Class


Of all the message boards I have read or participated in, this one has by far the classiest responses I have yet found. Questions are answered straight out, with no condescension or insult, no one seems to be trying to belittle the questioner or start an arguement. Perhaps it is the subject matter, which relates to honor as the mark of a gentleman. Perhaps it is that the study of swordsmanship tends to cultivate that.
In any case, my compliments to the Board.

"To the Emperor. Good luck to him and good luck to those who love him."

reply

Here, Here! I've noticed the same trend on this board, myself. I think that is a remarkable thing. The Duellists is an excellent film and one of Sir Ridley Scott's finest pictures. The entire film is like looking at a beautiful painting in an art musuem display. It is also, as somelese described it,as a fine wine in the art of cinema.

Definately a period piece and an art film. It is also an entertaining picture that touches upon specific themes. Be it honor, swordsmanship, being an Englishman and a gentleman, and in some ways, standing up and fighting for what you believe in.

I first saw The Duellists in 1997,on the movie's twentieth anniversary, and I must say, I was quite impressed by it. A splendid work of art and a best first directorial effort by Ridley Scott,himself.

I'm just curious to know why Sir Michael York and Oliver Reed were let go from the picture. I think it would have been great to have seen them in the roles of the two lead characters. York as D'Herbert and Reed as (the Harvey Keitel character).

reply

I think Ridders mentions (or hints at) it on the commentary. Because of Oliver being in Woman in Love only a few years before (and probably because of his hellraiding attitude) and Ridders being the collateral if the £900,000 budget went a penny over (i.e he was paying!) I think he and David Puttnam chose more bankable stars (Keith Carridine had just had a hit single 'I'm easy' and Harvey was an up and coming star...Although ironincally as The Duellist's flopped it took Harvey another 14 years or so before he would 'make it' with first Thelma and Louise, and then Reservoir Dogs pushing him into the big time!)

I'll have to listen to the commentary again to be sure...I think he mentions Oliver Reed on the Gladiator commentary as well...


'I'll need expenses...And my expenses are expensive...'

reply

...he and David Puttnam chose more bankable stars (Keith Carridine had just had a hit single 'I'm easy' and Harvey was an up and coming star.
Excellent casting for whatever reason, especially Keitel. One grows to hate his character very early on in the movie.

reply

On the DVD Scott says he wanted York and Reed as they were fine swordsman, the US money men said no and gave him a list of four American actors and he chose Keitel and Carradine.

I highly recommend the DVD for the interview between Scott and Kevin Reynolds.

gabh an latha,

Richard
Eugene, OR

reply

>>On the DVD Scott says he wanted York and Reed as they were fine swordsman, the US money men said no and gave him a list of four American actors and he chose Keitel and Carradine.

Ironically he went over budget anyway, losing his fee, having to pay for the costumes, the pistols, etc, and then enduring a tiny release.

Practically no-one saw it until it came out on rental video, and then DVD. Ridley and the studio got their money in the end, just a pity so few people saw it in 1977...

It did get him a great reputation as a stylist director with a Kubrickesque ability to command light [often accidental, just mist and sun, as he readily admitted], and it also got him the directorship of Alien, and the rest is history.

What is lost, comparatively, is his ability with story - the way he took Alien from a simple shocker and made Ripley a landmark woman character in SF and cinema.

And his committment to the story and the film as project: on the Duellists they took his fee, his wide release, and eventually the whole movie, but he made it the way he wanted it.
And we have all benefitted from that these last 30 years.

I have a sense, having seen many films of the time, and of York and Reed, that with them it might have seemed a movie about older men, not young cavalry officers: they were established stars with a large body of work and with big reputations.

On the other hand, Carradine and Keitel were younger men more suited to the story and the acting, and it still seems a young, fresh movie today, not another classic flabby 70s film with a couple of older Brit actors in it - tho' ironically all the other actors - Colborne, McInnery, Finney, etc are all exactly that sort of actor.

My point is it seems a young fresh film still, with young leads, not a dated piece - compare the 1970s Musketeers movies, for instance, who watches them today with the same enthusiasm? Compare also the 1970 de Laurentiis Waterloo which had no young stars and flopped, killing off Kubrick's much-vaunted Napoleon project. It had a galaxy of stars - Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummer, Jack Hawkins, etc, but we watch it for the dialogue, the voiced-over thoughts, the costumes and the documentaried choreography of the scenes, not a couple of stars, young or otherwise.

the Duellists with older stars is Rather like imagining Star Wars with older, more established talent instead of Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford :O

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

reply

Do you demand satisfaction?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]