donnaimmaculata (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
donnaimmaculata) wrote2013-11-14 10:22 pm
donnaimmaculata) wrote2013-11-14 10:22 pm
Entry tags:
The Three Musketeers
I'm currently reading The Three Musketeers. It's a re-read - I read it at some point as a child in my adventure-novel phase, and then re-read it every five-six years or so. I initially had a massive crush on Aramis, but then Athos became my favourite. He's so delightfully cynical, level-headed and drunk.
But. I'm reading it now through a completely different filter. I can't stand the four leads, they are awful human beings. Well, Aramis seems kinda okay, I think he's actually the only one who treats other people with respect, even his mistresses. Especially his mistresses.
And there's the upcoming BBC adaptation, which I am tentatively looking forward to. Tom Burke plays Athos, and I like Tom Burke, and there's Peter Capaldi, who is always excellent value. But at the same time, I can't help worrying that it's just another, slightly darker (they wear leather!) spin on the fannish interpretation of the source - i.e. three cheeky chappies who spout one-liners whilst beating up mooks, the bumbling village idiot d'Artagnan, the uber-evil Cardinal Richelieu, the star-crossed lovers King & Queen of France, and of course the evilest of all evil demons, Milady de Winter.
Whereas, in the novel, the musketeers are very much reprehensible human beings:
Athos has trained his valet not to talk, and if he does talk, he thrashes him mercilessly, albeit dispassionately. And, at the age of 25, he'd hanged his 16-year old (!) wife after discovering the fleur-de-lys brand on her shoulder, because obviously she must have been EVIL.
Porthos expects his mistress to finance his musketeering equipment and he feels absolutely justified to steal the money from her bed-ridden husband. When she's reluctant to do so, he goes off in a sulk.
d'Artagnan tricks a woman into sleeping with him by pretending to be someone else, and is justified in doing so, because the woman in question is Milady, and she's evil. Really, she is. Oh, and he "seduces" her maid (who is very reluctant, but unable to fight him) to get into Milady's knickers.
Aramis is kinda okay, I've got to admit. He seems to treat the various women he's involved with like human beings, he doesn't beat his valet and he's only moderately violent.
All four of them think nothing of taking human life, of course, and cheerfully kill people in duels as well as in battle.
The author stresses all throughout the novel that we mustn't judge men of that period by modern standards, which would be absolutely fine with me if Milady got the same treatment. But she is treated by the protagonists and the authorial voice as the hellish demon from hell who must be destroyed at all cost. I am actually totally rooting for Milady. She has done nothing on the pages of the book that is in any way worse than what the heroes have done. She lies, tricks and is ambitious and avaricious, but so are they. Plus, the men feel entitled to lie; in several instances, they cheat lower-class people such as inn hosts by claiming self-righteously that they are "gentlemen" and nobody must ever doubt the word of a gentleman.
I would be much less annoyed if the various adaptations did the source justice and presented the musketeers as morally ambivalent, as the liars, cheats and killers that they are, and did not make the Cardinal the big bad. His relationship with the musketeers is much more complex than that.
I would absolutely love it if there were an adaptation that treats Milady fairly in a way that the source did not. But seeing as there doesn't even seem to be any Milady-centric fanfic that does that, I will hope in vain.
There actually is a Russian adaptation that I watched as a child and that left a huge impression: the scene where Milady strangles Constance (who is married in the book and commits adultery) was pretty nightmarish.
Any thoughts, anyone? It's one of the stories that everyone in the Western world is familiar with, but I think the way we perceive the characters is very much influenced by the (Hollywood) adaptations, not so much by the novel itself.
But. I'm reading it now through a completely different filter. I can't stand the four leads, they are awful human beings. Well, Aramis seems kinda okay, I think he's actually the only one who treats other people with respect, even his mistresses. Especially his mistresses.
And there's the upcoming BBC adaptation, which I am tentatively looking forward to. Tom Burke plays Athos, and I like Tom Burke, and there's Peter Capaldi, who is always excellent value. But at the same time, I can't help worrying that it's just another, slightly darker (they wear leather!) spin on the fannish interpretation of the source - i.e. three cheeky chappies who spout one-liners whilst beating up mooks, the bumbling village idiot d'Artagnan, the uber-evil Cardinal Richelieu, the star-crossed lovers King & Queen of France, and of course the evilest of all evil demons, Milady de Winter.
Whereas, in the novel, the musketeers are very much reprehensible human beings:
Athos has trained his valet not to talk, and if he does talk, he thrashes him mercilessly, albeit dispassionately. And, at the age of 25, he'd hanged his 16-year old (!) wife after discovering the fleur-de-lys brand on her shoulder, because obviously she must have been EVIL.
Porthos expects his mistress to finance his musketeering equipment and he feels absolutely justified to steal the money from her bed-ridden husband. When she's reluctant to do so, he goes off in a sulk.
d'Artagnan tricks a woman into sleeping with him by pretending to be someone else, and is justified in doing so, because the woman in question is Milady, and she's evil. Really, she is. Oh, and he "seduces" her maid (who is very reluctant, but unable to fight him) to get into Milady's knickers.
Aramis is kinda okay, I've got to admit. He seems to treat the various women he's involved with like human beings, he doesn't beat his valet and he's only moderately violent.
All four of them think nothing of taking human life, of course, and cheerfully kill people in duels as well as in battle.
The author stresses all throughout the novel that we mustn't judge men of that period by modern standards, which would be absolutely fine with me if Milady got the same treatment. But she is treated by the protagonists and the authorial voice as the hellish demon from hell who must be destroyed at all cost. I am actually totally rooting for Milady. She has done nothing on the pages of the book that is in any way worse than what the heroes have done. She lies, tricks and is ambitious and avaricious, but so are they. Plus, the men feel entitled to lie; in several instances, they cheat lower-class people such as inn hosts by claiming self-righteously that they are "gentlemen" and nobody must ever doubt the word of a gentleman.
I would be much less annoyed if the various adaptations did the source justice and presented the musketeers as morally ambivalent, as the liars, cheats and killers that they are, and did not make the Cardinal the big bad. His relationship with the musketeers is much more complex than that.
I would absolutely love it if there were an adaptation that treats Milady fairly in a way that the source did not. But seeing as there doesn't even seem to be any Milady-centric fanfic that does that, I will hope in vain.
There actually is a Russian adaptation that I watched as a child and that left a huge impression: the scene where Milady strangles Constance (who is married in the book and commits adultery) was pretty nightmarish.
Any thoughts, anyone? It's one of the stories that everyone in the Western world is familiar with, but I think the way we perceive the characters is very much influenced by the (Hollywood) adaptations, not so much by the novel itself.
no subject
And then I got to Twenty Years After, where Athos and Porthos had both mellowed considerably, and it really didn't read the same. It had some interesting discussion from the surviving characters about the ethics of killing Milady, though. (The Executioner of Bethune and Athos seemed to feel the most guilty, incidentally.) 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.
I think... I think Dumas kept saying, oh but Milady is truly evil, possessed of a devilish spirit and infernal luck, because he needed an antagonist for the end of the book and Richilieu was far too inclined to deal. And I think he wanted her to be scary. But yeah - viewed objectively, her behaviour is little worse than d'Artagnan's, and she frequently had the 'doing it for my country' defense, which he frequently didn't. Murdering Constance was pointlessly nasty, though.
And with all that, one of the things I like about the BBC show, blender that it is, is that the main characters are all of them deeply flawed. I had to get used to the idea that characters I liked a great deal had done, and would continue to do, reprehensible things and I still liked them. It keeps me on my toes, I guess.
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.
no subject
No worries. I figure if I comment on a year-old post, I'm lucky if it even gets seen. So, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
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.
It's interesting how some stories, when remade, almost inevitably get the plot messed with. Versions of Hamlet get less bodies on the floor, say, or remakes of The Count of Monte Cristo get Dantes back with Mercedes. For all we try and gritty things up, some stories are just so dark. And I guess, what a lot of people like about the original characters is the way the temperaments balance out and they have wacky adventures.
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.
To be fair, several of show!Milady's killings are flat murder, not fighting an armed and aware opponent. (Though, she's smaller than every man she fights, and prohibited from carrying a sword: no fight she gets into is ever going to be on equal ground. What else is she supposed to do? Not leverage the odds, and die?) Also to be fair (to the show) - she does describe herself as a soldier to Athos, only this was just after she wangled Ninon into a trumped-up trial, so that line was never going to be convincing.
They are still the good and basically very decent guys whose fundamental morality is never questioned.
I dunno. There was that whole business with Treville and Porthos' Mum. When he explained why he abandoned a woman and child in a rookery of thieves, he didn't just say that Belgarde lied to him, or messed with his head. He described himself, de Foix, and Belgarde as blood brothers, the inseparables of their day. I think that was a deliberate choice by the script-writer, either to show a dark version of the main characters... or to make us wonder - what if one of them asked the others for something truly immoral? Would they do it? For their brother?
And, while I think the show often over-simplifies history or plot in the name of keeping the action going, it does also put in these little... blips. Like the Evil Count(TM) from that episode at Athos' home, where he got a half minute mourning scene over his awful son, complete with sad music, because even horrible people care about their offspring. Or Emile Bonnaire vehemently declaring, I am not a prejudiced man. (And I think he was telling the truth there, and was only in human trafficking for the money. And the lack of malice simply didn't matter.) Or that bit in "The Good Soldier" where Our Heroes realise that a political prisoner has been held without trial for five sodding years and immediately race to... foil the rescue party. The show doesn't wave flags over its moments of moral ambiguity, but it still has them - it's something I like about it.