MovieChat Forums > The Duellists (1978) Discussion > Another view on the Duellists.

Another view on the Duellists.

posted 17 years ago by fistjedi
11 replies | jump to latest

People have seen the Duellists as an allegory to the turbulence of Napoleon's times, or even the conflict that resides in all of us. As for me, I see Feraud as a fundamentalist who refuses to change with the times(This could be anyone in any era). His way of resolving conflict is by fighting. Fighting in the army and dueling is how he has made his way in the world. Everyone is kind of intimidated by Feraud's bullying tactics. D'Hubert on the other hand, will fight only if needed. He is a diplomatic man who sees that the world is changing, and even battle hardened Napolonatic era soldiers must be able to change with it. Feraud doesn't want to change, and has fixated it in his mind that D'Hubert is an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs due to his progressive views.

Feraud is also afraid that he will become obsolete, so he feels that he must fight against change. You see this over and over in history. The world changes, and some people don't want to change, to grow or to develop out of fear. So they cling to their fundamentalist views and will do their best to tear down anyone who disagrees by any means necessary. There's nothing wrong with having passions and convictions about anything (religion, politics, pop culture, etc.) However when you aren't even willing to just listen to other people and hear their views out, you're in trouble. This disregard of human beings is part of the reason conflicts begin all throughout history and today.

[–] xaggurat 17 years ago

That's a well-based viewpoint, which didn't cross my mind when I watched the film years ago. This puts Feraud in same level with the gang in Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, which also chose fighting, "a suicide mission" instead of trying to cope with the change to more modern world. Difference between Feraud and members of the Wild Bunch is that Feraud is of another breed. He has no compassion and receives pleasure from tormenting people who he perceives as weak and sentimental. He is charmful enough to raise a bunch of friends or followers, but generally is thought as unnerving character who can daunt others with a mere look. Which makes him a psychopath or a sociopath.

As the terms are often mixed: a psychopath is what he is most likely because of biological or genetic factors. Sociopath however has turned to one because of social factors, like tough childhood. In example, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, famous fictional villain is actually a sociopath, as the prequel Hannibal Rises proves.

So, Feraud can as well be a sociopath, since harsh conditions, there most likely were when he was young, will create greater number of people with antisocial disorders. Feraud has different moral codes so he sees no wrong in what he is doing, as he believes in the strength over the weak. His eagerness to participate in duels won't make him brave, as he is built differently. He won't have to struggle to be brave.

I simply received the film as a story of D'Hubert's survival over a psychopath without lowering himself to the same level. The world both characters live in makes it possible for a simple psychopath to rise in ranks as fast as anyone and possess equal amount of honor, prestige and credibility as a decent, honorable and conscientious human can.

[–] jarnomiedema 17 years ago

A vibe that I picked up on when I saw the Duellists was something that one could perhaps describe as something of a class struggle. Feraud being a man who took as much advantage of Bonaparte's meritocracy as D'Hubert, but had nothing to fall back on when the Emperor was removed from power.

While it's not too obvious, at first glance Feraud seemed to be much closer to the ground, much grimier and much less sophisticated than D'Hubert (even though he tries). Feraud despises this greatly and hopes to teach D'Hubert a lesson in humility; to show him that one doesn't need to have been brought up in wealth in order to fight well..

But maybe that is just my own interpretation of the film..

[–] Habu974 17 years ago

>> A vibe that I picked up on when I saw the Duellists was something that one could perhaps describe as something of a class struggle. Feraud being a man who took as much advantage of Bonaparte's meritocracy as D'Hubert, but had nothing to fall back on when the Emperor was removed from power.

Ridley Scott himself makes this point explicitly in the commentary: both d'Hubert and Ferraud are professional soldiers. Ferraud is like Napoleon himself: a poor man, self-made, utterly dependent on the militaristic meritocracy / re-arranged aristocracy Napoleon created, "who will never have any money" in Scott's words.

d'Hubert, as his name suggests, is an old-style aristocrat, from southern France - "This is my home, damn you, this is Royalist country!"
He will always have money and title to fall back on, even tho', as he says,
"learned his trade in Bonaparte's service", and can claim "only to be a mere imp, not one of his demons."

Once the Monarchy is restored, before and after Waterloo, he retires to the family's southern estate, old and wounded enough to avoid the foolishness of one last romantic Napoleonic adventure, and also managing to win his last duel with the fixated Ferraud, even tho' he descends to a duel with him one last time.

the Duellists makes an interesting contrast with most other depictions of France of the time, such as Waterloo, which take a more common, negative view of Louis XVIII, "his pottle-bellied majesty" as British troops called him.

"Bud! The crane - we've lost the crane, it's on its way down to you!"

[–] jl201 17 years ago

I think to me Ferraud represents old militaristic France of previous centuries which repeatedly tried to conquer Europe, and D'hubert represents a new more peaceful 19th century France which realizes that it cannot conquer Europe and must therefore respect the balance of power in European geopolitics. Of course we know how that turned out. The French army fell out of favor, morale and overall quality of leadership deteriorated and eventual French humiliation in the 1870 war with Prussia. With men like Ferraud, such a thing probably wouldn't have happened.

[–] xaggurat 17 years ago

And what happened to Germany, which had more men like Ferraud back in 1930-40's and tried to make the whole nation like Ferraud?

[–] deeveed 17 years ago

But interestingly I don't think Germany was say a psychopathic or sociopathic state. They lulled everybody to sleep. Maybe we can put in the concept of obsession-compulsion for both Germany and Ferraud? Both had one big thought always going through their minds and pounded it relentlessly. And they did it both to the death.

[–] xaggurat 17 years ago

Why I first came up with the idea, that Ferraud maybe a psychopath would be because I linked this movie with Scott's later movie, Blade Runner, which in an interesting way deals with psychopathy, like Philip K. Dick's book does too.

I mainly agree with you, but I'm not sure if a state can be psychopathic or sociopathic, but during the Nazi regime people weren't in sleep, they were manipulated by fear, lies and promises to follow psychopathic values and principles which were created by people suffering of variety of mental disorders such as Hitler - sociopath, Goebbels - psychopath and Göring - narsistic, suffered of several addictions. In any case the people were dealt with several different ways ranging from flower talk to extreme violence.

[–] lovecraftfan 17 years ago

Seems likely that the duelists that fought on multiple occasions probably could come under sociopathic terms. They knew no wrong in the deed of killing, the intial trouble in the film was only raised because the injured party was the relative of the mayor if there hadnt been a power connection there would have been no problem. Scott may have been linking old and new regimes through the combatants, however it should be remembered that there were a lot of these people killing each other and at the time I doubt they saw further than the end of the sword and had little interest in long term views and movements, soldiers did and do get bored. Fighting for a trade, practise for joy, kill through necessity maybe some found joy in it?

The box, you opened it we came.

[–] deeveed 17 years ago

I've just been re-thinking those concepts of sociopathy and psychopathy and maybe there could be something in it. I'd think it would work if we saw Feraud
as using the duel to ameliorate his sense of perhaps not being in his opponent's social class. Consistently resorting to a fight/duel stems perhaps from his lack of worth? At one point, the aristocracy, affecting an exaggerated sense of honor, did use duels to establish themselves as a social class. Feraud's notion of honor looks as if did go off the deep end in seeking to continually fight duels. Not duelling affected his core self which was arguably pretty weak to what he was up against in the new world he found hismelf in at the time.

[–] lovecraftfan 17 years ago

Perhaps more of the gunslinger in the American west fighting to be the best, Honor was everything to rubbish someones name was to kill them socially similar to excomunication [cant buy or sell, eat under Christian roof etc]
cant marry a social equal probably no promotion as the cowards label will be used, if already have children they would be tarred with same brush, people would "cut you dead"

The box, you opened it we came.

[–] fistjedi 12 years ago

Wow. I'm surprised that this is still here and it hasn't been purged.