Reviews

This movie is not a faithful film version of the book, one of my favorite books. This movie set off a discussion between my wife and myself about the value of movies that use the titles of well known novels. She says that, if the movie inspires people to read the novel, that's good. I say that too many people will see this movie and think they don't have to read the novel.

No movie can do justice to the Three Musketeers because it is too long and has too many subplots. The people who made this movie said, "So what?" The actor who plays D'Artagnan was quoted on a pre-release interview as saying that he was not aware that The Three Musketeers was a novel. He thought it was a candy bar. That attitude pervades this movie. Let's have Milady de Winter take a header off a castle and have Cardinal Richelieu steal away poling his own boat.

It's a light-hearted devil-may-care movie that is technically well made. Young people having fun. As long as you watch it knowing that it is no more faithful to the novel than the Ritz Brothers' version was, have at it.

The Three Musketeers has been filmed again and again. This is the best of breed. In fact, it tried to be so faithful to the book that they had to split it into two films. This is the first part. The second is titled The Four Musketeers. This required all kinds of negotiations with everyone involved because they had originally signed up to do one film.

The action is fast. Long rides on horseback. Lots of sword fights, but, instead of the old Hollywood fencing with crossed swords, this film makes sword fighting look like the brutal game it was where boldness and quickness often surpassed skill. The director included a strong mix of comedy in the action. This film maintains that comedic side. The second necessarily turns darker of necessity. A great cast, great photography. It's rollicking good fun to watch.

Not many films get made about Louis XIV, even in France. One reason is that this is a confusing period of French history. Yet, Louis, enfant roi does a good job in trying to introduce it to us.

The king is a child of ten. The nobility and the populace are rebelling. The Queen mother is a Spaniard (played by a Spanish actress with the necessary accent) and France is at war with Spain. The prime minister Cardinal Mazarin is an Italian (played by an Italian actor, etc.) The king's relatives are demanding a share of power while behaving like a pillaging army. Amorality abounds and no one can be trusted. Louis XIV learned how to rule in this atmosphere.

As the film progresses, we see the young king turn into an adolescent leading troops in the field and learn his craft. He loved his mother and trusted Mazarin, but nobody else, not even his brother. As a child he learned to suspect everyone and this was how he ruled.

This is a good film with the budget to support it, unlike Rossellini's La Prise du Pouvoir. It just requires a little knowledge to understand.

This film was made for French television in the 1960s and was to be accompanied by Pierre Goubert's Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen, a book that is still available.

Rossellini, in obedience to the rules of Italian realism, looked for someone who looked like Louis XIV as he conceived him to be. He found him with mailman Patte. Unfortunately, he misunderstood his history. We know that Louis XIV was probably no taller than 5 foot 4 inches. We also know that in later life the king tended to be pudgy, but this was not true or at least not reported by our sources. In fact, from age 16 until age 31 Louis XIV was a dancer who performed in court ballets. No one describes him as being fat. Patte is a pudgy short man by our standards today. What Rossellini either did not know or chose to omit is that all Frenchmen in the seventeenth century were short by our standards. Thus, in this film we see a short fat king of seventeenth century size striding amidst twentieth-century actors. If he wanted to show Louis XIV in real size, he should have made everyone else seventeenth century size.

The film does a good job at showing the atmosphere at the death of Mazarin and the king's efforts to make his court in his image. Unfortunately, the lack of budget shows when the king tries to instill some majesty. He is reduced to wearing ribbons rather than sporting jewelry and fine clothing. Also, the surroundings are rather bland, like they look today, rather than resplendent with decoration and luxury.

Rossellini makes his points and the film works for educational purposes but there is no real drama. Everything moves slowly. The viewer is left wondering what is happening and why should we be watching.