MovieChat Forums > The Last Duel (2021) Discussion > Did Sir Jean's mother help facilitate th...

Did Sir Jean's mother help facilitate the rape?


After watching this film (which I found quite fascinating), I was left with one nagging question that ultimately seemed to be left as a loose end.

Throughout the film—across the multiple perspectives of unfolding events—there seemed to be a deliberate, if somewhat subtle, implication that Sir Jean de Carrouges’ mother may have played a role in facilitating the rape of Jean’s wife, Marguerite, by Jacques Le Gris.

Firstly, the mother obviously disliked Marguerite very much—she was nasty and disrespectful to her, likely due in great part to Marguerite’s failure to provide an heir to Jean. She may have wanted to get rid of Marguerite, and perhaps thought her being raped by her son’s enemy would—one way or another—end the marriage. So, she had motive.

Further, looking at the logistics of the rape itself, I’m not sure how it could have worked without the mother providing assistance to Le Gris. While it’s true that Le Gris knew Jean would be out of town during the time of his assault, how could he have had any idea that the entire manor would empty, leaving Marguerite completely alone and utterly vulnerable?

Before leaving for Paris, Jean explicitly instructs his mother to not leave Marguerite alone at the manor under any circumstances. Yet, one day while her son was away, the mother decides to “run some errands,” unnecessarily taking the entire staff with her. She blatantly disregards her son’s instructions, leaving her daughter-in-law alone and helpless. There’s even a brief scene as the mother is leaving, with Marguerite clearly concerned and gently pleading that she should not be left alone. The mother coldly shrugs Marguerite off, and leaves.

Of course, during this very brief time Marguerite is left alone, Le Gris shows up, and proceeds to rape her.

Honestly, I just don’t see how Le Gris' rape plot could have ultimately worked out for him, without inside help from Jean’s mother.

Yet, from what I remember, during the aftermath of the assault, with the finger-pointing, accusations, and trial, neither Marguerite (nor Jean) even seem to consider the mother’s involvement as a possibility.

So, I suppose either I’m misreading the situation, or Marguerite herself overlooked it. While she did seem quite intelligent, I believe some of the evidence I’ve presented here is compelling as well.

Any input or opinions on my theory is certainly welcome.

reply

i though the same thing.

reply

Glad to hear I’m not the only one. I just can't figure out why neither Marguerite nor Jean seemed to even mildly suspect the mother’s possible involvement.

Honestly, a brief scene of the husband/wife simply and "reasonably" questioning the old lady after the whole incident had occurred could have been, at the very least, intriguing, if not brutally revealing.

reply

I don't know. It's true the mother disliked Marguerite, but I don't know what strategic outcome she would be hoping for if she actually plotted with Le Gris ahead of time to help facilitate the rape. What good would that do? I get that she took all the servants, but I think this was really just a bitch power play thing.

I don't think Le Gris ever planned to (in his mind) "rape" her or thought he was raping her. He thought it was fair play for her flirtations, and I don't think he would be too concerned about a servant or two being around, in another room who likely wouldn't do anything.

I'm trying to imagine some conversation between Le Gris and Marguerite's mother in law, how that would go, and I just can't see it being the case.

reply

While I appreciate your thoughts on the issue, I feel like I previously addressed several of the points you brought up in your objections. The possible outcome Jean’s mother may have been looking for? Like I said, she wanted an heir for her son, and a grandchild for herself. Marguerite seemed unable to provide that, hence the mother’s potential motive for wanting to remove Marguerite from the picture.

Regarding the absence of the servants, it seemed like more than a simple “power play.” There was an entire staff working the manor, yet the mother insisted on sending every one of them from the premises. Granted, it may be true that even if one or two servants had stayed behind, they would have still failed to take any action in the moment to stop the rape. However, their mere presence within the manor would have at least provided all-important witnesses to the event, who thus would have been able to collaborate Marguerite’s story.

More important than the missing servants, though—what about the mother herself? While Le Gris was aware that Jean would be absent at the time of his visit, surely he would have been concerned about the presence of Jean’s mother. Even if he simply figured the old woman would be unable to physically stop him, he certainly would have been worried that word of the event would have quickly gotten back to Jean. Unless, of course, he had some way of knowing that Jean’s mother would not object to Le Gris’ actions.

Honestly, even if Le Gris was too blind to realize that his assault of Marguerite was an obvious and unjustifiable rape, his intention for traveling to see her was clear from the very start. Why else would he be hiding out-of-sight near the locked door, only presenting himself after having his servant lie to Marguerite in order to convince her to open the door?

Had Le Gris’ motives been truly innocent (even if only in his own mind), why the pretense and trickery just to gain entrance into the house?

reply

Finally, regarding the possible correspondence between Jean’s mother and Le Gris, there are a few things to consider. First, Jean and Le Gris were (originally) friends—I imagine the mother was at least acquainted with Le Gris to some extent, if not fairly close. As such, it’s possible they were merely conversing one day—perhaps causally—when Le Gris made a comment about Marguerite, complimenting her beauty, charm, etc. Jean’s mother may have then started on about her disdain for her daughter-in-law, saying how Jean would be much better off without her, etc, etc. Things could have easily escalated from there, eventually culminating with some “innocent” suggestion that Le Gris travel out to their manor to pay Marguerite a “friendly visit” at a time when the girl might just happen to be “very lonely”.

In other words, it didn’t have to begin as some plot of ultimate evil between Le Gris and Jean’s mother, with the two of them meeting in the shadows to finalize all the nefarious details of the rape. Rather, I imagine the whole agenda progressing in a much less sinister fashion.

If you recall, there’s actually a scene later in the film in which Jean’s mother expresses her general views on rape to Marguerite, even admitting that she herself had been victim to it in the past. Yet she nonetheless seemed to consider it a fairly “matter-of-fact” occurrence—not the hugely traumatic crime it’s viewed as today. With this in mind, the mother’s possible assistance to Le Gris in the matter is more understandable, and doesn’t necessarily indict her character as some villain of unspeakable evil. Rather, just a woman who realized a way for two people to accomplish a shared goal, in turn doing her part to possibly make that happen.

reply

Yes, I'm aware of all that. I'll grant it's open to interpretation, but I'm still not convinced, unless the writer says that's what they meant to convey.

If Marguerite had so far failed to conceive from sex with her husband, why would the the mother in law think rape would make a child? As we find out, the thinking in that time was that it wasn't possible to conceive from rape. As one of the men says in the trial, "that's just science". Obviously we know better, but I'm not sure Marguerite's mother in law did. And wanting an heir enough to accept some (maybe raven haired baby) as her legitimate grandchild? I don't know...

What is your source for the mother in law and Le Gris being friends? Is it just that Le Gris and Jean were friends? Le Gris took over the captaincy of the castle she (mother in law) had been living in, which is why she had to move out and live with her son. If she were friends with Le Gris, mightn't he have let her continue to stay there? It's not like that was his only estate.

As to Le Gris's chicanery to gain entrance, even though he obviously didn't consider his act "rape", I think he knew Marguerite wouldn't just let him in without some trickery, which he just viewed as fair play.

It's all a good discussion, and I appreciate your spelling out your points.

reply

I'd say it's pretty clear we're not gonna see eye-to-eye on this, but nonetheless I must note that you seemed to misinterpret several of my previous points.

Most importantly—I don't believe Jean's mother wanted Marguerite's rape to end in pregnancy, regardless of her potential involvement. I believe she wanted for her son to have a true heir of his own, and for herself a grandchild sharing her bloodline.

When I previously made the claim that Jean's mother was "a woman who realized a way for two people to accomplish a shared goal, in turn doing her part to possibly make that happen," the two people I was referring to were herself and Le Gris. Their "shared goal" was not the conception of a child, but simply an adulterous sexual conquest of Marguerite. Obviously, they each had their own motives for such a goal. On the one side, Le Gris merely desired Marguerite physically and wanted to have his way with her. The mother, on the other hand, was thinking a bit more complexly about the situation. She perhaps hoped that such an "act of betrayal" against Jean might be reason enough for him to willfully end his marriage, thus removing Marguerite from the picture and allowing him to find a new wife. Which could then theoretically lead to his mother's end-game—a true heir for her son and a true grandchild for herself.

Of course, there’s likely much more to it than just that, but I wanted to at least briefly clarify one of the primary contentions of my theory here.

reply

It was another poster who suggested the mother in law got what she wanted (Margueritte pregnant, though possibly by Le Gris), I know that wasn't your suggestion. I may have gotten replies mixed up, or more likely just addressed multiple in one post. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't think (if I accept the mother in law knowingly helped set the rape up) that she was hoping for a pregnancy from that event. I think of the mother as unintentionally complicit, recklessly so, but I just can't quite get to her planning it with Le Gris ahead of time.

reply

Maybe the mother thought the reason Marguerite was not conceiving was due to her not "climaxing" with Jean and since he was unable to get her off, she thought the man with the reputation would. Also, being a silenced victim (to put in simple words), maybe she thought Marguerite would do the same, basically stated that, and voila there'd be an heir...

reply

[deleted]

Finally, regarding the possible correspondence between Jean’s mother and Le Gris, there are a few things to consider. First, Jean and Le Gris were (originally) friends—I imagine the mother was at least acquainted with Le Gris to some extent, if not fairly close. As such, it’s possible they were merely conversing one day—perhaps causally—when Le Gris made a comment about Marguerite, complimenting her beauty, charm, etc. Jean’s mother may have then started on about her disdain for her daughter-in-law, saying how Jean would be much better off without her, etc, etc. Things could have easily escalated from there, eventually culminating with some “innocent” suggestion that Le Gris travel out to their manor to pay Marguerite a “friendly visit” at a time when the girl might just happen to be “very lonely”.

In other words, it didn’t have to begin as some plot of ultimate evil between Le Gris and Jean’s mother, with the two of them meeting in the shadows to finalize all the nefarious details of the rape. Rather, I imagine the whole agenda progressing in a much less sinister fashion.

If you recall, there’s actually a scene later in the film in which Jean’s mother expresses her general views on rape to Marguerite, even admitting that she herself had been victim to it in the past. Yet she nonetheless seemed to consider it a fairly “matter-of-fact” occurrence—not the hugely traumatic crime it’s viewed as today. With this in mind, the mother’s possible assistance to Le Gris in the matter is more understandable, and doesn’t necessarily indict her character as some villain of unspeakable evil. Rather, just a woman who realized a way for two people to accomplish a shared goal, in turn doing her part to possibly make that happen.

reply

I didn't realise it when watching the movie, but I think you're right. Also, in the end Margueritte is pregnant. It is possible that the father was actually Jean, not Jacques.

If that so, then Jacques' mother was succesful in getting what she wanted. If it was according to plan (Margueritte would shrug it off and didn't tell her husband, just like the mother suggested) then they'll get an offspring and no duel would happen.

I believe it's an oversight of the filmmakers to not include a scene or even a line about Margueritte thinking about this.

reply

No way to establish paternity then of course, though us seeing the blonde baby at the end I do believe was supposed to let us know the child was mostly likely the product of the two blondes (Marguerite and Jean) and not the very dark haired Le Gris. I know that isn't definitive. And I'm glad Ridley didn't got to the cliche' scene of the mother looking into the baby's eyes with a worried look like she wonders if its the baby of her rapist.

reply

Yes, we're talking outside the movie. Because in the movie they didn't make anything of this at all (which was mentioned in the OP.)

Probably Ridley Scott knew, but he just didn't want to distract the story to that other direction. To keep focus.

And I think he was right in the decission seeing from the other commenters here, including me, didn't even notice this angle of view. However, if you really think about it I can agree with the OP that it is possible that Jacques' mother had a finger on the rape of Margueritte.

Having no mention whatsoever by any of the characters, and the use of a blonde baby like you've said are most likely deliberate.

reply

The mother clearly left her alone on purpose. She meant it as a "fuck you, I'll leave you alone even if I should not because I do not like you".

But she had no idea she would actually get raped. I think she was fine scaring her and showing her how little she cared, but she probably would have stayed had she known of that fucker.

reply

I think I understand your point, though I question how merely leaving Marguerite alone for the day is really much of a "fuck you" to her. Unless, of course, by doing so, the mother was knowingly placing her in some sort of danger.

If it's true the old lady just wanted to scare her a bit, and had no clue about Le Gris' plan, I'm almost forced to call the quality of writing into question. It's just such a massively unlikely coincidence for both the mother and Le Gris to choose the very same day to pull their respective stunts.

While I suppose stranger things have happened, to me it just seems more logical that there was some sort of coordination between the parties.

reply

I think he either heard of that chance, or spied on the castle waiting for such chance, not necessarily needing the old woman collaboration.

Maybe she was also prone to leave often for her affairs, hence her son asked her to stay, as in"for once mom, try to postpone your usual business and stay with Marguerite at all times".
Otherwise he would have not even recommended it, no?
So LeGris was just ready to pounce on that combination.

reply

Fair points. It does seem likely that the mother would often leave for her affairs, though I didn't get the impression she usually took the entire staff along with her. If that were the case, the scene with Marguerite showing clear surprise and concern at the turn of events wouldn't make much sense.

And based on what I saw in the film, I'm not sure espionage by Le Gris is any more valid a theory than what I've presented here, but certainly another possibility.

It seems the director decided to leave it somewhat ambiguous, so I'm not ruling anything out.

reply

Ok it is not clearly spelled out, but a direct involvement of his mother should have been addressed if it actually happened.
Why leave it ambiguous?

I opt for the less controversial option, which is she was not part of the plot, even if Scott could have made it more clear for us.
I chalk it up to sluggish exposition.

reply

Probably he just didn't want to distract the story to that other direction. To keep focus. Too much expositions would ruin storytelling.

reply

Confusion also ruins storytelling.
I think she had no part with the rape plot, but I can see how many here see her involvement, because it was poorly exposed.
Wouldnt take much, just a line clarifying how LeGris discovers that everyone else has left the castle (not just Jean).

reply

But it's not confusing at all. I didn't even realise this angle of view if not for the OP made this thread. I see most people here never even considered it too.

So I think it was a good artistic decission on the director's (or editor's) part to leave such expositions.

Like I said, to steer away the story into that path. To me, the movie is about the drama and feelings, not a detective story of who-dunnit. Whether or not the mother was involved is not crucial.

It also created a mystery, and a feel of a larger story behind the whole movie. Not everything that happens in life is also explained or clarified. Sometimes we just don't know and would never know. It creates a sense of wonder.

reply

The whodunnit is part of this film.
We see 3 versions of the same event to understand it.
And to better appreciate its drama.
Having his mom involved would make it even more poignant, and it would be a detail that we should know about.

reply

I don't agree. Who dunnit is not important at all. To me, the core of the story was about the POV. They're not 3 versions of the same event. But 3 events in the lives of 3 characters. And the mom isn't included.

In fact, the two characters we see from (Marguerrite and Jacques) would also never know about the involvement of the mother.

And the one who might know it (Jean) would never admit it anyway.

So to keep it as a mystery is only logical.

For me, the fact that the mother was involved or not isn't needed to appreciate the drama. It's all about the contrast of how Jean, Jacques and Margueritte saw what happens in front of their eyes. The real thing that factually truly really happened didn't matter cause only God (in this case, the director) would know. The characters would never know.

Nobody knows either in the real life version of the story this film is based on. It's all rumors and word of mouth. I think the movie tried to channel this.

reply

Well said, actionkamen. I never considered the The Last Duel to be a "whodunit” at all—at least not in any but the most superficial of ways. As you noted, the POV aspect was the true heart and soul of the film.

In another post of mine from a different thread, I responded to a poster who asserted Scott was lazy in showing the "exact same scenes" multiple times. I guess he felt much of the film's content was simply rehashed. Since I believe my response to him further illustrates and supports a lot of the relevant points you've just brought up, I'll simply re-post it here for convenience:

I disagree. The method Scott chose to present the same scenes from alternate points of view was masterfully done, in my opinion. The content may have appeared to be "rehashed" because the differences between accounts were subtle, yet vitally important—both to the film's narrative and it's ultimate message. Had every retelling been presented as wildly different, the film would have amounted to nothing more than a simple, uninteresting guessing-game: "Okay, who's telling the truth, and who's making the whole thing up?"

That was never the intent of the film, though. It's not so much about truth and lies, but rather the small variances in perceptions of events (and the people surrounding those events) that deeply affect not only the characters of the film, but all humans living in a world of subjectivity. It makes the point that a seemingly minor misinterpretation of a person's action, or slightly misguided perception of an other's feelings is not only an extremely common phenomenon, but also a very dangerous one.

Ultimately, I thought Scott's delivery of this powerful message was brutally effective, and that the film itself was absolutely riveting.


Note that my use of the phrase “simple, uninteresting guessing-game” is readily interchangeable with “simple, uninteresting 'whodunit' detective story”. So I’d say we’re really just about on the same page here.

Cheers.

reply

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

This movie is about rape and justice.
BOTH concepts pivot on the idea that there is a culprit and he needs to be to punished.
An idea that, as you can see even in our days, is a very difficult one to prove and to avenge.
We see three perspectives exactly for this reason.

You take away the element of "did he rape her or is she lying?" while watching the film and you miss what the whole movie is about.

reply

I respectfully disagree.

A film's story can include elements of important topics like crime and punishment, without those topics being essential to the overarching meaning or heart of the film. In the case of The Last Duel, I believe the plot-points involving rape and justice were used in great part as creative tools by the filmmakers to ultimately present a much more interesting, unique, and thought-provoking message.

To view this film merely as a 'whodunit' is a rather shallow take, in my opinion.

Also, introducing any counterargument with such belligerent disrespect is never a good look, and only makes me give less of a shit what you have to say.

reply

I disagree on all your points, including the last one.
I am certainly not belligerant, I just don't respect your misinterpretation of the movie as a valid one.
That doesn't mean I "disprespect" you.

You can make a movie about war but never show a single shot being fired or anybody dead nor injured. But this is not such movie: it's about RAPE and JUSTICE and we see plenty of both on screen and being talked about. The whole movie is about those, indeed.
And they revolve around the concept of intentions, willingness and guilt.
Wanting to extrapolate a different meaning is fine as long as the clear intentions of the author(s) are understood.

reply

I made a reasonable, friendly comment (which, by the way, wasn't even in reply to any post of yours, but rather to another user). However, you still decided to jump in, initiating your message with:

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?


If you're honestly unable to realize and/or admit that such a contentious intrusion qualifies as 'belligerent', then either you don't understand the meaning of the word, or are simply too stubborn to even be bothered with. In either case, attempting to continue the discussion with you here seems at this point unlikely to amount to anything more than an exercise in futility.

reply

I admit, I agree: attempting to continue the discussion with you here seems at this point unlikely to amount to anything more than an exercise in futility.

PS take that pole out of your ass if you want to chat online.

reply

Well, after this exchange, I'm unsure why *anyone* would want to chat with someone as unpleasant and close-minded as yourself (online or otherwise).

Take care, bud.

reply

Totally agree.

The events were not even the same, the dialogs were different. Some details were entirely at odds with another. We are watching what happens as the characters themselves, not as an invisible audience in front of the stage.

We hear what they heard, not what was really actually been said. We see what they saw, not what was really actually happening. And the filmmakers tried to make us to feel what they felt.

But ultimately it's also what makes this movie flopped. It's not what most people expected.

reply

Spot on.

It is unfortunate the film flopped at the box office, and I would agree with your reasoning for its financial failure. I'm actually one of those people myself who went into the film expecting something much different. For me, though, the experience turned out to be a very pleasant surprise, rather than some kind of disappointment.

reply