Jean de Carrouges did nothing wrong

Jean de Carrouges did nothing wrong

Attached: 3terg45.png (999x824, 1.07M)

Other urls found in this thread:


total shit movie. Watch the same boring story 3 times about some bitch that got raped and then two simps fight about it.
Driver deserved better than this garbage, but Damon and Affleck deserve to be buried in this hole.

Attached: dtzjzdskj.png (886x1032, 1.11M)

>I check

>all three versions: bitch gets raped
>the "truth" version, aka hers, is just her mad that her husband wants revenge whereas she wants to scream about it and not do anything really
I fucking hated, HATED, that she was all "You can't risk my life too!" Dumb cunt, he was either going to win or die on account of you, and you have the nerve to complain about having skin in the game?

It was meant as a feminism moment but was so cunty it became anti-feminism.

iirc she was fine with dying if he lost until she found out she was preggo

he couldn't make his wife cummy

Reminder that Carrouges' mother set up the rape to happen as a "take that" to the wife, removing all the servants from the household and telling her to "get over it it happens" afterwards with vindictive pleasure.

Realistically, what was Jean supposed to do? Yes challenging Le Gris put his wife's life in jeopardy, but would she have been happier had he just been like "aw that sucks, oh well" when she told him she had been raped? I don't get what he was supposed to do.

>the "truth" version,
I skipped that part when I understood it would be the same story again...

aye, well mostly, he handled the estates finances very poorly

This, Carrouges was a based autist and defended his honour and wife. The way he was portrayed in the last third was needlessly cruel and critical of him being a man of his time.

Medieval law made it pretty clear you cannot execute pregnant women, so this was not even a thing IRL

Jesus watching altered versions of the same events is really that hard for you people? How many films with different premise get released these days? If you want every movie to follow the same formula then please just don’t post your opinion anywhere

There was nothing else he could have done. He got very lucky that Le Gris wouldn't take a clerical trial as was his right, because if he had then Carrouges would have been completely screwed. As it was, Le Gris was the favored of their direct superior, which the movie notes (Affleck): they first had to request a trial from him, and they rightly didn't think that anything would come of it because Count Pierre hated them, so they didn't show up.

Their only option was to go to Paris proper and go much higher, straight to the king. Even then it was an uphill battle because it was his wife's word against Le Gris, although the weight of circumstantial evidence was arguably against Le Gris as the trial went on (the key two points that turned against him were Le Gris' alibi was arrested himself for rape, and his argument that he couldn't have ridden all the way to the estate was blown out of the water); plus Le Gris' own lawyer, the BEST IN FRANCE, thought his client was guilty.

It still wasn't enough to go beyond reasonable doubt, so in order to get justice Carrouges had literally no option other than a duel. His wife, in ACTUAL history, is said to have as far as we know supported it. Theirs held no indication of an unhappy marriage, or an abusive one, and they had several children in the years following the trial (Carrouges being unable to get her pregnant is also made up by the movie, as was the entire bullshit about what happened after - it was another 10+ years before Carrouges died, several children, high wealth and court standing, and his wife's fate is largely unknown). Le Gris did allege that Carrouges was abusive, but there was no evidence to suggest that was ever the case and Le Gris' lawyer also doubted it.

still should've let his wife mange the estate will he went to war, he brings in the cash she manages it while he's away making said cash, but then this fucknut gets involved and well...

It wanted to be Rashomon but failed in every department. There was no real difference between the "versions", except minor quibbles in dialogue, thus making having multiple versions pointless. In Rashomon, entire events are altered.

>His wife, in ACTUAL history, is said to have as far as we know supported it.
This is also why the movie sucks. It turns it into a feminist finger-wagging in an era where everyone is sick of that shit, and on top of that, it's historically wrong. The wife told her husband to ice that nigga IRL.

>didn't watch the film lmao

she gave birth before the duel and didn't want to die and leave her son without a mother

The real story was much more interesting, as there was a whole issue with Le Gris having an alibi 30 miles away, that falls apart after Jean de Carrouges gets some knights to ride the distance and back in the time given, and then the man ale Gris had as a witness for his alibi raped a woman in Paris during the trial and the alibi had to be stricken from the record. The gift of the land to the Lord and Carrouges suing the Lord was also not involving Le Gris at all and the sale happened several years before the marriage was arranged, which they changed because it casts Carrouges as a man who sues people for petty untrue things, which would cast doubt on the rape claim. Le Gris never said to anyone that he had consensual sex, his claim was always that he was 30 miles away at the time. They ripped so much out to make the woman’s story appear truer. In truth historians are about 95% certain the rape did happen, but there is still that 5% of doubt from Carrouges being a petty litigious asshole.

>didn’t watch it
>explains how it’s all meaningless
Yeah no more (yous)


>total shit movie. Watch the same boring story 3 times about some bitch that got raped and then two simps fight about it.
>Driver deserved better than this garbage, but Damon and Affleck deserve to be buried in this hole.

Attached: 1604886682221.jpg (785x1000, 252.43K)

Also the bullshit where the wife was traumatically questioned about enjoying the rape and the old men accused her that it must have been consensual because she got pregnant by the rape was the opposite of the truth. In medieval times they thought it was impossible to get pregnant by rape, and since Le Gris denied having sex at all, then the options were either rape or abstinence, neither of which they believed would result in a child, so the pregnancy was ruled as non relevant and no one was allowed to refer to it.

But of course the filmmakers had to put in extra trauma from the idea of non believing women being bad, so you get that stupid scene to make them look more barbaric.

Carrouges did what he could to advance his wealth and holdings. His initial lawsuit for Aunou-Le-Faucon was spurious at best, but Pierre absolutely started deliberately fucking him over after that, including blocking him from purchasing land from other squires and in fact taking the land for himself. It is unlikely that Carrouges would have risked the shame that the rape accusation brought if there wasn't reasonable belief on his part that it was true - that point got raised at the trial. But it is, in theory, possible, which is I suppose the 5%. I don't know that I would call it petty, he had good cause to be a litigious asshole after the first one.

She did manage the estate while he was away, along with the usual stewards that an estate would have had. Making it out as if Carrouges was a shit manager and she "fixed it" was where the movie fucked up.

The first cut was very short and test screenings were overall negative. Scott realized that he could make at least 3 movies given all takes he had trying to save the movie.

her bitch character was anachronistic shit
was acting like she's a 21st century woman teleported to middle ages
aleck deserved raspberry or whatever the anti Oscar is called
aside from that the movie was kino

>was acting like she's a 21st century woman teleported to middle ages
She wasn't. At no fucking moment, she is show to be happy to take care of the farm and horses while his husband is out, and she is afraid of dying if his husband dies. Thats it, there's nothing modern about any of those things, you are just a retarded incel that hates women.

It's a movie about being a man and fighting for hard earned respect. As a reddit man-baby who walks around in public with Cheeto stains on the front of his shirt, you probably wouldn't get it.

Attached: 1499235821537.jpg (240x320, 24.04K)

Look, I'm sure I'm going to catch some flak for this but yes he did do something wrong.
Upon believing that his wife was raped, the first thing he did was order her to have sex with him so that he would be the most recent person to have fucked her. That's a dick move out of insecurity.

if he wasn't regularly collecting tax from his peasants and not rearing horses correctly, then yes he fucked up

this is simply wrong

This. The /pol/ squad has been beating their drum about woke bullshit so long they didn't even notice that this movie is reminding modern-day feminists that, at one time, even high-class women were considered merely an extension of their husband's estates and they should be thankful for the rights they have in the modern era.

no its very important, if a child is born then the carruogh family can honestly claim that he fucked his wife maybe two days later, after the rape. sry mate its fucked up and in the movie he handled it badly but thems the rules before dna

Bros before hoes, always..
Jean de Carrouges lost his bromanship this day.

No it was me who didn't watch the 3rd "version", not the user you're replying to, and I kind of agree with him the 2 first "versions" were too much similar.
Me I'm just not a fan of rape stories so 2 times of the same was more than enough.

Unironically you make a decent point that makes me revaluate my stance.
Didn't expect that.

no he identified a thief and lair clothed in the faux pretense of friendship

its important to look at the entire picture, in the film sure he handled it very badly but in context of the time, it makes perfect sense

>At no fucking moment, she is show to be happy to take care of the farm and horses while his husband is out,
Isn't that exactly a a modern mindset?

he was a jerk

is this a troll post? I have no idea, because people are genuinely retarded here. You have a movie with three different tellings, and you find one and go "yeah, this one." Do you think they all happened?
The entire third viewpoint is anachronistic. Me and my wife honestly stopped the movie and laughed a bit during the trial because of how ridiculous they made the thing. I'm surprised they didn't give her a black friend to be with her at the trial, with every 5 seconds the king personally calling the black friend the n word during the trial. If you cannot see how absolutely absurd the third viewpoint is, I have nothing for you. Continue believing that women were just held down and gang raped by every single male in a 15 mile radius with absolutely no protections or even mild feelings about the event from any male related to her by bond or blood.

Attached: cuck.png (960x1200, 1.72M)

There’s no historical account of Carrouges being bad at collecting taxes or organising his holdings though, that’s completely made up to promote a “stronk womin” narrative, as is the case with , there is no historical evidence that this happened, the movie made it up to make the woman looked more victimised and the husband look more sexist. (Same with the low cut top scene, the wife being angry when she finds out she could be burned at the stake - historically the wife knew the risks and totally supported the duel, and the. theres the final scene of the wife playing peacefully with the son while on screen text tells us John De Carrouges was killed in battle a few years after, implying his death was a victory of freedom from oppression for her. The movie went out of its way to depict the men as shit and the woman as oppressed.

looks like theo von lmao

Le Gris @0:50

Agreed. He was a chivalric knight and honourable man.


Goddam right.

Are you arguing about the historical character? Are you retarded?
Yea Forums - television & film
We're talking about the fictional dramatisation, not the ambiguous historical events

that is a sin, and he was christian

It's not. I liked the movie well enough, but Carrouges' story was from his perspective and he mearly saw himself as a valiant soldier whose unimpeachable honor was taken advantage of social climbing opportunists. The reality is that the fantasy of the moral knight is just an idealized fiction that never really existed and he was an uptight douche. I don't think it's without sympathy to him, but the intention is ultimately not to see him as a victim.

I am talking about the film ffs

he won, he saved his wife from a horrible death and kid is his, seethe away Le Gris, cowardly rapist, yes you did

>was taken advantage of by social climbing opportunists
sums it up nicely, le gris sure did

>Jean de Carrouges did nothing wrong

Gets mauled by the Torks.

Attached: KB at the doors.png (391x657, 451.68K)

Attached: 20211017_160943.jpg (1116x1739, 279.03K)

Thanks for the info dude.

Another movie ruined by politics.

? are you having a breakdown?

Will Smith and Chris Rock acted out this movie live in the Oscars.

Not the same dude.

Genuinely impressed at historical facts vs movie's narrative.