The Last Duel: When Right is not Right.

Some movies are just hard to put a finger on, and sometimes thats a natural consequence, sometimes it’s a fault within the storytelling, and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which and that is where I came out on Ridley Scott's “The Last Duel”. This is now my 2nd time seeing this film, the first time I was admittedly high, and though that usually aids my experience maybe this time it made me too focused in a singularly myopic way that hurts a movie that you need to be as open as possible about, not only because of its subject matter, but in a tonally different way because of its actors, and those actors are both the joy and misalignment of this movie. They’re casting, their performances tell on where it was I fell off of this movie as they do the bits I liked. Overall..the verdict this time around was “Meh” rather than “Oof” and I discovered details that awakened its brilliant bits, as well as more exactly where and how it went wrong for me. The entire time I watched Scott's latest of his two-fer ( House of Gucci will come soon ) I sometimes sat in this place, and sometimes was moved from this place, into various other modes of either elation or disappointment, but always I returned back to this place of disjointedness, or being off-kilter, and I was engulfed or immersed only in fits. There were too many distractions to keep me fully engaged in not only the place, but the time, and the actors well they did not help…

There is something both fascinating and off putting about the performances of the three major men in this movie, especially when set in contrast to Jodie Comer and the rest of its deep and brilliant cast. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in this movie are somehow pitch perfect and off key, and Adam Driver has good pitch that rings hollow, and I wish I had better more definitive words, but I will attempt to explain them around these things. Damon, ( Jean de Carrouges) Affleck, ( Count Pierre de'Alencon ) Driver, (Jaques Le Gris ) and Comer ( Marguerite de Carrouges) were all in different ways anywhere from decently to sublimely interesting but only Comer was also consistent and complete. What bothers me, having seen it these two times and watched and listened to the conversations around the movie is to see regard for these performances swell to such a degree and then in that swelling leave Comer of all people sitting on the bench while “Stars” Damon, Affleck, and Driver consume most of the “hoorahs” I hope this is just a result of whom I interact with, because otherwise this conversation is criminal to a degree that literally causes fire to combustibly burn through my insides, BUT before I get into that, I want to digress a bit to lay the foundation by talking about a constant phenomenon that has been happening in the way that we discuss certain certain peoples performances. This phenomenon tends to be activated when people whose main jobs exist outside of those of this industry - Athletes, Comedians, musicians - leave their own respective career fields to try and bear fruit in this one. The act tends to leave them ripe for a specific kind of hyperbole around their performances. For me it was a musician who caused me to first notice. It was back when Justin Timberlake was getting a lot of accolades for his notably good performance in David Fincher's “The Social Network”. The talk around how natural he felt was fine at first, because he was. Timberlake seemed to really feel comfortable in his own skin, in a way very few non actors do in their first performance. Im sure his childhood helped him there, but I'm old enough to remember that all of a sudden a small push started to happen to have Timberlake's name mentioned in Oscar talk, and I had no idea why anyone would say such a thing! It was a bridge MUCH too far for me, and thankfully for most, but I theorized that what was at the core of that phenomenon was the fact that people didn't expect him to be good and when he turned out good, it turned to “great" by way of surprise, and to some extent that is what I suspect is going on here. One or two of these things should've happened in the head of folk upon seeing the trailer; A. “Matt Damon, Adam Driver ( maybe less so ) and Ben Affleck in a period movie?..Hmm.” or B. “They are so crazy for putting these three into this this particular period movie where they clearly stand out, I think is gonna be great!” , which is still at least a cousin of the original prognosis. The truth is there are actors whose faces and spirits evoke a certain timelessness, there are actors who feel as if they come from another time, and then there are actors who feel extremely contemporary. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck both look and feel like definitively contemporary actors, and they’re brand is extremely recognizable, Adam driver is more readily capable of belonging to an era other than his own, but spirit-wise he too is a very contemporary actor, making all of their placement in a period peice from a medieval era an instant form of anachronism. To place them like this feels very deliberate within that and bades the question “why?”, especially when they are the only anachronistic things in a movie that otherwise feels deliberately authentic? Maybe this is on purpose, and the purpose does to some extent lend a bit of strength to the inherent falsehood of these men, but it also leaves a discombobulated effect on this movie. It never seems to have quite the control on tone that it's seminal narrative antecedent “Rashomon” had. It comes out of the wash as a mixture of Sofia Coppola's “Marie Antoinette” and Scott’s own “Kingdom of Heaven” and while to some that may be an appealing mixture I found it troublesome. Now, I am not completely unimpressed with the choices, the allure of what it is the big three bring does come through in part. What they are doing is vital to the themes in play in this story, when you're telling a story about the minutae of male behaviors and interactions with each other and women reinforced by the socio political lens through which womanhood is viewed that is “Rape Culture” - You could find no two actors more suited to present one of the most recognizable archetypes in this culture and style and key of “bro” than Damon and Affleck whose shot to fame was playing a version of these kind of men that at the least expressed their ability to play them, and the parts of their characters that have to do with their "essence" are staggeringly effective. Take Damon for instance, I see how well suited he is to the job of Jean de Carrouges - a man who thinks he’s good but in fact is blinded by his own vanity ( Whether a conscious decision or not) through the lens of Damon’s own career moves and high profile missteps all of which provide a fascinating way into the character whether he gets it or not. Ben Affleck's own playboy lifestyle in his early career provides another (though somewhat less direct) parallel. This is why subsequently out of the male actors in this film it is Affleck who reigned supreme in my mind as the male actor of the three who is most intriguing, most fascinating, most interesting to watch work. Though there might be shades of this kind of character in previous roles he's done whether it be “Armageddon” or “Good Will Hunting”, there is a perfect balance of weight and airy-lightness baked into a more profound understanding of this character that makes this far more appealing than any of those roles, and far more affecting. Despite an accent that mostly goes out and the aforementioned contemporary nature, Affleck embodies the type of man the Count is supposed to be with such a precise and shap incision of glee, audacity, charm, and stupidity that he should also try his hand at surgery. He seems to by far be the one having the most fun with this role and it in return frees him up quite a bit to take some interesting choices in all of his scenes right from the start where a slight twinge in the neck and cutting look of the eyes provide an early look into Pierre's disdain for Jean (Damon) that told me right away “this is going to be entertaining. This wasn't “surprise”. Affleck has been on on a streak of good acting since he started directing himself, and now what he must have picked up from working with himself has made its way into not only his choices of characters but how he works within them, WITH other people. No, this was plain ol “I can tell he’s having a ball, and I can see it works and Im going to enjoy it”, particularly the scenes that take place in a dining room and his bedroom, continued the trend and proved me right, but he is also the cast member of these three that spends by far the least amount of time acting in scenes across from those who feel as if they are tailor made for the time, which is what causes the others to stick out in varying degrees. Matt Damon is secondarily effective as he brings his standard honorable commitment and honesty which in turn help make his perspective believable and just enough to fool more than a few audience members, as well as make them aware of where the cracks, crevices, and pitfalls of Jean's self deception lie, but there were moments where I found his flailing about disingenuous and unnecessary, like “Heaven and Earth!!” followed by a ornate twirl of both his finger and body when Carrouges penchant for ironic drama had more honest depictions in statements like “Can this man do nothing but evil to me!” ( this after he finds out his WIFE was raped and not he ). The parallels in Damon's career are obvious and fascinating to watch in this particular role. It’s not his first time, Damon has leaned into his own internal self dishonesty specifically in movies like “Interstellar” and “The Talented Mr Ripley” where he played something very akin to this kind of man, and it can be argued he did it better then, still it is very compelling work but especially so once we see him from Marguerite's perspective. Here Damon's real life and actorly predisposition towards a certain display of oblivious obtuse-ness, combined with a child like sensibility bring home so many of the brilliant talking points brought forth about “Nice Guys” which I dont think Carrouges fully embodies but definitely touches upon an aspect of in his dedication to chivalry, misogyny, and pouty martyrdom, all while believing hes the righteous one. For both Affleck and Damon ( though in varying degrees ) the notes and the highs of their performances pierce and pass through a stratosphere of exactitude in characterization that very few performances and actors have in the last ten years, and they appear to be having fun doing it, But make no mistake artifice matters too. When acting, the highest goal, the goal that should always be desired is a mastery of both artifice AND spirit/ essence in your character, So that even while Denzel clearly nailed down the essence of Malcolm X in Spike Lee's phenomenonal biopic, the essence is also fundamentally and foundationally aided by the fact that he also mastered much of Malcolm x's artifice, How he carried himself, how he spoke- the cadence, beats, the gestures he tended to be prone to repeating, this all emboldens, shades, and details the outline. It is enough that neither Affleck nor Damon can seem to get ahold of the accent or even decide which one they're doing, but it is even further injurious to add to the fact that there is no real sort of decisions about how these characters might walk or present themselves that says anything to the time, period, or in truth the characters, and that is a flaw that distracts and deters from full immersion. Watch a clip of John Malkovich ( who doesn't even really seem to try and develop an accent even if he did ) but look at the way he walks, the precision in his movement, right down to how he runs and of you watch, this is full bodied and integral to the character Vimcont Valmont as well as the time and space he occupies in Stephen Frear's “Dangerous Laisons”..these details are where Damon and especially Driver come up short..

Adam Driver represents the worst of this even while being arguably the most capable of these three, because he is the reverse of their work, the artifice is more readily available, but interestingly enough the character is not ( Driver worked alot this year and I dont care what anyone tells you, anyone working this many roles round the same time as an actor, it is a guarantee that one of the roles is getting less of themselves consciously or not ) but I can say nothing else about Adam Driver in this film until I state that for me he was miscasted. I understand the temptation and it's not all bad, there are parts of this where you see exactly why someone would fall for Driver in this part. There is something in Driver that makes him juicy in roles that ask or call for seedy, passive aggressive ambition. He has an incredible and uncanny balance of both repulsion and attraction that I think is perfect for this role if based purely on artifice, but he rarely finds the profound in this movie, in fact only once was it that he seemed to find the marrow of this man and that was in his reaction to the accusation. The rest of the movie Driver is just Driver, there's no sense of the sort of deeper objectives that don't come from the script itself, and the very distinctive cadence and tonality to which Driver can’t seem to escape overpowers what seems to be the most concerted effort of the three to sound the part. That too though lives in that space of repulsion and attractiveness, and it's the attractiveness that he as an entire entity occupies with ease. It's powerful, engrossing and compelling in and of itself, a self sustained support system for the rest of his body, But it also limits Drivers range. To this point in his career Adam Driver is being treated like he is a shape shifter, when in reality he’s more presence and emotive power than transformation. More Robert DeNiro than Joaquin Phoenix. The role of Jaques Le Gris requires presence, and charm, and in that Driver hits very capably, his holding court is quite believable becaue of this, as is the superficial nature of his class and meager upbringing, but though it’s not necessarily an emotive role when it does get emotive it calls for a different energy, a more potent version than what Driver offers for the most part and when it seems the moments are rife with it Driver brings no profound insights from his class into the essence of Le Gris. It’s not that his is terrible, it’s just not as powerful as it could be. I would love to have seen what a James McAvoy, Jonathan Rhys- Meyers, or Nicholas Hoult might've done here, especially after seeing the latter's underrated work in “The Favourite”.

Driver may be the more interesting of these men for something that feels just outside of that paradigm type choice, but you already ran that up with Damon and Affleck, and here Driver just feels like more than was necessary. Especially since it was his line readings in this film that I found the most disinteresting. Out of ALL actors in this movie I really didn't walk away with any particular scene that I felt he necessarily carried, even with actors that were supporters, there were many moments where it felt they were more interesting than anything Driver was doing, for instance when hes being spoken to by the man of the cloth (The always good Michael McElhatton) about the nature of his predicament. Le Gris is a social climber, a man who is an outsider only by the default of his birth but for all intensive purposes he functions the same as many of these others in that he feels equally as entitled in this life as any, and from what we’ve seen in films like” Star Wars”, “Logan Lucky”, “Frances Ha” and definitely “Marriage Story” Driver has that energy to pull this off, but he has to be completely committed and here I just don’t see it. He takes most of his scenes to the precipice of discovery and never leaves the cliff, when this role requires some leaping to truly find something subtly but devastatingly dastardly, I shudder to think how a young Jeremy Irons wouldve crushed this into dust. Driver's lack of transcendent intensity leaves me with and to Jodie Comer…

As Marguerite de Carrouges Jodie Comer borders on revelation if not exactly that. She brings that same thorough complicated layering she brought to Villanelle in the outstanding initial seasons of “Killing Eve” opposite Sandra Oh. She is a complete actress giving a complete performance and it puts the boys to shame while also in a funny way exacerbating, or actually better put - bringing to light the inconsistent tonal problems in this movie. Comer plays her role with an adeptness and brilliance that is hard to articulate save to point out where it shows up at. Such that it is she that ends up the most believable not only through narrative details but through the details in her varying performances as she plays each of these men’s fantasy while maintaining the through line and essence of her character. Damon and Driver are inconsistent in this regard and float in-between character and caricature especially in the chapter where they definitely should feel completely authentic..( Affleck is not in the movie enough and his perspective is not a factor ) which is Marguerie's. When they replay what she was actually feeling or how she actually responded, Comer plays it hauntingly authentically, like something that still existed right there even in the men’s fantasy, and this is important so as not to dilute the narrative and overdo your job in fooling the audience. Though mostly minor there has been some discussion about the idea that some people can't tell whether or not Marguerite's perspective is meant to be the definitive one, and while I agree with Scott and others that this is mostly pretty obvious, I don't think it's as obvious as they might have you believe. In a movie that's 3 and a 1/2 hours long with the ongoing theater problem of hearing dialogue, without aid of subtitles, and with alot of details to focus on, I think it’s quite possible when adding the ways in which Driver, and Damon’s acting muddles up the point, for some people… some people to come out of a one time viewing not sure as to if this movie might not be about how perspective can differ and these things can be tricky, rather a clear statement about the precarious nature of womens lives in the cruel thicket of patriarchy and misogyny, especially if the viewer is a man. And because in this male society its possible someone would as director take that political view, especially in light of the way so many have responded to #metoo and in light of similar treatments to race in movies like Martin McDonaughs “Three Billboards” and The Farelly Brothers “The Green Book” - I gotta be honest, though I have pretty good faith in Scott's sensibilities in this regard, his “Muhammad such and such” statement alone is enough to prevent me from having air tight confidence in his inability to be that goofy. No, what let me know that “The Last Duel” was clearly about confirming Marguerite was the fact that it spent that much time on her perspective and more importantly Comer’s acting. To me when you want to know the truth look for the most consistent pattern, especially in a story like this and also in this case the most consistent acting. Because Comer's performance had such a distinctive through line it enabled you ( when paying attention to it) to understand and see clearly and without a doubt that it is Marguerite who is telling the truth. It is communicated in her eyes, in her body, in her line readings, and in all the layers she provides underneath those, many times by way of those wonderfully interpretive eyes. It is Comer's performance so central to not only the movie's quality but the movie's morality that should've set tone for the others, and thus her casting should’ve been the initial, basing the casting of the rest off how to compliment and counter that energy. I find it telling as to those initial missteps I spoke of at the top - that she was casted after Damon and Affleck, and that sums up my issues with this movie. It’s a movie that plays too much of a back and forth game with a subject that needed to be very clear even while the events take place in an opaque manner on purpose. It’s a movie filled with contradictions and they're not all the good kind, and THAT unfortunately becomes the duel at play that knocked me off my horse and left me not necessarily cold but indifferent to a movie that could've been powerful even as it upholds and confirms Jodie Comer ( A FAVE of mines ) as a real..well.. Comer.