Number One From Ridley Scott or "What Were We Fighting About Again?"

Duels are about honor. One party is insulted by another in some way, we're usually (but not always) talking about two men here, and he must seek "satisfaction. Often the "wronged" party would just as soon forget about it but is pressured by his surroundings, he would lose honor, lose "face" should he overlook the slight. This movie is about dueling and the crazy-ness it often wrought.

Keith Carridine is D'Hubert, (Say it "due-bare") a junior officer in the 18th Century French army. He isn't an especially flashy or ambitious soldier but views himself as a man of honor who does his job and obeys his orders. One dark day he is sent on an errand by his commanding officer. It seems one of his brother officers, Lt. Feraud  ("fair-O"), is in hot water with the general (seems he has nearly killed a relative of a local official -- in a dual). Hapless D'Hubert is sent out to fetch Feraud back to headquarters for his butt-reaming.

Once he is found Lt. Feraud turns out to be a violent, unbalanced nut. Where most gentlemen go out of their way to avoid apointments on the field of honor, Feraud goes out of his way to pick fights. So of course he does his best to pick one with D'Hubert, by insulting him, shoving him and even threatening to chase him down the street with a sword if he doesn't receive compliance. The impromptu fight that follows ends inconclusively but the pattern is set. Our boy D'Hubert has an enemy for life.

As the movie moves along we see the two duellists at various points in their careers. It was a regulation in the French Army, the script informs us that duels between officers could only occur if the two men were of the same rank. Thus when D'Hubert makes captain he feels safe until Capt. Feraud shows up. The story is told from D'Hubert's point-of-view and, unlike his opponent, he really only wants to be left alone and pursue his career and life, but honor and Feraud don't permit this. Fate, it seems, is amusing herself at D'Hubert and Feraud's expense as, what with one thing and another, the on and off duels are never completed -- with one or the other's death.

"The Duelists" is based on a Joseph Conrad story ("The Duel") published in 1908. It's shot in a sort-of gritty realistic style. This film director Ridley Scott's first feature. Scott is one of the few film directors whom I will take a chance on based on name alone. He did "Alien", and "Blackhawk Down", and even "G.I. Jane". He is a production design maven and you can be reasonably sure even a not-so-hot Scott movie will at least look good.  There are no great sweeps of design work here, Scott gets out of the story's way and gives it a realistic, crisp canvas to unfold on.

Although set in the 19th century, "Duelists" is quite approachable by modern audiences, there are no impenetrable references to the past or French culture or history. Some knowledge of the period is helpful but hardly essential. Nor is the language so archaic as to escape comprehension. I don't recall any swearing, there was a bit of tame, vanilla sex. Now, this is a movie about premeditated fighting between two soldiers. It therefore follows, that a bit of violence can be reasonably expected. yes...? The DVD comes with a healthy selection of little extras including Scott's first film -- a short called "Boy and Bicycle" starring the Ridley's brother and fellow director Tony. (It's OK, I guess, very film-school...(Truth?  I wouldn't have watched it if Ridley Scott didn't direct it...))

I guess this movie's "lesson" such as it has any, is displayed in the contrast between D'Hubert's life path with it's love and family normality and Feraud who's life falls away from him as he goes along leaving him with nothing but "the duel". All of which beg the question: what happens when the duel drops away as well?