• Rating:
Although the film takes inspiration from a story by Joseph Conrad, (I open a parenthesis by recommending, besides the well-known "Heart of Darkness", the lesser-known and very interesting "The Shadow Line"), the plot told in the film is, forgive the affront to the author, secondary. To simplify it, it’s a controversy of honor born from stupid and smoky reasons between two equally ranked soldiers of the hussars battalion, (part of the French cavalry during Napoleon’s time). The two protagonists have profoundly different characters; one irascible and passionate, the other much calmer, "clean," bound by a mutual hatred. The first, a Bonapartist par excellence, clings to an absurd pretext to challenge in a deadly duel the second, who cannot back out for fear of being branded for the rest of his military life as a coward. The impossibility of finding a victor, the repeated suspensions due to the wounds suffered by both in the various duels they will engage in, will force them to clash on the battlefields of half of Europe for the absurd period of sixteen years: from Napoleon's rise to the restoration of the monarchy.
It's a historical film, therefore, without changes in pace except from slow to very slow, with a plot as linear as the heartbeat of a dead man. Lounging on the sofa with a bothersome walrus on my stomach, the Christmas lunch, I started watching the film convinced that I wouldn’t be able to go beyond the first commercial break. I was already anticipating a restorative nap on the armchair as often happens to me after a few laps of a random GP, your choice, of Formula 1. The reason I am writing this review is due to the fact that, against all odds, my eyes not only stayed open but were extremely attentive throughout: no yawning and the next day I even felt the need to watch the work again.
You don’t need to read Wikipedia or an online review to understand that this 1977 film is a child of "Barry Lyndon" ('75). I imagine Ridley Scott, sitting in the cinema, being baffled in front of the sublime cinematography (it feels like moving through a series of 18th-century paintings) rich in long shots combined with frames and scenography capable of giving goosebumps and a costume care that’s as close as it gets to the term perfection. I close my eyes and "see" him taking notes while attending the tragic duels that will bring fortune and disgrace to the protagonist who gives the film its name. The attention to the continuous reprise of a musical motif, particularly fitting with the described setting, capable of bouncing in the head while the viewer enjoys images unique in quality and pleasure. An actor, Ryan O'Neal, who adds a bit of spice to the story with a level performance to break the slow pace of the work.
The terrible blasphemy I feel like hitting on DeBaser today is that "The Duellists", although a somewhat derivative and infinitely lesser-known film, I prefer to Kubrick's aesthetic visual pearl.
The protagonists of "The Duellists" (Keitel/Carradine) with their splendid mustaches managed to perfectly render the dichotomy between two unreconcilable characters who are forced to compete, risking their lives without a real reason for their discord. It's almost an instinctive, animal factor; like the dog marking the territory every hundred meters. In this context, the acting ability assumes a very significant importance and Keitel hits the character of the obsessed, bloodthirsty one and Carradine that of the melancholic condemned who would like to avoid that fetid rabid dog that chases him drooling. Without beating around the bush, the duels thanks to these two actors are a spectacle!
Ridley Scott, I believe at his cinematographic debut, and with very few means at his disposal moves the camera with extreme wisdom showing us how legs tremble burnt by fear, making us hear the panting breaths of bodies at their limit being lacerated, pierced even though they stubbornly refuse to yield to the sinister and sweet call of death. Overview of the landscapes that provide the backdrop to the clashes are alternated with close-ups of the faces of two great actors. Personally, I rooted for Keitel, I have a soft spot for bastards ("Pulp Fiction", "The Bad Lieutenant"), but I can also understand the viewer who prefers to side with Carradine. Transforming for fun the figures of the duelists into tennis players... Well, it's easy. The first is undoubtedly John McEnroe, while the second can only be Stefan Edberg.
In "Barry Lyndon", the aesthetic beauty of the images takes precedence over the acting in which Ryan O'Neal doesn't find a counterpart, a level antagonist that sublimates the key stages of his life. As much as this imbalance, in favor of aesthetics that perhaps in these three historical hours reaches its highest point in the history of cinema, is surely intended by Kubrick, I believe that "The Duellists" has the great merit of combining the visual enjoyment of superb shots, (the initial scene of the geese, the various long takes in the interiors and the scenic settings of the duels, the final climb on the hill, etc...) with an uncommon acting power. Scott's film also has the great merit, perhaps determined by the limited budget, of having a very compact running time barely touching a hundred minutes. Personally, I find it hard to digest works that are too verbose (the same "Barry Lyndon" and Altman's "Short Cuts" are exceptions).
Given the means at the disposal of the young debuting director, I believe he did a remarkable job.
I conclude with one last blasphemy: this little-known work I put on the same level as "Blade Runner" and "Alien".
Loading comments slowly
