In basic college critical thinking class, one is taught how to read a sentence and then break the sentence down to decipher its logic; in most cases, this kind of thinking is used to validate if different elements of a sentence are true or if the incoherent parts can invalidate the whole sentence as true. Truth is very subjective; one man’s truth may not necessarily be that of another man. Herein lies the genesis of misunderstanding and all the conflicts in ideology that we see in this world. One individual would cast a vote for a politician who can sell the perception of truth that aligns with the truth of the electorate.

So, why am I talking about the truth regarding the movie The Last Duel? Simply because, amongst all the issues that the movie addresses, it shines a light on the issue of truth and questions the idea that all truths must be spoken, especially a sensitive issue like rape. I will not even attempt to man-splain the trauma that any rape victim will have to undergo, especially if they are required to be in a public forum that will require that they explain every gruesome detail that occurred during the assault. But as with every other assault of this nature, there is always the issue of whether the act was consensual or not. This has always been the first line of defense for anyone who has been accused of a crime of this nature.

This movie, for me, will be a constant reminder of how better things are now as compared to medieval times when women were accorded value that was just a little higher than a mere commodity. At least nowadays, whether the accusation is true or not, every single accusation will be heard, and in these times where information spread through social media moves faster than we can even ignite a thought, the court of public opinion would have judged the defendant even before they can put up their defense. If one is accused of rape and convicted, the consequences are so dire that the convict’s prospects in life will be very bleak, especially if the convict’s name is on the dreaded sex offenders list; but what if it is discovered that the person making the accusation is telling a lie? What are the repercussions of this kind of false accusation? Is it as dire as the one convicted of rape? Or does it just come with the derogatory label of a liar? The only story that I am aware of is that of Eleanor Willams, a 22-year-old sentenced to 8 years in prison for these kinds of false accusations. Does she just do the time, or does she also get to be on the false rape accusers list; most convicts of rape get to do the time and still have their name on the offender’s list.

This movie shows us that the old days were not graceful for anyone that would be found making any kind of false accusations of this nature, and it goes without saying that when a presumed victim accuses someone of rape, there were very limited ways of proving it. They were not afforded the luxury of taking Monica Lewinsky’s dress to some lab to get some forensics done. Therefore, according to this movie, they would have to settle it with a duel, and this duel would be between the husband of the victim and the accused. The belief during this period was that whoever won this duel would be on the side of truth, and the one who got killed in this duel was on the other side of the truth. So let us say that the accused got killed by the husband of the victim; then it will be deemed in the eyes of God that the accused was guilty of said crime; now, if the husband were to be killed in this duel, then it would mean that his wife lied about the rape. The confirmation of this lie on the part of the wife would mean that she would then be beaten while in chains and burnt alive. Considering that there were no dresses to be sent to forensic labs in those days, the consequences of an inability to prove claims were too great, which is why most women did not come forward in those days. These days, the victim does not only have to go through the humiliation of reliving the event in the public space but will be exposed to public opinion of dissenting people who will create all kinds of memes making a mockery of the whole accusation; some women will opt for the beating and burning than to go through the humiliation. It is thankworthy that we are in an era where matters can come to closure by just sending a dress to a lab or using matching DNA to affirm guilt or innocence.

This documentation of history, as directed by Ridley Scott, gives the viewer three versions of events: the version of the victim, Marguerite de Carrouges, played by Jodie Comer; the victim’s husband, Sir Jean de Carrouges, played by Matt Damon, and the version of the accused, Jacques Le Gris played by Adam Driver. All the versions of events come with their similarities; it then becomes the place of the viewer to be on the lookout for the differences, which the movie makes an effort to highlight and throws the judgment back to the viewer. My interaction with this movie got me trying to figure out if the accusations were true or false, and the way the story unfolds keeps the viewer going back and forth on this thought. I think that the way the movie will be perceived will be based on the viewers’ belief system; viewers who believe that the outcome of a duel will be controlled by external spiritual forces to ascertain guilt or innocence of an accusation will see this movie in one light, but the viewer that sees the world on an atomic or molecular level will make do with the intriguing storytelling and will only see the victorious outcome as a result of better skill and physical prowess. Whatever divide on the spectrum of belief the viewer may be, as soon as the viewer gets into the story’s main theme, it promises to keep them there until the very end.