Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
selenak: (Richelieu by Lost_Spook)
Aka, the new BBC show "based on characters by Alexandre Dumas", which is a wise credit to insert in your opening titles because it tells your audience at once the show won't have anything to do do with the novel beyond using the same names and perhaps one or two vaguely similar situations. This being said, I was amused and not bored, as opposed to the abysmal Disney movie in the 90s, and some other laterday Musketeer adaptions.

A few spoilery thoughts )
selenak: (Richelieu by Lost_Spook)
A few monts back, someone mentioned to me the BBC was planning on a Three Musketeers tv series. The cast and something about the content has now been announced, and I am... cautiously optimistic? I mean, there is still a godawful hangover from the horrid 90s Disney version in the form of D'Artagnan wanting to avenge his father (his father is perfectly alive and well in Gascogny, damm it!), but everything else sounds actually Dumasian. Constance is actually a) married, and b) not a lady-in-waiting or in any way a noble. Aramis, played by our ex-Lancelot from Merlin and ex-Isaac from Heroes, is described as "Aramis has an effortless charm which leads him in and out of love. Despite this, he is a shrewd pragmatist who is a ferocious in battle and commands a key place in the brotherhood", which should be nice for Santiago to perform. D'Artagnan himself is played by Luke Pasqualino, who was Paolo in The Borgias, but let's face it, my main interest in any Musketeers version are Milady and Monsieur le Cardinal, and here's what the BBC has to say about them:

Cardinal Richelieu (Capaldi), while striving to achieve his vision of a thoroughly modern France, is a shadowy character who will stop at nothing to achieve his objectives. Milady (McCoy) is the Cardinal’s secret weapon, the most mysterious and beautiful of villains whose motives are often concealed.

First of all, hooray for Peter Capaldi as Richelieu! And huzzah for a Richelieu who sounds as if he's actually a cross between Dumas and history for a change instead of a Hollywood Evil Vizier who wants the throne for himself (did I mention yet I hate and despise the stupid stupid 90s movie which intented this? As for the most recent versions, see this post). "Wants a modern France" and "stops at nothing to achieve his objectives" both are totally true and should make him a good antagonist. And I don't think I've seen Maimie McCoy before, but "mysterious motives" sound as if she's allowed to have layers (I mean, I love Dumas' splendid villainess, and I've come to loathe Athos and the way he treated her over the years, but it would be nice she got to have her own agenda beyond being a good agent for the Cardinal and wanting vengeance on D'Artagnan in the later stages of the story.)

Speaking of media versions remotely based on novels by 19th century French novelists, I've now seen the film version of Les Miserables. Obligatory background announcement: I've read the novel once, decades ago, in German; have seen the musical on stage only once as well; do have the original English production CD, but no other; have however heard Philip Quast because [personal profile] andraste is a fan and included his version of Stars in a B5 or Alias soundmix, I can't remember which one. Oh, and I have seen a French film version starring Lino Ventura as Valjean. So, I know my main characters but am not by any means an expert or even a well read/heard fan. Anyway, as for the film, Anne Hathaway did deserve her Oscar, I thought Hugh Jackman was excellent as Valjean, too, the Thenardiers looked as if they'd wandered in from a Tim Burton movie, which clashed with the film otherwise trying for a more realistic look, their daughter Eponine likewise had a weirdly stagey costume only in her case it was the corset that smacked of artificiality, everyone else's costumes were fine. I appreciated they included Javert trying to resign/getting fired when he thinks he accused M. Madeleine/Valjean unjustly in the film, because that's such a key scene in the book and I found it weird the musical had omitted it. Apropos Javert, yes, Russell Crowe was not made for singing, but I've heard worse. The whole approach of casting actors and using their actual voices instead of going for singers (except for the supporting parts) reminded me of the Buffy episode Once More With Feeling, and that's not a negative observation. Let's see, what else? Cosette is such a thankless role, but Amanda Seyfried and the kid made the best of it and actually Valjean repeatedly telling her to come inside suddenly reminded me of another Hugo father and daughter pair, Rigoletto and Gilda. The revolutionaries were young and pretty and not easily distinguishable without having read the book. Eddie Remayne. really made Marius less self involved than many a Marius, even though the musical gives him less reason than book!Marius has for his behaviour towards Valjean post sewers. (In the book, Marius assumes, and has every reason to believe, that Valjean has just killed Javert and robbed the unknown "Monsieur Madelaine"'s money until he learns otherwise, so it's not just the deepset snobbery of "convict? Ew!" that causes him to agree Cosette should see less to nothing of Valjean.) Most importantly, he delivers what is the one song in this musical which makes me cry every time for personal reasons, "Empty Chairs on Empty Tables". (Nothing to do with French revolutionaries. Like I said, it's personal.) Oh, and because time has to fly in a musical, we get Valjean's decline and death happening superfast instead of the longer time the novel allows him; it occurs to me that the whole dying of a broken heart thing usually happens to female characters in 19th century novels, so is it gender bending Valjean does it? (Not a serious question.)

So, as a non-Les Mis fan: I enjoyed watching, won't buy the soundtrack or the dvd, but may tune in if I catch it on tv in a few years. Wouldn't reccommend it as a must watch to other people, but if you like movie musicals and grand emotion, you'll enjoy it more likely than not.

Lastly, a sudden thought: has anyone ever written a Count of Monte Cristo/Les Mis crossover? Because I have this image of Edmond Dantes/The Count and Valjean looking at each other, taking each other's reactions to imprisonment and sudden money afterwards in and saying simultanously: "Seriously?"
selenak: (Richelieu by Lost_Spook)
If 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 )

Profile

selenak: (Default)
selenak

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 23 456 7
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22 232425 262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 06:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios