MovieChat Forums > The Duellists (1978) Discussion > Who's To Blame For the Duel?

Who's To Blame For the Duel?

posted 16 years ago by jeffyoung1
17 replies | jump to latest

Who's to blame for the non-stop duelling between D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) and Feraud (Harvey Keitel)?

D'Hubert!

Lieutenant Feraud is a short-fuse, volatile tempered individual, the kind you don't want to piss off even though he looks to be only 5'6". But he must have some kind of talent and capability because he keeps rising in the officer ranks like Lieutenant D'Hubert. Eventually both men reach the rank of brigadier general (general de' brigade). Quite possibly had it not been for over ten years of non-stop European warfare, neither man would have risen that far in rank. Feraud would have been stuck at the rank of captain and D'Hubert either at major or maybe lieutenant-colonel, if he was lucky.

Okay, this is what I mean. Lieutenant D'Hubert completely mishandled the situation when he approached Lieutenant Feraud at the first time. D'Hubert spoke in a haughty and cocky manner, perhaps typical of young, brash lieutenants full of themselves. He was bound to piss off an angry personality like Feraud. If I was tasked to deliver the general's message to Feraud, I would have quickly and flatly handed him the message then left. True, D'Hubert was supposed to escort Feraud back to barracks, but there was no way an honor-bound character like Feraud was going to desert and skip town. I would not have engaged in any extraneous conversation or bantering with Feraud. He was already pissed off and just needed someone else to take his anger out on. D'Hubert allowed Feraud to pull him into an angry verbal contest that escalated into verbal vitriol then physical violence.

I don't like the Feraud character. He comes off too easily as a prick. Yet this guy does have close friends. I'm astonished that a thin-skinned, easily-offended guy like Feraud even has friends. Also, after watching THE DUELLISTS several times, I came to appreciate that Feraud did have a sense of fair play. In all his duels with D'Hubert, he never took cheap shots at D'Hubert, never attacked him from behind and gave him every chance when he fell down to get up. In the second duel, Feraud even picks up D'Hubert's dropped rapier and hands it to D'Hubert's second (assistant-friend). For his part, D'Hubert reciprocated the fair fighting.

P.S. Did anyone love that funky organ music being played at the officers' tavern in LUBECK, during the scene Captain D'Hubert visits to meet his friend and reliable second? The organ player kept playing the same short tune over and over again. It was the kind of truly off-the-wall funky, repeating tune that I would have to be really stoned in order to enjoy.

[–] evenstev2003 16 years ago

I didnt think D'Hubert was haughty or cocky when he delivered the order for Feraud to report back to the barracks, he wasnt apologetic for it either, but why should he be? He simply gave the message.
I think Feraud was something like Napoleon himself, but without the intelligence to reach a high station in life. Feraud was short and always trying to prove himself. Classic case of "Napoleon syndrome".

In the second duel, Feraud even picks up D'Hubert's dropped rapier and hands it to D'Hubert's second (assistant-friend).

I have to disagree again. It was as if he wanted the obviously hurt D'Hubert to continue fighting without any delay, even though he was clearly beaten. It gave me the impression he wanted to go on fighting until he killed D'Hubert. To me, that little gesture was the clearest insight into his unreasonable, belligerent mentality.

[–] darth_insidious 16 years ago

The whole Napoleon complex thing is based on a fallacy due to a (typically French) obscure measuring system. At that time a French foot was different to a British foot so when Napoleon was autopsied and measured to be 5 foot 2 inches that was in the French system. In the British (and common) system of measurement that translates to 5 foot 6.5 inches. Not a giant but a little above average for the time.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grendelkhan 15 years ago

Feraud is eternally put-upon. His quarrel with D'Hubert is not with who D'Hubert is, but what Feraud is not. He lusts after Madame De Leone, but can scarce catch her attention, despite the cut of his dashing Hussar's uniform, or campaigns. He does not gain favor with generals. He lacks charm and ease. His only skill is in fighting, something which is of great value in Napoleon's army; but D'Hubert is the better soldier.

Feraud would attack even the mildest of men, had they but merely showed a strength that he did not possess, or gain the attention of someone like Madame De Leone. His quarrell is with the man he sees inside himself and he projects it onto the rest of the world.

[–] CremersAlex 15 years ago

Your explanation is dead on, grendelkhan!

[–] archer1812 15 years ago

Another factor in Feraud's contempt/hate for D'Hubert, and his anger in general is one of class. Feraud's does have a sort of Napoleonic Complex, but it doesn't have anything to do with height (darth is right about Napoleon's height), it has to do with the station in which he was born. He's from the lower classes and feels inferior. He resents D'Hubert mostly because he is an aristocrat.

[–] jeffyoung1 15 years ago

The movie doesn't explain Feraud's social background. But after observing Feraud throughout the entire movie, my conclusion is that Feraud may have been at least from the middle class. His personal manner, fairly educated speech indicates education and some proper upbringing. But I agree with one poster. As a result of the bloody 1789 French Revolution, Feraud may have despised the aristocratic class and the people from it. I recall that Feraud made some comments about D'Hubert's social background that would have indicated distain.

If you read my post about the scary Feraud, you know what I mean. You can be going about your business as usual, with people around you liking you, but out of the crowd, someone decides to despise you for what you are and to become your enemy. That has happened to me several times at different places. People around me may be neutral or some like me and appreciate my own particular talents, but I keep running into a guy who's envious and despises me because I can do something he can't or didn't think of, so this dude becomes my personal enemy. Behind my back he spreads poison about me, my competency, and my workers to anyone who will listen. For five out six years at one workplace, I had to put up with that crap with this evil moron. And higher management chose to disregard it or blame me for not dealing with him properly. Worse, this motherf-cker knew how to k-$$a$$ the boss so much that the boss thought I must be dreaming the whole thing up. That was the fate of D'Hubert. Feraud hated D'Hubert for being D'Hubert. It was a kind of visceral, primal hate in which the guy just feels the obsessive need to snuff out your life like a cockroach.

[–] archer1812 15 years ago

Maybe you're right. But the impression that I got, was that he was a character much like Richard Sharpe from the Cromwell stories and played by Sean Bean in the series. I saw Feraud as a man that comes from the lower classes, joins the army at a young age to escape, and by his own merit climbs the ranks.

I saw nothing in his mannerisms and speech to indicate an education or proper upbringing or that he came from the middle class. On the contrary, his behavior, the company that he kept and his comments about D'Hubert's social background betrayed the nature of his origin. But like I said, I could be wrong.

[–] b-rad 8 years ago

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold up. Feraud is at fault, because of his temper and his all-consuming hate. D'Hubert is merely carrying out an order. He arrives at the lady's salon, politely asks Feruad aside, excusing them both to the lady on a "matter of military importance", I believe was the line. He gives no indication to the lady and her guests that anything is the matter, certainly not that Feraud has done anything. As far as they might guess, the regiment is being ordered to march. Feraud is unreasonable. He is to blame.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

[–] tempestnam 15 years ago

Simple question:

So if I unknowingly insult someone and they pull out a gun and cap me...I'm to blame? Just listen to your reasoning.

What about the way the first duel happens? Feraud physically prevents D'Hubert from leaving under threat of violence.

And actually, I'm watching it right now. He approached Feraud timidly and with a sense of earnestness about his message. You can see it in the eyes. To which Feraud responds in an argumentative tone. He looks back and forth...then approached D'Hubert demanding, "What did you say!"

Then when D'Hubert tries to explain the situation (Mayor of Straussbergs Uncle) and the delicacy of it, Feraud again becomes combative trying to get a reaction.

It's hardly an insult to perform a military function. But Feraud tries to convey some personal reason as to why D'Hubert "Sought him out at a ladies house."

Everything D'Hubert says is only a reaction to Ferauds combativeness. He could have been more tactful maybe, but in this situation IMO that would have revealed him a weak man. What's wrong with calling it like it is and telling people so?

We should spare peoples feelings when they behave in a manner that doesn't deserve such consideration? All that does is enable such people. People like Feraud to continue behaving ridiculously.

[–] Karl Aksel 15 years ago

So D'Hubert is to blame for Feraud's sensitivities?

[–] efa-3 15 years ago

Feraud wants to duel D'Hubert, not because of something he said, but because what he didn't say and hid it behind his aristocratic "well manners". I think that is what infuriates Feraud the most, not the what D'Hubert does or says, but the simple fact that he is from different society class.
All in the spirit of french revolution where the aristocracy is questioned and persecuted.

[–] rharwoodx 15 years ago

Who's to blame indeed?! My thought was always that the origin of the argument was supposed to be as obscure and irreconcilable as the conflict that exists between aristocracy and the proletariat. A conflict that we can debate on and analyze for an eternity, without coming any closer to a solution, for how can you reconcile one who has much with one who has little without conflict? Who is to blame for class struggle? The rich or the poor? I can't think of an answer, neither can this movie, neither can the world, at least not yet.

Feraud obviously has a chip on his shoulder, but who put it there? The possibilities for debating blame for the conflict is almost endless taken in the context of the social upheavel of the time.

That is one weird sounding Bazooka!
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=44295325

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

The film is basically about class conflict. Féraud probably would not even be an officer were it not for the French Revolution, and his loyalty to Napoleon is loyalty to someone else of less than exalted social origins who made it to the top. D'Hubert, on the other hand, is an aristocrat.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] TheAyatollah 8 years ago

D'Hubert allowed Feraud to pull him into an angry verbal contest that escalated into verbal vitriol then physical violence.

Feraud actually blocked the door to stop d'Hubert from leaving just before the first duel. D'Hubert didn't want any part of it.

I think Feraud was just a bully, but wanted to fight, win and kill within a certain set of rules, not just kill at all costs. It was his fault entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24MZcKtps1w

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

I don't particularly like D'Hubert's character (I think the film is too subtle to be good guy vs. bad guy) but the idea he is to blame for the duel is perverse.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."