual dueling to draw blood or make a touch, things don’t last very long. Best fencing scene ever!
@@electrictroy2010 "down and away" was a light Parry Septime - riposte to Sixte (not visible as the Keith Carradine's body blocks our view), from a very low crouched position. ruclips.net/video/5jhBHC5Az-c/видео.html
@Zachary Sturgis: So cool, to see an actual fencer say this, as I have always thought this movie did the best job of replicating what these duels must have truly been like. Thanks, for your comment!
duels were banned during napoleonic wars as they were losing too many officers , there is an instance of a duel in hyde park because a dog startled an officers horse !
deano dog i recently visited a castle of the 17th century in France. It had a beautiful garden with water works and water games. While you are contemplating a statue someone can walk on a stone and provoke some water to come out of it's nipples. Today it seems inocuous and silly, but back in the days they had to forbid swords in the garden as they would start duels over such things.
They were always technically illegal, but that was a law that "gentlemen" were expected to violate for the sake of their "honor." It was only enforced when it was convenient for those doing the enforcing.
They were banned in France since the times of Richelieu and Louis XIII they even had to execute some high noble that kept killing people in duels even after they were banned
Always loved the sheep in this scene. They must have been paid acting sheep that were told (and understood) they were playing sheep at the turn of the 19th century... when sword duels were almost obsolete, but still not that much of a rare occurrence for them to witness. They seem to have taken their direction very seriously. I say this because, every time myself and a friend went for a spot of duelling in the fields with sticks - circa 1984-5 when we were 9 or 10 - the sheep would scatter with remarkable speed every time.
@@brenbail2000 doubt it, grabbing a sword is really not that difficult, a smallsword especially. It's probably there to protect the off hand. In one handed swordfighting the off hand tends to be a common target. That's why you commonly see depictions of rapier and smallsword fighters resting their off hand at the hips or behind their back.....no, it's not there to look fancy.....I mean it does, but that's not it's intended function.
People like to throw around the whole 'honour' aspect of duelling but the real issue with it was that a small subset of duellists (who were likely psychos) always ended up getting really fucking good and would game the honour system by deliberately setting up numerous petty feuds against less experienced swordsmen whilst actively avoiding their more experienced counterparts so they could rack up higher kill counts. All it achieved was alot of dead bodies with no benefit to society at all.
He needed the firm hand of the studio to temper his madness. Once he got too big to control, he began his precipitous decline. He's the only director I can think of whose every "director's cut" is a step down from the theatrical version.
Now that his films fail he blames the audience (check out his statements regarding The Last Duel, he said "millennials" don't have the attention spans to appreciate his brilliance or some such) @@RWR1911
@@RWR1911 You can argue he's washed up, but how the hell are you gonna argue that the director's cut for Kingdom of Heaven is the lesser film compared to it theatrical counterpart?
@@christopherjohnson2171 Ridley's cut is undoubtedly better than the theatrical, but it still suffers from the plot centering around Balian being a one-dimensional Mary Sue. Which sucks, because almost everything else in the film is great. After that, Ridley started making nothing but high-production nonsense. Napoleon and the Last Duel are his "best" recent works, and they both suffer from pretty mediocre writing.
This movie is one of those things that I just can't explain why I like so much. If I was to show this to family or friends, they would likely be bored to tears, and admittedly, it isn't particularly that exciting and can be a little hard to follow at times, but to me, it's just a really good film.
It builds an enormous amount of tension and horror in something completely mundane. There is no music, no special effects other than simulated blood. It is powerful in its simplicity.
yeah, this film and barry lyndon are two absolutely gorgeous historical slow burns that i adore, but no one i know wants to sit down and watch with me on account of how long and boring they are lol
Yeah gentlemen who couldn’t figure out how to settle their grudges and show their testosteron without fucking butchering each other. We lost Pushkin to this nonsense.
Yes Brendan there is so much character(I guess is the word) in the filming you almost feel like you are there getting cold from the damp, the gentle but unnerving sound people and horses tamping about on the thick lush grass; white knuckled and nervous about to engage in a fight for your life with a maniac tyro with a chip on his shoulder who knows he's good enough to vanquish most of his adversaries.
@ Brenda. 👍 In French we call these skies " Les ciels d' Ile- de- France" or " les ciels de Normandie"....these type of sceneries attracted the pre-impressionists, and impressionists.. and there are many exemples, especially in the paintings of Monet and the fabulous Eugene Boudin ( with his famous" marines" of Normandy)
This is one of my favorite movies. I've watched it several times. Professional duelist, Feraud, is shown to possess some kind of psychological pathology that compels him to challenge people to duels for insults, perceived or real. He challenges the movie's protagonist for a perceive slight to his honor. After watching the movie several time, I think the protagonist could have handled the initial confrontation better. But he let his own macho ego influence his words and demeanor, which only served to inflame Feraud all the more. Feraud becomes a lifetime enemy of him. Yet throughout their ten plus years of repeat duelings, Feraud continues to be a stickler to the strict social rules of dueling. Feraud never takes cheap shots at the movie's hero. In the second duel, where Feraud actually wins, he pick's up the hero's swords and hands it to the second. But Feraud doesn't want simply to win. He wants to kill his hated opponent. But he wants to kill him according to the dueling rules and without the slightest shred of contention that the kill was not clean nor warranted. At movie's end, the hero wins but doesn't kill Feraud. He tells Feraud that he owns his life from now on and that he cannot breach honor by demanding another duel. The movie ends without confirming whether Feraud actually agreed to these limitations. The social convention of dueling in Europe does not explain whether the winner can spare the life of the opponent and then keep the defeated from demanding a follow-up duel. If Feraud was that psychologically fixated, I doubt he would have held to the hero's demands. Yet Feraud would never stoop to something like ambush and murder. Honor was everything to him.
I read more on the real people this film was based-on and it turns out they really didn't want to kill each other and actually sent letters to each other congratulating on promotions and such. They also went out do dinner from time to time. I read that they each signed a contract to duel each other if they were within 100 miles of each other. Excellent film.
i believe the scene at the end is metaphorical for feraud leaving his grudge behind. certainly not at peace, certainly still desiring his wanted outcome, but with no way to do so anymore after having been effectively "killed." he goes to the mountains to look upon the country that he loves, that he's fought for. why he does this is of course left unclear, but i think his reflective stillness over the majesty of France is meaningful for at least some reason.
Wow. I did not expect so many responses. I never fought a duel! Dad learned Italian Style Foil in the 1950s when he was in University in Sicily . He taught me as a boy. The technique is essentially what you see here with the small swords.People were still occasionally fighting duels there at the time. My fencing instructor in College had a mode he used for fencing for points in competition where he tried to”not get hit” .I always thought that would be how I would fence if it was for real. I think in a real duel one would not do anything that caused the distance too get too close. There would be no risky attacks or anything that caused a loss of balance. The more proficient I became as a fencer, the more I scored points on ripostes and responding to other people’s mistakes. An incorcatta in a duel would really have to be almost an act of brilliance or desperation. I encourage you all to get involved in fencing if you are interested. It is a great sport. I miss it Frank
Frank, I fenced a good bit and never encountered that particular term for that drop. Granted maybe epeé (where dropping on a lunge from 6 or 4 had plenty of merit) had a different term for it but “incorcatta” yields no results on google. Perhaps you have the words mixed up?
+Al Jackson No it will never be enough for him he's not fighting d'Hubert the actual person so much as he is fighting all the stuff he's projecting on to him .
@@BlueLineofthesky Actually effects are sometimes more practical than they used to be. For example lightsabers have become increasingly practical effects. They were fully practical in the first film (which is why they just gently tap each other because they were so fragile), then just sticks to guide the SFX team. But in the sequel movies, they are actually illuminated on set, so they really glow and light the environment. Hence why they had a fight at night.
@@HALLish-jl5mo I like films where the actors are actually talented and skilled and you can see the realism. They are not so ...spectacular in effects...but in the story and in the cameraman and director techniques. But I am just old school.
@@stormbringer2840 if they really cared about protection, they would have worn a curassier's helmet with actual steel face guards. Hussars were famously flamboyant and dashing, and dressed accordingly. The cadenettes probably were just a fashion statement to make them stand out from other soldiers. They might have had a slight utilitarian function, but it was not their primary function
@@GumaroRVillamil While that period is not the period where my interests lie, I believe that it would be inappropriate and ungentlemanly to wear a helmet in such a duel. Who will call you out for weaving metal into your hair, though, eh?
I really wish hollywood level productions would adopt this much more realistic take on combat. The tension is absolutely palpable and can still be shot theatrically, whereas most productions leave the audience with little sense of worry for the protagonist. While we might know that it is likely the hero will prevail to continue the narrative, scenes like this add a real sense of dread.
Ready to start, the duel begins The best man wins in the end A lung and a feint, a parry too late A cut to the chest and you're down Seeing the stain, then feeling the pain Feeling the sweat on your brow Oh-oh, fight for the honor Fight for the splendor Fight for the pleasure Oh-oh, fight for the honor Fight for the splendor Fight for your life ~Iron Maiden, _The Duelists_
Haha! Exactly what was playing through my mind as I watched this scene. I'd say this is exactly the scene that inspired the above lyrics by Steve Harris.
I instructed and competed as a saber fencer for a decade. Ridley Scott did a great job of capturing the mood and feel of what a true duel might have been like. Keitel had no previous training, but did very well (especially in the opening scene) to convey "mastery". Additionally, the mastery over fear is far more important than pure technique. The FEAR of being struck is a lot more dangerous than engaging someone with intelligence and even moderate skill. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
I would have cloth armor under my clothes to hold off or deflect death for a second or two. The only deadly fighting weapons are high velocity ones, like clubs, projetiles and such.
Yes! Swordsmanship isn't about knowing a bunch of exotic techniques that overwhelm your opponent, it's about imposing your will on him, controlling the situation without question... all the techniques in the world are useless against the strongest will!
This movie is a crowning achievement in Ridley Scott’s list of greats. I remember seeing this movie in ‘78. It was a spectacularly different feel than the traditional movies of its time. Barry Lyndon was also the same..
i love so many aspects of this film! The cinematography, the authenticity of the duel, shot wide-angle and no shaky cams, and sharp dialogues. Next time d'Hubert! And oh, men wearing pony tails! I think we need to revive this fashion.
I just noticed something. Harvey Keitel doesn't know for sure that he landed the hit. Then he sees the blood on the tip his blade and goes "FUCK YEAH!" What an amazing detail! 😀
The direction and cinematography in this film is remarkable! Even though it's from 1977, it still looks brilliant and absolutely gorgeous! No wonder Ridley Scott was recognized for his effort with this one.
I love how natural and unstaged everything in this film feels. It's made by details such as the gentleman who swings round to glance near the camera as they arrive, entirely on a whim as if nobody is watching him
R.Scott said he got inspired by S.Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, and indeed the two movies have a similar photography. The Duellist proves R.Scott could have been a great artist and not only a profitable entertainer. He got blunt edged after his first three great movies, Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner.
@@Retro-Future-Land Hard to say, since i don't know the man or what goes on in his head. If I had to guess I'd say that after his early success he got lazy and lost his creative edge, such things happen.
usually, fights are settled pretty quickly. a swordfight ends instantly due to a mistake of some sort like blocking, a gunfight lasts instantly due to a well aimed bullet, a dogfight lasts instantly due to a missile lock that happens. Fights can be dramatic at first because people are fearing for their lives, but once they go at it, it doesn't take long to find out who is better, and who is dead.
Actually firefights can last hours due to both parties standing behind cover and mostly firing blindly whenever they have a reason to believe the enemy is trying to get a better position, or cover fire in order to get a better position.
Actually you're wrong. BECAUSE people fear for their lives sword fights would last LONGER. You're not going to wrecklessly charge in and you're going to put more emphasis on getting out of the way of the bloody blade.
Demonix Realms It's weird how people have all of this "conventional" knowledge and experience when it comes to these things and they assume "oh historical fights end in less than a second" or something like that. They always have assumptions about the "average" fight when really I'm sure many different things could happen.
Well you are both wrong and right. The build up takes longer due to the fear. But it is true when the actual proper fighting happens and both sides 'go for it' it often ends in an instant.
I love the little details like when he picks up his sword to hand to his friend and then the friend notices and annoyingly takes it from him. It almost looks like an unscripted moment but at to the realism. Definitely don't see stuff like that in movies today.
It seems like Feraud is insistent for d'Hubert to continue despite his wound, and looks thoroughly frustrated when he doesn't. Hence him pointedly offering the sword!
Yes. That was to highlight the absurdity of two guys being insanely polite and observing all proper etiquette regarding how they are to go about killing each other. (In the fight after this, all that nicety gets flung to the wayside.)
The fellow on the left hit him with what is called an incorccata. I have used it in competition against taller opponents by inviting in the line of 6 and dropping under it. I don't think I would do it in a duel as you are left so off balance at the end of it and if you miss you are finished. The fellow on the right rather much threw himself at his opponent. Combat fencing should be much more conservative and cautious, but this makes great theater. I love the camera work.
I practice historical fencing, and I have seen a lot of incorccata, yeah, it is quite risky movement, but whell executed in the right moment it is effective because comes from below, and if the oponent is throwing a high thust, it will end him rightly.
@@Guitcad1 I think you misunderstand Frank B, although perhaps I do. I read his criticisms of the duel not as disagreement with how fencing is presented in the movie but rather individual critiques of their styles. When he says, "Combat fencing should be much more conservative and cautious," I read it more as an indictment of the incident (too much emotion leading to foolish choices) rather than being a critique of the movie. I could see some bystander making the comments Frank makes within the narrative itself.
roguishpaladin, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I actually think Frank B is more or less spot on in his assessment. I think the mistake might come in comparing these two to modern fencers who have the benefit of another two hundred years of learning but have never actually fought anyone in an actual duel to the death. I think an actual duel, where the participants are really intent on _killing_ one another would depart drastically from anything portrayed either in a movie or in a "recreation" setting where it's understood that we don't want any actual blood spilled.
I saw this excellent movie only once, but never forgot the final confrontation, when D'Hubert had Ferraud at his mercy: "You have kept me at your beck and call for fifteen years. I shall never again do what you demand of me. By every rule of single combat, from this moment your life belongs to me. Is that not correct? Then I shall simply declare you dead. In all of your dealings with me, you'll do me the courtesy to conduct yourself as a dead man. I have submitted to your notions of honor long enough. You will now submit to mine."
@@GitSnik-i3m Thanks for telling me that. I gathered when it was from listening to the dialogue, but couldn't place the uniforms. Again, much appreciated and many thanks, my good man.
@@shadowoctopus099-bf4ug The uniforms were expensive and probably played a role in reducing the number of hussar regiments raised. I believe the most common type of light cavalry in the French army at least was the chasseur - they wore green uniforms cut like the infantry's, with shakos, though elite companies might have busbies like those worn by hussars. Their regiments were probably cheaper to raise than the expensively equipped hussars.
And to think Ridley Scott made this absolute masterpiece which ticks so many boxes' story line, great acting, considered by historians to be very accurate, especially the duels and battle scenes, very believable, totally compelling and watchable and 56 years later with all that experience he makes the utter CRAP Napoleon!! i.e. having black actors play French army generals.
The black general was based on a historical black Creole general. Napoleon as a matter of fact had multiple black and mixed race generals, commanders, and other officers in his armies. But, I get it - you don't enjoy black people showing up in your historical entertainment even if they did exist in a historical sense.
I accept they may well have existed, I also as a 'white' teacher from industry back in the 1980/90s unlike many of my left wing colleagues took it upon my self to offer to teach a group of black boys who were virtually unteachable, because I could control them, taught them well so they got a decent grade in GCSE Maths. I am also of a time, who grew up believing as Martin Luther King stated that we judge a person not by the colour of their skin but by their character. BUT in this case especially in films and TV series plus having been a Photographer I am very well versed in aspects of filming where the 'positioning', placement, relevance, angle, timing and so much more that the Director has at their disposal to make a certain point. Stanley Kubrick was a master of this, and I have greatly studied his films. The difference now unlike Sidney Pointier in his film 'The Heat of the Night' was the emphasis that he was a very good policeman, intelligent and a decent person. The film also had 'context', meaning and relevance where in Napoleon the placing, positioning, camera angle on the black general did not. We had no idea who he was, why was there and relevance for the film. He may have existed but just as there were black officers in the American Civil War no way would they have been so prominently involved 'even' for Lincoln in battle strategy as the intention and impression was given in Napoleon. He was there in such a prominent position- to promote a political Woke point, which we now see in all TV adverts which are simply fantasy and simple do not exist in reality. Something, as with others like you, totally goes over your head, because you just want to see 'symbols' in films which is on par with a badge or on your T-Shirt or cap that states BLM.
@@wakeupuk3860 They didn't "may well have existed." They did. French military officers who happened to have dark skin was the contemporary reality of the time and the place. But, I get it - Scott should have excluded showing black individuals in positions of leadership and responsibility because presenting the historical reality of their participation causes people ignorant of history to wonder "why" they are there on screen fouling up their entertainment - the answer being, of course, not having to do with actual history but to force black people in leadership roles on unsuspecting snowflakes who can't appreciate history when it includes black people - even if that inclusion is a matter of historical fact.
What is amazing is that this Movie seems to be so close to Real Life. No Music in the background just the silence and how things were. The bleeting of the sheep and the clashing of the blades
The duel ending attack comes from old sword books. This attack will also be teached in modern military combat knife/bayonet training. Bending downwards until the free hand reaches the ground and then attack with an upward thrust. This attack is difficult to parry and especially effective for thrusting weapons. I have a video from around 1890, in which this attack is demonstrated with sabers.
It's a beautifully shot film. And this scene in particular with regards to the planning of the sunrise to frame the opening shot and then one long planning shot before the riders appear really is great filmmaking.
So I ask a quwstion here, after rewatching this , tense and on edge moment. Why Can't you do this anymore? Simple human moments and great story telling!!! ]
Duels had been banned in France for more than century before the events of this movie, the father of Marshal Luxembourg, one of the great generals of Louis XIV was executed in the 1620s because he keep involving himself in duels; now them being banned did little to end such practice though.
Superb photography, acting, costumes and sword fencing. It is disgraceful that film wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Costumes??? WTF?! Keitel was just outstanding, one of his best roles.
Why not? The 70's had some great cinematographers and movies. The Godfather 1 and 2, The Exorcist, Barry Lyndon, Days of Heaven, Apocalypse Now. Those are just a few American movies - there are definitely many more from Europe.
The grey uniforms are definitely 3rd Hussars. I think the green ones are 7th Hussars. Don't remember if they ever said in the movie. It's been a while since I saw it.
Napoleon's Hussar Regiments ... I do not know why ... I have a preference for this 8th Hussars ... it's not me who's written it? "In the cavalry, there was an infinity of brave men who stood out but praise must be given to the 8th for the beautiful capacity he made and the intrepidity he showed. " Marshal SOULT www.amicale-8-hussards.com/historique1.htm
The rapier was about reach and leverage, being able to get at your opponent in narrow streets. The smallsword was shorter, lighter, and stiff, more able to beat a blade out of the way. I can't imagine trying to keep track of something so narrow moving so fast. Smallsword duels must have been the most breathlessly lethal things in the world.
I remember the first time I watched this movie and the second, third ect. Each time it's gotten better and better. Masterpiece! I hope that they never do a reboot!
fantastic film genuine masterpiece especially as it is ridly scots first film both the leads are brilliant and most realistic duels in films i have ever watched not a second of flyning
I love how Harvey Keitel's character is trying to act composed after he wounded his opponent, but is clearly jacked the fuck up and cant really contain it.
Charlie Murphy on duels: Even back in the day when slapping a man was fashionable like back in Paris, you’d walk up to a man and slap him WHOSH-PAH!! I challenge you a duel! Someone had to die after that.
Most amazing thing about this scene : The sheeps in the background not running away when steel meets. Incredible presence of mind by the director. Sheeps in the 18th century were most likely used to the sound of swords clinging together. Even if not so, such an amazing little detail putting forth how often duels were fought.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I like how when he looked at the damage of his wound he whimpered, a very natural and human reaction and more believable than the Johnny Badass of most action movies that has a entire arm missing yet doesn’t bat a eye.
Sometimes, but not always. During Waterloo, Wellington’s aide famously lost his leg, glanced down and remarked, “By God sir, I’ve lost my leg.”
To which Wellington replied “By God sir, so you have.”
@@Tempusverum Or (as the story goes) when Admiral Nelson was shot during the battle of Tenerife, woke up in the middle of having his arm amputated, and told the surgeon to hurry up with it, and was back in the fight half an hour later.
@@RegisTraiter Adrenaline is OP
In Herat, Afghanistan leaving a meeting we had with the locals and we came under fire had a corporal with a hand (lost two fingers) and leg wounds that he wasn't even aware he'd been hit until our sergeant told him to sit still so our medic could get a look at him. Adrenaline is a warriors blessing.
tis but a scratch, cmon!
For some absurd reason, seeing that man suddenly feeling the urge to sneeze at a rapier duel feels strangely relatable, somehow.
smallsword
Better before the fight than in the middle if it disturbs your concentration for a moment and your opponent stabs you because of it.
@@Lightsoul1987 In the movie it's shown that he actually has a bad cold and probably wasn't really physically up to the duel. It's probably why he was bested so quickly in this round.
@@Lightsoul1987 I guess, but I think some duelists considering this was for "honor" would see it as dishonorable to take advantage of such a thing.
@@kamalindsey The character he's dueling played by Harvey Keitel is essentially a bully. It's implied and shown on at least one occasion in the film that he's maimed and killed men in many duels. He essentially pushes men into duels by exploiting their sense of honor and goades them into duels with a much more experienced duelist. He's also a Bonapartist and uses it as an excuse on one occasion by claiming his opponent said they would spit on the name of Napoleon or some such nonsense that the opponent never really said. My point is that he's not really an honorable man except when it suits what he wants or when he is publically constrained by it. He's in this duel to kill his opponent which is shown by his refusal to put aside the conflict despite having drawn his opponents blood. Normally an opponent showing that they are willing to spill their blood is supposed to be considered more than adequate. He's more bloodthirsty and egotistical than honorable really and likely either doesn't care that his opponent has a cold or believes it is some kind of cowardly ruse or both.
Every scene in this film is like a living painting.
watch kubricks barry lyndon. then you'll trully know what the phrase means.
Yes, including the vehicle tire tracks as soon as I started watching this.
Yeah, but that was part of Kubrick's problem as a filmmaker. He was great at directing living portraits, but telling an actual story with characters was not his strong suit.
I think you mean horse drawn wagon tracks
It makes me wonder if the studios wanted another Barry Lyndon.
As an actual sport fencer training with the Italian National team, I can say that this is the best movie dueling scene I ever saw.
In actual dueling to draw blood or make a touch, things don’t last very long. Best fencing scene ever!
BUT the wounded guy was not actually touched. When he says “Ow” the opponents sword is hanging down & away. Such a blatant mistake
.
How about the one from "The Deluge"?
@@electrictroy2010 "down and away" was a light Parry Septime - riposte to Sixte (not visible as the Keith Carradine's body blocks our view), from a very low crouched position. ruclips.net/video/5jhBHC5Az-c/видео.html
@Zachary Sturgis: So cool, to see an actual fencer say this, as I have always thought this movie did the best job of replicating what these duels must have truly been like. Thanks, for your comment!
@@ianhopcraft9894 This is exactly correct.
duels were banned during napoleonic wars as they were losing too many officers , there is an instance of a duel in hyde park because a dog startled an officers horse !
deano dog i recently visited a castle of the 17th century in France. It had a beautiful garden with water works and water games. While you are contemplating a statue someone can walk on a stone and provoke some water to come out of it's nipples. Today it seems inocuous and silly, but back in the days they had to forbid swords in the garden as they would start duels over such things.
They were always technically illegal, but that was a law that "gentlemen" were expected to violate for the sake of their "honor." It was only enforced when it was convenient for those doing the enforcing.
They were banned in France since the times of Richelieu and Louis XIII they even had to execute some high noble that kept killing people in duels even after they were banned
deano dog The original snowflakes- killing each other over minor issues.
@@darthkek1953 you sound like a fresh nazi online.
And the actual duel lasts for like 3 seconds. Masterpiece
But remember this was a duel to the first blood, not to death. And the falcon glove didn't want to continue anyways...
Ever played Bushido Blade on the PS1? Could literally be ended with the first stroke or last for several hours, theoretically speaking.
@@tilasole3252 Also the new Hellish Quart
Yes, actually.
Like most fist fights in real life. You know who's gonna win within the first combined 3-4 punches.
Always loved the sheep in this scene. They must have been paid acting sheep that were told (and understood) they were playing sheep at the turn of the 19th century... when sword duels were almost obsolete, but still not that much of a rare occurrence for them to witness. They seem to have taken their direction very seriously. I say this because, every time myself and a friend went for a spot of duelling in the fields with sticks - circa 1984-5 when we were 9 or 10 - the sheep would scatter with remarkable speed every time.
underrated comment
Obrychsky
Several of their performances were commendable, but the others were just chewing the scenery.
They added Valium to the grass clippings. Probably.
They worked for scale
Most polite duellists.
"A second mate, I gotta sneeze."
"Take your time."
This is Europe. Violent but polite.
They eventually settled Canada.
Forget the sneeze...what is that glove on the sneezers left hand?
Adam Smith This is a guess... Might it be used for grabbing the opponents blade?
@@brenbail2000 doubt it, grabbing a sword is really not that difficult, a smallsword especially. It's probably there to protect the off hand.
In one handed swordfighting the off hand tends to be a common target. That's why you commonly see depictions of rapier and smallsword fighters resting their off hand at the hips or behind their back.....no, it's not there to look fancy.....I mean it does, but that's not it's intended function.
People like to throw around the whole 'honour' aspect of duelling but the real issue with it was that a small subset of duellists (who were likely psychos) always ended up getting really fucking good and would game the honour system by deliberately setting up numerous petty feuds against less experienced swordsmen whilst actively avoiding their more experienced counterparts so they could rack up higher kill counts.
All it achieved was alot of dead bodies with no benefit to society at all.
fludblud I guess it's a good thing Samuel Colt created the equalizer.
Yup. Now everyone is equally a jerk.
Alejandro Garcia lmao!
so 1800s version of a tryhard
Jason Twist the fk u talking about, Conor has way more victories than defeats
I loved this because it really showed just how fast real sword fights are.
BUT the wounded guy was not actually touched. When he says “Ow” the opponents sword is hanging down & away. Such a blatant mistake
.
How fast they can be, rather.
@@electrictroy2010 I'm sorry you don't have eyes...
This is fencing, completely different to swordfighting.
Much much faster.
They're both soldiers after all
Back when ridley scott made masterpieces
He needed the firm hand of the studio to temper his madness. Once he got too big to control, he began his precipitous decline. He's the only director I can think of whose every "director's cut" is a step down from the theatrical version.
@@RWR1911 What? I can't watch the theatrical Blade Runner or Kingdom of Heaven anymore, the director's cut is so much better.
Now that his films fail he blames the audience (check out his statements regarding The Last Duel, he said "millennials" don't have the attention spans to appreciate his brilliance or some such) @@RWR1911
@@RWR1911 You can argue he's washed up, but how the hell are you gonna argue that the director's cut for Kingdom of Heaven is the lesser film compared to it theatrical counterpart?
@@christopherjohnson2171 Ridley's cut is undoubtedly better than the theatrical, but it still suffers from the plot centering around Balian being a one-dimensional Mary Sue. Which sucks, because almost everything else in the film is great.
After that, Ridley started making nothing but high-production nonsense. Napoleon and the Last Duel are his "best" recent works, and they both suffer from pretty mediocre writing.
This movie is one of those things that I just can't explain why I like so much. If I was to show this to family or friends, they would likely be bored to tears, and admittedly, it isn't particularly that exciting and can be a little hard to follow at times, but to me, it's just a really good film.
It builds an enormous amount of tension and horror in something completely mundane. There is no music, no special effects other than simulated blood. It is powerful in its simplicity.
That's how I feel about Master and Commander
BUT the wounded guy was not actually touched. When he says “Ow” the opponents sword is hanging down & away. Such a blatant mistake
.
@@Synthetic-Rabbit
NoOoo, nothing to see..!
yeah, this film and barry lyndon are two absolutely gorgeous historical slow burns that i adore, but no one i know wants to sit down and watch with me on account of how long and boring they are lol
WAIT A SECOND!
I need to sneeze, don't kill me yet.....
Okay, go.
Yes, that was to highlight the absurdity of the whole thing-agreeing to kill each other in a polite, gentlemanly fashion.
@@Guitcad1 The intent of a duel is not to kill, but to settle disputes, typically on a first blood basis.
That were the time of gentlemen
Yeah gentlemen who couldn’t figure out how to settle their grudges and show their testosteron without fucking butchering each other.
We lost Pushkin to this nonsense.
@@IZn0g0uDatAll and Lermontov and Galois and American dude who I don't remember the name
The light in the sky is quite beautiful. One of the greatest visual films ever made. So many good shots.
Yes Brendan there is so much character(I guess is the word) in the filming you almost feel like you are there getting cold from the damp, the gentle but unnerving sound people and horses tamping about on the thick lush grass; white knuckled and nervous about to engage in a fight for your life with a maniac tyro with a chip on his shoulder who knows he's good enough to vanquish most of his adversaries.
@ Brenda. 👍 In French we call these skies " Les ciels d' Ile- de- France" or " les ciels de Normandie"....these type of sceneries attracted the pre-impressionists, and impressionists.. and there are many exemples, especially in the paintings of Monet and the fabulous Eugene Boudin ( with his famous" marines" of Normandy)
yes lighting is gorgeous in this film
Yet, the sun suddenly disappears when the scene changes closer on the duel.
it has a gradient filter.
Don't u just hate it when u start sneezing at a rapier duel?
no rapier, but smallsword. Rapiers were way to outrated by the XIX century.
Gabriel Olmedo yeah, my bad
Guns make noise, blades dont. Better to have the right tool for the right job.
*Smallswords*
Emp Effects Calls the other guy a nerd, but is on a video about sword dueling? Why are you here?
God the fucking realism. I have to say, this is the most beautiful and realistic scene I have ever watched in a movie.
GoldenTV3 My favourite duel scene of any movie.
Darryvon __ Haha, hard to please. Point us towards a film duel that does impress you.
I pity the white man then.
@@littlehorseyhorsey I pity your blatantly obvious stupidity.
BUT the wounded guy was not actually touched. When he says “Ow” the opponents sword is hanging down & away. Such a blatant mistake
.
This is one of my favorite movies. I've watched it several times. Professional duelist, Feraud, is shown to possess some kind of psychological pathology that compels him to challenge people to duels for insults, perceived or real. He challenges the movie's protagonist for a perceive slight to his honor. After watching the movie several time, I think the protagonist could have handled the initial confrontation better. But he let his own macho ego influence his words and demeanor, which only served to inflame Feraud all the more. Feraud becomes a lifetime enemy of him. Yet throughout their ten plus years of repeat duelings, Feraud continues to be a stickler to the strict social rules of dueling. Feraud never takes cheap shots at the movie's hero. In the second duel, where Feraud actually wins, he pick's up the hero's swords and hands it to the second. But Feraud doesn't want simply to win. He wants to kill his hated opponent. But he wants to kill him according to the dueling rules and without the slightest shred of contention that the kill was not clean nor warranted. At movie's end, the hero wins but doesn't kill Feraud. He tells Feraud that he owns his life from now on and that he cannot breach honor by demanding another duel. The movie ends without confirming whether Feraud actually agreed to these limitations. The social convention of dueling in Europe does not explain whether the winner can spare the life of the opponent and then keep the defeated from demanding a follow-up duel. If Feraud was that psychologically fixated, I doubt he would have held to the hero's demands. Yet Feraud would never stoop to something like ambush and murder. Honor was everything to him.
The real protagonist was an hell of a fighter. He is the only leader of cavalry to have successfully broke 3 carte formations.
I read more on the real people this film was based-on and it turns out they really didn't want to kill each other and actually sent letters to each other congratulating on promotions and such. They also went out do dinner from time to time. I read that they each signed a contract to duel each other if they were within 100 miles of each other. Excellent film.
i believe the scene at the end is metaphorical for feraud leaving his grudge behind. certainly not at peace, certainly still desiring his wanted outcome, but with no way to do so anymore after having been effectively "killed." he goes to the mountains to look upon the country that he loves, that he's fought for. why he does this is of course left unclear, but i think his reflective stillness over the majesty of France is meaningful for at least some reason.
It would be very dishonorable to take advantage of someone's mercy.
based on joseph conrads excellent story which is available on the internet
Wow. I did not expect so many responses.
I never fought a duel! Dad learned Italian Style Foil in the 1950s when he was in University in Sicily . He taught me as a boy. The technique is essentially what you see here with the small swords.People were still occasionally fighting duels there at the time.
My fencing instructor in College had a mode he used for fencing for points in competition where he tried to”not get hit” .I always thought that would be how I would fence if it was for real.
I think in a real duel one would not do anything that caused the distance too get too close. There would be no risky attacks or anything that caused a loss of balance. The more proficient I became as a fencer, the more I scored points on ripostes and responding to other people’s mistakes.
An incorcatta in a duel would really have to be almost an act of brilliance or desperation.
I encourage you all to get involved in fencing if you are interested. It is a great sport. I miss it
Frank
I fence at URI.
I dont fence but i chased a man with shawarma knife once
I used to fence (60 now) but a beat attack is best. Blade is forcefully diverted and a follow up thrust quick and deadlly. Surprise is the key.
Frank, I fenced a good bit and never encountered that particular term for that drop. Granted maybe epeé (where dropping on a lunge from 6 or 4 had plenty of merit) had a different term for it but “incorcatta” yields no results on google. Perhaps you have the words mixed up?
@@krossbolt4100 Suprise IS the key! I find that when my opponent makes an obvious beat, I can easily retreat, parry, repost.
Loved this movie. The way the Keith Carradine character outwitted his obsessive compulsive opponent towards the end was text book brilliant.
Those uniforms, the hair styles, amazing
Keitel's character is probably the biggest prick in cinematic history. He won the duel. Wasn't that enough?
+Al Jackson No it will never be enough for him he's not fighting d'Hubert the actual person so much as he is fighting all the stuff he's projecting on to him .
+Edward Corran Yup, Keitel couldn't ride or fence. Still quite a performance!
In the same vein as this film, I think Tim Roth in Rob Roy played Archibald Cunningham as a bigger prick than Keitel in The Duelists.
I would say Don Logan is a pretty good match for Keitel....
That say a lot about his acting performance
It is amazing how much sword skill these great actors have. No CGI at that time. Just pure talent. I have seen the movie sop many times.
pretty sure CGI is still not much used in movie swordfights
@@DaveDexterMusic But they fight in a green environment inside a studio. Everything else is added using AI technologies.
@@BlueLineoftheskythat’s not how it works
@@BlueLineofthesky Actually effects are sometimes more practical than they used to be.
For example lightsabers have become increasingly practical effects. They were fully practical in the first film (which is why they just gently tap each other because they were so fragile), then just sticks to guide the SFX team.
But in the sequel movies, they are actually illuminated on set, so they really glow and light the environment. Hence why they had a fight at night.
@@HALLish-jl5mo I like films where the actors are actually talented and skilled and you can see the realism. They are not so ...spectacular in effects...but in the story and in the cameraman and director techniques. But I am just old school.
The Duellists is such a great movie, and for it to be Ridley Scotts debut feature film makes it even more incredible.
Carradine is psyching him out, comparable to a batters stepping out of the batter's box, good show Mr. Carradine.
who is Carradine?
imagine someone like manny pacquiao doing dueling back than.
just some agile little target thats quick as fuck
@@jaysenkov1574 Keith Carradine on the right.
@@getthegoods420 being little would've been no good at all - longer sword arm offers great advantage in an otherwise even fight
@@getthegoods420, imagine Pacquiao fighting Tyson.
That's what I thought.
THE best and most realistic movie fencing scenes ever
except maybe for the swooshing swords.
@@cheeseandonions9558 swords swoosh irl? what?
I'm digging the double man-braids with the moustache
Well, what can you say? They _are_ French after all.
Do you actually know what the braids where for ? They put piece of wood and metal in it to somehow block a slash to face and neck .
@@stormbringer2840 if they really cared about protection, they would have worn a curassier's helmet with actual steel face guards. Hussars were famously flamboyant and dashing, and dressed accordingly. The cadenettes probably were just a fashion statement to make them stand out from other soldiers. They might have had a slight utilitarian function, but it was not their primary function
@@GumaroRVillamil While that period is not the period where my interests lie, I believe that it would be inappropriate and ungentlemanly to wear a helmet in such a duel. Who will call you out for weaving metal into your hair, though, eh?
Nevin Hughes I wonder if the actor, Harvey Keitel, got fun bearing them.
I really wish hollywood level productions would adopt this much more realistic take on combat. The tension is absolutely palpable and can still be shot theatrically, whereas most productions leave the audience with little sense of worry for the protagonist. While we might know that it is likely the hero will prevail to continue the narrative, scenes like this add a real sense of dread.
Ready to start, the duel begins
The best man wins in the end
A lung and a feint, a parry too late
A cut to the chest and you're down
Seeing the stain, then feeling the pain
Feeling the sweat on your brow
Oh-oh, fight for the honor
Fight for the splendor
Fight for the pleasure
Oh-oh, fight for the honor
Fight for the splendor
Fight for your life
~Iron Maiden, _The Duelists_
ruclips.net/video/zMuFcsl1a2Y/видео.html
Wasn't Bruce Dickinson-- or some other member of Iron Maiden-- a serious fencing enthusiast?
@@gregrock7451 Yep. Bruce placed 6th worldwide in fencing sometime in the early 2000s.
🤘🏻🤘🏻
Haha! Exactly what was playing through my mind as I watched this scene. I'd say this is exactly the scene that inspired the above lyrics by Steve Harris.
This is a gorgeous looking film.
I like how minilist this movie is. No epic music during the duels. Just quiet tension.
I instructed and competed as a saber fencer for a decade. Ridley Scott did a great job of capturing the mood and feel of what a true duel might have been like. Keitel had no previous training, but did very well (especially in the opening scene) to convey "mastery".
Additionally, the mastery over fear is far more important than pure technique. The FEAR of being struck is a lot more dangerous than engaging someone with intelligence and even moderate skill.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
I would have cloth armor under my clothes to hold off or deflect death for a second or two. The only deadly fighting weapons are high velocity ones, like clubs, projetiles and such.
Yes! Swordsmanship isn't about knowing a bunch of exotic techniques that overwhelm your opponent, it's about imposing your will on him, controlling the situation without question... all the techniques in the world are useless against the strongest will!
This movie is a crowning achievement in Ridley Scott’s list of greats. I remember seeing this movie in ‘78. It was a spectacularly different feel than the traditional movies of its time. Barry Lyndon was also the same..
i love so many aspects of this film! The cinematography, the authenticity of the duel, shot wide-angle and no shaky cams, and sharp dialogues. Next time d'Hubert! And oh, men wearing pony tails! I think we need to revive this fashion.
I just noticed something. Harvey Keitel doesn't know for sure that he landed the hit. Then he sees the blood on the tip his blade and goes "FUCK YEAH!" What an amazing detail! 😀
Even then he does not immediately realise it is a serious hit and thinks he only nicked d'Hubert.
Yes, it's because with a smallsword you can't even feel the impact, so efficient a piercer is the weapon.
"You're gonna be alright! You're gonna be alright! Say the god danm word! SAY IT!"
resrrvoir dogs?
"OK I'M ALRIGHT" *Whimpers*
son?
Hard to believe but this feud is based on historical fact.
last duel take place during 60's if i remember correctly (or late 50's). During De Gaulle government
I didn't know that, thank's.
No, duel between 2 deputee. De Gaulle said no (so it was between 1950-1970), they did their duel. First blood, end.
The Buddhist call anger one of the Three Poisons. How well evidenced here in this cautionary tale.
SweetieJar was merely reminding that the last historical duel in France happened in 1967 between 2 MPs under De Gaulle's presidency.
The direction and cinematography in this film is remarkable! Even though it's from 1977, it still looks brilliant and absolutely gorgeous! No wonder Ridley Scott was recognized for his effort with this one.
I love how natural and unstaged everything in this film feels. It's made by details such as the gentleman who swings round to glance near the camera as they arrive, entirely on a whim as if nobody is watching him
R.Scott said he got inspired by S.Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, and indeed the two movies have a similar photography. The Duellist proves R.Scott could have been a great artist and not only a profitable entertainer. He got blunt edged after his first three great movies, Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner.
yes.
yeah what happened . . . he had such an amazing start
Agreed, he went down hill as an artist rapidly after his first three. It was sad to watch, he could have been one of the greats.
@@devindevon What caused him to go downhill?
@@Retro-Future-Land Hard to say, since i don't know the man or what goes on in his head. If I had to guess I'd say that after his early success he got lazy and lost his creative edge, such things happen.
usually, fights are settled pretty quickly. a swordfight ends instantly due to a mistake of some sort like blocking, a gunfight lasts instantly due to a well aimed bullet, a dogfight lasts instantly due to a missile lock that happens. Fights can be dramatic at first because people are fearing for their lives, but once they go at it, it doesn't take long to find out who is better, and who is dead.
Actually firefights can last hours due to both parties standing behind cover and mostly firing blindly whenever they have a reason to believe the enemy is trying to get a better position, or cover fire in order to get a better position.
Actually you're wrong. BECAUSE people fear for their lives sword fights would last LONGER. You're not going to wrecklessly charge in and you're going to put more emphasis on getting out of the way of the bloody blade.
Demonix Realms Yeah so many stupid assumptions here. Keyboard warriors lmao.
Demonix Realms It's weird how people have all of this "conventional" knowledge and experience when it comes to these things and they assume "oh historical fights end in less than a second" or something like that. They always have assumptions about the "average" fight when really I'm sure many different things could happen.
Well you are both wrong and right. The build up takes longer due to the fear. But it is true when the actual proper fighting happens and both sides 'go for it' it often ends in an instant.
I love the little details like when he picks up his sword to hand to his friend and then the friend notices and annoyingly takes it from him. It almost looks like an unscripted moment but at to the realism. Definitely don't see stuff like that in movies today.
It seems like Feraud is insistent for d'Hubert to continue despite his wound, and looks thoroughly frustrated when he doesn't. Hence him pointedly offering the sword!
Yes you do
Ridley Scott’s first, and in my opinion, still his best film.
Every scene is a visual masterpiece
This deserves a remaster/restored version released on blu-ray.
got wrecked in 3 seconds, please uninstall
Bwahahahaha
anon omous That's actually how long most duels actually went.
reroll nub
lol, software defect?
Welcome to Dark Souls?
Did that guy pause the duel to sneeze?
yes, a respectable duel, and he was having something that'd be an issue come up.
Yes. That was to highlight the absurdity of two guys being insanely polite and observing all proper etiquette regarding how they are to go about killing each other.
(In the fight after this, all that nicety gets flung to the wayside.)
I can sneeze with y eyes open. No eyeballs pop out.
Such is the frailty of organic civilizations.
When a sneeze-lover sees what may be the last chance to sneeze.
The fellow on the left hit him with what is called an incorccata. I have used it in competition against taller opponents by inviting in the line of 6 and dropping under it. I don't think I would do it in a duel as you are left so off balance at the end of it and if you miss you are finished. The fellow on the right rather much threw himself at his opponent. Combat fencing should be much more conservative and cautious, but this makes great theater. I love the camera work.
I practice historical fencing, and I have seen a lot of incorccata, yeah, it is quite risky movement, but whell executed in the right moment it is effective because comes from below, and if the oponent is throwing a high thust, it will end him rightly.
Frank B Nothing beat the time I attempted a fleche attack on my instructor and he tripped me and sent me flying on my face for my troubles.
i think that's what sells it though,
it's the fact that the left guy HAD to pull that move to win, he was so close to losing
@@Guitcad1 I think you misunderstand Frank B, although perhaps I do. I read his criticisms of the duel not as disagreement with how fencing is presented in the movie but rather individual critiques of their styles. When he says, "Combat fencing should be much more conservative and cautious," I read it more as an indictment of the incident (too much emotion leading to foolish choices) rather than being a critique of the movie. I could see some bystander making the comments Frank makes within the narrative itself.
roguishpaladin, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I actually think Frank B is more or less spot on in his assessment. I think the mistake might come in comparing these two to modern fencers who have the benefit of another two hundred years of learning but have never actually fought anyone in an actual duel to the death. I think an actual duel, where the participants are really intent on _killing_ one another would depart drastically from anything portrayed either in a movie or in a "recreation" setting where it's understood that we don't want any actual blood spilled.
I saw this excellent movie only once, but never forgot the final confrontation, when D'Hubert had Ferraud at his mercy:
"You have kept me at your beck and call for fifteen years. I shall never again do what you demand of me. By every rule of single combat, from this moment your life belongs to me. Is that not correct? Then I shall simply declare you dead. In all of your dealings with me, you'll do me the courtesy to conduct yourself as a dead man. I have submitted to your notions of honor long enough. You will now submit to mine."
Then D'Hubert goes back to his home and wife. Ferraud on the other hand once his duelling obsession is taken from him is left with nothing
We know what was said, for we saw it, too.
I love the costumes and hairstyles in this film. I’ve never seen another historical film with this kind of look. Absolutely beautiful!
Those uniforms are so beautiful. You can see why these men are proud and believe in their strength, skill and prestige.
French Napoleonic period.
@@GitSnik-i3m Thanks for telling me that. I gathered when it was from listening to the dialogue, but couldn't place the uniforms. Again, much appreciated and many thanks, my good man.
the French hussars (and hussars of other nations) were very much loved by their uniforms and appearances and they took pride in it
@@robowisanveithasung6022 Absolutely. How could one not have pride in such?
@@shadowoctopus099-bf4ug The uniforms were expensive and probably played a role in reducing the number of hussar regiments raised. I believe the most common type of light cavalry in the French army at least was the chasseur - they wore green uniforms cut like the infantry's, with shakos, though elite companies might have busbies like those worn by hussars. Their regiments were probably cheaper to raise than the expensively equipped hussars.
You know a scene is realistic when an actor sneezes in it. I think its the first time that i have seen that happen actually
Given he had a handkerchief it might have been scripted.
Tbh everyone wore hankies back then
Every second of this scene looks like a painting... It's beyond words
And to think Ridley Scott made this absolute masterpiece which ticks so many boxes' story line, great acting, considered by historians to be very accurate, especially the duels and battle scenes, very believable, totally compelling and watchable and 56 years later with all that experience he makes the utter CRAP Napoleon!! i.e. having black actors play French army generals.
The black general was based on a historical black Creole general. Napoleon as a matter of fact had multiple black and mixed race generals, commanders, and other officers in his armies. But, I get it - you don't enjoy black people showing up in your historical entertainment even if they did exist in a historical sense.
I accept they may well have existed,
I also as a 'white' teacher from industry back in the 1980/90s unlike many of my left wing colleagues took it upon my self to offer to teach a group of black boys who were virtually unteachable, because I could control them, taught them well so they got a decent grade in GCSE Maths.
I am also of a time, who grew up believing as Martin Luther King stated that we judge a person not by the colour of their skin but by their character.
BUT in this case especially in films and TV series plus having been a Photographer I am very well versed in aspects of filming where the 'positioning', placement, relevance, angle, timing and so much more that the Director has at their disposal to make a certain point. Stanley Kubrick was a master of this, and I have greatly studied his films.
The difference now unlike Sidney Pointier in his film 'The Heat of the Night' was the emphasis that he was a very good policeman, intelligent and a decent person. The film also had 'context', meaning and relevance where in Napoleon the placing, positioning, camera angle on the black general did not. We had no idea who he was, why was there and relevance for the film. He may have existed but just as there were black officers in the American Civil War no way would they have been so prominently involved 'even' for Lincoln in battle strategy as the intention and impression was given in Napoleon.
He was there in such a prominent position- to promote a political Woke point, which we now see in all TV adverts which are simply fantasy and simple do not exist in reality.
Something, as with others like you, totally goes over your head, because you just want to see 'symbols' in films which is on par with a badge or on your T-Shirt or cap that states BLM.
@@wakeupuk3860 They didn't "may well have existed." They did. French military officers who happened to have dark skin was the contemporary reality of the time and the place. But, I get it - Scott should have excluded showing black individuals in positions of leadership and responsibility because presenting the historical reality of their participation causes people ignorant of history to wonder "why" they are there on screen fouling up their entertainment - the answer being, of course, not having to do with actual history but to force black people in leadership roles on unsuspecting snowflakes who can't appreciate history when it includes black people - even if that inclusion is a matter of historical fact.
@@wakeupuk3860the black general (Alexandre Dumas) did actually exist, but his portrayal in the movie is handled poorly in terms of historicla accuracy
30 seconds just psyching each other out, waiting for an opening...then 3 seconds of explosive fighting. Got to love the pacing in this film. Superb!
William Hobbs choreography is simply brilliant. His 1973 work on The Three (and Four) Musketeers movies are incredibly realistic and creative.
Overlooked, underrated film. The whole short film is just great. Seen it once or twice. There are messages in it .
it was his debut... He knew he was good, but there were no overt messages in this movie. Americans hated it. But Europeans loved it.
@@cheeseandonions9558 They must be idiots if they can't see the message: accept an apology and don't let hatred destroy you
@@Kelly14UK You're thinking like an American... maybe it's an anglo thing...
The cinematography in this whole scene is so beautiful. A wonderful film really.
Masterpiece. Needs more recognition as one of Ridley's very best films.
What is amazing is that this Movie seems to be so close to Real Life. No Music in the background just the silence and how things were. The bleeting of the sheep and the clashing of the blades
This film is a classic. Absolutely sumptuous from start to finish.
00:56 stunning imagery.
The duel ending attack comes from old sword books. This attack will also be teached in modern military combat knife/bayonet training. Bending downwards until the free hand reaches the ground and then attack with an upward thrust. This attack is difficult to parry and especially effective for thrusting weapons. I have a video from around 1890, in which this attack is demonstrated with sabers.
A low stop-thrust.
You have a video from 1890? what?
It's a beautifully shot film. And this scene in particular with regards to the planning of the sunrise to frame the opening shot and then one long planning shot before the riders appear really is great filmmaking.
This is quite simply one of the finest films ever made. I have watched it many times, and it never fails to entertain me.
So I ask a quwstion here, after rewatching this , tense and on edge moment. Why Can't you do this anymore? Simple human moments and great story telling!!!
]
I am a Napoleonic War history nut and I just love this movie
I love how the swords ring when they hit each other. Most movie swords sound like metal yardsticks clashing together.
This is why they outlawed dueling. so many good men who's lives were lost for nothing.
Using their fist could have been better, but no... let's be divas and kill each other in a fancy way! Punching is for lowlives!
They tried to ban it as it was quite a waste of aggressive officers, but even Napoleon had trouble making bans of duelling stick.
Duels had been banned in France for more than century before the events of this movie, the father of Marshal Luxembourg, one of the great generals of Louis XIV was executed in the 1620s because he keep involving himself in duels; now them being banned did little to end such practice though.
Superb photography, acting, costumes and sword fencing. It is disgraceful that film wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Costumes??? WTF?! Keitel was just outstanding, one of his best roles.
The movie was made for people with high IQ, who at least are good in chess.
The way he picks up his sword and pushes it towards him. Even though he is already wounded. There is such murderous hatred in that simple gesture.
As one of the characters says to Feraud later in the film "You feed your spite off him."
Such a magnificent cinematography, can't believe that it's from 1977.
When I think "romantic" I'm thinking late autumn trees... I absolutely agree
Why not? The 70's had some great cinematographers and movies. The Godfather 1 and 2, The Exorcist, Barry Lyndon, Days of Heaven, Apocalypse Now. Those are just a few American movies - there are definitely many more from Europe.
@@aliensoup2420 People seem to think that nothing was ever good before they were around ;)
The grey uniforms are definitely 3rd Hussars. I think the green ones are 7th Hussars. Don't remember if they ever said in the movie. It's been a while since I saw it.
correct
3:37 red coat third hussars
So, I'm guessing they acted as witnesses/constables to the duel so as to say it was a duel and not outright murder
Napoleon's Hussar Regiments ...
I do not know why ...
I have a preference for this 8th Hussars ... it's not me who's written it?
"In the cavalry, there was an infinity of brave men who stood out
but praise must be given to the 8th for the beautiful capacity he made
and the intrepidity he showed. "
Marshal SOULT
www.amicale-8-hussards.com/historique1.htm
Harvey’s character is in the 7th Hussars, it is said in the beginning of the movie
The hussars uniforms make this movie so much more interesting
I agree... The attention to the detail was incredible in this movie, at least as as historical accuracy goes.
THIS IS ONE..JUST ONE..OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITE MOVIE'S..
What a beautiful landscape, it is like watching a Dutch painting masterpiece alive.
Man, looks good for a 1977 film!
Many of those duels were to "1st blood" not to the death.
The psychos always exaggerated
The thing with dedicated stabbing swords like this is, 'first blood' might be organ damage.
Before Ridley Scott desaturated all of his movies
The rapier was about reach and leverage, being able to get at your opponent in narrow streets. The smallsword was shorter, lighter, and stiff, more able to beat a blade out of the way. I can't imagine trying to keep track of something so narrow moving so fast. Smallsword duels must have been the most breathlessly lethal things in the world.
Great movie. Underappreciated.
man, those uniforms are slick af!
Some officers applied to certain regiments because their uniforms were extra flashy.
I remember the first time I watched this movie and the second, third ect. Each time it's gotten better and better. Masterpiece! I hope that they never do a reboot!
Need to start making movies like this again.
Why bother when they can make billions churning out superhero nonsense.
Its incredible how much sheer talent is oozing out of this movie but how little its really talked about
fantastic film genuine masterpiece especially as it is ridly scots first film both the leads are brilliant and most realistic duels in films i have ever watched not a second of flyning
It's pretty badass how he didn't strike him when he had to sneeze.
It would have been a dishonorable blow. Feraud may have been a psychotic twerp with anger management issues, but he WAS a man of honor
The guy was a dueling enthusiast and he was in for the fair fight, not the sneaky dishonorable win.
All seconds are armed to the teeth. A dishonourable feint, kick or sucker-punching of any kind would have been dealt with swiftly and permanently.
The 19th century version of "You stepped on my Timbs."
I haven't yet scene this movie, but the duel scenes I've watches remind me very much of Kubrick's camerawork, in particular Barry Lyndon of course.
Did you ever watch it? I saw the first duel on youtube earlier then found the movie online lmao would recommend
Watched this film, then gave it away. But strangely, it dawned on me as it ruminated in my subconscious what a piece of art it is, like Beau Travail.
I love how Harvey Keitel's character is trying to act composed after he wounded his opponent, but is clearly jacked the fuck up and cant really contain it.
LA!
Went to fencing class in May 2023 and I learned this is true sword fight.
What stunning cinematography for the 1970s. Clean, balanced warm but not blurry. Loved the filters.
Brilliant movie. The emotions feel so real. Keitel's character is irrational but totally realistic.
Отличный фильм, смотрел много раз и всегда восхищался эпизодами дуэли в этом кино! Браво!
This is an excellent movie. This movie and the 1952 movie Scaramouche are probably the two best movies when it comes to dueling.
Charlie Murphy on duels:
Even back in the day when slapping a man was fashionable like back in Paris, you’d walk up to a man and slap him WHOSH-PAH!! I challenge you a duel! Someone had to die after that.
A perfect film in every way.
That sneeze should have won an Oscar.
Most amazing thing about this scene :
The sheeps in the background not running away when steel meets. Incredible presence of mind by the director. Sheeps in the 18th century were most likely used to the sound of swords clinging together. Even if not so, such an amazing little detail putting forth how often duels were fought.
I'm happy to say I have this movie in my DVD collection and watch it at least once a year.