Sorry for the belated reply! I'm never on LJ anymore (as you can see this post is from last year), and the comment notifications go to an old email account.
I don't mind them being horrible as much as I lament that it wasn't in any way addressed. And I don't think that the BBC show improved the characters as such at all. Dumas actually did a really good job creating fully-fleshed characters, who are interesting precisely because of their many negative qualities. I dislike book d'Artagnan deeply, but he is an interesting, multi-dimensional character, whose many flaws are positively flaunted by the narrative.
My problem with all this is that they are always presented in adaptations as the great big heroes, and they have embedded themselves in the audience's awareness as the great big heroes. Which is fascinating in itself, because Dumas doesn't gloss over their nastier sides.
Nothing has changed in the BBC show: the characters are still the great big heroes, whose actions are justified simply because they are the heroes. They are always morally right and their opponents are always morally wrong. If the musketeers kill someone, that person deserved to die. At the same time, the show makes a point to emphasise that Milady committed crimes when she "killed people". Yeah, she did kill people. So did the musketeers. They killed far more people than she did, yet their killings are never questioned. BBC Aramis even says explicitly at least twice how much he enjoys the act of killing, whereas Milady says at least twice how much she hates what she has to do. This is exactly like in the book: the men's killing are "good", the woman's killings are "bad".
This is a book resp. show where the four leads are in the killing profession, they essentially kill for money. Which is fine, it's within the rules of the genre. But it is deeply wrong to accuse another character of "killing people". Either killing people is fine, in which case Milady does nothing wrong. Or killing people is wrong, in which case the musketeers' actions must be questioned likewise.
As to book Milady - the murder of Constance is the only truly reprehensible thing Milady does. D'Artagnan has a much, much worse track record than Milady (e.g. attacking de Wardes to steal from him and leaving him to die from his wounds in the woods). Milady works for the Cardinal, who is not some sort of gangster boss, as people seem to assume, but the First Minister of France. Milady is, to all intents and purposes, on the governmental payroll (same goes for BBC Milady). She acts on behalf of France in the same way as the musketeers act on behalf of France.
And whether her son should be struck down like a snake in the grass before he harmed anyone, because he was born bad, see, or given the chance to make good choices.
Oh god, yes, the treatment of Mordaunt is the worst. He is evil "because he is" to an even greater extent than Milady. That boy was kicked out of his house at the age of five by his uncle Lord de Winter, because his mother was "a demon". And I fail to see how killing the executioner is in any way worse than the musketeers murdering a man with their bare hands (well, Porthos' bare hands) for mocking Charles I. Which is what they do. They follow a man who laughed and spat at Charles I into a dark alley and kill him, but not with a sword, because "steel is for gentlemen". This kind of twisted standards is a fantastic starting point for an exploration of morality, heroism and virtue. But it never goes anywhere, because their actions are never questioned.
They really are reprehensible human beings. But they are interesting characters. And I would so love an adaptation to show these characters the way Dumas created them, because they really are fleshed out and deeply flawed, and to challenge the viewers' perception of them. The BBC adaptation does not challenge the viewers' perception (unless the only version the viewers know is the Disney film). They are still the good and basically very decent guys whose fundamental morality is never questioned. The ambition, the avarice, the massive snobbery, the vengefulness, the lust for violence, the self-righteousness, all of which are all there in the book, have been removed.
no subject
I don't mind them being horrible as much as I lament that it wasn't in any way addressed. And I don't think that the BBC show improved the characters as such at all. Dumas actually did a really good job creating fully-fleshed characters, who are interesting precisely because of their many negative qualities. I dislike book d'Artagnan deeply, but he is an interesting, multi-dimensional character, whose many flaws are positively flaunted by the narrative.
My problem with all this is that they are always presented in adaptations as the great big heroes, and they have embedded themselves in the audience's awareness as the great big heroes. Which is fascinating in itself, because Dumas doesn't gloss over their nastier sides.
Nothing has changed in the BBC show: the characters are still the great big heroes, whose actions are justified simply because they are the heroes. They are always morally right and their opponents are always morally wrong. If the musketeers kill someone, that person deserved to die. At the same time, the show makes a point to emphasise that Milady committed crimes when she "killed people". Yeah, she did kill people. So did the musketeers. They killed far more people than she did, yet their killings are never questioned. BBC Aramis even says explicitly at least twice how much he enjoys the act of killing, whereas Milady says at least twice how much she hates what she has to do. This is exactly like in the book: the men's killing are "good", the woman's killings are "bad".
This is a book resp. show where the four leads are in the killing profession, they essentially kill for money. Which is fine, it's within the rules of the genre. But it is deeply wrong to accuse another character of "killing people". Either killing people is fine, in which case Milady does nothing wrong. Or killing people is wrong, in which case the musketeers' actions must be questioned likewise.
As to book Milady - the murder of Constance is the only truly reprehensible thing Milady does. D'Artagnan has a much, much worse track record than Milady (e.g. attacking de Wardes to steal from him and leaving him to die from his wounds in the woods). Milady works for the Cardinal, who is not some sort of gangster boss, as people seem to assume, but the First Minister of France. Milady is, to all intents and purposes, on the governmental payroll (same goes for BBC Milady). She acts on behalf of France in the same way as the musketeers act on behalf of France.
And whether her son should be struck down like a snake in the grass before he harmed anyone, because he was born bad, see, or given the chance to make good choices.
Oh god, yes, the treatment of Mordaunt is the worst. He is evil "because he is" to an even greater extent than Milady. That boy was kicked out of his house at the age of five by his uncle Lord de Winter, because his mother was "a demon". And I fail to see how killing the executioner is in any way worse than the musketeers murdering a man with their bare hands (well, Porthos' bare hands) for mocking Charles I. Which is what they do. They follow a man who laughed and spat at Charles I into a dark alley and kill him, but not with a sword, because "steel is for gentlemen". This kind of twisted standards is a fantastic starting point for an exploration of morality, heroism and virtue. But it never goes anywhere, because their actions are never questioned.
They really are reprehensible human beings. But they are interesting characters. And I would so love an adaptation to show these characters the way Dumas created them, because they really are fleshed out and deeply flawed, and to challenge the viewers' perception of them. The BBC adaptation does not challenge the viewers' perception (unless the only version the viewers know is the Disney film). They are still the good and basically very decent guys whose fundamental morality is never questioned. The ambition, the avarice, the massive snobbery, the vengefulness, the lust for violence, the self-righteousness, all of which are all there in the book, have been removed.