![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Cascade of Cardinals
May. 18th, 2011 08:43 amIf the trailer for the newest cinema version of The Three Musketeers is anything to go by, Hollywood is letting Richelieu plot the end of the world this time around. Which would be news not just to the historical Cardinal, but also to the Dumas variation. I mean, on one level I feel for Hollywood scriptwriters. They're used to certain ideas about what constitutes a villain, and I assume the reason for the extreme silliness of the 90s Musketeers version (that's the one with Tim Curry as Richelieu) as well as for this more recent plot is that the original script conference went thusly (err, spoilers for Dumas' novel):
Producer: So, that Cardinal fellow is the villain of the piece, right? How does he die?
Scriptwriter 1: Err, he doesn't. Well and alive at the end of the novel.
Producer: Eh. So he's deposed as, what's it, Prime Minister of France?
Scriptwriter 2: They didn't have the job title then, but that's what it amounted to. No, actually, he's not. As much in power as ever.
Producer: What? So, how does the audience know our heroes have won?
Scriptwriter 1: They execute a woman and D'Artagnan gets a promotion.
Producer: .... Okay, that won't do. So anyway, what's this Richelieu guy up to? Wants the throne, does he?
Scriptwriter 2: Nope. Even if he wasn't a priest, he's only of provincial nobility, bourgois on his mother's side, and there are about a gazillion princely families with a claim to the throne if if Louis XIII. croaks it. Not to mention Louis' brother who did plot to get the throne all the time. Also, everyone of the high nobility hated Richelieu's guts and the king was the guy keeping him in power, so he was really, really invested in keeping Louis around.
Scriptwriter 1: But he's totally plotting against the Queen in the novel! That's a dastardly scheme, right? He's trying to expose her affair with a foreign head of goverment.
Producer: Eh. Is he the main villain or a journalist hack? What else?
Scriptwriter 2: Getting that foreign head of goverment killed so the Brits won't interrupt the siege of La Rochelle. That, err, works out. Also La Rochelle surrenders.
Producer: Guys, this is getting worse and worse. How are we going to sell assassinations of foreign politicians as villainous when everyone does it, including us? What else?
Scriptwriter 1: Err, that's it. Wait! He's anti duelling!
Producer: The spoilsport. Just out of curiosity, why?
Scriptwriter 2: Dumas doesn't say, but I read a biography and it seems his father and older brother died in duels. He thought they were an exceedingly stupid and dangerous past time the French nobility was really better off without.
Producer: .... Right. There's only one thing for it. Throw the book away and invent a completely new character. A proper villain who wants the throne and/or the end of the world. Otherwise everyone will accuse us of realism!
Now, nobody has ever accused the great Alexandre Dumas of being very faithfull to history and/or being realistic. But he did write fun novels, with more of a sense of humour than your avarage action movie allows (which is why the Richard Lester versions are my favourites), and he also happened to like his antagonist very much. I'll leave you with two passages from the novel.
( Alexandre Dumas, scheming politician fanboy at large )
Producer: So, that Cardinal fellow is the villain of the piece, right? How does he die?
Scriptwriter 1: Err, he doesn't. Well and alive at the end of the novel.
Producer: Eh. So he's deposed as, what's it, Prime Minister of France?
Scriptwriter 2: They didn't have the job title then, but that's what it amounted to. No, actually, he's not. As much in power as ever.
Producer: What? So, how does the audience know our heroes have won?
Scriptwriter 1: They execute a woman and D'Artagnan gets a promotion.
Producer: .... Okay, that won't do. So anyway, what's this Richelieu guy up to? Wants the throne, does he?
Scriptwriter 2: Nope. Even if he wasn't a priest, he's only of provincial nobility, bourgois on his mother's side, and there are about a gazillion princely families with a claim to the throne if if Louis XIII. croaks it. Not to mention Louis' brother who did plot to get the throne all the time. Also, everyone of the high nobility hated Richelieu's guts and the king was the guy keeping him in power, so he was really, really invested in keeping Louis around.
Scriptwriter 1: But he's totally plotting against the Queen in the novel! That's a dastardly scheme, right? He's trying to expose her affair with a foreign head of goverment.
Producer: Eh. Is he the main villain or a journalist hack? What else?
Scriptwriter 2: Getting that foreign head of goverment killed so the Brits won't interrupt the siege of La Rochelle. That, err, works out. Also La Rochelle surrenders.
Producer: Guys, this is getting worse and worse. How are we going to sell assassinations of foreign politicians as villainous when everyone does it, including us? What else?
Scriptwriter 1: Err, that's it. Wait! He's anti duelling!
Producer: The spoilsport. Just out of curiosity, why?
Scriptwriter 2: Dumas doesn't say, but I read a biography and it seems his father and older brother died in duels. He thought they were an exceedingly stupid and dangerous past time the French nobility was really better off without.
Producer: .... Right. There's only one thing for it. Throw the book away and invent a completely new character. A proper villain who wants the throne and/or the end of the world. Otherwise everyone will accuse us of realism!
Now, nobody has ever accused the great Alexandre Dumas of being very faithfull to history and/or being realistic. But he did write fun novels, with more of a sense of humour than your avarage action movie allows (which is why the Richard Lester versions are my favourites), and he also happened to like his antagonist very much. I'll leave you with two passages from the novel.
( Alexandre Dumas, scheming politician fanboy at large )
