The book was a great read. My concerns are: Why did the mother-in-law take almost all the household staff on here day trip; and what happened to the one maid that had been left with Marguerite?

First. I read the book years ago, it was great. I hope the movie lives up to it.

You’ve got such a great voice and the interview was highly informative!

You don't forget the face of an attacker. It gets seared Into your memory.

I also cannot wait to read this book! Just ordered it

This Was “ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!” And “THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!” For “SHARING!!”…

great discussion, it really adds to the experience of this amazing movie. looking forward to get the book also

Really enjoyed this conversation

What a great interview!

Thanks for the good, clear interview. I really loved the movie and the story, though my favorite actor was not the 'good guy'.

This podcast deserves many more likes than it currently has. 3k views and no where near that many likes?! Come on, people!

this movie was friggin awesome. I like this session you have here too. Nicely done

Great discussion, particularly with the author himself.

The discussion with Eric Jager was great,helped me understand the small details of the movie.

this is one of the 'based on true events/story' movies that actually holds to the integrity of the true story its based upon. it plays well, and the actors are wearing their roles, as opposed to the roles wearing the actor. the pomposity and, well, corniness of the era kinda works well for the actors. i laughed at serious scenes bc im weird and derive joy from counter intuitive stuff. for example, the meticulous expo dumps via dialogue in the beginning gave me a couple laughs: 'but, ever since your wife and child died, you've never been the same... - AND I'M YOUR FRIEND!' like, you're supposed to show, not tell, and you're already showing he's de carrouge's friend, cause this scene is sculpted around two friends having a conversation. we know! but it doesnt detract from it, like i said. the pacing picks up once you hit the 3 forks, and after that, ridley scott does his thing. i thoroughly enjoyed it, i will definitely watch it again when it comes out digitally. maybe even see it in the theater again, there was a sense of uniqueness to it that just got stronger with time. music was insane, i love organs and gothic stuff, it suited the setting really well, for me. audio and visuals were just gorgeous. even if you just go for the spectacle, i'd say you could certainly do worse than the last duel. ridley scott has a way of trimming the fat where you feel like he doesnt hold the viewer in contempt, and presume we are overly stupid. there are those expo dumps, like i said, but he's clearly cut any of the stuff you'd expect to see, like them on the nose stating this duel would be the last duel sanctioned by the french court, or something along those lines. or, well, nevermind i'm not gonna go into spoilers. ok thats all for me, i have to vent my opinions bc its late and i just came back from the movie, had a great time. as i left tonight, i found myself searching for an answer to what made me see this movie, why did i come out here tonight, what motivated me? the answer i thought of in the car ride home, i will leave with you: Ridley Scott: 2 hours of Mullett Damon for 11 bucks, any takers ? me: M'lady, everything I have is yours.

I believe Marguerite. It was very brave of her to make the actuation .

fantastic yet succinct, economic introduction Danielle!

You can catch our review of The Last Duel at kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrucYKqn19PHYHk.html

This is so interesting! I can't wait to read the book. I watched the movie yesterday and it was fantastic.

What I’m curious about, is that, in the film, Marguerite is unaware of the possible punishment she may receive because of her accusations before she makes them. I had been under the impression that she knew the possible consequences of her claim (and that further validated it in my opinion).

What was the testimonies of Adam Lavell (sp) he was supposed to have been there in what you say in your book (which I have not read) and in the Movie (which I did see)? just interested.

Great movie. I haven't read the book..but I was horrified at how women were treated back then . The fact that she could have been burnt at the stake for those reasons.

Magnificent.

Young Lady : His name is Yay- -----ger-------the J is given a Y sound instead.

I have seen the movie this week "the last duel "

Best movie I’ve seen in years. My wife and I were transfixed and delighted!

Great podcast. As far as the film, I just can't get over the atrocious half visors during the duel... ridiculousness

So I spent some time reading some primary and secondary sources in French (all from before the 20th century to avoid biased bullcrap like Jager) and came to the conclusion he didn't do it, which seems to be the consensus among sources that talk about the case. Basically, the most likely scenario is that the woman was indeed raped, but not by Le Gris. She told her husband when he came back home from Scotland and he used that to shit on Le Gris that he had been hating for a few years due to envying him for various political reasons. It must be noted that Carrouges was an extremely violent man who had apparently beaten his first wife to death. And his second wife, Marguerite, wasn't an old stronk woman like in the movie but actually a meek and very young woman. So basically Carrouges forced her to frame Le Gris and despite Le Gris being found innocent in several trials, he managed to obtain a duel by whining directly to the King's parliament. While on the ground and about to be finished by Carrouges, Le Gris swore his innocence (instead of confessing like people usually did before execution) with God as his witness. Several sources mention that some years later, a man sentenced to death for another crime confessed before his execution to be the one who had actually raped Marguerite de Carrouges. It's also mentioned that after her husband's death, she spent the rest of her life in a convent instead of remarrying (despite being still young) to attone for the fact she had framed an innocent. Source: That 1858 French history work on the topic on judiciary duels in France, that uses all the contemporary sources that treated the topic (Froissart, Jean Le Coq, Juvénal des Ursins, Chronique de St-Denis) If you can read French (page 128 to page 148): www.google.fr/books/edition/Le_Combat_judiciaire_en_Normandie/H1hiAAAAcAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=%22Jacques+le+Gris%22&printsec=frontcover

The movie was fucking incredible

While i tend to agree that Margruite was telling the truth - there's plenty of hypothetical reasons why she (and her husband) might have made it up. LeGrite was despised by her husband, killing him solved some of their problems and indeed, their position improved markedly after the duel. Even though the film says "he died on a few years later on Crusade" - that's not quite telling the story. She might have been having an affair and he spurned her or she felt guilty. She had met LeGrite once in her life before the alleged rape - he might have been impersonated and been a different person. But on balance, the evidence shows she was likely telling the truth and was very courageous. Unlike many women even today, she raised the alarm immediately and publicly and maintained her allegation throughout the processes that followed. This is very different to the historical claims that often emerge today, years and years after the alleged events.

The movie was freaking amazing Something I find interesting… After more than 4 years together would it not be reasonable to assume the baby was not the husbands Something that also bothers me (that no-one seems to comment on) isn’t it a little convenient that she is pregnant immediately after 1 incident? Conspiracy theory: Any chance that she had multiple encounters with him and after maybe discovering she was pregnant made up this story to sqaush any rumours her “lover” might have spread about “them”? I find it amazing that with a knife to his throat, he would still swear on his innocence…

It is sad to me, that dueling has been removed as a consideration, to address individual wrongs. Since childhood, I have wished for it's return. I see it as a manner, by which international leaders can address wrongs, thereby no longer needing to have wars....which include millions of deaths.

de gris was "the friend" no one wants

Did Le Gris do it or not? His last words as he was about to die was that on the damnation of his soul he didn’t rape her. THIS is a huge deal for a medieval era man - they would not want to say that right before they died unless they believed it! It’s possible her husband coerced her to do this as he hated Le Gris for previous disputes and he was an experienced warrior so he knew he would kill him in a duel.

The whole thing was a frame up.

Just see the movie. forget this crap & the lousy trailer.

I'm not surprised this film flopped, as it took the wrong approach. The film is called "the Last Duel," the climax of which is gonna be two guys fighting. You build up to that moment by fleshing out their relationship. That's what the book did. Jean Le Carouges was mostly portrayed as a sympathetic hero out to exact justice. You were deeply afraid for him and his wife. The film took a feminist angle and made Jean's wife the central focus, which was a well intentioned but structural mistake. I wish the filmmakers trusted their source material.

I did not like Scott's portrayal; incredibly feminine. I'm content it flopped.

I boycott everything Hollywood, sorry, no movie for me...Too woke and dishonest.

Interesting conversation. Well done! Yes, sanctioned judicial duels continued sporadicly into the 1580s. Interestingly, Froissart's account was contemporary, but not eyewitness. He was out the country when the duel occurred. Upon returning, Froissart found this to still be an incredibly sensational event and all the talk of nobility and commoner alike, so he collected up the popular version and chronicled the fight. There were several actual eyewitnesses who chronicled as well and these are relatively consistent with one another and differ somewhat from Froissart's version. For example, the joust does not appear to have actually occurred at all. While Jean and Jaques appeared on the field on horseback, as would be fitting for such and occasion, it seems that the field "was not arranged properly" for mounted combat and they dismounted and fought entirely on foot. Also, while grappling was something that knights and squires trained in, it was not preferred to be on the ground with one's opponent when avoidable, for obvious reasons. It seems that Le Gris was thrown to the ground and dispatched via long sword thrust to his exposed posterior (because he was armed for horseback...) by Carrouges while standing, not via dagger while sitting on his chest. Personally, I agree with Froissart. A good joust and a final wrestle makes for a much better story... As far as the movie goes, a "true story film" centered on a knightly contest of arms as its climax, should have tried harder to both stick to the actual chronicled fight (Froissart or otherwise), which was well documented and plenty exciting, and not had complete trash-fantasy armor. Audiences of historical film are more sophisticated today. This utter travesty of costume design may have been one of the the things that contributed to the movie's economic failure.