Alexandre Dumas: on fun novels and bad films

[selenak]

artaxastra the other day reminded me how much enjoyed reading Alexandre Dumas’ novels as a kid. It makes me sad that future generations will probably get to meet them through increasingly dumbed down film versions. The irony is that Dumas, Père, never quite made it into literary heaven. (As opposed to his contemporary and friendly rival, Victor Hugo.) He was incredibly popular and regarded as incredibly trashy; it was only last year that they moved his remains to the Pantheon. And he certainly thought that a good plot should come before good history. But what happened in recent movies isn’t either.

Take The Three Musketeers. The quintessential swashbuckling adventure novel. It’s fun, it’s drama, it has likeable heroes and memorable villains, and even two very memorable death scenes. But when you look at the most recent massacres, you can see either producers or scriptwriters had massive trouble with the villains. Dumas gives us three: Cardinal Richelieu, Lady de Winter, and Rochefort. Rochefort is there so D’Artagnan has someone to duel with, Mylady to commit the dastardly deeds and to die, and Richelieu as the clever menace in the background. By the end of the novel, two out of three are just fine and not in a melodramatic foiled villains kind of manner. Rochefort has moved on to regarding the duels with D’Artagnan as fun. Richelieu has actually won. His first plot in the novel, to discredit the Queen via her gifts to her lover, Buckingham, got foiled by Our Heroes, but the second, getting Buckingham assassinated so the English won’t relieve the siege of La Rochelle, worked just fine. Mylady did the job (or rather got Felton to do it for her), La Rochelle falls, and since Our Heroes kill Mylady, Richelieu doesn’t even have to pay extras. He’s still as much in power as ever as the true ruler of France. (And in the sequel, Our Heroes even mourn he’s gone since they regard Mazarin as a second-rate replacement, which btw is rather unfair to Mazarin.) This for a Hollywood movie apparently won’t do any longer. So instead of being a ruthless statesman who may have awful methods but does what he does for the benefit of France, Richelieu gets changed into an Evil Vezir straight out of the Arabian Nights tales, out to get the throne for himself, and naturally thoroughly defeated and/or killed. As I said, Dumas wasn’t exactly the most faithful to history, either, but this would have made him groan because of the stupidity.

And then there’s Mylady. Lady de Winter is one of the best villainesses in 19th century literature. Dumas invented her from scratch (as opposed to most of the rest of his ensemble for this novel), but that’s no reason not to appreciate what he gives us. Mind you, in retrospect and as an adult I’ve lost all sympathy for Athos when he recounts the tale of his marriage to the young Mylady, because frankly, reacting to the discovery of the lily on her shoulder (i.e. proof that she had been tried at a French Court and found guilty either as a murderess or as a prostitute) by trying to kill her without even bothering to ask for an explanation because being married to a convict dishonors his name is just… You know, he so deserved everything life dealt out after that one. Of course this is the backstory, not the main story in the novel. Mylady in the main story is an experienced and totally unscrupelous agent and not above killing for spite as well as for professional reasons, either, as poor Constance Bonancieux, D’Artagnan’s mistress, finds out. Still, it’s hard not to be captivated and root for her when she manages to get herself out of incarcaration by mindmessing with her Puritan guard without so much as kissing him once, and getting him to kill Buckingham for her as well. But I suspect what was too much for modern Hollywood to handle was her ending, in particular. Because after capturing her Our Heroes get the chief executioner of Lille, whose brother she had seduced in the past (which ended badly for the brother, who was a priest at the time), to kill her. They don’t do it themselves, they don’t do it in haste or in self defense, they hand her over to be killed by someone else after playing accusers and jury in one, and then watch her die. The reasons, btw, are perfectly sound from their pov: as Richelieu’s agent, she wouldn’t be condemmed by a real court. The ethics of it are still questionable, and Athos finds himself haunted by the action in the first sequel. But it seems these days, the only way swashbuckling heroes are allowed to kill villains is in self defense, or by letting the villain drop over a convenient cliff.

Which brings me to the other Dumas novel recently massacred on screen. If The Three Musketeers is the quintessential swashbuckling novel, The Count of Monte Christo is the quintessential revenge novel. Oh, and escape-from-prison novel, of course. No, as opposed to the Musketeer atrocities, I did not see that one, but honorh did, and her description at the time made me yelp in horror. A happy ending for Edmond and Mercedes? Albert Edmond’s son? Fernand obviously somehow melded into Danglars? The revenge on Villefort prettified? No Caderousse? Et cetera, et cetera. One shouldn’t have to point this out, but the Count, aka Edmond Dantes, really, really wants revenge for his 13 years in prison, dead father and lost love. And he’s not nice about it at all. Which means that while at first it’s very satisfying to see the four people responsible for it set up to get their comeuppance, one grows increasingly uncomfortable with it and wonders whether this is still justifyable. In fact, when the Count is not above manipulatingVillefort’s second wife into poisoning most of her family and only bothers to save Villefort’s daughter because one of his friends fell in love with her, and when this all results in Villefort going insane, even the Count realises he went too far. And the relationship with Mercedes quite realistically can’t be repaired.

After all my growling about bad film versions of Dumas novels, I have to admit there are some good ones out there, too. As for the Musketeers, I’m always torn between the Gene Kelly (d’Artagnan)/ Lana Turner (Mylady)/ Vincent Price (Richelieu) one, and Richard Lester doing the whole thing in 60s camp but very stylishly so, with Michael York as D’Artagnan, Faye Dunaway as Mylady and Charlton Heston as Richelieu. (It took me a while before I realised it was Heston, because a) one doesn’t expect him to play a villain, and b) he’s really good and subtle in the part.) Oh, and let’s not forget Oliver Reed as Athos, definitely to me the best interpretion. These take liberties, too, but not by going for more convenient black and white, and they capture the zest and playfulness Dumas has along with the unabashed love for bloody melodrama. If he were living today, I suspect he’d have written for Xena:Warrior Princess. But certainly not for those adaptions which shall no longer be named.

One last word about Dumas: he must have been an engaging man in addition to being a fun writer. Couldn’t even write a cooking book without said mixture of playfulness and melodrama, and if you look at pictures of him, you believe he enjoyed his food. (Incidentally, the cooking book is highly readable even to non-gourmets like myself.) Had affairs by the dozens (one resulting in Alexandre Dumas fils), outraged America the one time he visited because you see, Dumas was what was then called “coloured” and his mistress(es) white. Travelled far and wide and had an anecdote about pretty much everything. There’s a novel about him written by Guy Encore, The King of Paris. I’m not sure whether it’s still in print – I read it in a library myself – but if it is, I can definitely recommend it. But only after you’ve read at least two of his novels…

Comments

[wychwood]

I liked the new Count of Monte Cristo film... but I haven't read the book. For some reason I never managed to get hold of a copy of that one, though I've read the Three Musketeers more than once, and I think I've also read at least one of the others.

It may be a butchering of the original, but it did work as a film. Which isn't really a justification, so I@m going to shut up now.

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I have read the book -- or most of it, rather. *pauses here to grumble about the library copy missing the last page, wants her own unabridged sturdy one....* I went in expecting the movie to butcher it to one degree or another and was unsurprised -- but I agree with you that while much simplified (possibly necessary given time constraints) and rather Disneyfied in much the same way as The Little Mermaid (which I recall actually crying through half of because I didn't WANT to see it end the way the story I had read ended, and didn't realize at the time that they were going to have changed it...) -- in short, Not The Real Story -- it worked fairly well as a movie. Though perhaps I just liked that one zinger from Mercedes too much.

[lynnb.livejournal.com]

As an avid reader of Dumas myself, I greatly enjoyed this :)

And I'm glad you saved me the time of renting the lastest Count of Monte Cristo! Dumas understood ambiguity, in his villians and especially in his heroes - no cardboard cutouts they. Funny you mention Mr. Heston; I read an inteview with him years ago, and he perceived Richlieu exactly as you have - Richelieu was all for France, and used whatever methods he could to ensure its safety and prestige, so I'm sure he would have not considered himself a villian, which makes him all the more interesting.

As the years have gone on, I have come to the same conclusion as you about Athos. When I first read The Three Musketeers in high school his character seemed attractive to me - the brooding nobleman. But I've come to believe that the best of them all was D'Artagnan, because he was the most intelligent, the shrewdest, and the most loyal of all his friends. He had none of the material advantages they had, but he still managed to best them, yet found a way to be true to them. D'Artagnan lived in the real world, and found a way to remain loyal to his king yet still remain his own man, which I found much more admirable than Athos' retreat from life as it became more difficult. I think through all the books the story became one of the bonds of friendship, and how they are strained and frayed, yet do not break. And the fact that they did not is due to D'Artagnan's refusal to let them.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, Richelieu was fascinating. Also one of the very few statesmen who did not let his ego stop him from looking out for a successor in time. After all, it's a common failing for both great men and women that they tend to be suspicious of capable younger people, lest they be either replaced before they're ready to go, or surpassed in the perception of historians. Richelieu, though? Groomed Mazarin in time and prepared him to take over, then when dying got the King to appoint Mazarin as First Minister.

Athos: was the Byronic hero, in short, and so I`m not surprised both of us liked him better as teenagers. That's when you fall for the Byronic types. Later on, you want a bit more than brooding. (Am tempted now to say something about Buffy's lovelife, but won't.)

D'Artagnan: yes, he was the best of them. And the glue which kept them together. What I admire is that Dumas didn't make it easy for him to stick to his ideals, what with less than inspiring kings to serve, and his friends not always coming through, either, but D'Artagnan still managed.

[lynnb.livejournal.com]

(Am tempted now to say something about Buffy's lovelife, but won't.)

LOL. I will also avoid the temptation :)

What I admire is that Dumas didn't make it easy for him to stick to his ideals, what with less than inspiring kings to serve, and his friends not always coming through, either, but D'Artagnan still managed.

Oh yes, I agree. It was a struggle at times, but he managed to live his life, on his terms, and still have his friends, and the respect and admiration of his king.

[kathyh]

Richard Lester doing the whole thing in 60s camp but very stylishly so, with Michael York as D’Artagnan, Faye Dunaway as Mylady and Charlton Heston as Richelieu. (It took me a while before I realised it was Heston, because a) one doesn’t expect him to play a villain, and b) he’s really good and subtle in the part.) Oh, and let’s not forget Oliver Reed as Athos, definitely to me the best interpretion. These take liberties, too, but not by going for more convenient black and white, and they capture the zest and playfulness Dumas has along with the unabashed love for bloody melodrama.

I'm glad you didn't mean this version because I was going to have to argue with you on that. What I particularly liked about this film is that it remembered that the book is funny. I laughed out loud several times while reading it and just going for melodrama loses the balance of the book. I remember being horrified that Oliver Reed was going to play Athos but he pulled it off superbly.

I suppose that you're right that Athos over-reacted just a tad to the brand on Milady's shoulder but it's hard for me to overcome my teenage devotion to him and entirely blame him *g*.

[asta77.livejournal.com]

I would have argued right along with you if it had been Lester's Three Musketeers and Four Musketeers that she had been speaking of. These two (and I must lump them together since it's the one story cut into two films) are by far my favorite versions of the tale. While Lester went for a more tongue firmly implanted in cheek approach, he didn't sacrifice the core story or more dramatic elements in the process.

I give a lot of credit to the actors as well. While I questioned Athos' actions, Oliver Reed was able to convey his pain and devestation - I never felt his decision was made without remorse.

I also have to agree with everyone elses assesment of Charlton Heston. While you may not agree with his views and methods, he believed he was doing what was best. And within the context of the film, the king was oblivious and disinterested at best, an idiot at worst. Therfore, it's hard to argue with the Cardinal's desire to take matters into his own hands.

Don't worry, I love the Lester films.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And absolutely, the book is funny (deliberately so). D'Artagnan's first meeting with each of the Musketeers makes me smile each time, and so do exchanges like Louis XIII. going on about "he who works so I can rest, is awake so I can sleep" etc., Treville replies "God, your majesty?" and Louis says "the Cardinal - not really the same thing".

I suppose that you're right that Athos over-reacted just a tad to the brand on Milady's shoulder but it's hard for me to overcome my teenage devotion to him and entirely blame him *g*.

Pff. He can join Maxim de Winter in the ranks of Byronic Heroes I Got Disillusioned With and write "Thinking Myself Dishonoured Is No Reason To Kill My Wife" a hundred times.

[penknife.livejournal.com]

I thought the Count of Monte Cristo movie was kind of fun in a summer movie way, but I wish it hadn't mangled the plot so much. It's not so bad up until Edmond's escape from prison--there are some nice character bits in the prison scenes--but after that . . .

I sputtered most at the happy ending for Edmond and Mercedes (I am possibly the only Edmond/Haydee shipper on the planet, with the exception of artaxastra), but I missed the book's darker tone, moral complexities, and exoticism. Once you've taken out the bloody revenge and the drugs and the lesbians and the simmering-just-under-the-surface menace of Edmond's scenes with everybody, it's just not the same.

and me, three

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Also an Edmond/Haydee 'shipper. And it's so humourless and puritanical to clean the books of drugs and lesbians, and downright bad dramatically to tune down Edmond and disneyfy him.

Re: and me, three

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

Oh yes! Edmond and Haydee! Yesy yes!

I've thought about writing some of it, but I can't bring myself yet to attempt to write in the tracks of Dumas!

Is anybody surprised that I love broody complex disturbed awful-past Edmond? :)

And why oh why did they take out the drugs? The unabridged Count of Monte Cristo could give Kushiel's Dart a run in the exotic department. (Have you read Kushiel's Dart, btw?)

Re: and me, three

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I believe you could do a great take on Dumas' characters. And no, I'm not surprised you love Edmond in all his brooding and disturbed complexity. Down with simplifications!

And why oh why did they take out the drugs?

Probably for the same reason most film versions of Sherlock Holmes don't do them, either. Heroes may not take drugs. Never mind atmosphere in the 19th century, between absinth as everyone's favourite drink and laudanum even used to send kids to sleep.

Have you read Kushiel's Dart, btw?
No, I haven't. Details, please?

Re: and me, three

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

Kushiel's Dart, by Jacqueline Carey, is a perfectly lovely book I found last year. It's the first in a trilogy (the other two are out) and is a sensual, thoughtful, intriguing adventure/fantasy novel. JC obviously loves Dumas and Mary Renault, and there are little bows to them in several places. (Including, in the second book, a scene we see coming ten miles away. The graveyard of the Chateau d'If is the sea.)

I recommend it completely!

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

That was great! Leaves me itching to crack open some books.

Salon had an excellent review (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2003/11/21/dumas/index.html) of the new English translation of Knight of Maison-Rouge. I've never read it but it's on my wishlist now.