MovieChat Forums > The Duellists (1978) Discussion > Would you call this time period the era ...

Would you call this time period the era of 'real men?'

posted 13 years ago by jl201
15 replies | jump to latest

I hate to romanticize a time period, but this era in which the Duel takes place seems obsessed with honor almost to a fault. When challenged to a duel a man was obliged to accept or apologize for the insult real or imagined. Do you think that men of the present age have become more dishonorable and cowardly? Most will no longer fight you one on one but will bring his friends to fight you i.e., gang violence. While others will just shoot you when you least suspect it. Any thoughts?

[–] joscco 13 years ago

No. I think the movie shows how idiotic the "honour code" and duelling were.

"I told you it was off." The Jackal

[–] shadowfox-10 13 years ago

I agree, especially toward the end of the movie where d'Hubert was putting his life at danger with a child on the way over a trivial disagreement, the origin of which Feraud can't even remember.

No human life is ever worth something so petty.

Although I'm opposed to violence for any reason, dueling does seem more civilized than getting gangs of people to fight each other, so I'll give you that.

[–] ozymandias312 12 years ago

Someone -- maybe Napoleon himself -- once said that he regretted the passing of the duel (into history), "as it had *so* tended to improve manners." People tend to watch what they say a little better if they think they may really have to fight over it, especially with deadly weapons.

There was some quote in some Robert E. Howard story too, where Conan (I think it was) remarked that "'Civilized' men are generally *less* courteous than barbarians, because they know that, as a rule, they can be rude without getting their skulls split."

I seem to dimly recall some old-time Border Patrol agent who recalled that in all his years of service in the nineteen-teens through nineteen-thirties he had never heard a man call another man a son of a b!+ch to his face. That was in a time and place where many men still routinely went armed, you see.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

[–] joscco 12 years ago

All but five states in the U.S. have "shall issue" laws, meaning if you have a clean background and want to carry a concealed firearm, the state must issue a permit to do so. It still really does pay to polite.

"I told you it was off." The Jackal

[–] ozymandias312 12 years ago

Yea, verily.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

[–] andreifuf 12 years ago

i'm really annoyed by lack of decency these days. Mostly in traffic. Any driver can insult you, even if he is wrong, cause he knows he's not getting punished. Most of the people in my area seem like sociopaths to me.

If every man had a gun, and duels were usual practice, i'm sure those idiots would think twice. And it's not that they consider themselves righteous people, they dont't do it because of being right". No. They just violently hate everyone around them and can snap at any time. It's just madness in most cases, with a lot of verbal agressivness. They usually break rules of good behaviour, and hate you if you tell them they're wrong. The police is nowhere to be found, as usual. Where will it end, where will it end?

[–] ozymandias312 12 years ago

Well, I can relate, and sympathize, somewhat. Without question the highways are crowded with rude and heedless people, who, as you say, "just violently hate everyone around them and can snap at any time."

But -- take care that you do not fall into the same trap and become one of them. For Heaven's sake resist any temptation to be a road-raging traffic vigilante who tries to correct or punish other people's bad driving.

Driving in traffic really is inherently hazardous, and when you see someone driving more dangerously than usual, just try to get some distance between you and him, just let him go on ahead (the better to get him away from you), and leave him to the police, or to fate.

Whatever you do, don't go chasing after him vengefully. And just be thankful every time you reach your own destination in one piece.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Someone -- maybe Napoleon himself -- once said that he regretted the passing of the duel (into history), "as it had *so* tended to improve manners." People tend to watch what they say a little better if they think they may really have to fight over it, especially with deadly weapons.

This sounds all well and good until one considers that Feraud's original challenge to D'Hubert for a duel was because D'Hubert came to fetch him from a lady's house, following orders. He was blindly irrational and seemed to want to fight purely for fighting sake. Such a man is a liability, not a gent.

A man chases a woman until she catches him

[–] ozymandias312 12 years ago

I will grant you that Feraud *was* basically a "tetchy," thin-skinned, ill-tempered, quarrelsome jerk from the beginning.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

[–] Herreken 8 years ago

Did Feraud really not remember the cause of the feud?

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

One shouldn´t confuse honor with stupidity. And losing one´s life over some perceived sleight or a meaningless quarrel is precisely that - stupid.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] ozymandias312 12 years ago

You'll get no argument fom me there.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

Challenging people to duels in this period could be a form of bullying.

"His nephew and biographer (Ferdinand Brock Tupper) asserts that shortly after joining the regiment, a professional dueller forced a match on him.[14] As the one being challenged Brock had his choice of terms, and so he insisted that they fight with pistols. His friends were shocked as Brock was a large target and his opponent an expert shot. Brock however refused to change his mind. When the duellist arrived at the field he asked Brock to decide how many paces they would take. Brock insisted that the duel would take place not at the usual range, but at handkerchief distance (i.e., close range). The duellist declined and subsequently was forced to leave the regiment. This contributed to Brock's popularity and reputation among his fellow officers, as this duellist had a formidable reputation and was reportedly regarded as a bully in the regiment." (From Wikipedia biography of Sir Isaac Brock)

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

[–] worldofsnail 8 years ago

I hate analyse, but you sound like the sort of oddball who gets off on violence. 'Real men'? There's something wrong with you.

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

"Real men" don't celebrate needless violence. You sound like an ape.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP