I think you're right 👍 the accents are not fantastic the acting is great tho and this film is the truth about life then. I applaud the movie for showing the way , rape , was treated in those times. He even said she protested but was nothing more than the custom amount . Why didn't you scream was what was said to her . Then being questioned whether she enjoyed it even tho she was raped. Great movie imo.

I agree with you 100% but consider that usually, only heavy handed and clumsily executed exposition is noticed

What about "the truth" that does away with all interpretation?

As a woman, I agree and this has been eye opening

It was SA both times. It's far far far more concerning that you would think one of those wasn't SA

Really? I thought she was the only good thing in the movie. Ben affleck was unwatchable. Matt Damon’s hair was god awful. In fact, none of the American actors are good in it. Their accents are bad. And I didn’t need to see her get raped twice. The first time was uncomfortable enough. Absolutely terrible movie.

Saw you write the exact comments on other videos on this movie. Are u getting paid? How much?

THIS

Yes, yes, yes.

@@chance1774 I had the same gut reaction after just seeing the film & remembering this from before I had & came back to post my dismay. But upon a 2nd listen w/ the context, to be fair to Simon I believe what he’s saying is that as a viewer/witness the Le Gris POV isn’t any less a rape, merely the actions of a rapist who doesn’t recognize he is one. So I think he’s saying he didn’t need the Marguerite POV to make this judgement. What I still take issue w/ is that I don’t think that’s the point of the film (a debate over if). In real life there are rarely witnesses. To me the point is to suggest how little difference there is between what we might consider a more archaic barbaric time & how we handle such violations/assaults - both privately & in particularly publicly - today. Le Gris’ defence is still a common one & removing his POV & thus the parallel w/ his similar encounter at court in Pierre’s chambers would just turn him into a moustache twirling villain. Removing Marguerite’s POV wouldn’t do her experience nor her position in the ensuing events justice. The inclusion also honours how different people can see/experience the same events differently as determined by a wide variety of factors in their lives. So I now merely disagree that the “repetition” was unnecessary.

Or maybe this movie was goofy

I think You guys have misunderstood Simon here. He’s making a quite enlightened point that he doesn’t see the difference between a woman having an orgasm during a rape (which happens, and is often a deep source of shame for the women who experience it) and a woman resisting throughout. Rape is rape regardless and there is no moral distinction, and that I think is was Simon is trying to express. It’s one of the many ways in which this film seriously missteps in dealing with the subject matter.

Yeah. I think it was pretty critical to the movie to show how Le Gris “no means yes” version was in reality totally different from Margeurites perspective. I mean Le Gris’ version was rape regardless but it shows how Les Gris inserts ambiguity to justify his actions. The movie loses a lot of its force without the contrasting scenes. Removing the second version would create ambiguity that derails the movie, and removing the first scene make sure harder for us to understand how Les Gris understood the rape--he dies believing he was innocent .

Sadly... I think they should have been less subtle with the differences. I feel that many will share the views of Kermode and Mayo. I entirely agree with you btw.

Yes, thank you!

I agree. I didn't like or dislike the movie. So, that's not the point here. But I definitely felt there were differences between the first and the second version of the sexual assault. It's quite subtle, but it is there. Many viewers also saw no difference between the two, but I expect someone who reviews movies to see that.

Hit the nail on the head

The jury analogy is very interesting Selwan!

exactamente

Agreed. Just watched it tonight, Its fantastic. Maybe it reflects our modern age - very little attention span and not much interest in depth. Shame. Great cast also.

Agree that it’s definitely worth watching. But I can say definitively that it is not the position of Ridley & the writers that the audience be in the position of a jury & be able to conclude that Le Gris was wrongly accused. Hear me out. While the book presents the available information and is less definitive on the writer’s own conclusion (he has stated his in interviews etc. though) & thus does do what you suggest, the film has a declared position. “Chapter 3: The Truth according to Marguerite” is given the subtitle “The Truth” when those words are left on screen as the rest of the chapter title disappears. This isn’t to say that the differences in the POVs are irrelevant and shouldn’t be considered. We are meant to consider WHY they have their particular interpretations of the events. It is not the point of the film to relitigate a 600+yr old case. Both Jean & Jacques have had the benefit of 600+yrs of debate over their respective positions on the issue. Up until some time after (Nov 2021?) the release of this film they both even had lengthy Wikipedia entries while none existed for Marguerite as she had been mostly ignored in the history. She got this film instead. I hope pointing this out doesn’t then ruin your favourable view of the film as that is definitely not my intent. It’s just that I have seen in various comment sections on the film those making the case that the Le Gris POV was not rape instead of recognizing that it’s the depiction of the POV of somebody who’s entitlement doesn’t allow himself to see his actions as such. There are also those that contend that Le Gris is treated unfairly by the film thus ignoring that there has been hundreds of years of advocacy that Le Gris was indeed the victim. Ridley & the writers definitely wanted to provoke conversation on the topic and changed the claims of those involved in order to do so. Le Gris actually never suggested that there was consent. Rather he claimed that he was not even there and attempted to provide alibis. While Marguerite claimed that Le Gris friend/squire Adam Louvel participated in the assault by helping drag her up the stairway by the arms and legs, gaging her, and held her down on the bed during. In the film in both POVs Le Gris gains access to the home under false pretences & when Marguerite demands that they both leave Le Gris interjects and commands Louvel to leave thus removing any witnesses to how events unfolded from the foyer. So I’d suggest the point of the film is to ask us to consider how little has changed in the underlying issues at play on the topic & in how we deal with the issue between what we would consider a more “barbaric” time and today. The chivalric system was the matrix of it’s day so to speak.

@@wildphantom1 Couldn’t agree more. In addition to the quality of the story/subject matter, this was among the most cinematic films I’ve seen since going back to the theatre last month (w/ Lamb & the Green Knight in that list). And the sound design was better than anything in the 2 Marvel films, The Suicide Squad, or No Time to Die. So glad I saw Stuckmann’s review yesterday. (BTW, haven’t seen Dune yet).

I have just watched it - fantastic film!!! Best Ridley Scott film in a long time.

You better not be scoring out of 10!

I have to say I agree with you and have commented in a similar way. I actually think it's short changing not only the film but also valued opinion on an important subject. If you think a film should only show something once, because is not needed to have a 2nd opinion, then maybe you are not the best person to review a film. For pacing reasons, or whatever the reason,is not a reason to remove, or not include, the pivital scene that everything has lead up to reveal. It should be seen that the point of the film was to examine opinion and see that there are different perspectives. To give a whole picture might lead to a truth, as Ridley himself has said this is about a woman who laid her life on the line to be heard, for the truth to come out. I think sometimes film is an ideal way to get an important message across, and you just hope people get that message. The subtlety with which this film does it obviously went over some heads, that is a shame. It is a beautifully written piece ,and shot with the respect it deserved

I agree, the subtleties matter

Though subtle, the two rape perspectives are quite different. From Jacques perceptive, when he is carrying her, Marguerite says, "no" several times with almost a giggle. Not at all the same as the screaming and crying in the version we see from Marguerite's perspective. I get that this is hard to watch a second time, but thinking the two scenes are the same, seems like a serious lack of awareness.

Wow, this review has either set it up for replies or hopefully will benefit by Porter, Leon, Ducko and Empath's response and input. I appreciate the insight of you all and agree in a lot of ways, thanks you saved me from a lot of set up myself. Additional points I take umbridge with from the review..men finding a way to battle, bogged down by time set up, dark dreary etc., seeing no or minimal subtle or dramatic difference between the 2 rape scenes etc., the duel was a heavy hammer to to deal with this, was about female jeopardy, rational structure did not deliver what it thought it could deliver and did not justify watching a woman being raped twice, impossible to come out of the movie without the belief that the males are guilty as charged. NO!!!! I appreciate Ridley Scott and the movies he chooses to make and the way he makes them. Definitely they make you think, stick with you looooong after you have seen them and are also just swashbuckling to boot. We are put in the French times of 1380-1386 its laws and customs. Many points of view and each is the truth from their perspective. Jean has been a husband and father, is a husband again - feels put upon for what he feels he deserves and has not received and fights for what He perceives to be right. Jacques, a single squire, he uses his personality and skills and gains favour and bounty from his liege, and believes himself to be in love, mutually? with Margarette. Margarette was her father's and is now her husbands property. This is a LIFE last duel. All perspectives are right. No Man or Woman is to blame for anything. THAT was the time. NEVER is this, in my eyes, AH! Men guilty as charged. WE are all able to what, observe, consider and discuss this from our time and our perspective. BLAME? The men keep referring to the enjoyment they hope the women have achieved carnally...lol so the prowess of Frenchmen... The mother in law was raped and believed she was correct to roll over and get on with things... the friend who said...you said he was handsome. Do I see that and say - aw o.k. she asked for it?? What about the feeling you may have had when you saw Jean and Margarette immediately go tell their family and friends, what about Margarette saying she wants to tell that she was raped.. how about Jean, a husband/partner who says yes let's share with the world that my partner/wife was raped. Those are pretty advanced thinking in my mind from our 21st century perspective. Are we so advanced or different today. Hmmmm. This is a GREAT Movie if it's got us talking like this. THIS SHOULD BE AS BIG A BLOCKBUSTER AS any other Scott movie. I believe this review let the public down. People you can DO BETTER!

I think there were a lot of subtle differences in the two rape scenes. In the first, she stops to take off her shoes, the chase up the stairs feels slower with Marguerite turning more often to look at Jacques and seeming to “point the way”, she calls for her servant only once and protests in a way that COULD be construed as a “no means yes” way while he grins and smiles. The two scenes are shot differently as well, as already pointed out, the second using more close-ups conveying the real struggle and feeling of being trapped felt by Marguerite. From Jacques’ pov Marguerite’s position is seen with just enough distance and missing detail to come off as what COULD have been seen -from a 14th C male perspective- as an albeit heated “gallant pursuit”. I also think it’s important to consider how the scene was set up for Jacques’ pov. He clearly lives a pampered life, the mud and grit of Jean’s reality are almost just in passing and only felt in the presence of Jean. The party scene where he gives similar chase to a woman around a room before dragging her to bed and “taking” her is an important parallel. He does this in front of several people and with the approval of his patron. It is how sex is for him, and even if Marguerite’s protests were sincere, his character even says she protested “as a lady”. He does feel remorse -for the adultery, not the rape per se- and confesses his sin in church. The discussions he has with the priest, the legal counsel and Pierre “confirm” (in his mind, this is his pov) that he is absolved of wrongdoing and somehow “in the right”. All of this in the context of the very different lives of all three characters, and the backdrop of the times. The rape scene was not included in the first retelling because Jean was not there. It was retold twice, through the eyes of the two other characters, with subtle but clear differences and imo could not be left out of the other two accounts, otherwise the whole concept of the film wouldn’t have worked.

Indeed, it appears he wasn't properly paying attention which is bizarre for a film critic.

@@seanolaocha940 or maybe he shares the view of Adam's character and didn't see the difference of the scene between a girl saying "no" while laughing vs a girl begging and screaming for it to stop

Nice carpet, goes quite well with the walls.

Licence fee well spent.

It really ties the room together

Tidy room, tidy mind.

the most ridiculous comment

@@attackpatterndelta8949 yes.

@@KD--sj8eo I thought the scene from Jodie perspective was much worse like she said please I'm begging you and her cries were different in hers. than Adams who remembers it like she consented like that woman at court earlier in the film.

@@theloniousmorphy I just came back from the cinema and agree fully. While the differences were in the details, those details were important and the second scene was considerably worse. I actually had to look away from the screen and afterward put my jacket on because I felt cold after the second scene. I'm not saying that the first version was fine, but there was a world of difference. It's fascinating how individual perceptions of details can have such profound effects and I'm really impressed with how the movie managed to capture and portray that.

​ @KD6- 3.7 who gives a shit, the difference wasn't like in Rashomon, and makes it really distractive why the director does this, especially for someone who's seen Rashomon. Everyone sees a rape in both versions and none of the minor variations really change the moral foundation of the trial or anything.

I see the difference but it’s so irrelevant. Both scenes are clearly rape, and it should be clear for Le Gri too. The writers abruptly made him a fool who does not understand what's what.

I agree with you. The "chase" narrative was pushed more in the Le Gris version but I feel that it was obvious in both versions that it was assault. Only Le Gris who is such a bloated bastard believes it is consensual.

@@cammunsta4088 Yes! But I'm not 100% sold on him thinking it was consensual. I think he knows it wasn't and yet keeps adorning things, as if "deep down" he knows that just saying so makes it possible. The scene of the party made quite more clear how a "game" of that sort would look like. He knew what he was doing, he did it, and he made the ridiculous love comments many attackers make to their victims

She really was absolutely fantastic

Maybe if the Americans added Madonna, Sean Penn and Joe Biden to the cast it would be a box office success .....

Agreed, the obsessed over wierd things that I thought worked fine.

@@wayner396 critics tend to do this

@@wildphantom1 like a Roman general with an Australian accent.. well Russell was hardly going to go off and learn an Italian accent ffs 🤣🤣

Yet these bozos say parasite was great!

I have never felt so seen watching a movie before and all of that is thanks to Jodie Comer’s masterfully nuanced and emotionally wrecking performance. She's such a brilliant actress, I cannot emphasise this enough. My husband who rarely pays attention to movies was crying by the end of it.

Agreed, and I've never been so invested in the outcome of a fight before.

Yep, completely agree. They probably had their noses in the popcorn during those scenes.

Agreed. The difference between the 2nd and 3rd Chapters are key to understanding how much of a devious narcissist Le Gris truly was. His version romanticizes his interactions with Margarite, versus the brash, ugly, one-sided reality of the situation. He truly believes he is innocent of any wrong doing even at death's door. I'm really disappointed they didn't pick up on that. It is far from a perfect film, but I really enjoyed the nuances in the storytelling.

Definitely, I really enjoyed it. The review was too smug and cynical.

Agree. It actually came as a shock to me that Marguerite’s truth (the real truth) of the event was so close to the others…. Which I think was partly the point.

Agree about the rape scenes. I thoroughly enjoyed the film too.

Yes, but this just amounts to a difference between a rape, and an extremely violent and unpleasant rape. Le Gris's version shows a rape just leaving room for the possibility that Le Gris naively doesn't realise it's rape. Marguerite's version shows what a rape actually feels like to a victim. But for an audience deciding whom to believe, all you see is three accounts all agreeing that a rape took place.

@@saxbend That’s what we call dramatic irony. Of course we will process the three chapters differently from the three characters. But the film is explicit in each of the chapters that they are told from their perspectives. What sort of meaning you make from them is irrelevant to their perspectives.

@@saxbend incorrect. They are two very different scenes where the dialog and the inflection it is delivered with amounts to two very different outcomes.

@@Jumpman67 sounds like you don't recognise La Gris's version of the scene as rape.

@@saxbend That’s not what he/she said at all? Besides, you walk around barefoot in the streets of London. Your opinion is invalid. Get that sorted, mate. No offence.

well said.. the movie portrayed this fantasy aspect really well, thanks also to Adam's performance

I hear you Noemie but it takes on a special significance in this political environment. Hollywood has for decades turned a blind eye to a horrible and exploitative culture against women and now has to virtue signal in order to hide it's unclean hands

@@benjaminshabu4406 it’s possible that for a long time creators weren’t allowed to make these types of films by the same people committing the crimes

@@danielevans5286 Yeah that's possible but at the same time I think a lot of creators were definitely part of the culture. I'm implying Ridley personally but there are always signs. Have you ever seen a movie and wondered why the actresses only role was to be sexually provocative and to be an object of lust? I've heard stories of many actresses who have come out to talk about how they were treated on set by creators and pressured into nude scenes and the like...pure exploitation from creators who were obviously getting off on it

I mean they’re supposed to be speaking French so might as well go with whatever accent they want

I would instead carve: "Everyone was constantly complaining about story - while missing, his movies where the most beautiful looking ever." It really pisses me off that even professional critics ramble about plot, story and actors all the time and give the look of ridleys films 1-2 sentences. Its such conventional thinking. Film is a visual medium first while storys can be told in so many different mediums. Nobody is creating pictures like Ridley. I love even his movies that are not about something, they look better than 90% of the rest. And this is at least about an important human problem, not entertainment first. One of his finest works in my opinion. And acted so nuanced.

What are you talking about? Ridley Scott has made many great films

@@danieldzienian6607 What about the Story structure and it's landing? If I want to watch a massive medival battle scenes I might as well play a video game

@@danieldzienian6607 that's cool bro

@@theloniousmorphy true, but plenty of clunkers too

@@ams914 this is a really good, very well acted film. It's an original story with beautiful costuming and production design and you don't even notice the time passing. I know which one I would rather watch.

@@ams914 original story with fantastic production, set design, world building. Halloween kills has terrible production, terrible acting, its contrived rubbish. Halloween was a great Slasher but that didn't need a remake or a sequel, this has purely been made for money and nothing else. And like Kermode said, there's no tension and its not even scary.

@@BHCha- agree 👍

brilliantly sums up Ridley Scott

@@boorhaave5880 *carrier pigeon

@@IncredibleGoliath It definitely is an accurate period hairstyle. Kermode is guilty of imposing an anachronism here.

What are you talking about? He clearly explained his problems with the film. If you like it, good for you.

Will add Rashomon to my watch list. If The Last Duel is a poorly done version of this structure would be interesting to see it done well

I thought no one would comment about this.

Lol

There was humor?

@@johnpijano4786 I guffawed when one of the prosecutors said something along the lines of "It's scientifically proven that..."

completely agree, I thought that the fact the differences were so subtle made it interesting. How a situation could be interpreted (and even believed) as different from each character - you've mentioned the r**e scene but also parts where someone would shout rather than just use a firm tone of voice, for example. I do see how the having to rewatch so much of the film could seem unjustified to many viewers though, especially as that particular scene was hard enough to watch the first time

Big differences if anyone else noticed, even the way he picked her up when he chased her, he was more romantic in his telling, in her telling it was so violent the way he picked her up, it wasn't cradling he was basically violently rag-dolling her! That was a big thing. It's crazy how people are criticising the two scenes, it simply wouldn't have made sense if it was only done once. The whole point is that even by Les Gris own retelling of the events it was clearly rape. It wouldnt have made sense with only retelling, it would have been more a "who done it" exploitation of rape as a plot device. Instead, with two scenes showing the significant contrasts but commonality that was it was clearly rape we have an incredibly poignant exploration of the crazy standards and repressive nature of those times. Le gris believes he is innocent because it does not take much twisting of the facts for him to technically not be a rapist. A woman giving "customary protestations" would still be blamed. And he could delude himself/ The fact the assault scene was done twice and made all that clear was just absolutely genius.

I think you understand this film better than these two. They feel the need to express that they are very much against raping people and don’t get much further!

I agree!

Very well said!

The Director's cut of Legend is sooo good.

Ridley Director’s Cut Scott.

Or the final cut

Scott can direct good script.

It wouldn''t have even made sense if they only showed it once or showed it twice with one of them she was fully consenting and happy. The whole point is that even from Le Gris perspective he clearly raped her. There were extremely significant but subtle differences like in her retelling he was so menacing, he picked her up much more violently and it was a scary and violent scene. She displayed clear disgust at his overtures and the tone was different. The fact the scene was done twice was the most genius part of the movie. It's not a mystery movie. It would be a mystery for the people of that time, but for us? It was clearly rape by his own telling, it was such a brilliant writing decision. The people criticising the movie for this are reflexively signalling their virtue as that is the done thing as a male to say "oh it wasn't necessary" "it was gratuitious and exploits the pain of victims" But in this case it makes people saying that seem really ignorant because the movie simply wouldn't have made sense. The whole point was there were two different narratives/recollections about the incident and if it only showed one telling it would have been MORE exploitative. IT would have made rape a "ooh did it happen?" cheap mystery plot device. Instead it is a powerful element and theme exploration about what actually constitutes assault, we know that both tellings are rape. But in their time only one would have been so. It tells us how screwed up that time was and explores how Le Gris really did view himself as innocent because by the standards of the time, he could twist the facts just slightly and that would have meant it was just adultery not rape, the line was so ridiculously blurred by their standard.

I watched this movie with my wife and she was disgusted by both scenes in different ways. Le Gris version was subtle due to his justification and how he clearly justified it in his own mind eg taking off the shoes before going up the stairs. Then the second version "The truth" she found terrifying in it's brutality. I think a lot of people wanted a #metoo movie and they didn't get it.

Good Will Floating.

@@freethrall Zero-G(ood Will)

Not without first securing a retaaaaaainer

Halloween duels

Your poor arse! 😆

Your thoughts on Halloween kills?

@@frankschrodinger1424 So conflicted. There’s some good and bad. One moment the film does something really cool and another moment it does something really dumb. I need to rewatch it again soon though now that I know what happens.

@@megamoviez They showed the whole movie in their 2 and a half minute trailer. It smelled of desperation and looked terrible as was the 2018 movie. A waste of the talent involved.

I think Mayo is right in that the representation of the rape in le Gris' account doesn't at all correspond to his denial of it being a rape. There isn't enough disharmony between the two representations of the two scenes.

Too bad Driver didn't sound good, also. His performance was underwhelming.

Japanese film with same device where same event, the murder of a Samuri, is described from different perspectives - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon

No. At best AT BEST an Oscar nomination, but to expect an Oscar win is too much. As much as great the story is there is still too much mistakes and misteps to expect an Oscar win

@@johnpijano4786 Unfortunately you are 100% correct. He is getting older just give him a lifetime acheivement award

He will win the Oscar with his upcoming House of Gucci film if it proves to be better than this. This film will definitely help the award voters take notice.

Yep. Le Gris' last dying breath was an insistence on his innocence. His belief in his innocence (of rape, not adultery) was chilling and all too familiar.

because of their relationship with Weinstein?

Why?