This film has a lot to take in both visually and story-wise. First of all this film isn't a war movie, it is a drama which I loved. I thought the end duel was masterfully done, one of the best build-ups and pay-offs I have seen in a long time but I want to focus on is purely the script and the two characters it has. Notice that I only say two characters because Marguerite isn't a character not because they failed at making her a character but because they were successful at making her a mere pawn. The only time she has been a character was when Jean de Carrouges left for Scotland and she had time to do some daily work. I have heard some people say that her character feels flawless compared to Jean and Jacques Le Gris's characters but it is because she doesn't have one. She didn't have one at that time. She didn't have the chance to defend herself, the trial was between the two duellists not between the accused and the victim.
The film had 2 chances where it could have failed miserably but fortunately it dealt with these perfectly. The first one is the question: "Is Jacques Le Gris lying to himself and the others?" and surprisingly the answer is no. According to him he didn't rape her. In a scene near the beginning of the 2nd chapter we see Jacques Le Gris chasing a woman as a "game" and in the end he basically rapes her with the help of the others. Some might she is willingly there but then my answer is she chose to be there because the alternative was just worse, it didn't mean she chose to be raped. So Jacques Le Gris thinks of their encounter with Marguerite as an adultery rather than a rape. When he looks at her and fantasize then see that she is looking at him he thinks it is because she also wants it too(which is unfortunately still present in some people today). Him thinking like that isn't uncommon in that time period clearly seen by the fact that Marguerite finding Jacques Le Gris handsome is a proof that it wasn't rape(which again unfortunately is an argument some people defend today). In the end Jacques Le Gris still says that it wasn't rape not because he is lying but because it was the truth, for him. Loved this.
The other mistake the film cleverly avoids is making Jean de Carrouges a likable character. Maybe in the first chapter he seems like a protagonist but even there we see that in the marriage they never talk about her life but only about his. How bad of a husband he was(according to today of course, in that time period his actions were seen normal) is way more clear in Marguerite's perspective, which feels like an objective narrator but that's only because she isn't an actual character but just an object in the context of the film which is brilliant. I mean I don't even have to explain how he was about to not get married because some land wasn't in the dowry or how he and his mother(whom I thought was a very complex character) talk to her. The only scene I need to mention is after he learns that she was raped. He says, "I should be the one who had sexual intercourse with you the last" to a rape victim. That's just cruel and proves that he never really cared about her feelings. In the end if Marguerite's life wasn't at stake I wouldn't want either of them to win(or would be okay with both winning). Not because I hated or loved either of them, I just didn't root for any of them meaning the film achieved its purpose. The symbolism from horses breeding to how characters thought stuff played out(and both were right according to them, so can we actually say they are wrong? This is a topic for philosophy though) and how much the Mom and Ben Affleck's character added to the film and so on but then this would become an essay. All these topics can be discussed for a pretty long time so if you had watched this film with someone and didn't talk more than a few minutes about it I strongly urge you because you will learn more and love the film more as you talk about it.
The film had 2 chances where it could have failed miserably but fortunately it dealt with these perfectly. The first one is the question: "Is Jacques Le Gris lying to himself and the others?" and surprisingly the answer is no. According to him he didn't rape her. In a scene near the beginning of the 2nd chapter we see Jacques Le Gris chasing a woman as a "game" and in the end he basically rapes her with the help of the others. Some might she is willingly there but then my answer is she chose to be there because the alternative was just worse, it didn't mean she chose to be raped. So Jacques Le Gris thinks of their encounter with Marguerite as an adultery rather than a rape. When he looks at her and fantasize then see that she is looking at him he thinks it is because she also wants it too(which is unfortunately still present in some people today). Him thinking like that isn't uncommon in that time period clearly seen by the fact that Marguerite finding Jacques Le Gris handsome is a proof that it wasn't rape(which again unfortunately is an argument some people defend today). In the end Jacques Le Gris still says that it wasn't rape not because he is lying but because it was the truth, for him. Loved this.
The other mistake the film cleverly avoids is making Jean de Carrouges a likable character. Maybe in the first chapter he seems like a protagonist but even there we see that in the marriage they never talk about her life but only about his. How bad of a husband he was(according to today of course, in that time period his actions were seen normal) is way more clear in Marguerite's perspective, which feels like an objective narrator but that's only because she isn't an actual character but just an object in the context of the film which is brilliant. I mean I don't even have to explain how he was about to not get married because some land wasn't in the dowry or how he and his mother(whom I thought was a very complex character) talk to her. The only scene I need to mention is after he learns that she was raped. He says, "I should be the one who had sexual intercourse with you the last" to a rape victim. That's just cruel and proves that he never really cared about her feelings. In the end if Marguerite's life wasn't at stake I wouldn't want either of them to win(or would be okay with both winning). Not because I hated or loved either of them, I just didn't root for any of them meaning the film achieved its purpose. The symbolism from horses breeding to how characters thought stuff played out(and both were right according to them, so can we actually say they are wrong? This is a topic for philosophy though) and how much the Mom and Ben Affleck's character added to the film and so on but then this would become an essay. All these topics can be discussed for a pretty long time so if you had watched this film with someone and didn't talk more than a few minutes about it I strongly urge you because you will learn more and love the film more as you talk about it.